Discussion
Siko said:
Just got back from watching this and must admit, despite being a tank saddo I was slightly disappointed. the end scene just spoiled a potentially great movie IMO. All American heroes skittling over mindless German automaton Nazi robots mindlessly walking towards the front of a broken down tank 
7/10 but could have been 9/10.
As I've said the most realistic storyline and way to have ended would have been something along the lines of the way in which the characters were presented to the audience in Saving Private Ryan.Followed by the inevitable end in which what's left of them all is taken out of their knocked out tank when their luck finally ran out having been hit by the Tiger from around a mile to a mile and a half away.With a similar heartbreaking scene to that portrayed at the start of that film by at least one if not all of those who were unlucky enough to be detailed with the recovery. 7/10 but could have been 9/10.XJ Flyer said:
Siko said:
Just got back from watching this and must admit, despite being a tank saddo I was slightly disappointed. the end scene just spoiled a potentially great movie IMO. All American heroes skittling over mindless German automaton Nazi robots mindlessly walking towards the front of a broken down tank 7/10 but could have been 9/10.
As I've said the most realistic storyline and way to have ended would have been something along the lines of the way in which the characters were presented to the audience in Saving Private Ryan.Followed by the inevitable end in which what's left of them all is taken out of their knocked out tank when their luck finally ran out having been hit by the Tiger from around a mile to a mile and a half away.With a similar heartbreaking scene to that portrayed at the start of that film by at least one if not all of those who were unlucky enough to be detailed with the recovery. 7/10 but could have been 9/10.spikey78 said:
Went to see it this afternoon, thought it was a bit rubbish. Just didn't 'believe' the characters-typical stereotypical all Ameercan gung-ho douchebags.. Action scenes were pretty good, script and story pretty dumb Hollywood nonsense
Did I see the same film as you?Take the crew of Fury......
All Ameercan gung ho tank commander (ok.....I'll give you that one)
Professional, focussed driver.
Slightly unhinged (PTSD'd?) gunner/loader
Bible-reading librarian gunner
And the woefully out-of-his-depth co-driver.
The A-team it was not.
Saw this last night. Turned up not knowing what was on, picked this basically as it was next up. I'm no World War 2 boffin, know nothing about tanks and don't generally make a beeline for war films. We hardly ever go to the cinema as well so the experience was pretty intense to say the least. Very good.
Enjoyed it for what it was. I thought it portrayed the role of being in a tank crew very well. Certainly not something I'd spent much time thinking about before but now have the utmost respect for (i'm now sat here pondering which would be the worst place to end up in the war - bomber over Germany, tank behind enemy lines, or submarine in busy shipping waters).
The ending was a bit Hollywood but didn't really detract from the overall action of the film. Just made me realise how scared even the bravest must have been.
I'd definitely recommend it to anyone not sure what to see at the cinema.
Enjoyed it for what it was. I thought it portrayed the role of being in a tank crew very well. Certainly not something I'd spent much time thinking about before but now have the utmost respect for (i'm now sat here pondering which would be the worst place to end up in the war - bomber over Germany, tank behind enemy lines, or submarine in busy shipping waters).
The ending was a bit Hollywood but didn't really detract from the overall action of the film. Just made me realise how scared even the bravest must have been.
I'd definitely recommend it to anyone not sure what to see at the cinema.
chrisga said:
i'm now sat here pondering which would be the worst place to end up in the war - bomber over Germany, tank behind enemy lines, or submarine in busy shipping waters
Your choice really of:Shredded by flak in a confined space,
Burned alive in a confined space or,
Drowned in a confined space.
XJ Flyer said:
Sadly for allied tank crews that was more like the average effective range of a Sherman's gun against a Tiger in most scenarios.Which is why the Firefly and Comet were so badly needed for tank v tank engagements.
While the Germans obviously weren't going by such thinking in the form of the 88mm and the carnage it caused to Germany's opponents from North Africa to Russia.
You are making the common mistake of assuming that tank warfare in NW Europe was largely tank v tank. When in fact the primary threats to allied tank crews were AT guns (and not just 88mm variants) and hand held weapons in particular.While the Germans obviously weren't going by such thinking in the form of the 88mm and the carnage it caused to Germany's opponents from North Africa to Russia.
Possibly the best account of armoured warfare in that theatre is Stuart Hills' memoir 'By Tank into Normandy'. As a 20 yr old tank commander who fights through from D-Day to the German surrender, in a unit (Sherwood Rangers) that sees more action than any other British armoured unit, it becomes patently clear that enemy tanks aren't his primary concern. The vast majority of his Regiment's casualties are inflicted by either AT or HH weapons. And if your nemesis is enemy infantry crawling towards you holding a panzerfaust then you want to be in the normal Sherman variant, rather than the Firefly, as the former has an extra crewmember and thus an extra machine gun, as well as a better HE gun, which is also more suitable for targeting AT guns.
Crossflow Kid said:
chrisga said:
i'm now sat here pondering which would be the worst place to end up in the war - bomber over Germany, tank behind enemy lines, or submarine in busy shipping waters
Your choice really of:Shredded by flak in a confined space,
Burned alive in a confined space or,
Drowned in a confined space.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 19th November 16:31
Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 19th November 16:36
Joey Ramone said:
XJ Flyer said:
Sadly for allied tank crews that was more like the average effective range of a Sherman's gun against a Tiger in most scenarios.Which is why the Firefly and Comet were so badly needed for tank v tank engagements.
While the Germans obviously weren't going by such thinking in the form of the 88mm and the carnage it caused to Germany's opponents from North Africa to Russia.
You are making the common mistake of assuming that tank warfare in NW Europe was largely tank v tank. When in fact the primary threats to allied tank crews were AT guns (and not just 88mm variants) and hand held weapons in particular.While the Germans obviously weren't going by such thinking in the form of the 88mm and the carnage it caused to Germany's opponents from North Africa to Russia.
Possibly the best account of armoured warfare in that theatre is Stuart Hills' memoir 'By Tank into Normandy'. As a 20 yr old tank commander who fights through from D-Day to the German surrender, in a unit (Sherwood Rangers) that sees more action than any other British armoured unit, it becomes patently clear that enemy tanks aren't his primary concern. The vast majority of his Regiment's casualties are inflicted by either AT or HH weapons. And if your nemesis is enemy infantry crawling towards you holding a panzerfaust then you want to be in the normal Sherman variant, rather than the Firefly, as the former has an extra crewmember and thus an extra machine gun, as well as a better HE gun, which is also more suitable for targeting AT guns.
As for the Sherman wether it be tank v tank or tank v anti tank gun it was the superiority that the German 88 mm had in range and hitting power at longer range which was the biggest threat.The general consensus being that by the time the Sherman got close enough to reach its target or damage its target in the case of tank v tank combat it was only its numerical advantage in the form of the Germans either running out of ammo before we ran out of tanks ( and crews ) or the Germans not seeing/being able to target them all to shoot them,that won out.
In that regard I'd accept Belton Cooper's account of the life of the average Sherman crew,as also confirmed by my father's account,as being as close as it got for far too many of them.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 19th November 16:34
XJ Flyer said:
Crossflow Kid said:
chrisga said:
i'm now sat here pondering which would be the worst place to end up in the war - bomber over Germany, tank behind enemy lines, or submarine in busy shipping waters
Your choice really of:Shredded by flak in a confined space,
Burned alive in a confined space or,
Drowned in a confined space.
I'm guessing WW2 bomber crews probably considered themselves lucky compared to tank crews and vice versa - it's all about what you know and what you're aware of.
I know in present day Afghanistan troops were uneasy about being in the air, where's helo crews feel vulnerable whilst on the ground.
Finally watched this last night.
Good, gritty war film I thought.
The Tiger action was excellent, although as it wondered why they didn't fan out more to encircle the Tiger. Would have been a bit more credible.
The final battle. Well it was a bit stretched out but there are plenty of cases of small units holding out against overwhelming odds for long periods and initially at least they had the element of surprise against an under armed opposition.
It fell apart a bit once the Germans used panzerfausts, one went through the tank but no more were used after that...
The scene with the German seeing Norman but not killing him... Maybe the point was that by this stage some Germans were sick of the war, knew which way it was going and probably were just young conscripts with none of the fanaticism over the 1939 SS?
Good, gritty war film I thought.
The Tiger action was excellent, although as it wondered why they didn't fan out more to encircle the Tiger. Would have been a bit more credible.
The final battle. Well it was a bit stretched out but there are plenty of cases of small units holding out against overwhelming odds for long periods and initially at least they had the element of surprise against an under armed opposition.
It fell apart a bit once the Germans used panzerfausts, one went through the tank but no more were used after that...
The scene with the German seeing Norman but not killing him... Maybe the point was that by this stage some Germans were sick of the war, knew which way it was going and probably were just young conscripts with none of the fanaticism over the 1939 SS?
Edited by marcosgt on Sunday 22 February 11:03
XJ Flyer said:
As for the Sherman whether it be tank v tank or tank v anti tank gun it was the superiority that the German 88 mm had in range and hitting power at longer range which was the biggest threat.The general consensus being that by the time the Sherman got close enough to reach its target or damage its target in the case of tank v tank combat it was only its numerical advantage in the form of the Germans either running out of ammo before we ran out of tanks ( and crews ) or the Germans not seeing/being able to target them all to shoot them,that won out.
question - considering the obvious technical advantages of the 88mm, and its production since 1918 in one form or another, why didn't the Allies just copy the design?Some of the more infamous accounts (400 Shermans destroyed in one battle Goodwood), some of the tactics seem WW1-like in their stupidity.
Edited by Adam B on Sunday 22 February 12:20
Crossflow Kid said:
Did I see the same film as you?
Take the crew of Fury......
All Ameercan gung ho tank commander (ok.....I'll give you that one)
Professional, focussed driver.
Slightly unhinged (PTSD'd?) gunner/loader
Bible-reading librarian gunner
And the woefully out-of-his-depth co-driver.
The A-team it was not.
No, not the A-Team, it's a retelling of Moby Dick in a different setting.Take the crew of Fury......
All Ameercan gung ho tank commander (ok.....I'll give you that one)
Professional, focussed driver.
Slightly unhinged (PTSD'd?) gunner/loader
Bible-reading librarian gunner
And the woefully out-of-his-depth co-driver.
The A-team it was not.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff