Fury

[Dennis Young]

As a currently serving tanker, I found the movie very well done. Believe me, I'll be the first one to get turned off by a movie that isn't technically correct to a certain level (ie uniforms, equipment, battle history, tactics, etc). A supreme example of a failure is The Hurt Locker.....couldn't watch it. Is it absolutely unlikely that an unqualified replacement would be placed in a different MOS on the front lines in a combat unit that has experienced significant combat losses? I'm not a history professor, but not that far of a stretch for me to believe. Does the movies convey the severe technical overmatch of US to German tanks (and other systems ie. MGs, 88s, etc) - you bet it does. Does it convey the brutality of combat and the desensitivization that Soldiers in combat experience as a coping mechanism - I'd say yes, again. Is the movie grostequely violent,bloody and brutal - yup, and so is combat.

In the end, while this flick isn't perfect I enjoyed it, and in a certain way, I think it honors the service and bravery of our servicemembers who faced the horrible conditions of the war across Europe. If nothing else, this is a means to keep our history and their service alive.

Interesting to know. And I appreciate your service. J

 

[Dennis Young]

I enjoyed the movie, generally, but I didn't think it was an accurate depiction of warfare, either. I just couldn't suspend my disbelief long enough to accept that a lone, immobile Sherman...out in the wide open...could stand against waves and waves of well-armed German infantry, before finally being destroyed.

It kinda reminded me of an early sixties zombie movie where millions of zombies would flail themselves nightly against some poor mortal's wood-framed house...and end up never getting to eat the mortal.

AF

I kind of see your point. The German division had a number of Panzerfausts and the Sherman was immobile. The Sherman didn’t have the best armor either. But the biggest flaw imo, was the Sgt telling them he was going to stay, when he had plenty of time to get away. I just cant imagine a tank cmdr being that suicidal. Maybe it happened, I dunno. But all his men were ready to get away. So it stands to reason most men would have as well. If it had been an Abrams, ok. Maybe. But in the Sherman, they really didn’t stand much of a chance.
But…it made for a good movie. J

 

[Dennis Young]

91 years old British tanker gives his verdict......

http://www.theguardian.com/film/fil...-movie-tank-veteran-sherman-verdict-realistic

Excellent article! I liked this quote by the veteran:

"The corpses certainly mount up in Fury, particularly in the final scene. This was the only part Bill felt lacked credibility.
I thought the film showed accurately how tough life could be in a tank, but the final scene where the crew hold out against a battalion of Waffen SS troops was too far fetched. The Germans seemed to be used as canon fodder. In reality they would have been battle-hardened and fanatical troops who would have easily taken out an immobile Sherman tank using Panzerfausts (an anti-tank bazooka). They also seemed to have an inexhaustible supply of ammunition and fuel. A Sherman tank only does five miles to the gallon so I think they would have run out long before the final showdown."

I felt the same way. Still, a good movie. J

 

[hatguy1]

OK.... I realize this is very "Johnny Come Lately," but I didn't get to see "Fury" in the theaters. But I passed an endcap this morning with it available on DVD.

Now that I've watched it, I'm not sure if it was a good or bad movie. Let me prep my comments with the realization that I am not a military or combat veteran, so perhaps that blinds me to certain things.

I get the whole "war is truly hell" theme that was going on throughout. I'm not sure though if "War Daddy" wasn't just a bit too over the top - particularly about the execution of the unarmed prisoner when surrounded by so many troops. While I don't doubt that there was little sympathy for the other side amongst the vets on the line, I just can't imagine such an outright murder of an unarmed prisoner and the whole forcing the newbie to hold the gun and shoot him in the back would've been so unhindered by the dozens of guys around the event.

All that having been said, the movie got a little better plot-wise after that. Not sure the whole forced breakfast, forced sex was all that believable - especially the young ladies affection for the young soldier after the sex.

As for the ending, if I'm not mistaken, that was a Waffen SS division they fought at the crossroads. My understanding was the Waffen SS was a pretty fanatical group of Nazis. I'm questioning if after such a fierce battle against one tank crew wherein so many of their kamerads had been killed, if that one Waffen SS soldier who found "machine" unarmed and hiding under the tank would've simply let him go like that.

And, while I have far from "virgin ears," I think the audience could have understood the stress of combat with at least a little less profanity in each battle scene. I almost thought the director must've had a quota for cuss words he had to have the cast say to get his cut of the money or something.

Anyway, those are my initial thoughts after viewing my new DVD of "Fury." Anyone have any thoughts or comments?

 

[AmateisGal]

OK.... I realize this is very "Johnny Come Lately," but I didn't get to see "Fury" in the theaters. But I passed an endcap this morning with it available on DVD.

Now that I've watched it, I'm not sure if it was a good or bad movie. Let me prep my comments with the realization that I am not a military or combat veteran, so perhaps that blinds me to certain things.

I get the whole "war is truly hell" theme that was going on throughout. I'm not sure though if "War Daddy" wasn't just a bit too over the top - particularly about the execution of the unarmed prisoner when surrounded by so many troops. While I don't doubt that there was little sympathy for the other side amongst the vets on the line, I just can't imagine such an outright murder of an unarmed prisoner and the whole forcing the newbie to hold the gun and shoot him in the back would've been so unhindered by the dozens of guys around the event.

All that having been said, the movie got a little better plot-wise after that. Not sure the whole forced breakfast, forced sex was all that believable - especially the young ladies affection for the young soldier after the sex.

As for the ending, if I'm not mistaken, that was a Waffen SS division they fought at the crossroads. My understanding was the Waffen SS was a pretty fanatical group of Nazis. I'm questioning if after such a fierce battle against one tank crew wherein so many of their kamerads had been killed, if that one Waffen SS soldier who found "machine" unarmed and hiding under the tank would've simply let him go like that.

And, while I have far from "virgin ears," I think the audience could have understood the stress of combat with at least a little less profanity in each battle scene. I almost thought the director must've had a quota for cuss words he had to have the cast say to get his cut of the money or something.

Anyway, those are my initial thoughts after viewing my new DVD of "Fury." Anyone have any thoughts or comments?

I felt much the same way as you. I liked the movie overall, but yes, the unarmed prisoner being murdered and the battle between the Sherman and the Waffen SS was pretty unbelievable.

 

[p51]

A couple of years ago, I met a vet who had just showed up on the line (France, 1944) and was green as grass. His SGT supposedly ordered him to shoot a prisoner in a group they had just caught, from a machine gun team. He refused and it played out a lot like that scene in 'Fury' where he was grabbed by several GIs and forced to shoot the unarmed prisoner.
The young GI turned around, and shot the SGT right between the eyes in front of the stunned crowd.
They sent him back for a court martial, but was instead transferred to another division once the story was told (he said he really worried what would happen to him, if they'd go around shooting unarmed prisoners for fun). An officer told him point blank that he wouldn't be court martialed due to the circumstances and how it'd look once that story went public, but he was told not to mention it until the war was over. And he didn't.
"Fury" should be taken in the context of almost everything in the movie probably did happen to someone, somewhere, but surely not the same crew in such a tight timeframe.

 

[Edward]

I felt much the same way as you. I liked the movie overall, but yes, the unarmed prisoner being murdered and the battle between the Sherman and the Waffen SS was pretty unbelievable.

It's one of the few thnigs I found all too believeable, sadly. I'm sure it was in no way the norm, obviously, but I think we'd be naive at best to assume Allied troops were always paragons of virtue.

 

[Edward]

As for the ending, if I'm not mistaken, that was a Waffen SS division they fought at the crossroads. My understanding was the Waffen SS was a pretty fanatical group of Nazis. I'm questioning if after such a fierce battle against one tank crew wherein so many of their kamerads had been killed, if that one Waffen SS soldier who found "machine" unarmed and hiding under the tank would've simply let him go like that.

I'd like to think it was possible... much like the football game in no man's land in December 1914, a rare moment of human triumph raising two fingers at war. Maybe more believable had it not been SS they faced... who knows? One of those films where it would be fascinating to see the research that went into it and see exactly what was based on the stories of old soldiers and what was dramatic licence.

 

[green papaya]

I agree about the last battle scene, Americans just dont fight that way, thats more like something the Japanese soldier would have done, US soldiers dont do suicidal fights when they have a choice to pull back to fight another day or use a more common sense tactic.

 

[Stearmen]

Shooting unarmed prisoners by U.S. troops happened more in the Pacific, where the Japanese basically stopped taking prisoners, so the Americans retaliated! There is some kernel of truth to that seen, seems the Germans sent Hitler Youth forward with Panzerfausts, told them to take out the lead tank, then surrender, most of the time, the Americans would not shoot them. When Bradly heard this, he was reported to have issued the order, "shoot one of them, and send the other SOB back to tell his comrades what had just happened!" The incidents did stop very quickly after that!

 

[Big J]

I agree about the last battle scene, Americans just dont fight that way, thats more like something the Japanese soldier would have done, US soldiers dont do suicidal fights when they have a choice to pull back to fight another day or use a more common sense tactic.

Yeah, I don't get why they didn't unmount the two MG's on the turret and send them off to cover the flanks whilst two guys stayed in the tank to fire the remaining two MG's?

 

[Edward]

Shooting unarmed prisoners by U.S. troops happened more in the Pacific, where the Japanese basically stopped taking prisoners, so the Americans retaliated! There is some kernel of truth to that seen, seems the Germans sent Hitler Youth forward with Panzerfausts, told them to take out the lead tank, then surrender, most of the time, the Americans would not shoot them. When Bradly heard this, he was reported to have issued the order, "shoot one of them, and send the other SOB back to tell his comrades what had just happened!" The incidents did stop very quickly after that!

I think that must have been in some ways the nastiest phase of the war.... right at the end, when all Germany had left to send out were kids and old men. Can't quite imagine what it would have been like to instinctively return fire and then realise you'd killed a twelve year old... or worse, knowing that's who was firing at you and having to make a conscious choice whether to kill a child or risk them killing some of your comrades. Sherman was right.

Yeah, I don't get why they didn't unmount the two MG's on the turret and send them off to cover the flanks whilst two guys stayed in the tank to fire the remaining two MG's?

Was there time for that? Didn't they only spot the SS coming over the hill quite late? (I don't fully recall).

 

[Big J]

I think that must have been in some ways the nastiest phase of the war.... right at the end, when all Germany had left to send out were kids and old men. Can't quite imagine what it would have been like to instinctively return fire and then realise you'd killed a twelve year old... or worse, knowing that's who was firing at you and having to make a conscious choice whether to kill a child or risk them killing some of your comrades. Sherman was right.



Was there time for that? Didn't they only spot the SS coming over the hill quite late? (I don't fully recall).

They had enough time to mess around with dead Germans and fake a tank fire.

 

[Edward]

They had enough time to mess around with dead Germans and fake a tank fire.

That is true!

 

[Otter]

Yeah, I don't get why they didn't unmount the two MG's on the turret and send them off to cover the flanks whilst two guys stayed in the tank to fire the remaining two MG's?

Track toads tend to feel nekkid when they have to play with us crunchies on an even playing field !
They far prefer to stay in their protective shells.

 

[AmateisGal]

It's one of the few thnigs I found all too believeable, sadly. I'm sure it was in no way the norm, obviously, but I think we'd be naive at best to assume Allied troops were always paragons of virtue.

Oh, I know that Allied troops weren't paragons of virtue. I agree with p51, that having all of that happen to the same tank crew in such a short timeframe was the unbelievable part.

 

[Monsoon]

Yeah, I don't get why they didn't unmount the two MG's on the turret and send them off to cover the flanks whilst two guys stayed in the tank to fire the remaining two MG's?

I don't know if I'd want to be off by my lonesome, even with a heavy MG, when there were that many SS moving about.

 

[Monsoon]

I think that must have been in some ways the nastiest phase of the war.... right at the end, when all Germany had left to send out were kids and old men. Can't quite imagine what it would have been like to instinctively return fire and then realise you'd killed a twelve year old... or worse, knowing that's who was firing at you and having to make a conscious choice whether to kill a child or risk them killing some of your comrades. Sherman was right.

My grandfather's two brothers were infantry in WW2. One in Burma, the other in the ETO.

The one in Europe said they fired up civilians if they had weapons. They were only told not to do it when members of the press were around.

 

[Two Types]

In March/April 1945 written orders were given to one British unit to shoot any civilians resisting but warning that they should not be put up against a wall when being executed. I assume it would make it too obvious they had been executed.

 

[p51]

The lone SS trooper letting that guy go? I didn't think that was odd. The guy could have easily been a conscript, as nobody was too discerning by that timeframe in the German military. Got a pulse and both feet and at least one hand? Here, grab a helmet, a smock and that rifle and come with me, bitte.
Really, it's not that big a stretch. Germans weren't all bloodthirsty, evil demons. I could easily see a kid who just wanted to survive the mess, go home and find what's left of his family, having grown up with this mess for the most part.
Yeah, I had no problem with that scene and wonder why so many did.