Just wached "Fury"

[billfitzmaurice]

Re: Just wached "Fury"

At the end of the Vietnam war, my brother who is a paratrooper officer, said that, as his unit was overrun and he was taking direct machine gun and canon fire, he could outrun a Russian T-54 tank, so nothing is impossible.

In mud, yes, or in heavily treed terrain. Or rice paddies. M48s had the same problem. Tank warfare is ideally suited to the desert and steppes, dicey at best in the rain forest.

[carlspeak]

Re: Just wached "Fury"

I just watched Mad Max - Fury Road. It was a laugher as well. Lots of great action and stunts, but you have to wonder about the logic of those folks on both sides with all the clever ideas to inflict mayhem and weaponry, that they never thought to shoot out the tires of their opponents.....and where did they get all that gas?
I especially loved the dude with the double neck guitar and those 100 or so speakers blaring. Hilarious!

[kevintomb]

Re: Just wached "Fury"

Found "Fury" enjoyable.

Quite entertaining, even though he seemed far too old for the part.

[kevintomb]

Re: Just wached "Fury"

I never saw it due to rave reviews of how bad it was haha.

It is rather entertaining, and far better than I was lead to believe.

[rkeman]

Re: Just wached "Fury"

Fury does have a number of technical inaccuracies. A Tiger Mk. I crew taking on four Shermans, including one with a 76 mm cannon? An SS battalion wasting valuable men and materials to destroy a single disabled tank? Absent Allied air cover in the last month of the war? All of these are unlikely and are presumably included for dramatic effect.

Films take artistic license to present complex subjects in a brief period of time and entertain. Fury shows the life of a tank crew and the horrors of conflict in a reasonably effective manner. Many of the events portrayed in Fury have some basis in fact and have been fictionalized for the purpose of creating a cohesive story. It is clearly not meant to be a documentary and shouldn't be held to the same standard for historical accuracy.

[PWR RYD]

Re: Just wached "Fury"

Fury does have a number of technical inaccuracies. A Tiger Mk. I crew taking on four Shermans, including one with a 76 mm cannon? An SS battalion wasting valuable men and materials to destroy a single disabled tank? Absent Allied air cover in the last month of the war? All of these are unlikely and are presumably included for dramatic effect.

Films take artistic license to present complex subjects in a brief period of time and entertain. Fury shows the life of a tank crew and the horrors of conflict in a reasonably effective manner. Many of the events portrayed in Fury have some basis in fact and have been fictionalized for the purpose of creating a cohesive story. It is clearly not meant to be a documentary and shouldn't be held to the same standard for historical accuracy.

Very well said.

[billfitzmaurice]

Re: Just wached "Fury"

Fury does have a number of technical inaccuracies. A Tiger Mk. I crew taking on four Shermans, including one with a 76 mm cannon?

That they got right, sort of. A Tiger was essentially immune to the original 75mm Sherman from the front and side. Early losses of Shermans to Tigers were disproportionate by a very large margin. The Tiger was only vulnerable to fire from the rear, as it hadn't occurred to the designers that they'd be doing anything but advancing.
The high velocity 76mm gun later borrowed from tank destroyers faired better, but it was still the speed of the Sherman that gave it a slight competitive edge. The British mounted a 17 pounder on some of their Shermans, a gun equal to the German 88, but they still lacked the armor to withstand a hit from an AP 88 shell, so speed, along with superior numbers, remained the key to their success.
The lack of a tank that could take on a Tiger or Panzer III lay squarely at the feet of the Army, which, despite protests from not only field commanders like Patton but also the likes of Eisenhower and Marshall, still viewed tanks as support for the infantry and artillery. The M26 Pershing, with a 90mm gun, was our first true heavy tank, but it was produced too late and with too few numbers to have an effect on the war, mainly because of Pentagon foot dragging.

[MagicO309d]

Re: Just wached "Fury"

Infantry can take out tanks but you will loose 75% of your forces. There's a funny line here, "Where is our artillery? You are the artillery!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVvoo1qFPDo

[dustinbagby]

Re: Just wached "Fury"

Fury does have a number of technical inaccuracies. A Tiger Mk. I crew taking on four Shermans, including one with a 76 mm cannon? An SS battalion wasting valuable men and materials to destroy a single disabled tank? Absent Allied air cover in the last month of the war? All of these are unlikely and are presumably included for dramatic effect.

Films take artistic license to present complex subjects in a brief period of time and entertain. Fury shows the life of a tank crew and the horrors of conflict in a reasonably effective manner. Many of the events portrayed in Fury have some basis in fact and have been fictionalized for the purpose of creating a cohesive story. It is clearly not meant to be a documentary and shouldn't be held to the same standard for historical accuracy.

+1.

[randyohoh]

Re: Just wached "Fury"

Most tanks have more armor in the front, the M60 had 17" if I remember correctly and less on the sides and rear. The rear of the turrets of the M41, M48, & M60. had 12" but the engine didn't have much at all. The M60 was diesel but the M41 was gas, not good because the fuel tanks were on both sides of the motor. The bottom and top had the thinnest armor, 8"?. Armor normally has infantry support to insure that opposing infantry doesn't get too close with an anti-tank weapon. Tanks were pretty ineffective in Vietnam and limited to protecting base camps and convoys. Artillery is not effective against armor except to peel the infantry away. The depleted uranium APDS round that we carried would go through 5 Russian T72's parked sided by side at a classified speed or over 3000 feet per second. The M60 had a road march speed of 8 mph and a top speed of 32 mph and averaged 3/4 of a mile per gallon. The army talked about going from the NATO 105mm to a 155mm with the M1, not sure if they did or not.

[[email protected]]

Re: Just wached "Fury"

It was on right before Sky King.

Damn, you're old.