Brad Pitt's WWII Tank movie, "FURY"

[Story]

Interview with Peter Comfort, the last Second World War survivor of the 13/18th Royal Hussars, was assigned to the Sherman tanks at just 21 years of age. He landed at Sword Beach on D-Day, June 6, 1944 with the tanks going into the water 500 yards from the shore - something the Germans had not seen before. By the end of the day, 140 of his colleagues were killed and 350 more were wounded.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hollywood-actor-brad-pitt-meets-2308147

 

[Story]

Another still - looks like Pitt's wearing Staff Sergeant stripes
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/what-secret-wedding-brads-too-busy-fighting-ww2

 

[The Wiser Hatter]

 

[Story]

trailer's up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OGvZoIrXpg

 

[EmergencyIan]

trailer's up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OGvZoIrXpg

I hope that it's good. It looks like it will be pretty entertaining, but I hope that it's a good, well written movie. I can't tell based on the trailer.

- Ian

 

[Zombie_61]

I hope that it's good. It looks like it will be pretty entertaining, but I hope that it's a good, well written movie. I can't tell based on the trailer.

- Ian

I'd settle for a story that makes sense, and dialogue that isn't filled with clichés.

 

[Chasseur]

I'd settle for a story that makes sense, and dialogue that isn't filled with clichés.

That might be hard in a war movie with Brad Pitt and LaBeef... but I'm rather excited about the use of a real Tiger tank... but not sure excited enough to watch a movie with LaBeef...

 

[Worf]

I'm concerned about the specific tanks used. Only one Allied tank stood a ghost of a chance against ANY version of the Tiger and that was the "Firefly". A Sherman mounted with a 17 Pounder British Cannon. With that gun they could knock out an ordinary Tiger from half a mile. Better gun but on a tank with the same lousey armor. And the Firefly was useless against a "King Tiger" which could only be killed when hit at point blank range within 25 yards or so. The tank Pitt's riding in "looks" right, like it might be a Firefly as it has a longer barrell that the standar 75mm Sherman but still, it'd be suicide to take on German armor in that thing. Hell, every shoulder fired German anti-tank weapon would kill a Sherman stone cold dead and the 88mm guns on German armor could kill one up to a mile or more away. Either way you slice it this movie's gonna be grim.

Worf

 

[Hercule]

I'd settle for a story that makes sense, and dialogue that isn't filled with clichés.

I'll say! Glad I saw the trailer. Now I know to stay away.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I'm concerned about the specific tanks used. Only one Allied tank stood a ghost of a chance against ANY version of the Tiger and that was the "Firefly". A Sherman mounted with a 17 Pounder British Cannon. With that gun they could knock out an ordinary Tiger from half a mile. Better gun but on a tank with the same lousey armor. And the Firefly was useless against a "King Tiger" which could only be killed when hit at point blank range within 25 yards or so. The tank Pitt's riding in "looks" right, like it might be a Firefly as it has a longer barrell that the standar 75mm Sherman but still, it'd be suicide to take on German armor in that thing. Hell, every shoulder fired German anti-tank weapon would kill a Sherman stone cold dead and the 88mm guns on German armor could kill one up to a mile or more away. Either way you slice it this movie's gonna be grim.

Worf

Hmm I'm not so sure about that. The KV-1, the T-34/85 (especially when equipped with HVAP rounds), the JS-2, the M-26 Pershing, and even the latter A22F version of the Mk VII Churchill were all very capable tanks as compared to the Tiger I, Panther, or to a lesser extent even the Tiger II.

A key point about armored warfare in WWII which gets overlooked is that the vast majority of tanks deployed by the Germans were not Tigers or Panthers. Rather Pz.Kpfw. IIIs and Pz.Kpfw. IVs, which U.S. M4s -- and certainly any of the tanks listed above -- were more than a match for, made up the bulk for panzer formations from ~1942 right thought the end of the war

 

[Guttersnipe]

Also, note the tank used in the movie looks to be an E8 variant of the M4, which mounted a high velocity 76 mm rather than a 75 mm, the latter of which was essentially an infantry support gun. Those 76 mm guns mounted on the E8 were pretty potent, especially when equipped with special HVAP ammunition.

 

[Worf]

Hmm I'm not so sure about that. The KV-1, the T-34/85 (especially when equipped with HVAP rounds), the JS-2, the M-26 Pershing, and even the latter A22F version of the Mk VII Churchill were all very capable tanks as compared to the Tiger I, Panther, or to a lesser extent even the Tiger II.

A key point about armored warfare in WWII which gets overlooked is that the vast majority of tanks deployed by the Germans were not Tigers or Panthers. Rather Pz.Kpfw. IIIs and Pz.Kpfw. IVs, which U.S. M4s -- and certainly any of the tanks listed above -- were more than a match for, made up the bulk for panzer formations from ~1942 right thought the end of the war

True enough... Allied tanks were close in Libya but most historians and veterans, particularly Brits manning Sherman's felt totally outmatched. Barkman's corner was no accident. From the mid-point to the end of the war, perhaps not Russian tankers but American and Brits were under armed and under-armored when facing their German counterparts. I didn't say this THEY did. As one British tankie lamented... "I've been blown out or shot out of every tank I ever rode in. From the Crusader to the Churchill... then NEVER gave us a proper tank."

 

[Stearmen]

True enough... Allied tanks were close in Libya but most historians and veterans, particularly Brits manning Sherman's felt totally outmatched. Barkman's corner was no accident. From the mid-point to the end of the war, perhaps not Russian tankers but American and Brits were under armed and under-armored when facing their German counterparts. I didn't say this THEY did. As one British tankie lamented... "I've been blown out or shot out of every tank I ever rode in. From the Crusader to the Churchill... then NEVER gave us a proper tank."

Tommy Lighters!

 

[Zombie_61]

That might be hard in a war movie with Brad Pitt and LaBeef...

I could do without LaBeef, but I don't have a problem with Pitt; I think he's a better actor than most people give him credit for. Hopefully Jon Bernthal will pick up LaBeef's slack, if there is any.

 

[Steve27752]

Tommy Lighters!

Tommy Cookers.

 

[Two Types]

Hmm I'm not so sure about that. The KV-1, the T-34/85 (especially when equipped with HVAP rounds), the JS-2, the M-26 Pershing, and even the latter A22F version of the Mk VII Churchill were all very capable tanks as compared to the Tiger I, Panther, or to a lesser extent even the Tiger II.

And the Comet (which was, I believe, a precursor to the post-war Centurion).

 

[Worf]

Tommy Cookers.

"Ronson's - Guarenteed to light with the first strike!"

Worf

 

[Horace Debussy Jones]

Yeah I agree. Brad Pitt's been in a good many really good movies. No matter what the tabloids would have us believe, he seems like a stand up guy, and his acting is usually more than adequate if the script and production values are good. I'll watch this one.

I could do without LaBeef, but I don't have a problem with Pitt; I think he's a better actor than most people give him credit for. Hopefully Jon Bernthal will pick up LaBeef's slack, if there is any.

 

[Guttersnipe]

True enough... Allied tanks were close in Libya but most historians and veterans, particularly Brits manning Sherman's felt totally outmatched. Barkman's corner was no accident. From the mid-point to the end of the war, perhaps not Russian tankers but American and Brits were under armed and under-armored when facing their German counterparts. I didn't say this THEY did. As one British tankie lamented... "I've been blown out or shot out of every tank I ever rode in. From the Crusader to the Churchill... then NEVER gave us a proper tank."

The fact that American, British, Canadian and Free French tankers had to fight German advisories in heavy tanks speaks to their bravery, but lets not fall for the prevailing myths perpetuated by "panzerphiles." The German army was not a mechanized juggernaut mounted in armored behemoths. 75% of German forces on the Eastern Front relied on horses or shoe leather for transport. As late as 1944, only slightly less than half of German units deployed to Western Europe were motorized, mechanized, or armored formations.

Was the Tiger I a good tank? Sure, it was great! But the Germans built less that 1,400 of them over its two-year production run! The Tiger II? Less than 500 were ever built. The Panther? About 6,000 were built, but they were so mechanically unreliable that Panther formations were routinely under strength due to breakdowns. As a comparison, the combined production for run M4 Sherman variants produced from 1942 until the end of the war was just under 50,000 units! In the Sherman, you had exactly what it was designed to be: a rugged, reliable, nimble, infantry support tank.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

And what little motorisation existed in a typical German division was often a hodgepodge of German, captured French & Russian, as well as requisitioned civilian vehicles. One division had twenty different makes in its motor pool which surely made supply and maintenance a nightmare. In fact their mainstay truck, the 3-ton Opel Blitz, was an off the shelf commercial vehicle which might have been fine on the autobahns of Germany but a completely different story in the rugged and varied terrain of North Africa and Russia.