Anti-Tank Scene: ua-cam.com/video/2sfPo6QDgzk/v-deo.html H.Dv. 470/7: Panzer! Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com Corrections: At around 5:50 I say that each Sherman has a 75mm gun, which is incorrect, since the shown tank has a 76mm, thanks to @uriellima9193 for pointing this out.
Your final comment about building up the Germans as this huge threat and then portraying them as hapless buffoons in the film is a thing that has bugged me about movies for years. They build up the antagonist as being so very clever and then have them make ridiculous moves. Or like in martial arts movies where a gang of baddies attack the good guy one at a time instead of dogpiling him with their superior numbers (one AT gun instead of both, as done in Fury).
Ich habe das Video noch nicht gesehen mache mir aber sorgen um deinen gesundheitlichen Zustand. Auch wenn solche Filme nicht unmittelbar Schäden verursachen sollte man die Langzeitfolgen nicht ausser Acht lassen. Hoffe das war ein einmalige Ausnahme.
Bridge Too Far had a decent german anti-tank scene that is more realistic. The Canadian sherman "Bomb" is the real deal as far as a sherman that made it through the whole war in europe D-day to VE day, in many battles and a better story than fury.... (some similarities).
I know your main criticism focuses on the tanks, but the most glaring tactical mistake on the US side was having the infantry bunch up behind the tanks. Its very cinematic but the one thing drilled over and over to infantry when operating with tanks is to never bunch up like that near a tank. One German MG on the flank, one German mortar firing on the tanks, or even the AT gun getting a lucky hit and exploding a tank outright would have taken out most of the infantry near the tank. Advancing to contact in the open without overwatch, while dumb in this case since its towards a known AT positiin, was at least something that was allowed in the manuals in cases where speed was the main goal. In no scenario however was bunching the infantry near the tanks ever a good idea; and it was clearly done to have a Hollywood representation of how the tanks supported infantry. Also, I'd note that the least remembered battle scene (the town battle) was the most "realistic" albeit they still didn't use infantry to scout for AT positions; while the last battle was ironically the second most realistic as something like that happened in the Bulge albeit probably not against an entire battalion.
I like where the Germans are shown breaking their Panzerfausts out of boxes for the attack... despite the fact they were marching with them on their shoulders in a previous scene.
@@deceptiveanswer They hadn't started the attack as far as I recall. Likely a continuity error but I recall questioning it when I saw the movie. Maybe they had fought an implied battle between the march and attacking Fury? Dunno.
If you had an aneurysm over this film then you must had an outright brain bleed when you watch other popular war-history films lmao. Bro - it’s not a historical documentary, it’s a war film which happily uses plot conveniences in order to progress the story. I’m a modern military historian and I’m able to tell the difference between a film that uses the period as a framing device for the story they want to tell without getting upset that they don’t get every single detail right 😂
my grandfather who served under Patton in the Bulge as a tank commander would probably be pretty pissed portraying Germans as incompetent buffoons as an insult to everyone he lost
Now Imagine Being on the otherside and you were drafted into a brutal war that your country lost and now all your sacrifices and Friends Not only died for nothing but you get culturally shamed for eternity by your own descendents 💀 I think your gramps would be fine
This is like American films always portraying British soldiers as upper class, or the French as weak. They bore so much of the fighting before America entered each war. You need to respect all the players, to understand what actually happened in the war.
I thought he just had to take over as platoon leader once the actual platoon leader was killed at the start? By the kid soldiers in the tree line that the new guy didn’t open fire on after seeing them there. (Been years since seeing the movie though, so I could be just misremembering)
Nah, sometimes in war you just get caught with your pants down and can do nothing about it. Maybe shitty orders from above. Maybe just bad luck. Maybe you made a mistake. For example, in early 1945, an entire US Tank Divisions Combat Command (a battlegroup, division has three of them) got shot to shreds in offensive operations by an almost complete battalion of Tiger IIs. Lost something in the range of 70% of their tanks in two or three days. It was a freak incident to meet a fresh, rested and full-strenght German tank unit in perfect positions, armed with one of the punchiest tankguns available. In that tactical setup, there was very little the Shermans could do against the Tiger IIs. On top of that, the divisional commander refused to stop the assault, even after taking serious losses on day one and the Combat Command CO asking the attack to be halted. Just nothing the platoon and company commanders could do but follow orders, step into the fray and watch their units getting cut down.
@@Austin.Kilgorewell he is a platoon leader the guy that was in charge was in charge of the 10 tanks that some where killed before the movie started. Because a platoon is 4 tanks I do believe
There were many more logical issues/mistakes, e.g.: - The Tiger tank doesn't destroy the first and the last tanks in the Sherman column, basic ambush tactics. - The Shermans shoot smoke shells to hide while they retreat. They wait for the smoke to clear, then decide to rush the Tiger head on, that they didn't even spot yet. - The Tiger moves out of it's ambush position, and decreases the distance for some reason. It could have easily picked out the Shermans 1 by 1 anyways. - Towards the end, when the Fury is broken down, and the marching Germans are spotted, Panzerfausts are on the shoulders of the German soldiers, yet when it comes to using them later on, they are suddenly in wooden boxes. Not to mention it took several meat grinder nonsense waves for the German infantry to finally try to use some anti-tank material against a lone, locked down and broken down tank. The movie is engaging and looks very impressive, but the logic was absent mostly.
Dont forget they are trying to circle that tiger from the back to shoot... the armor of the same thickness? There were experts from tank museum, guarding their tiger, and they had to watch all these scenes - imagine their suffering :D
@@2adamast No. Because it leaves the ones in the middle with nowhere else to go but right/left, which is obviously a much more easier follow-up shot (from the German Tank's perspective), than two tank columns advancing perpendicular to the (German) Tank (Since the ones ahead would have sped up to get out of there, whilst the ones behind the destroyed tank in the middle would have reversed to get out of there). If you ambush someone, you always want to box your enemy in, leaving with few (preferably none) avenues of escape.
Brad Pitt is yet another shallow and overrated actor. Who would have guessed that he would leave Angelina after her double-mastectomy? He was well cast in this movie as a maniacal rapist. In real life, an elite SS panzer group equipped with Tigers would have parked up a mile away and simply picked off the Shermans. The Americans were brave but not stupid. They would have called in air-support and then they would have sent in their Shermans to mop up.
@@samsonsoturian6013 in all american historical ww2 movie fury is the weirdest one for me both side a veteran one but the enemy side just straight up volkgranadier quality That it make saving private ryan more make sence in combat and tactic
Nah man, the only historical inaccuracy is that a single AMERICAN tank had to defend against an infantry battalion. If it were a Polish tank it'd make absolute sense because the Polish straight up had to do that on Mont Ormel/Hill 262 during the Falaise battle.
Laughable end scene where dozens of German infantry rush the front of the disabled tank and get mown down. They could have bypassed the tank as soon as they saw it had a blown track and got the company cook to put a couple of Panzerfaust rounds in the back of it!
And here i though the point af anti tank guns was to cluster all the mooks togther so the Main Character could dramatic mow them down in a single scene.
I somewhat disagree: cliché in the realism of the battle scenes maybe. But drawing such ambivalent American "heroes" is courageous for a Hollywood production. (Brad pit is basically a war criminal in some scenes.)
You are far kinder than I am. I'm no nitpicker - film makers always have to make compromises - but Fury is absolutely unwatchable for me. Excellent analysis, as always.
So ironically, if you went for realistic tank formations for a movie, you could easily get away with just using 1-2 real tanks, and just use CGI to add some blurry outlines of tanks in the distance for every shot? That could certainly trim down a movie budget by a lot 😄
That's how the battle scenes in Lord of the Rings were done, and the massed battles were one of the reasons Christopher Tolkien thought it impossible to turn his father's book into a movie
@@samsonsoturian6013 Yes. There were hundreds of extras wearing "okay" costumes, with a couple of dozen wearing higher quality costumes for close up shots. And for pulled back shots they would digitally clone masses of extras and copy/paste them into the shot.
Tali-Ihantala I think did their tank combat extremely well. The combat is understated, and getting penetrated by a tank doesn't so much mean certain death as it much as it means that one or two people die and the rest can bail.
The war films of the 50's 60's and 70's are all like that, though the veterans I knew as a boy did not watch or comment on them, they were all glad it was all over, and they could get back to normality.
One thing I loved about this movie was the inter-vehicle communication, especially between the commander and the gunner. I was a Bradley IFV gunner and the commands were correct in every way. You could especially see it during the fight with the tiger, seeing Shia's character and Pitt's character exchanging commands and responses was so accurate.
The thing this movie does well is its characters. The way the interact during downtime and battle is all so compelling. It's such a shame the battle scenes are all absolutely terrible.
As a former armor crewman, the worst part was having no less than 5 stand off weapons ( Main gun, three 30 cals. and a Ma Deuce) and holding their fire until a SS trooper was literally standing over the drivers hatch. Could you imagine the carnage had they unleashed all that all at once the second the Germans started down the road towards them? It still drives me nuts when I watch it.
I too thought they let the Germans get way too close before firing! Maybe couldve stripped down all the eeapons from tank and either flanked them or hit them from behind!! I still loved the movie, the mixture of sheer brutality along with moments of calmness gave it character!! One can only imagine the life of a WWll tanker was like!!
Especially how open the area around them was. There’s a distant tree line forward, the brush on the right, and the very destructible house to the left.
@@chillwill1998 - Like I said, the Tiger's armour on its rear was the same as on its side. There would have been no more need to get behind it than to get alongside it.
@@ianiles6430it’s even worse since the tank that made the shot (Fury) has the 76mm gun. It could have penned from the front straight up at that distance.
@@ianiles6430 i think you’re forgetting that there is a real world reason they go to the back. Thats the tactic of real life because the same thickness doesn’t mean same effectiveness. The back has many other components That compromise armor effectiveness.
If you think that's bad, try the final climactic scene, where what looks like almost a whole battalion of SS grenadiers somehow fail to take out a lone Sherman, which is stationary, in close terrain, without any support, in failing light. Despite them having more panzerfausts than Divisional Cuff-Titles. Climactic, heroic, and shite.
Bruh, its Brad Pitt with a STG44, they had no chance. Think about it, what kind of tank commander would carry a STG44 instead of a more portable M1 Carbine or a M3 grease gun.
I had an old WWII vet tell me that “the Germans could put a shell in your back pocket”. And I kept remembering that every time the Germans missed their first shot.
@@PxThucydidesand… he thought it had a lot to do with their guns being very accurate and their Zeiss optics. The Germans in Fury must have been from a specialized panzer division for soldiers with blurry vision and crossed eyes.
I seem to recall someone mentioning that Germany were the first to really issue properly magnified optics to their tanks/ AT-guns, which would explain their initial accuracy advantage during the war. I can't recall where I heard this, so take it with a truck-load of salt, I may even be thinking of another nation ^^
I was a US Army tank commander (M60/M60A1) in the 70s and 80s. Everything you are saying regarding the scenes in question is absolutely correct. But I didn't expect the movie to be historically or tactically accurate anyway, so as with most products belched out of Hollyweird, I simply suspended my disbelief for a couple of hours and let all the glaring miscues and inaccuracies just wash over me.
You have to suspend disbelief, because it's literally impossible for movies to accurately represent war *and* tell stories. The problem with all war films is that they will always be unrealistic, because you have to get everything into a camera shot, which means all of the soldiers, equipment, etc. are going to be unrealistically close together. Which means there's always going to Stormtrooper accuracy. Otherwise, everyone's dead in two minutes. In real life, the advance line would have been strung out half a mile or so, and the advance would have been way different, probing for flanks, etc. I don't have the eight hours to watch reconnoitering along a line of contact. Also, watching over the horizon shelling just isn't dramatic. And portraying real infantry combat where people are just shooting and nobody sees anybody would just be confusing. No way to tell any sort of story. My advice is to either get over it, or just stick with reading books. And I say this as someone with a degree in history.
As a former Cold War tanker, M 60 A3's. I was embarrassed by this film, the whole scene with the two women was way over the top and out of line. Yea German troops will present themselves by constantly running in front of the bow gun on the disabled Sherman at the end. The film was a disappointment.
The scene with the women was gripping. The crew playing family, with war daddy being the father and his unruly sons, reminiscing about Falaise. Emotionally gripping. But the movie as a whole was trash
...and why wouldn't the SS infantry commander simply divert around the disabled tank and continue on with his mission, which was certainly far more important than an apparently abandoned, disabled tank at a nothing crossroads?
You know our guys did stuff like that, right? Like it was a war. We committed war crimes too! Incidents like the scene with the two women did happen, a lot. I understand the criticism of the film in showing the tactics of tank warfare. But I believe that wasn't really the point of the movie.
Just for the record: I am NOT a military historian but I AM a film historian and here is what I can ad.... very often a filmmaker sets out to make a historically accurate movie but too many times it is the studio producers who force the director to compromise. Sometimes more realistic scenes get edited out as well. Simply, films that are more fantasy make more money than existential movies that closely follow history. Case in point, the movie Tombstone made ten times as much as the movie Wyatt Earp. Wyatt Earp is generally despised by movie fans but American history professors love it. Basically, every WWII movie pretty much wants to be like The Guns of Navarone. The Guns of Navarone is indeed a very entertaining film but it is mostly pure fantasy.
Thanks, I know about studio interference. Can you explain the very dark tone and very mean characters in the movie? Cause I don’t see a mass appeal of that combination.
Just for the record I am a historian and I've been an actor in over a dozen movies and TV documentaries. I have seen very few war movies that I like because they almost universally consist of hyperbolic cliches strung together. One of the problems is that real modern combat is not photographic. The modern battlefield appears empty for the simple reason that if you can be seen, you can be killed. I've read dozens of memoirs and spoken to dozens of WW2 veterans and have heard very little that matches the stuff you see in war movies. I shared an office for 5 years with a gentleman who had been a M4 commander in the 9th Armor Div. during the Bulge. In December 1944 all the officers in his battalion were killed and he had 3 tanks shot out from under him. He didn't tell me any stories like "Fury." One exception to the problems with war movies is "Generation Kill." It is based on the memoir by Rolling Stone reporter Evan Wright, so you can read the book for yourself. Also, platoon commander 1st Lt Nathaniel Fisk published his memoir and Sergeant Redolfo Reyes played himself in the series. This series gets everything right down to details like the fact that 19-year-old boys spend a lot of their time thinking about sex, but that doesn't mean they go around raping people. BTW, there is an article in "Life" magazine from the summer of 1945 that has photos of the execution by hanging of 3 US soldiers convicted of raping and killing a German girl. War crimes happened, but you were taking a risk if you committed one.
I went to the tank school at Ft Knox back in 2004...the hardest part was un-learning what bullshit movies show you. We had to redo a tank attack several times, getting yelled at each time, until we put 50-100 m distance between each tank. Yes that meant you were spread out so far you could only see the next tank over and not the whole platoon (let alone the company). I goes against movies and human nature, but real quick you realize it makes you much harder to target. And if the enemy bunches up they pay for it too.
Fury is adolescent, it's like an edgy teenagers idea of war. The movie takes every possible opportunity to be cynical and brutal even when it makes no sense. When they meet the German women, you know from the start they're going to die, just because that's how this film is. In Saving Private Ryan Carparzo tries to help the French girl and a sniper shoots him; in Fury the sniper would have shot the girl just to be a dick. The mean-spiritedness doesn't make the film more mature or more impactful, it just makes it dumber and harder to take seriously.
You must keep in mind that 99% of moviegoers have only an emotional concept of war. Because that is how it is reported. There is no traction for serious or complex war films any more.
funny enough it's actually (loosely) based on a real encounter in WW1 and is featured in Battlefield 1. Look for the story of 'the Fray Bentos' a British Mark IV. It was stranded in no man's land for 72 hours, unable to move, in a way the real story is more epic , 8 of the 9 crew survived after having fended off multiple attacks by the germans
@@davidrenton that you might believe but tank warfare and the technology and tactics used to destroy them rapidly improved between the two wars. Fury wouldn't have stood a chance if that final scene had any semblance of reality to it.
@@mrsrosie2569 i like realistic war movies such as Come and See, Tora Tora Tora, old British 50's war movies, and i know Fury is far from that, but's it a guilty pleasure, it's a comic book war movie, that while heavily flawed is enjoyable nonsense, like Kelly's Hereo's
Danke! finally found another real historian, like Drachinifel, Radio times history, and others that don't use this movie myths and hero stories, but real comparison according to real knowledge and documentation! 🙏
Thank you! Did a few collaboration with Drachinifel a while ago, here are two of them: ua-cam.com/video/FnKDgC9aNu0/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/bFCtIgUQl1w/v-deo.html
Completely unrelated. But the ATMOS audio mix in this movie is insanely good. You can hear planes and shells flying overhead pretty much the entire movie!
In the 1976 film A Bridge Too Far the German anti-tank guns and infantry are hidden in a wood, and they take a toll on the British tanks as they advance in column along a road. However, the British just call in air support and the German units are obliterated by low level fighter-bombers dropping ordinance right on top of them. Surely the Americans would do the same with their P47 Thunderbolts?
Ironically enough, I'm the Andrew mentioned by MHV (the guy who reviewed the script) and I specifically referenced this scene (from a 45+ year old PG rated movie) as a scene that handled German AT guns better than the scene from "Fury". And "A Bridge Too Far" was an an operational level movie that at least in theory was not nearly as concerned with the tactical level as a lot of these modern, R rated war films are!
@@captainhurricane5705 I mean, the Germans take out quite a bit of the Allied Armor in that scene especially considering they just had artillery roll over them.
The breakthrough in Market Garden was a major operation with air support priority. Air support may not have been available for the small engagement in Fury.
@@fazole Possibly, but given how overwhelming Allied air supremacy was by April 1945, it's one of those things that can easily be explained with a line of dialogue (e.g. "too much cloud cover for air support"; "I requested air support, but I was told they had other priorities"). Movies in the 1950s and 1960s that made no attempts at accuracy could ignore massive Allied material superiority on the Western Front in 1944-45, but it's really weird in these modern movies that work so hard on equipment and uniforms (the final battle in "Saving Private Ryan" being a salient example of this). It makes it seem like the movie is made for people who need to see US forces in the last year of the war as underdogs for some reason.
Can’t forget the genius tactic of the infantry in that scene where they slowly and casually walk forward to the entrenched Germans while hip firing M1 Garands.
I knew this film would suck right from the get go, when the camera pans through the interior of fury and there where hanging German medals as trophies, one of which being a „Mutterkreuz“ („mothers cross“: awarded to German women who gave birth to a certain number of children) 🤨🤨🤨
lol, thanks, I marked that scene down and noted "research/check those medals", because I suspected that "some bullshit medal" might be in there, but was not sure.
Dumbass comment. It’s a film bro, not a Nimitz Lecture series. You wanna get upset about a war film not being historically accurate, you’re gonna shit yourself when you discover movies like: -Dunkirk -Saving Private Ryan -Midway -Tora Tora -Pearl Harbour -All Quiet on the Western Front -1914 And many… MANY others. Relax. It’s not a film made to be historically accurate.
Oh my God, I've been waiting ten years for this video. My friends laugh when they remember my ranting after I saw the movie. It looked so good, but wasted so much. I was particularly annoyed with the last battle where "Elite" German troops run into machine gun fire like a B movie. Thank you!
Yea I remember that movie. I know they fucked it all up when Fury had a 76mm gun that can easily punch through front and did all that bs. Plus the tiger leaving a concealed position and charged 3 shermans.
The US 76mm M1 gun had major ammo problems (too soft AP rounds), and could probably not penetrate the hull front at all, especially if the Tiger was angled, unless the very rare APCR round was available. Even the APCR round would have had trouble if the Tiger was properly angled.
Yeah this is one of the things that comes from David Ayer trying to adapt the British 1944 Normandy experience to the April 1945 setting. There's a lot of weird anecdotes he relates to like Shermans randomly blowing up or having to kill Tigers at point blank range that only the British really did during Caen.
What got me in the last battle were the lines of infantry approaching, with half of them carrying Panzerfausts. Then Brad Pitt makes the comment that he's lucky none of them have Panzerfausts.
The introduction scene definitly was just for cinematic and visual storytelling purposes. While the PaK scene was definitly meant to be a proper fight scene
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Yes. I'm not sure exactly, I think they were etiher M60 or M47 Pattons. And Spain trying to look as Ardennes. With that funny ending of defeated Germans walking on a dry summer looking hills.
That's because it was made in the 1960's. Expecting accuracy with a Tank as rare as a King Tiger is a pipe dream even today. Only reason they even got a Tiger 1 in Fury was because they made a deal with Bovington to run theirs. Most surviving hulls and turrets are normally non functioning.
One of my biggest problems was the characters. They must have recruited these guys straight from a state penitentiary. They would have been more at home with The Dirty Dozen than with Band of Brothers. The other issue to me was the ending scene. Are we to believe that a large formation of German infantry wouldn’t have been able to take out a single immobilized and isolated tank out in the open? Why didn’t they go around from the back? Why didn’t they just hit them with a couple of panzerfaust and be done with it. There’s no way that battle should have lasted hours and hours on into the evening. Lastly, why did the tiger come out to fight the Sherman’s? They were in a good position with only the turret exposed. Let the Sherman’s come to you. You would be better protected, have more time to pick them off, take advantage of the better range of the 88, and your aim would be better than on the move.
Yep, people act like the characters are the most realistic part, but GIs were much more reserved and stoic than how they behave in the movie. Posturing as some kind of badass was considered chickensh|t behavior and was detested by fighting men. Realistically Brad Pitt's crew would not be respected. And don't get me started on the Mexican-American character speaking like a cholo. That's David Ayer's obsession with LA gang culture permeating into a WWII setting.
Eh the characters are meant to appeal to people today. Much easier for them to make several characters that are relatable to the audience based on current stereotypes than try to explain why you should like, respect and be impressed by the characters. That would require character development and who has time for that. Every single combat scene is wrong in this movie. The AT guns might have held fire for the Sherman’s to approach closer to insure they had the penetration needed but then they wouldn’t have. Missed and they would have destroyed all four tanks. The Tiger tank also would have destroyed the sherman tanks and definitely would. Not have needed to move. Certainly not moving forward to close the distance! Why? there is absolutely no benefit for them to get closer. As the movie shows the tiger was slower to turn and rotate the turret but this is exactly what the German commander wanted? To close the distance and rely on a slow traverse! Also at the range the Tiger could safely and accurately fire at the Sherman tanks all of them would have been knocked out before they could have gone around the tiger. Even assuming the tiger moved forward too. The reload time on a Tiger has many variables but even at a relatively slow 10 seconds per shot all four Sherman tanks would be destroyed in less than a minute. The Tiger could engage the Sherman tanks at 3000 feet and at full speed in one minute they could close to about 1000 feet. Which ironically means they would have been able to destroy the Tiger from the front at that distance so it’s just wasting time and risking their lives to try to get behind it. Then the last battle with infantry. Completely ridiculous. 1940 red army militia would have fought better. We’re supposed to believe this is an elite SS formation? You don’t live long enough to be elite if you march in parade formation straight at a tank you think might be destroyed without scouting it first. Where were their forward scouts? Also it’s not uncommon to fire an AT weapon at a tank that outwardly looks functional even if it’s immobile. You just don’t take a chance.
It's outrageous that the film footage gets struck. If that isn't fair use, what is? Ironically it could have potentially motivated me to watch the film again. Now I'm motivated to never toss it another penny.
The issue isn't that it's not Fair Use, it most likely is, the issue is UA-cam is liable if they don't take it down at request of the copyright owner who often use bots or 3rd party services to spot this sort of thing. The issue is supposed to be raised in court to resolve however UA-cam is bad at giving the information to allow people to do this, they also seem to accept copyright strikes without evidence someone owns the copyright and even if you did everything correctly you still come out the loser because you've lost any sort of monetisation for the initial part of the video being up which is the time you tend to get the most views. Ultimately the DMCA was fine to protect large media corporations from the tiny amount of piracy they experienced but is causing a major problem in terms of media discourse and debate and has been abused constantly by both individuals and corporations to silence valid criticism.
@@purplefood1 IMHO, if a fair use disclaimer is shown at the start of the video (before showing any movie footage), espeically at this level of added production value, they make clowns of themselves if they take down. It also easier to appeal at youtube, like _just look at the disclaimer at the start of the video._
@@Blazs120gl yeah the clear lack of UA-cam to have actual people look at something and make a valid judgement call is pretty dire at this stage. UA-cam's response would probably be something like "we just look to see if potentially copyrighted material was used we don't make a judgement if it's fair use or not that's for the courts" by effectively turfing everything onto the court system to handle they pretty much cover themselves on all potential lawsuits even if there was no validity to them anyway. Nintendo are notorious for copyright striking literally anything with their games in despite the fact that just footage of a game is no even vaguely copyrighted by them and yet UA-cam allows it constantly.
Late stage cybercapitalism. Better to infringe on all uses than risk allowing use "wrongly" and have to pay anything. Same with banning all swastikas no matter the context, demonetizing all firearm videos, removing comments that can be even remotely """offensive""" etc. They have no human employees to sort that out, only algorithms. And because there are no regulations for cybercorporations, they don't give a shit. Nothing will change until governments grow balls and start implementing strong regulations for internet companies.
I can think of few movies that portray tactics correctly, however Cross of Iron did have a great scene where a junior officer or NCO led a counter attack immediately after a position was lost which I believe for many armies is common practice. Also I remember I was pleasantly surprised when in Saving Private Ryan the bell tower machine gunners mentioned that the headspace was correct for the gun. Not a tactic but a very obscure detail few people would be aware of.
> led a counter attack immediately after a position was lost which I believe for many armies is common practice Yeah, particularly for the Germans it was a "Gegenstoß" translated usually with "hasty counterattack", since it is done with just local reserves, whereas a "Gegenangriff" translated with counterattack also uses additional reserves and artillery etc.
Yeah. that scene in COI is good. But then it's based on a book of the same name written by an ex German officer with combat experience in, I believe, a Gebirgsjager Division, so he knew what he was talking about.
Honestly real life sometimes doesn't portray tactics correctly. The Sherbrooke Fusiliers blundering right up the road to Buron and getting their shit kicked in by 12th SS Panzer at close range is a good example. So is Panzer Brigade 112 during the Battle for Dompaire where they straight up didn't do any recon. There's lapses here that are okay in real life but translate badly to movie format because these anecdotes can be picked apart so quickly.
in the final battle, i doubt that Waffen SS troops would have waited to use those Panzerfaust, or conveniently just throw themselves in front of machineguns like that at every opportunity.
To cite Mauler: No one has ever said "I was taken out of that scene by how historically/scientifically accurate it was" or "I couldn't get immersed, it just made too much sense"
Remember seeing some wonderful US aerial photographs when the recon plane flewby a US tank company attacking during the end phase of Battle of Bulge (Jan 1945). The photos show how the company was spread out and maneuvered, taking firing/hulldown positions behind farmsteads and other natual cover.
The most profound technical oversight in the film was the fact that Brad Pitt's hair was never out of place.... perfect model quality even after being fragged...twice..
The joke is that the Tiger is actually more maneuverable than a Shermann. In a comparison video (I think it was history channel) they dismantled the myth . From a operational perspective the Tiger was a pain to manoeuver because tracks had to be changes for every transport.
@@jurgenmuller143 true but the advantage of the tiger was that its practiclly a snipertank, so it could have won this battle without a scratch if it just hold his position
Typical Hollywood producers and directors hiring consultants, then ignoring everything that the consultant said, proclaiming, "I'm making a movie, not a documentary". Then railing against viewers objections and desires to beat them to death using their own livers over the product being an insult to idiocy.
What that movie is really great at is depiction of WW2 scenes. They were literally taking old pictures from the war and recreating those scenes. Little things like the men standing around smoking, a tank rolling through a village with infantry support, scenes of a company sitting around waiting for the next move - things like that.
It seems they focused way more into the little aspects of the war but then completely threw historical and common sense the moment a battle scene comes on
I think that's a really low bar. Any movie can look like it's set during WWII. In fact, that should be an expectation, not a reason to applaud the movie.
That’s the problem, you shouldn’t take a blockbuster movie seriously no matter what it’s about. They focus on over dramatizing every scene. They make you believe one side is just bad and the other is good when you know there’s a huge grey area in reality. The overall story was decent and ignoring the dramatic scenes that would never have actually happened the way they show it is the best way to enjoy the movie.
Tbf, they literally weren’t allowed to turn the Tiger. It was one of the few still operational Tigers in the world, and was only allowed to be driven in straight lines
@@WillDill94 Issues with the scene have nothing to do with the lack of Tiger mobility, rather that it does not follow first/last ambush tactics, does not prioritise the 76mm, it drives through the smoke and the continues driving towards the shermans instead of stopping, the armored log eating a shell that would not have been stopped at such an angle (Sherman side armor is only 38mm), Brad continued driving past the side of the tiger to get behind it, to shoot the engine instead of putting a round through the side directly into the fighting compartment. And the final kicker is the entire scene being over if Brad had just positioned up and put a 76 through the Tiger's front plate at the starting range.. because it's a 76 Sherman they can do that easily given the distance could not have been more than 600-800m with how short the drive was.
@@ValentineC137 You could contribute some of those issues to Germany scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of manpower. Though I'd assume you'd never give a Tiger to a poor quality crew. I remember hearing a story about Sherman crew near demise. They were ambushed by a German TD(dont remember what type). TD at long range on a hill looking towards them on a road with no cover. Sherman had 0 chance of going through the front armor of the TD. The Sherman was well within range of the TD's gun. After finding the TD's position the Sherman fired back at it. All the TD had to do was score a hit or reverse backwards and they'd safely disengage if needed. Instead, upon receiving fire the TD started turning around on the spot which allowed the Sherman to score a penetrating side hit knocking it out. Also that wasn't a log shot off the side of Fury. That was the plot armor falling off the tank. And they really could've used it in that last battle. As for fighting armored vehicles... If the vehicle hasn't "changed shape" or been set on fire you cant say with any reasonable certainty that it's knocked out.
@@ValentineC137 No you misinterpreted. The owners of the real tank being used in the film stipulated it could only drive up the hill on a concrete, paved path, in a straight line. That's all it was allowed to do and also covered for insurance wise. Has nothing to do with real world tactics or displaying real world tactics, but more a restriction on using a physical version of a TT.
I'm a bit late on this video, but I recognize your English pronunciations are improving and you're easier for me to listen to than in older videos. Thanks! 👍👍
The Tiger scene: The plate at the rear of the tiger is exactly as thick as the plate at its side. That alone ruins half the scene. Two of the Shermans also have guns that were capable of disabling the Tiger from the front.
The Tiger would of engaged them at a distance , where the 88 is far better than even the 76mm .... even 4 Shermans at long range wouldn't of survived against this Tiger... so instead of using this advantage the Tiger charges into the open .. yeah , nope he wouldn't
Correct. That said, having a Tiger I operational in 1945 was the exception even among Tigers, because by that point the Tiger I was already obsolete by German standards and was replaced by the Tiger II. Thing is the only Tiger II that still runs is in Saumur - and only just barely - whereas the film got help from Bovington which has the last running Tiger I. So this is more of literal fan service based on surviving tanks still available.
@@King.Leonidas not really; Tiger Is by 1945 went to the second line units. Again, it was an obsolete tank by German standards. The elites tended to have their equipment upgraded; they weren't stuck using the same tanks from start to finish.
@@thomasellysonting3554 this is not true, surviving Tiger Is still took part in fights until end of the war and were fighting against US in Germany. Lost Pershing was destroyed by one of such Tigers. And I have no idea where you took that they went to "second line units". Units using Tigers were elite by default, having priority, and this didn't change until the end of the war. Of course sPzAbts were primarily reequipped with Tiger IIs but it's not like they suddenly considered remaining Tiger Is old, unneeded toys and threw it away. They still remained in good units and were prized assets. There was not enough Tiger IIs to replace all Tiger Is with them.
movies where enemies come at you one at a time to allow you time to deal with them one at a time... that the two half tracks are in column when taken out shows they are likely to have been taken out within seconds of each other on the flank so by surprise. Meaning they are holding their fire in this scene when they didn't clearly before.
Gotta say, the way they just casually shout into their microphones while a .50 is firing next to their face is just magnificent. But the best moment is when they get close to the enemy and mister moviestar orders the soldier (who cannot possibly hear him over the battle and tank noise) to get out from behind the tank , stand in a line next to eachother and shoot from the hip while slowly walking towards an enemy line that they _know_ has multiple machineguns in it. Also the idea that the germans would fire one gun at one tank and then wait for that gun to be destroyed before shooting again is such a typical John Wick move; there are lots of enemies that could easily overpower him but they politely wait for him to kill them one by one. Is it even worth talking about tactics here? I mean... is it?
If anyone is interested, this movie is loosely based on the exploits of Lafayette G. Pool aka War Daddy and his tank crew. Said tank was named In the Mood.
Can I suggest a short series on HBO called Generation Kill. It's so authentic that most nonveterans hate it. While most people who have served like it, and even loved it.
Watched it a few years ago, it is great. I am sure, that I didn’t get all of it, but since I know at least what a Navy Corpsman is, I have an ok foundation. Btw is my impression correct that the Corpsman was more direct and honest, since he was officially Navy and thus less likely to get in trouble? (And also you don’t want to fuck with the guy that is doing the stitches if something goes wrong.)
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized No he's gonna face some sort of disciplinary action. They are both in the navy and have the same commander. The officer the corpsman was speaking to had asked his opinion and told him he could speak freely, but he is still guilty of insubordination. I hope that helped.
Agreed. As others have commented though, the last scene is a shocker. Confident SS troops come across a disabled tank. Even after the "Surprise" Fury's crew spring on them, a tank with no infantry support, would be a sitting duck. Let alone to a battled hardened SS troops. Quick flank and a panzerfaust and then move on, like it wasn't even there. Movie would have ended sooner as well. Rates right up there with Saving Private Ryan's attack of the machine gun nest, guarding the radar station, where the medic gets hit. Giving up the element of surprise, when you have a sniper like Jackson in your squad? Some diversionary fire from various cover positions and let Jackson do his thing. Instead of waiting for him to change out barrels, you wait till they replace dead gunners. Just my thoughts, no military experience though.
Look at the Band of Brothers Brecourt Manor attack, that is how you assault a fortified position. Surpressive fire from more or less the front just to keep them busy and heads down, then flanking attacks on the machine gun ... in the case of the Saving Private Ryan attack the BAR guy would conduct surpressive fire while the soldiers move in from the both flanks and most importantly the combat medic would have stayed back too. The medic is your most valuable asset. And having a sniper somewhere away from the surpressive fire team with a good field of view is just a nice to have and should have made the attack possible without friendly losses. This was not the beach where a head on attack was the only option ...
My dad was in Patton's third army, he was in communications and principally called in artillery after riding around in a jeep to find a position to observe from. All the stories that he relayed involving Germans was if they found them, they pounded them with artillery first. Towards the end of the war, he recalled his officer playing with retreating Germans like a cat. Moving them around and dropping shells on them. He was disturbed by that. The only panzer he got close to was after they got lost driving the jeep, turned a corner and a panzer was in the road directly in front of them. The driver jammed it into reverse, punched it and got out of the road before they were fired upon, I believe most German tanks at that point were holding ground and not running out of cover to engage in the open. Anyway, I am not sure you would risk a tank platoon on a direct assault on a known anti-tank position. Direct suppressing fire means you can be targeted by the anti-tank guns. Some smoke into that field, the infantry bounding backwards out of that field then if they still had some fight left just flank it seems more logical.
As a former infantryman, when I saw that scene my first thought was, "So drop some smoke, then HE on the tree line while the line guys fall back, then flank them." You don't even need tanks.
The turns have tabled! This time it's me adding a comment. Great video btw!!! Finally all that Call of Duty: World at War experience is paying off because somehow I know a lot of the terms you used 😅
There was a British armoured unit that found a fully armed Panther painted it green & put stars on it. They named it Cuckoo after the bird that steals another's nest. During an attack its crew were told to fire on a building & the TC asked which window they wanted the round in. In the end the fuel pump failed & it was left on the side of the road.
They used it for months without problems all through autumn and winter 1944/45 and preferred it to their own tanks. The crew thought it was great. Yes they couldn't find a spare fuel pump that fitted it so had to abandon it.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualizedlol. there was an actual ww2 horror movie planned and it was a king tiger crew versus some kind of ancient monster. i remember the trailer as it started with German bad. it was set on the Eastern front
@@King.Leonidas Do you mean the Russian film White Tiger? That has a T-34 crew Vs a phantom Tiger 1, decent film if you can tune out the usual pro-Soviet BS present in most Russian films.
Despite the flaws its still a great visual movie especially the sound design on the ricochets. Idk if the studio was on a super tight budget because the only tank battle through out the movie is the one with the tiger H1 would love to see pz4.
A few additional comments. 1. At the range shown in the movie, trajectory was a non-issue for the PAK 40. 2. Even if it was, the next shot would be on target and the crew should be able to get that shot off in 5-7 seconds. 3. The M4 could not fire four machine guns simultaneously without the loader being unable to reload the main gun. 4. Why did the Germans not hit the pinned infantry with mortars or artillery?
3. He's talking about a scene where the infantry NCO was standing on the back deck of the tank, firing the .50. The loader wasn't operating that machine gun. I agree with you, and it makes even less sense the Americans didn't paste the suspected enemy positions with the mortars in their camp.
At the Battle of Tilly the Canadians lost a bunch of tanks to German antitank guns by charging across an open field. Another time a German tank positioned itself around a corner and destroyed a number of Shermans. As the German tank commander said, more or less, “ they just kept making the same mistake until we were out of ammo when we then surrendered”. The Germans had little respect for Allied tank tactics. Of course, by the time the Americans entered the war the Germans had been fighting and refining tactics for 5 years. Use of the 88mm antitank gun or Tiger tank could take out enemy tanks at distances beyond the Allied guns range. Perhaps they, the Americans, were using Soviet tactics. Just throw tanks and soldiers against the Germans ran out of ammo. The movie was fun but as usual the Americans were all powerful while the Germans were mostly ineffective. The charge at the hedgerow should have been a massacre of the allies. A dug in force with ranging knowledge and guns capable of punching through Sherman armor. In the Tiger battle, the Tiger would have taken out Fury first and then the last Sherman in the column. Then take out the other two. Again the Tiger was dug in and hidden. The 88 was highly accurate and could easily destroy a Sherman at more than twice the range. Tiger crews were well trained. There were not a lot of Tigers so only very good crews would get them. In many ways Fury was a decent movie if you could ignore the inaccuracies and jingoism. Of course it would have been a pretty short movie if the hedge charge played out in reality.
Hey @Military History Visualized First off huge fan always have and will be. Thanks for all your awesome work! You nailed the tactical deficiencies on both sides. I think that what you said about what can fit comfortably in a shot is exactly right. I would like to offer a slightly alternative view as to why the tactics are so bad on both sides. Perhaps both sides are just as depleted. Old war dogs and fresh recruits grinding. Pointlessly. Just the most furious of them trying to end the war as soon as possible. They're so close yet so far. What incentive does a officer have to these men he barely knows to use the best tactics he can and wait until everything is just right for an advance? How would he explain that up the line at that stage of the war?
Dumb is the kindest description for Fury. 1. Where were the German unit's mortars? The infantry clustered behind the tanks were perfect targets! 2. HOW did the anti-tank gunners miss at those ranges!? The miss & ricochet scenes would make sense from 1km+, not 300m where we should have seen two Shermans knocked out before both guns were disabled. 3. The MG firing... nuff said. Just dumb. 4. The US infantry pinned down by... 1 MG? Really!? "Why're we lying here, Sarge!? Shouldn't we get up and attack?" "Don't be silly, Private. What can we do against one MG 42. Everyone knows it's the best weapon of the war!" (Courtesy of Squire).
To be fair, about 1. AT Gun units had their own MGs but not mortars, so it could make actually sense that this the remnant of AT company and some stragglers. 2. Yeah. 3. Yeah. 4. Depends, one guy pointed out, that at that point nobody wanted to die.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized 4. However, staying down is more dangerous than moving. That's something drilled into US infantry from at least Normandy. There's one instance where a platoon of new troops went to ground in a field when shot at and did not move, so the sniper started systematically picking the men off. Laying in the field is a sure way to get killed because sooner or later someone's going to start using HE on you.
I think the funniest thing about the scene with the Tiger 1 is that the 'Fury' Sherman could've just shot it through the front plate as it wasn't angling whatsoever but Hollywood gotta Hollywood
Everyone always complains about the last battle (and rightly, it sucks) but this one was a shocker too. I especially like the bit where the troops who've been getting shot to bits in the field get up and instantly sweep away the previously impenetrable entrenched German position through the amazing use of....marching fire! A tactic that was found to be ineffective back in WW1. Just so dumb.
But you have to consider, that it is well documented, that German anti tank guns were not very effective when used vs. tanks, especially when these were commanded by Brad Pitt.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I have a steelmaning point about the PaK vs Sherman fight. If Pak don't have AP rounds, since it's march/April '45, wouldn't that cut down on their effective engagement range, as tanks need to be closer than halftracks for kill shots? Am now remembering that you have several videos going through multiple penetration tables for said weapons, so maybe my Q is silly but I have forgotten the figures. *and the field is not that large so max range is well under a kilometer That their aiming proficiency is nonsensical I fully agree. P.s. I do like your work considerably, keep it up.
@@matijakurelja9827 without AP, there would be pretty much only HE left, which would do pretty much nothing, also I don't think it would do a richochet.
@@matijakurelja9827 Actually, the supply situation improved in some regards like Ammunition in late 1944/early 1945. Reason was that the planst manufacturing the supplies were basically around the corner. As Bernhard points out, without AP the Germans could have high-tailed it right away, as they had nothing to really harm the Shermans.
I wasn’t a fan of the movie either, and in this scene my first question was “If both sides are fighting each other and we’re coming to help…why not flank the enemy and roll them?”
That could be explained by terrain, mines, "zones of responsibility", etc. Something I give them a pass, in hindsight I probably would also give a lack of artillery/mortar a pass now.
What MHV just said, and also that American tank tactics (I read FM 17-10) prides itself on speed and power and the momentum of a battle. Flanking takes time, and it is up to the discretion of a tank company or platoon commander whether or not he wants to do that, or just full send it into a prepared defense and seize the initiative.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized but why have the whole platoon on line (yes I know the distances) why not advance diagonally on either side of the infantry and catch the strong point in a crossfire, surely driving straight into the enemy’s face is the worst idea
@@looinrims"there are guys bleeding out there, we have to act roght this second to save lives" Great, no, but you can think of an emotional pressures leading to charging in if circumstancea are less than ideal. If they had thought it was just MGs and no AT-guns then then only big issue (one that I cant reasonably paper over in my mind) to me is the scale which is always going to be an issue in film and TV.
@@88porpoise but they had to muster before they got there, they’re not Helldivers dropped into a hot zone lol You can make your platoon sections, as said in the video
It is the book of the Panzer Konferenz 2022, featuring various articles about the Panzerwaffe, yes, it is a reference in a way. One article also deals with Guderian.
its a film made for entertainment. it can be based on true facts, like every war film ever made, glorified for the screen but still based on history like the great escape, and many others.
Regarding the not mentioned Tiger scene, it reminds me of the scene in the original Red Dawn where the F-15 pilot is shot down. "It was five to one. I got four." My old man's uncle was a Sherman tanker, and said that the Germans could take out 4 Shermans, but we sent 5. Odd similarity.
When I first saw this film l was pulling my hair out at the way these tactics were used in the film. As an ex- Troop Leader in a tank regiment it was illogical to see vehicles used in such a manner. Your synopsis was excellent and I agree with everything you said. The later combat scenes in the film were also cringeworthy.
To be fair there's a lot wrong with this, but it's better than a lot of Hollywood movies. I mean coming from Hollywood it seems very hard for them not to americanise historic movies. Have the heroic America's charge shrugging off hits. In a less accurate movie it would have one Sherman killing a hundred tiger with front hits. Yeah the tiger scene is stupid but it could be so much worse like other ww2 movies
I mean there was situations like Audie Murphy where he faced German tanks and infantry. But in a case like this, it just doesn't make sense as there's so many things that would make Fury last less than 10 minutes in the fight that even a 4 year old could figure out how to take out the tank.
I remember counting the days down to opening day and going to the theater and being so terribly let down by the several combat scenes. A rotten movie in general. Sad because the actors are very good.
What this movie did EXTREMELY well, was the dialogue between the tank commander, the gunner and the driver. It's been a while since I was a Bradley gunner but the fire/movment commands and interaction between the crew in the track is spot on. This film made me feel like I was back in that gunners seat. Yeah, a lot of the combat tactics were completely nonsensical- that's hollywood. When Gordo was yelling at the kid to shoot the bodies, this is very accurate. I remember being yelled at in OSUT, "you are not a F'king medic, you don't know what's dead! Shoot bodies before you cross over them. If ammo is a problem, kick them in the F'king balls!" Do your job! I can't watch a lot of military movies- not because they offend me. They are often so comically bad I get bored. Fury found a balance to portray the violence and desperation in war in my eyes. Don't let the analysis deter you from experiencing this descent film. The only film I know of that actually portrays armor intimately. Combat tactics the average viewer won't even grasp because where there is combat, it is so visually impressive and intense it's easy to sit back and enjoy the film for what it is. On that note, I was a dismounted Infantrymen on a combined arms battalion live fire exercise with tanks, mortars, birds and bradleys. It was the most breathtaking display of destruction I have ever seen. The ground really did shake..
Scene would make more sense if it was either a lighter AT gun or some kind of artillery piece. That would explain why it couldn’t shoot at the Shermans at long range. Needed them to get closer to have an effect.
7,5 cm PAK 40 was about the lightest AT gun in service in 1945, not counting some leftover toy guns scraped out of the training units/captured stockpiles or other useless stuff being done back then.
@@thomaskositzki9424 Best explanation for a 1943 production Tiger 1 to appear in April 1945 is that it’s been taken from a training unit. Evidence in the film for this sort of thing.
@@rorythomas9469 Yeah, stuff like that happened in 1945. I am German and live in Lower Saxony. From a very detailed history book of the capture of Lower Saxony I got the story of a evry early model Tiger I which originated from a training ground. It literally roamed around in the vicinity a few weeks and bagged a number of British tanks before being taken out by a British Comet. So that part of Fury was actually plausible. The equipment was as good as it gets in "Fury".
> “popcorn movie” I don't know about you, but I usually want to enjoy my popcorn without war crimes etc. Top Gun for me is popcorn movie, Transformers as well. Something Inglorious Bastards is debatable, but Fury, uhm not sure where you are coming from.
@ what I mean is it is a fantasy made up boom boom movie. Like Rambo and the such. After 20 in the USMC in tanks and LAVs I turned off my “military mindset” and watched it for what it was. I found the only “realistic” thing was when Brad was driving into the base camp and had to make sure to lower the antenna on the tank. Other than that. Just a glory boom boom movie.
Ok. I would say the main difference to various other movies is, that in Fury they went out of their way to make everything look historically accurate as possible and Steven Zaloga actually stated that some of scenes looked like photos from 1945.
My great grandfather fought on both the Eastern Front and in Normandy. Wounded twice, yet still lived well into his eighties. He regarded all Hollywood war movies as utter nonsense.
Anti-Tank Scene: ua-cam.com/video/2sfPo6QDgzk/v-deo.html
H.Dv. 470/7: Panzer! Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
Corrections:
At around 5:50 I say that each Sherman has a 75mm gun, which is incorrect, since the shown tank has a 76mm, thanks to @uriellima9193 for pointing this out.
Your final comment about building up the Germans as this huge threat and then portraying them as hapless buffoons in the film is a thing that has bugged me about movies for years. They build up the antagonist as being so very clever and then have them make ridiculous moves. Or like in martial arts movies where a gang of baddies attack the good guy one at a time instead of dogpiling him with their superior numbers (one AT gun instead of both, as done in Fury).
Ich habe das Video noch nicht gesehen mache mir aber sorgen um deinen gesundheitlichen Zustand. Auch wenn solche Filme nicht unmittelbar Schäden verursachen sollte man die Langzeitfolgen nicht ausser Acht lassen.
Hoffe das war ein einmalige Ausnahme.
@@wwiiinplastic4712 It's the "Second half stupid pill." the dumbest thing ever done in cinematography.
Bridge Too Far had a decent german anti-tank scene that is more realistic. The Canadian sherman "Bomb" is the real deal as far as a sherman that made it through the whole war in europe D-day to VE day, in many battles and a better story than fury.... (some similarities).
I know your main criticism focuses on the tanks, but the most glaring tactical mistake on the US side was having the infantry bunch up behind the tanks.
Its very cinematic but the one thing drilled over and over to infantry when operating with tanks is to never bunch up like that near a tank. One German MG on the flank, one German mortar firing on the tanks, or even the AT gun getting a lucky hit and exploding a tank outright would have taken out most of the infantry near the tank.
Advancing to contact in the open without overwatch, while dumb in this case since its towards a known AT positiin, was at least something that was allowed in the manuals in cases where speed was the main goal. In no scenario however was bunching the infantry near the tanks ever a good idea; and it was clearly done to have a Hollywood representation of how the tanks supported infantry.
Also, I'd note that the least remembered battle scene (the town battle) was the most "realistic" albeit they still didn't use infantry to scout for AT positions; while the last battle was ironically the second most realistic as something like that happened in the Bulge albeit probably not against an entire battalion.
I like where the Germans are shown breaking their Panzerfausts out of boxes for the attack... despite the fact they were marching with them on their shoulders in a previous scene.
Panzerfaust is a one shot weapon, maybe they fired the one they were carrying.
@@deceptiveanswer They hadn't started the attack as far as I recall. Likely a continuity error but I recall questioning it when I saw the movie. Maybe they had fought an implied battle between the march and attacking Fury? Dunno.
@@deceptiveansweris there a scene for that
Boxed ammo for transport phase, ready unboxed ammo for immediate combat opns.
I mean it would be pretty reasonable to break out more anti tank weapons if you know your gonna fight a tank
I'm a Canadian army veteran and had an aneurysm over this film; I can only imagine the stress a German historian would experience.
Head explodes when the tiger leaves the cover
@@jamessalvatore7054 And even more when he Shoots while on the Move, instead of holding for precice Shots and safe Distance to the Shermans...
@@Jargolf86 It's like someone pushed the "go full retard" button.
If you had an aneurysm over this film then you must had an outright brain bleed when you watch other popular war-history films lmao.
Bro - it’s not a historical documentary, it’s a war film which happily uses plot conveniences in order to progress the story.
I’m a modern military historian and I’m able to tell the difference between a film that uses the period as a framing device for the story they want to tell without getting upset that they don’t get every single detail right 😂
@@jamessalvatore7054 i guess you never heard of Franz Staudegger
my grandfather who served under Patton in the Bulge as a tank commander would probably be pretty pissed portraying Germans as incompetent buffoons as an insult to everyone he lost
In WW2 soviets often carried infantry on tanks. I guess not in the final charge. But a lucky artillery shell would have killed 10 men or more.
Now Imagine Being on the otherside and you were drafted into a brutal war that your country lost and now all your sacrifices and Friends Not only died for nothing but you get culturally shamed for eternity by your own descendents 💀
I think your gramps would be fine
@@jukkasarilo7573And it did, quite often. I think you guys made some pretty good hits in Talvisota aswell.
This is like American films always portraying British soldiers as upper class, or the French as weak. They bore so much of the fighting before America entered each war. You need to respect all the players, to understand what actually happened in the war.
@KevinJDildonik yeah and especially Respekt the Wehrmacht cause they get Portrait as fools in Most movies but they we're a formidable fighting force
Assuming that Brad Pitt was an effective platoon leader when 4 out of 5 of his tanks were taken out is one hell of a stretch
I thought he just had to take over as platoon leader once the actual platoon leader was killed at the start? By the kid soldiers in the tree line that the new guy didn’t open fire on after seeing them there. (Been years since seeing the movie though, so I could be just misremembering)
Nah, sometimes in war you just get caught with your pants down and can do nothing about it.
Maybe shitty orders from above. Maybe just bad luck. Maybe you made a mistake.
For example, in early 1945, an entire US Tank Divisions Combat Command (a battlegroup, division has three of them) got shot to shreds in offensive operations by an almost complete battalion of Tiger IIs. Lost something in the range of 70% of their tanks in two or three days. It was a freak incident to meet a fresh, rested and full-strenght German tank unit in perfect positions, armed with one of the punchiest tankguns available. In that tactical setup, there was very little the Shermans could do against the Tiger IIs. On top of that, the divisional commander refused to stop the assault, even after taking serious losses on day one and the Combat Command CO asking the attack to be halted.
Just nothing the platoon and company commanders could do but follow orders, step into the fray and watch their units getting cut down.
@thomaskositzki9424 "you can everything by the book. You trained a million times. Sometimes its just not your day"
M4 sherman standa ZERO chance against 76 or 88 mm rounds the germans fired .
@@Austin.Kilgorewell he is a platoon leader the guy that was in charge was in charge of the 10 tanks that some where killed before the movie started. Because a platoon is 4 tanks I do believe
There were many more logical issues/mistakes, e.g.:
- The Tiger tank doesn't destroy the first and the last tanks in the Sherman column, basic ambush tactics.
- The Shermans shoot smoke shells to hide while they retreat. They wait for the smoke to clear, then decide to rush the Tiger head on, that they didn't even spot yet.
- The Tiger moves out of it's ambush position, and decreases the distance for some reason. It could have easily picked out the Shermans 1 by 1 anyways.
- Towards the end, when the Fury is broken down, and the marching Germans are spotted, Panzerfausts are on the shoulders of the German soldiers, yet when it comes to using them later on, they are suddenly in wooden boxes. Not to mention it took several meat grinder nonsense waves for the German infantry to finally try to use some anti-tank material against a lone, locked down and broken down tank.
The movie is engaging and looks very impressive, but the logic was absent mostly.
The video isn't even about that scene, lol
Dont forget they are trying to circle that tiger from the back to shoot... the armor of the same thickness? There were experts from tank museum, guarding their tiger, and they had to watch all these scenes - imagine their suffering :D
First and last tank, because it looks cool?
@@2adamast No. Because it leaves the ones in the middle with nowhere else to go but right/left, which is obviously a much more easier follow-up shot (from the German Tank's perspective), than two tank columns advancing perpendicular to the (German) Tank (Since the ones ahead would have sped up to get out of there, whilst the ones behind the destroyed tank in the middle would have reversed to get out of there). If you ambush someone, you always want to box your enemy in, leaving with few (preferably none) avenues of escape.
@@Nghilifa It's not about ambushing a railway, those tanks stay on the move.
I remember seeing this scene and thinking it should have resulted in the entire platoon of Shermans burning in the first minute and a half
Brad Pitt is yet another shallow and overrated actor. Who would have guessed that he would leave Angelina after her double-mastectomy? He was well cast in this movie as a maniacal rapist. In real life, an elite SS panzer group equipped with Tigers would have parked up a mile away and simply picked off the Shermans. The Americans were brave but not stupid. They would have called in air-support and then they would have sent in their Shermans to mop up.
"Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise."
@@munderpool [Proceeds to miss for 3 movies]
LOL!
@@samsonsoturian6013 in all american historical ww2 movie fury is the weirdest one for me both side a veteran one but the enemy side just straight up volkgranadier quality
That it make saving private ryan more make sence in combat and tactic
@@samsonsoturian6013 That was only because of a misconception!
@30augt6spring it's called plot armor
Man the last battle is even worse.
Yeah, one of the people that helped me out let me know.
Duel with the tiger too
The battles get progressively worse during the movie. The last one is hilarious.
Nah man, the only historical inaccuracy is that a single AMERICAN tank had to defend against an infantry battalion. If it were a Polish tank it'd make absolute sense because the Polish straight up had to do that on Mont Ormel/Hill 262 during the Falaise battle.
Such an amazing scene, cinematically but so, so, so incredibly bad historically and just common sense wise. But I still love the movie
Laughable end scene where dozens of German infantry rush the front of the disabled tank and get mown down. They could have bypassed the tank as soon as they saw it had a blown track and got the company cook to put a couple of Panzerfaust rounds in the back of it!
Even that wont work because the tank carrying Brad Pitt and hollywood plot armor
"The purpose of an anti-tank gun is to destroy tanks." Wise words... and why I hate most war movies.
And here i though the point af anti tank guns was to cluster all the mooks togther so the Main Character could dramatic mow them down in a single scene.
@@kennethreese2193 oh now you're just getting all Hollywood on this...
You would think the name "anti-tank gun" would be a pretty good clue to its purpose.
Only movie that comes to mind where one of those is actually portrayed as deadly is Cross of Iron.
The ambush scene by German AT against the British in the “Bridge too Far” was accurate.
Fury is the movie that has every cliché ever invented in Hollywood. You can take a list of clichés while watching the movie and tick every box.
My favorite part was how the character played by Shia Lebouf was one of the most likeable characters in the movie
There’s no love triangle though, like Pearl Harbor.
I somewhat disagree: cliché in the realism of the battle scenes maybe. But drawing such ambivalent American "heroes" is courageous for a Hollywood production. (Brad pit is basically a war criminal in some scenes.)
Just don't make it a drinking game, or you'd get alcohol poisoning.
@@gargoyle7863Americans have been killing surrendering troops in movies since Saving Private Ryan. The cliché has passed it’s freshness.
You are far kinder than I am. I'm no nitpicker - film makers always have to make compromises - but Fury is absolutely unwatchable for me. Excellent analysis, as always.
And Pitt's TERRIBLE acting makes it a joke.
So ironically, if you went for realistic tank formations for a movie, you could easily get away with just using 1-2 real tanks, and just use CGI to add some blurry outlines of tanks in the distance for every shot?
That could certainly trim down a movie budget by a lot 😄
That's how the battle scenes in Lord of the Rings were done, and the massed battles were one of the reasons Christopher Tolkien thought it impossible to turn his father's book into a movie
@@samsonsoturian6013 Yes. There were hundreds of extras wearing "okay" costumes, with a couple of dozen wearing higher quality costumes for close up shots.
And for pulled back shots they would digitally clone masses of extras and copy/paste them into the shot.
Tali-Ihantala I think did their tank combat extremely well. The combat is understated, and getting penetrated by a tank doesn't so much mean certain death as it much as it means that one or two people die and the rest can bail.
@@samsonsoturian6013i think that was also the reason why Stanley Kubrick didn't want to Film lord of the Rings in 1969
@@sevenproxies4255 this is exactly how it was handled in planet of the apes movies (the originals).
My problem with depicting the enemy as utterly incompetent is that we diminish the sacrifice of those that actually fought them.
The war films of the 50's 60's and 70's are all like that, though the veterans I knew as a boy did not watch or comment on them, they were all glad it was all over, and they could get back to normality.
@@davidpowell6098 Except those were for propaganda... Fury is for entertainment.
💯 agree
@@Epsilon-18 Fury is for propaganda as well
@@gh87716How? They openly say in the beginning of the film that the US tanks were inferior to German ones
One thing I loved about this movie was the inter-vehicle communication, especially between the commander and the gunner. I was a Bradley IFV gunner and the commands were correct in every way. You could especially see it during the fight with the tiger, seeing Shia's character and Pitt's character exchanging commands and responses was so accurate.
The thing this movie does well is its characters. The way the interact during downtime and battle is all so compelling. It's such a shame the battle scenes are all absolutely terrible.
Historians are never late. They arrive precisely when they mean to.
Oh, be quiet Gandalf ... lol.
nor are they early...
@@rowdied9829 Historians that arrive early are also known as oracles, diviners or prognosticators.
@@TheHomelessDreamer
Strange I call them prophets?
@@charlesalexander2492 Religious overtones is why I passed on that one
As a former armor crewman, the worst part was having no less than 5 stand off weapons ( Main gun, three 30 cals. and a Ma Deuce) and holding their fire until a SS trooper was literally standing over the drivers hatch. Could you imagine the carnage had they unleashed all that all at once the second the Germans started down the road towards them? It still drives me nuts when I watch it.
With that enfilade they coulda had 🤌 but no they had to wait until the enemy was so close they were already spread out in more than a 90° arc
Amen! Either bad director or bad military advisor!
I too thought they let the Germans get way too close before firing! Maybe couldve stripped down all the eeapons from tank and either flanked them or hit them from behind!! I still loved the movie, the mixture of sheer brutality along with moments of calmness gave it character!! One can only imagine the life of a WWll tanker was like!!
Especially how open the area around them was. There’s a distant tree line forward, the brush on the right, and the very destructible house to the left.
It's silly...pityful. @@edmundcharles5278
That engagement with the Tiger was ridiculous too. The armour on a Tiger's rear was the same as on its flanks.
Its still a tactic that was used to effectiveness in war time. That is a spot they could shoot through on a tiger.
@@chillwill1998 - Like I said, the Tiger's armour on its rear was the same as on its side. There would have been no more need to get behind it than to get alongside it.
@@ianiles6430it’s even worse since the tank that made the shot (Fury) has the 76mm gun. It could have penned from the front straight up at that distance.
@@ianiles6430 i think you’re forgetting that there is a real world reason they go to the back. Thats the tactic of real life because the same thickness doesn’t mean same effectiveness. The back has many other components That compromise armor effectiveness.
I think they got their tank information from Kelly's Heroes. Since that movie was made "everybody knows that the Tiger had a vulnerable backside".
If you think that's bad, try the final climactic scene, where what looks like almost a whole battalion of SS grenadiers somehow fail to take out a lone Sherman, which is stationary, in close terrain, without any support, in failing light. Despite them having more panzerfausts than Divisional Cuff-Titles. Climactic, heroic, and shite.
Audie Murphy says hello.
War is unrealistic.
Oh, for heavens sakes! You had to bring THAT up!
@@eviloverlordsean Fraid so!
Bruh, its Brad Pitt with a STG44, they had no chance. Think about it, what kind of tank commander would carry a STG44 instead of a more portable M1 Carbine or a M3 grease gun.
"Tank" you , from Germany 😂!
I had an old WWII vet tell me that “the Germans could put a shell in your back pocket”. And I kept remembering that every time the Germans missed their first shot.
Yeah, they took great pride in first shot first hit.
@@PxThucydidesand… he thought it had a lot to do with their guns being very accurate and their Zeiss optics. The Germans in Fury must have been from a specialized panzer division for soldiers with blurry vision and crossed eyes.
I seem to recall someone mentioning that Germany were the first to really issue properly magnified optics to their tanks/ AT-guns, which would explain their initial accuracy advantage during the war.
I can't recall where I heard this, so take it with a truck-load of salt, I may even be thinking of another nation ^^
@@memonk11 Star Wars Stormtrooper school of training.
@@muzzmac160 They used the same weapons , so it basically make sense . 😅
I was a US Army tank commander (M60/M60A1) in the 70s and 80s. Everything you are saying regarding the scenes in question is absolutely correct. But I didn't expect the movie to be historically or tactically accurate anyway, so as with most products belched out of Hollyweird, I simply suspended my disbelief for a couple of hours and let all the glaring miscues and inaccuracies just wash over me.
You have to suspend disbelief, because it's literally impossible for movies to accurately represent war *and* tell stories. The problem with all war films is that they will always be unrealistic, because you have to get everything into a camera shot, which means all of the soldiers, equipment, etc. are going to be unrealistically close together. Which means there's always going to Stormtrooper accuracy. Otherwise, everyone's dead in two minutes. In real life, the advance line would have been strung out half a mile or so, and the advance would have been way different, probing for flanks, etc. I don't have the eight hours to watch reconnoitering along a line of contact. Also, watching over the horizon shelling just isn't dramatic. And portraying real infantry combat where people are just shooting and nobody sees anybody would just be confusing. No way to tell any sort of story. My advice is to either get over it, or just stick with reading books. And I say this as someone with a degree in history.
As a former Cold War tanker, M 60 A3's. I was embarrassed by this film, the whole scene with the two women was way over the top and out of line. Yea German troops will present themselves by constantly running in front of the bow gun on the disabled Sherman at the end. The film was a disappointment.
As a Cold War artilleryman, I wondered WHERE was our artillery!?
The scene with the women was gripping. The crew playing family, with war daddy being the father and his unruly sons, reminiscing about Falaise.
Emotionally gripping. But the movie as a whole was trash
...and why wouldn't the SS infantry commander simply divert around the disabled tank and continue on with his mission, which was certainly far more important than an apparently abandoned, disabled tank at a nothing crossroads?
Even more silly is the film clearly establish the SS battalion at the end have panzerfaust yet refused to use them during the whole final fight.
You know our guys did stuff like that, right? Like it was a war. We committed war crimes too! Incidents like the scene with the two women did happen, a lot.
I understand the criticism of the film in showing the tactics of tank warfare. But I believe that wasn't really the point of the movie.
Just for the record: I am NOT a military historian but I AM a film historian and here is what I can ad.... very often a filmmaker sets out to make a historically accurate movie but too many times it is the studio producers who force the director to compromise. Sometimes more realistic scenes get edited out as well. Simply, films that are more fantasy make more money than existential movies that closely follow history. Case in point, the movie Tombstone made ten times as much as the movie Wyatt Earp. Wyatt Earp is generally despised by movie fans but American history professors love it. Basically, every WWII movie pretty much wants to be like The Guns of Navarone. The Guns of Navarone is indeed a very entertaining film but it is mostly pure fantasy.
Thanks, I know about studio interference. Can you explain the very dark tone and very mean characters in the movie? Cause I don’t see a mass appeal of that combination.
Just for the record I am a historian and I've been an actor in over a dozen movies and TV documentaries. I have seen very few war movies that I like because they almost universally consist of hyperbolic cliches strung together. One of the problems is that real modern combat is not photographic. The modern battlefield appears empty for the simple reason that if you can be seen, you can be killed. I've read dozens of memoirs and spoken to dozens of WW2 veterans and have heard very little that matches the stuff you see in war movies. I shared an office for 5 years with a gentleman who had been a M4 commander in the 9th Armor Div. during the Bulge. In December 1944 all the officers in his battalion were killed and he had 3 tanks shot out from under him. He didn't tell me any stories like "Fury."
One exception to the problems with war movies is "Generation Kill." It is based on the memoir by Rolling Stone reporter Evan Wright, so you can read the book for yourself. Also, platoon commander 1st Lt Nathaniel Fisk published his memoir and Sergeant Redolfo Reyes played himself in the series. This series gets everything right down to details like the fact that 19-year-old boys spend a lot of their time thinking about sex, but that doesn't mean they go around raping people. BTW, there is an article in "Life" magazine from the summer of 1945 that has photos of the execution by hanging of 3 US soldiers convicted of raping and killing a German girl. War crimes happened, but you were taking a risk if you committed one.
@@SaugusZouave Thanks, yeah, I really like Generation Kill (the series), I am not sure if I understood all the references etc.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualizedmean characters? Being in the hell of combat and seeing your friends die horrible deaths can do that.
@@anthonyintrieri3329 you want to reread what I wrote, I didn’t ask where it comes from.
I went to the tank school at Ft Knox back in 2004...the hardest part was un-learning what bullshit movies show you. We had to redo a tank attack several times, getting yelled at each time, until we put 50-100 m distance between each tank. Yes that meant you were spread out so far you could only see the next tank over and not the whole platoon (let alone the company).
I goes against movies and human nature, but real quick you realize it makes you much harder to target. And if the enemy bunches up they pay for it too.
Fury is adolescent, it's like an edgy teenagers idea of war. The movie takes every possible opportunity to be cynical and brutal even when it makes no sense. When they meet the German women, you know from the start they're going to die, just because that's how this film is. In Saving Private Ryan Carparzo tries to help the French girl and a sniper shoots him; in Fury the sniper would have shot the girl just to be a dick. The mean-spiritedness doesn't make the film more mature or more impactful, it just makes it dumber and harder to take seriously.
Yes.
Excellent summary! That's Ayer's lazy, immature "grimdark" nonsense all over. Like a movie version of the worst of Rob Liefeld.
This very much. Puts one of my main problems of the movie perfectly into words.
It's the most reddit tank movie ever
You must keep in mind that 99% of moviegoers have only an emotional concept of war. Because that is how it is reported. There is no traction for serious or complex war films any more.
The last scene was what we as ten year olds played out in our heads in the back yard or bedroom!
😂
Right??? Thank you 🤣
funny enough it's actually (loosely) based on a real encounter in WW1 and is featured in Battlefield 1. Look for the story of 'the Fray Bentos' a British Mark IV. It was stranded in no man's land for 72 hours, unable to move, in a way the real story is more epic , 8 of the 9 crew survived after having fended off multiple attacks by the germans
@@davidrenton that you might believe but tank warfare and the technology and tactics used to destroy them rapidly improved between the two wars. Fury wouldn't have stood a chance if that final scene had any semblance of reality to it.
@@mrsrosie2569 i like realistic war movies such as Come and See, Tora Tora Tora, old British 50's war movies, and i know Fury is far from that, but's it a guilty pleasure, it's a comic book war movie, that while heavily flawed is enjoyable nonsense, like Kelly's Hereo's
Danke! finally found another real historian, like Drachinifel, Radio times history, and others that don't use this movie myths and hero stories, but real comparison according to real knowledge and documentation! 🙏
Thank you! Did a few collaboration with Drachinifel a while ago, here are two of them: ua-cam.com/video/FnKDgC9aNu0/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/bFCtIgUQl1w/v-deo.html
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized thanks for the tip
This sounds like one of those martial arts movies were the bad guys take turns fighting the hero one on one , from weakest to strongest.
“You might think I’m late, but as historian I assure you I’m not “ brilliant humor. 😂
Completely unrelated. But the ATMOS audio mix in this movie is insanely good.
You can hear planes and shells flying overhead pretty much the entire movie!
Personally, I think Oddball is a far more competant tank commander than Wardaddy
RIP Donald Southerland. WOOF! WOOF!
A shame considering Wardaddy in real life was all kinds of legendary
@@hammer1349 I doubt Poole and this version had much in common besides the nickname
"There you go with those negative waves. Have a little faith, baby. Have a little faith."
@@pootyting3311 - "Now, get down in your hole."
In the 1976 film A Bridge Too Far the German anti-tank guns and infantry are hidden in a wood, and they take a toll on the British tanks as they advance in column along a road. However, the British just call in air support and the German units are obliterated by low level fighter-bombers dropping ordinance right on top of them. Surely the Americans would do the same with their P47 Thunderbolts?
It's one of the better war films, but still falls into the 'Germans can't shoot straight' trope.
Ironically enough, I'm the Andrew mentioned by MHV (the guy who reviewed the script) and I specifically referenced this scene (from a 45+ year old PG rated movie) as a scene that handled German AT guns better than the scene from "Fury". And "A Bridge Too Far" was an an operational level movie that at least in theory was not nearly as concerned with the tactical level as a lot of these modern, R rated war films are!
@@captainhurricane5705 I mean, the Germans take out quite a bit of the Allied Armor in that scene especially considering they just had artillery roll over them.
The breakthrough in Market Garden was a major operation with air support priority. Air support may not have been available for the small engagement in Fury.
@@fazole Possibly, but given how overwhelming Allied air supremacy was by April 1945, it's one of those things that can easily be explained with a line of dialogue (e.g. "too much cloud cover for air support"; "I requested air support, but I was told they had other priorities"). Movies in the 1950s and 1960s that made no attempts at accuracy could ignore massive Allied material superiority on the Western Front in 1944-45, but it's really weird in these modern movies that work so hard on equipment and uniforms (the final battle in "Saving Private Ryan" being a salient example of this). It makes it seem like the movie is made for people who need to see US forces in the last year of the war as underdogs for some reason.
Can’t forget the genius tactic of the infantry in that scene where they slowly and casually walk forward to the entrenched Germans while hip firing M1 Garands.
I knew this film would suck right from the get go, when the camera pans through the interior of fury and there where hanging German medals as trophies, one of which being a „Mutterkreuz“ („mothers cross“: awarded to German women who gave birth to a certain number of children) 🤨🤨🤨
lol, thanks, I marked that scene down and noted "research/check those medals", because I suspected that "some bullshit medal" might be in there, but was not sure.
Oof. The implications of the Mutterkreuz being there are horrible. But not historically inaccurate, i guess.
@@nemofunf9862 And it makes total sense too, the medal just looks neat, the tank crewmen will take it.
@@yashkasheriff9325considering the scene with the two women... I doubt they just "found" it...
@@pippleyfisching9214 Oh yeah, 'found' could be any number of things.
"So I finally watched Fury"
I'm so sorry.
lol I’m so glad to see the comment section agrees with me.
Dumbass comment.
It’s a film bro, not a Nimitz Lecture series. You wanna get upset about a war film not being historically accurate, you’re gonna shit yourself when you discover movies like:
-Dunkirk
-Saving Private Ryan
-Midway
-Tora Tora
-Pearl Harbour
-All Quiet on the Western Front
-1914
And many… MANY others.
Relax. It’s not a film made to be historically accurate.
Oh my God, I've been waiting ten years for this video. My friends laugh when they remember my ranting after I saw the movie. It looked so good, but wasted so much. I was particularly annoyed with the last battle where "Elite" German troops run into machine gun fire like a B movie. Thank you!
Yea I remember that movie. I know they fucked it all up when Fury had a 76mm gun that can easily punch through front and did all that bs. Plus the tiger leaving a concealed position and charged 3 shermans.
I didn't make it that far into the movie :D
I laughed out loud in the theater when the Tiger charged the Shermans.
Actually, the 76mm needed HVAP normal M61 ammo wasn't capable. HVAP was only available in limited numbers post Feb '45.
The US 76mm M1 gun had major ammo problems (too soft AP rounds), and could probably not penetrate the hull front at all, especially if the Tiger was angled, unless the very rare APCR round was available. Even the APCR round would have had trouble if the Tiger was properly angled.
Yeah this is one of the things that comes from David Ayer trying to adapt the British 1944 Normandy experience to the April 1945 setting. There's a lot of weird anecdotes he relates to like Shermans randomly blowing up or having to kill Tigers at point blank range that only the British really did during Caen.
What got me in the last battle were the lines of infantry approaching, with half of them carrying Panzerfausts. Then Brad Pitt makes the comment that he's lucky none of them have Panzerfausts.
The introduction scene definitly was just for cinematic and visual storytelling purposes. While the PaK scene was definitly meant to be a proper fight scene
If you think Fury is bad and stupid, don't watch old Battle of the Bulge.
I liked it long time ago as a kid and rewatched recently. What a disaster.
The one with the M60 King Tigers?
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Yes. I'm not sure exactly, I think they were etiher M60 or M47 Pattons. And Spain trying to look as Ardennes. With that funny ending of defeated Germans walking on a dry summer looking hills.
That's because it was made in the 1960's. Expecting accuracy with a Tank as rare as a King Tiger is a pipe dream even today. Only reason they even got a Tiger 1 in Fury was because they made a deal with Bovington to run theirs. Most surviving hulls and turrets are normally non functioning.
What? You mean the BotB wasn't won by Henry Fonda kicking flaming oil barrels downhill towards German tanks?
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualizedM48s from the Spanish Army.
One of my biggest problems was the characters. They must have recruited these guys straight from a state penitentiary. They would have been more at home with The Dirty Dozen than with Band of Brothers.
The other issue to me was the ending scene. Are we to believe that a large formation of German infantry wouldn’t have been able to take out a single immobilized and isolated tank out in the open? Why didn’t they go around from the back? Why didn’t they just hit them with a couple of panzerfaust and be done with it. There’s no way that battle should have lasted hours and hours on into the evening.
Lastly, why did the tiger come out to fight the Sherman’s? They were in a good position with only the turret exposed. Let the Sherman’s come to you. You would be better protected, have more time to pick them off, take advantage of the better range of the 88, and your aim would be better than on the move.
Yep, people act like the characters are the most realistic part, but GIs were much more reserved and stoic than how they behave in the movie. Posturing as some kind of badass was considered chickensh|t behavior and was detested by fighting men. Realistically Brad Pitt's crew would not be respected. And don't get me started on the Mexican-American character speaking like a cholo. That's David Ayer's obsession with LA gang culture permeating into a WWII setting.
Eh the characters are meant to appeal to people today. Much easier for them to make several characters that are relatable to the audience based on current stereotypes than try to explain why you should like, respect and be impressed by the characters. That would require character development and who has time for that.
Every single combat scene is wrong in this movie. The AT guns might have held fire for the Sherman’s to approach closer to insure they had the penetration needed but then they wouldn’t have. Missed and they would have destroyed all four tanks. The Tiger tank also would have destroyed the sherman tanks and definitely would. Not have needed to move. Certainly not moving forward to close the distance! Why? there is absolutely no benefit for them to get closer. As the movie shows the tiger was slower to turn and rotate the turret but this is exactly what the German commander wanted? To close the distance and rely on a slow traverse! Also at the range the Tiger could safely and accurately fire at the Sherman tanks all of them would have been knocked out before they could have gone around the tiger. Even assuming the tiger moved forward too. The reload time on a Tiger has many variables but even at a relatively slow 10 seconds per shot all four Sherman tanks would be destroyed in less than a minute. The Tiger could engage the Sherman tanks at 3000 feet and at full speed in one minute they could close to about 1000 feet. Which ironically means they would have been able to destroy the Tiger from the front at that distance so it’s just wasting time and risking their lives to try to get behind it.
Then the last battle with infantry. Completely ridiculous. 1940 red army militia would have fought better. We’re supposed to believe this is an elite SS formation? You don’t live long enough to be elite if you march in parade formation straight at a tank you think might be destroyed without scouting it first. Where were their forward scouts? Also it’s not uncommon to fire an AT weapon at a tank that outwardly looks functional even if it’s immobile. You just don’t take a chance.
@@AnthonyRodriguez-om6id You could just go read about the actual tank crew it was based around led by Wardaddy.
14:25 And the Womble slander continues. He deserves all of it, of course
Not a crossover I was expecting. But I'm here for it.
It's outrageous that the film footage gets struck. If that isn't fair use, what is?
Ironically it could have potentially motivated me to watch the film again. Now I'm motivated to never toss it another penny.
The issue isn't that it's not Fair Use, it most likely is, the issue is UA-cam is liable if they don't take it down at request of the copyright owner who often use bots or 3rd party services to spot this sort of thing. The issue is supposed to be raised in court to resolve however UA-cam is bad at giving the information to allow people to do this, they also seem to accept copyright strikes without evidence someone owns the copyright and even if you did everything correctly you still come out the loser because you've lost any sort of monetisation for the initial part of the video being up which is the time you tend to get the most views.
Ultimately the DMCA was fine to protect large media corporations from the tiny amount of piracy they experienced but is causing a major problem in terms of media discourse and debate and has been abused constantly by both individuals and corporations to silence valid criticism.
@@purplefood1 IMHO, if a fair use disclaimer is shown at the start of the video (before showing any movie footage), espeically at this level of added production value, they make clowns of themselves if they take down. It also easier to appeal at youtube, like _just look at the disclaimer at the start of the video._
@@Blazs120gl yeah the clear lack of UA-cam to have actual people look at something and make a valid judgement call is pretty dire at this stage. UA-cam's response would probably be something like "we just look to see if potentially copyrighted material was used we don't make a judgement if it's fair use or not that's for the courts" by effectively turfing everything onto the court system to handle they pretty much cover themselves on all potential lawsuits even if there was no validity to them anyway. Nintendo are notorious for copyright striking literally anything with their games in despite the fact that just footage of a game is no even vaguely copyrighted by them and yet UA-cam allows it constantly.
Late stage cybercapitalism. Better to infringe on all uses than risk allowing use "wrongly" and have to pay anything. Same with banning all swastikas no matter the context, demonetizing all firearm videos, removing comments that can be even remotely """offensive""" etc.
They have no human employees to sort that out, only algorithms. And because there are no regulations for cybercorporations, they don't give a shit. Nothing will change until governments grow balls and start implementing strong regulations for internet companies.
#BreakUpBigTech
I can think of few movies that portray tactics correctly, however Cross of Iron did have a great scene where a junior officer or NCO led a counter attack immediately after a position was lost which I believe for many armies is common practice. Also I remember I was pleasantly surprised when in Saving Private Ryan the bell tower machine gunners mentioned that the headspace was correct for the gun. Not a tactic but a very obscure detail few people would be aware of.
> led a counter attack immediately after a position was lost which I believe for many armies is common practice
Yeah, particularly for the Germans it was a "Gegenstoß" translated usually with "hasty counterattack", since it is done with just local reserves, whereas a "Gegenangriff" translated with counterattack also uses additional reserves and artillery etc.
Yeah. that scene in COI is good. But then it's based on a book of the same name written by an ex German officer with combat experience in, I believe, a Gebirgsjager Division, so he knew what he was talking about.
Honestly real life sometimes doesn't portray tactics correctly. The Sherbrooke Fusiliers blundering right up the road to Buron and getting their shit kicked in by 12th SS Panzer at close range is a good example. So is Panzer Brigade 112 during the Battle for Dompaire where they straight up didn't do any recon. There's lapses here that are okay in real life but translate badly to movie format because these anecdotes can be picked apart so quickly.
Immediate counterattack is practically a German trademark, historically speaking. More often than not, it works.
@@Archangelm127 And when it doesn't, oh boy, does it cost 'em.
in the final battle, i doubt that Waffen SS troops would have waited to use those Panzerfaust, or conveniently just throw themselves in front of machineguns like that at every opportunity.
I dunno, I probably would've dove in front of the MG's, just to get the hell away from that abomination of a scene.
To cite Mauler: No one has ever said "I was taken out of that scene by how historically/scientifically accurate it was" or "I couldn't get immersed, it just made too much sense"
As Red Letter Media put it: "You may not have noticed, but your brain did".
Remember seeing some wonderful US aerial photographs when the recon plane flewby a US tank company attacking during the end phase of Battle of Bulge (Jan 1945). The photos show how the company was spread out and maneuvered, taking firing/hulldown positions behind farmsteads and other natual cover.
The most profound technical oversight in the film was the fact that Brad Pitt's hair was never out of place.... perfect model quality even after being fragged...twice..
Don't get me started on the Tiger breaking cover scene and charging lighter, nimbler, faster Shermans.
The joke is that the Tiger is actually more maneuverable than a Shermann. In a comparison video (I think it was history channel) they dismantled the myth . From a operational perspective the Tiger was a pain to manoeuver because tracks had to be changes for every transport.
@@jurgenmuller143 true but the advantage of the tiger was that its practiclly a snipertank, so it could have won this battle without a scratch if it just hold his position
"The purpose of an anti-tank gun is to destroy tanks."
You would think the name "anti-tank" gun would make that fairly obvious.
To be fair, my DeWalt drill is not named a hammer, and yet sometimes ...
'You are holding an anti-tank rifle. Over there is a tank. Figure it out!!'
Typical Hollywood producers and directors hiring consultants, then ignoring everything that the consultant said, proclaiming, "I'm making a movie, not a documentary".
Then railing against viewers objections and desires to beat them to death using their own livers over the product being an insult to idiocy.
What that movie is really great at is depiction of WW2 scenes. They were literally taking old pictures from the war and recreating those scenes. Little things like the men standing around smoking, a tank rolling through a village with infantry support, scenes of a company sitting around waiting for the next move - things like that.
Yeah, buts only that... "nice" pictures but with no filling.
It seems they focused way more into the little aspects of the war but then completely threw historical and common sense the moment a battle scene comes on
I think that's a really low bar. Any movie can look like it's set during WWII. In fact, that should be an expectation, not a reason to applaud the movie.
They also took real stories......and replicated them for the film
@@redaug4212 yeah low bar - because most all war movies are really bad at depicting what it's like.
You only lasted 45 minutes? I usually last like 30 seconds so congrats!
😂
Facts.
💯
Same as that.
Well, it was for work, it was easier than reading, but far more painful :D
I only overheard parts of while doing something else
I haven't even started and think that the review I just got will suffice.
As an ex MBT crewman, and WW2 buff, I couldn’t take this film seriously.
That’s the problem, you shouldn’t take a blockbuster movie seriously no matter what it’s about. They focus on over dramatizing every scene. They make you believe one side is just bad and the other is good when you know there’s a huge grey area in reality. The overall story was decent and ignoring the dramatic scenes that would never have actually happened the way they show it is the best way to enjoy the movie.
The Tiger "Ambush" scene is just Ridiculous and Hilarious at the same time.
Tbf, they literally weren’t allowed to turn the Tiger. It was one of the few still operational Tigers in the world, and was only allowed to be driven in straight lines
@@WillDill94 Issues with the scene have nothing to do with the lack of Tiger mobility, rather that it does not follow first/last ambush tactics, does not prioritise the 76mm, it drives through the smoke and the continues driving towards the shermans instead of stopping, the armored log eating a shell that would not have been stopped at such an angle (Sherman side armor is only 38mm), Brad continued driving past the side of the tiger to get behind it, to shoot the engine instead of putting a round through the side directly into the fighting compartment.
And the final kicker is the entire scene being over if Brad had just positioned up and put a 76 through the Tiger's front plate at the starting range.. because it's a 76 Sherman they can do that easily given the distance could not have been more than 600-800m with how short the drive was.
@@ValentineC137 You could contribute some of those issues to Germany scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of manpower. Though I'd assume you'd never give a Tiger to a poor quality crew.
I remember hearing a story about Sherman crew near demise. They were ambushed by a German TD(dont remember what type). TD at long range on a hill looking towards them on a road with no cover. Sherman had 0 chance of going through the front armor of the TD. The Sherman was well within range of the TD's gun. After finding the TD's position the Sherman fired back at it. All the TD had to do was score a hit or reverse backwards and they'd safely disengage if needed. Instead, upon receiving fire the TD started turning around on the spot which allowed the Sherman to score a penetrating side hit knocking it out.
Also that wasn't a log shot off the side of Fury. That was the plot armor falling off the tank. And they really could've used it in that last battle.
As for fighting armored vehicles... If the vehicle hasn't "changed shape" or been set on fire you cant say with any reasonable certainty that it's knocked out.
@@ValentineC137 No you misinterpreted. The owners of the real tank being used in the film stipulated it could only drive up the hill on a concrete, paved path, in a straight line. That's all it was allowed to do and also covered for insurance wise.
Has nothing to do with real world tactics or displaying real world tactics, but more a restriction on using a physical version of a TT.
@@stooge88 please explain why the issues I listed with the scene are caused by them not being allowed to turn the tank.
The tank scene is laughable and the movie itself is absurd murder porn.
One learns something new every day. I had never heard of 'murder porn' until now.
Thanks.
👍
To be fair... War is murder porn.
I wouldn't call it murder porn, but rather modern grunt's fantasy version of WWII. There's a lot of basic factual errors
@@localbod "Murder boner" is another similar one. Now you've learnt two things
@@samsonsoturian6013 it's anti-German murder porn of the same variety Hollywood has been producing since the 60s
I'm a bit late on this video, but I recognize your English pronunciations are improving and you're easier for me to listen to than in older videos. Thanks! 👍👍
Happy to hear that!
That’s quite a bold and provocative title…almost like you want to ambush us…
The Tiger scene: The plate at the rear of the tiger is exactly as thick as the plate at its side. That alone ruins half the scene. Two of the Shermans also have guns that were capable of disabling the Tiger from the front.
The Tiger would of engaged them at a distance , where the 88 is far better than even the 76mm .... even 4 Shermans at long range wouldn't of survived against this Tiger... so instead of using this advantage the Tiger charges into the open .. yeah , nope he wouldn't
Correct. That said, having a Tiger I operational in 1945 was the exception even among Tigers, because by that point the Tiger I was already obsolete by German standards and was replaced by the Tiger II.
Thing is the only Tiger II that still runs is in Saumur - and only just barely - whereas the film got help from Bovington which has the last running Tiger I. So this is more of literal fan service based on surviving tanks still available.
@@thomasellysonting3554den it's worse because it means there probably dealing with a very veteran tank crew
@@King.Leonidas not really; Tiger Is by 1945 went to the second line units. Again, it was an obsolete tank by German standards. The elites tended to have their equipment upgraded; they weren't stuck using the same tanks from start to finish.
@@thomasellysonting3554 this is not true, surviving Tiger Is still took part in fights until end of the war and were fighting against US in Germany. Lost Pershing was destroyed by one of such Tigers.
And I have no idea where you took that they went to "second line units". Units using Tigers were elite by default, having priority, and this didn't change until the end of the war.
Of course sPzAbts were primarily reequipped with Tiger IIs but it's not like they suddenly considered remaining Tiger Is old, unneeded toys and threw it away. They still remained in good units and were prized assets. There was not enough Tiger IIs to replace all Tiger Is with them.
movies where enemies come at you one at a time to allow you time to deal with them one at a time...
that the two half tracks are in column when taken out shows they are likely to have been taken out within seconds of each other on the flank so by surprise. Meaning they are holding their fire in this scene when they didn't clearly before.
Gotta say, the way they just casually shout into their microphones while a .50 is firing next to their face is just magnificent.
But the best moment is when they get close to the enemy and mister moviestar orders the soldier (who cannot possibly hear him over the battle and tank noise) to get out from behind the tank , stand in a line next to eachother and shoot from the hip while slowly walking towards an enemy line that they _know_ has multiple machineguns in it.
Also the idea that the germans would fire one gun at one tank and then wait for that gun to be destroyed before shooting again is such a typical John Wick move; there are lots of enemies that could easily overpower him but they politely wait for him to kill them one by one.
Is it even worth talking about tactics here? I mean... is it?
Womble has become a staple of this channel, and idk if he should be happy or insulted haha
14:30. 🤗🤗🤗🤗
If anyone is interested, this movie is loosely based on the exploits of
Lafayette G. Pool aka War Daddy and his tank crew. Said tank was named In the Mood.
The movie causes me fury.
Can I suggest a short series on HBO called Generation Kill. It's so authentic that most nonveterans hate it. While most people who have served like it, and even loved it.
Watched it a few years ago, it is great. I am sure, that I didn’t get all of it, but since I know at least what a Navy Corpsman is, I have an ok foundation.
Btw is my impression correct that the Corpsman was more direct and honest, since he was officially Navy and thus less likely to get in trouble? (And also you don’t want to fuck with the guy that is doing the stitches if something goes wrong.)
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized No he's gonna face some sort of disciplinary action. They are both in the navy and have the same commander. The officer the corpsman was speaking to had asked his opinion and told him he could speak freely, but he is still guilty of insubordination. I hope that helped.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized the reason he gets away with more attitude is because he's a medic
Too bad it's about the most boring and one-sided conflict in human history.
Among the 3 HBO war miniseries, I think it's tied for 1st place with Band of Brothers.
I was told by someone who was in WW2 that the German soldiers were the bravest ones ever. Also, I was old that they were very respectful.
Agreed.
As others have commented though,
the last scene is a shocker.
Confident SS troops come across a disabled tank.
Even after the "Surprise" Fury's crew spring on them,
a tank with no infantry support, would be a sitting duck.
Let alone to a battled hardened SS troops.
Quick flank and a panzerfaust and then move on,
like it wasn't even there.
Movie would have ended sooner as well.
Rates right up there with Saving Private Ryan's
attack of the machine gun nest, guarding the radar station,
where the medic gets hit.
Giving up the element of surprise, when you have a sniper
like Jackson in your squad?
Some diversionary fire from various cover positions and let Jackson do his thing.
Instead of waiting for him to change out barrels, you wait till they replace dead gunners.
Just my thoughts, no military experience though.
Look at the Band of Brothers Brecourt Manor attack, that is how you assault a fortified position. Surpressive fire from more or less the front just to keep them busy and heads down, then flanking attacks on the machine gun ... in the case of the Saving Private Ryan attack the BAR guy would conduct surpressive fire while the soldiers move in from the both flanks and most importantly the combat medic would have stayed back too. The medic is your most valuable asset. And having a sniper somewhere away from the surpressive fire team with a good field of view is just a nice to have and should have made the attack possible without friendly losses. This was not the beach where a head on attack was the only option ...
I was entertained. Didn't care for a true story, or I'd have rented one instead had it existed.
@@francischambless5919 Lol, good thing you let everyone know about it...
My dad was in Patton's third army, he was in communications and principally called in artillery after riding around in a jeep to find a position to observe from. All the stories that he relayed involving Germans was if they found them, they pounded them with artillery first. Towards the end of the war, he recalled his officer playing with retreating Germans like a cat. Moving them around and dropping shells on them. He was disturbed by that. The only panzer he got close to was after they got lost driving the jeep, turned a corner and a panzer was in the road directly in front of them. The driver jammed it into reverse, punched it and got out of the road before they were fired upon, I believe most German tanks at that point were holding ground and not running out of cover to engage in the open.
Anyway, I am not sure you would risk a tank platoon on a direct assault on a known anti-tank position. Direct suppressing fire means you can be targeted by the anti-tank guns. Some smoke into that field, the infantry bounding backwards out of that field then if they still had some fight left just flank it seems more logical.
As a former infantryman, when I saw that scene my first thought was, "So drop some smoke, then HE on the tree line while the line guys fall back, then flank them."
You don't even need tanks.
The turns have tabled! This time it's me adding a comment. Great video btw!!! Finally all that Call of Duty: World at War experience is paying off because somehow I know a lot of the terms you used 😅
Hello my favorite War Hamster! Thank you! :D
There was a British armoured unit that found a fully armed Panther painted it green & put stars on it. They named it Cuckoo after the bird that steals another's nest. During an attack its crew were told to fire on a building & the TC asked which window they wanted the round in. In the end the fuel pump failed & it was left on the side of the road.
They used it for months without problems all through autumn and winter 1944/45 and preferred it to their own tanks. The crew thought it was great.
Yes they couldn't find a spare fuel pump that fitted it so had to abandon it.
Fury is not a military movie, it is a horror movie in the set dressing of WWII. Given that, I can afford my suspension of disbelief for it.
Interesting point!
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualizedlol. there was an actual ww2 horror movie planned and it was a king tiger crew versus some kind of ancient monster. i remember the trailer as it started with German bad. it was set on the Eastern front
@@King.Leonidasthere was a recent WW2 horror movie called "Overlord" that I thought was quite good. 81% on Rotten Tomatoes also.
@@King.Leonidas Do you mean the Russian film White Tiger? That has a T-34 crew Vs a phantom Tiger 1, decent film if you can tune out the usual pro-Soviet BS present in most Russian films.
It's more like an action movie dressing up as a WWII movie. It shouldn't even be set during WWII imo
Despite the flaws its still a great visual movie especially the sound design on the ricochets. Idk if the studio was on a super tight budget because the only tank battle through out the movie is the one with the tiger H1 would love to see pz4.
A few additional comments.
1. At the range shown in the movie, trajectory was a non-issue for the PAK 40.
2. Even if it was, the next shot would be on target and the crew should be able to get that shot off in 5-7 seconds.
3. The M4 could not fire four machine guns simultaneously without the loader being unable to reload the main gun.
4. Why did the Germans not hit the pinned infantry with mortars or artillery?
3. He's talking about a scene where the infantry NCO was standing on the back deck of the tank, firing the .50. The loader wasn't operating that machine gun.
I agree with you, and it makes even less sense the Americans didn't paste the suspected enemy positions with the mortars in their camp.
Well done for avoiding it that long.
I've played in a classroom to display "what not to do" (e.g. the initial platoon commander leading).
At the Battle of Tilly the Canadians lost a bunch of tanks to German antitank guns by charging across an open field. Another time a German tank positioned itself around a corner and destroyed a number of Shermans. As the German tank commander said, more or less, “ they just kept making the same mistake until we were out of ammo when we then surrendered”. The Germans had little respect for Allied tank tactics. Of course, by the time the Americans entered the war the Germans had been fighting and refining tactics for 5 years. Use of the 88mm antitank gun or Tiger tank could take out enemy tanks at distances beyond the Allied guns range. Perhaps they, the Americans, were using Soviet tactics. Just throw tanks and soldiers against the Germans ran out of ammo.
The movie was fun but as usual the Americans were all powerful while the Germans were mostly ineffective. The charge at the hedgerow should have been a massacre of the allies. A dug in force with ranging knowledge and guns capable of punching through Sherman armor. In the Tiger battle, the Tiger would have taken out Fury first and then the last Sherman in the column. Then take out the other two. Again the Tiger was dug in and hidden. The 88 was highly accurate and could easily destroy a Sherman at more than twice the range. Tiger crews were well trained. There were not a lot of Tigers so only very good crews would get them.
In many ways Fury was a decent movie if you could ignore the inaccuracies and jingoism. Of course it would have been a pretty short movie if the hedge charge played out in reality.
1 scene is bad? Are you kidding? That WHOLE MOVIE is a waste of time!
Fury is a Parodie of a tank movie
lol I made a screenshot of that comment and sent it to some historians :)
Hey @Military History Visualized
First off huge fan always have and will be. Thanks for all your awesome work! You nailed the tactical deficiencies on both sides. I think that what you said about what can fit comfortably in a shot is exactly right. I would like to offer a slightly alternative view as to why the tactics are so bad on both sides. Perhaps both sides are just as depleted. Old war dogs and fresh recruits grinding. Pointlessly. Just the most furious of them trying to end the war as soon as possible. They're so close yet so far. What incentive does a officer have to these men he barely knows to use the best tactics he can and wait until everything is just right for an advance? How would he explain that up the line at that stage of the war?
Dumb is the kindest description for Fury.
1. Where were the German unit's mortars? The infantry clustered behind the tanks were perfect targets!
2. HOW did the anti-tank gunners miss at those ranges!? The miss & ricochet scenes would make sense from 1km+, not 300m where we should have seen two Shermans knocked out before both guns were disabled.
3. The MG firing... nuff said. Just dumb.
4. The US infantry pinned down by... 1 MG? Really!?
"Why're we lying here, Sarge!? Shouldn't we get up and attack?"
"Don't be silly, Private. What can we do against one MG 42. Everyone knows it's the best weapon of the war!"
(Courtesy of Squire).
To be fair, about 1. AT Gun units had their own MGs but not mortars, so it could make actually sense that this the remnant of AT company and some stragglers.
2. Yeah.
3. Yeah.
4. Depends, one guy pointed out, that at that point nobody wanted to die.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized 4. However, staying down is more dangerous than moving. That's something drilled into US infantry from at least Normandy. There's one instance where a platoon of new troops went to ground in a field when shot at and did not move, so the sniper started systematically picking the men off.
Laying in the field is a sure way to get killed because sooner or later someone's going to start using HE on you.
@@Wien1938
Rational thought is often easily overcome by the desire to not die.
I think the funniest thing about the scene with the Tiger 1 is that the 'Fury' Sherman could've just shot it through the front plate as it wasn't angling whatsoever but Hollywood gotta Hollywood
Everyone always complains about the last battle (and rightly, it sucks) but this one was a shocker too. I especially like the bit where the troops who've been getting shot to bits in the field get up and instantly sweep away the previously impenetrable entrenched German position through the amazing use of....marching fire! A tactic that was found to be ineffective back in WW1. Just so dumb.
But you have to consider, that it is well documented, that German anti tank guns were not very effective when used vs. tanks, especially when these were commanded by Brad Pitt.
😝
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I have a steelmaning point about the PaK vs Sherman fight. If Pak don't have AP rounds, since it's march/April '45, wouldn't that cut down on their effective engagement range, as tanks need to be closer than halftracks for kill shots? Am now remembering that you have several videos going through multiple penetration tables for said weapons, so maybe my Q is silly but I have forgotten the figures. *and the field is not that large so max range is well under a kilometer
That their aiming proficiency is nonsensical I fully agree.
P.s. I do like your work considerably, keep it up.
@@matijakurelja9827 without AP, there would be pretty much only HE left, which would do pretty much nothing, also I don't think it would do a richochet.
Also: plot armour is indestructible, as we all know. 🙃
@@matijakurelja9827 Actually, the supply situation improved in some regards like Ammunition in late 1944/early 1945. Reason was that the planst manufacturing the supplies were basically around the corner. As Bernhard points out, without AP the Germans could have high-tailed it right away, as they had nothing to really harm the Shermans.
I wasn’t a fan of the movie either, and in this scene my first question was
“If both sides are fighting each other and we’re coming to help…why not flank the enemy and roll them?”
That could be explained by terrain, mines, "zones of responsibility", etc. Something I give them a pass, in hindsight I probably would also give a lack of artillery/mortar a pass now.
What MHV just said, and also that American tank tactics (I read FM 17-10) prides itself on speed and power and the momentum of a battle. Flanking takes time, and it is up to the discretion of a tank company or platoon commander whether or not he wants to do that, or just full send it into a prepared defense and seize the initiative.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized but why have the whole platoon on line (yes I know the distances) why not advance diagonally on either side of the infantry and catch the strong point in a crossfire, surely driving straight into the enemy’s face is the worst idea
@@looinrims"there are guys bleeding out there, we have to act roght this second to save lives"
Great, no, but you can think of an emotional pressures leading to charging in if circumstancea are less than ideal. If they had thought it was just MGs and no AT-guns then then only big issue (one that I cant reasonably paper over in my mind) to me is the scale which is always going to be an issue in film and TV.
@@88porpoise but they had to muster before they got there, they’re not Helldivers dropped into a hot zone lol
You can make your platoon sections, as said in the video
I see a listing for”Achtung Panzer?”, in your description. Does this refer to Heinz Guderian’s book or something else?
It is the book of the Panzer Konferenz 2022, featuring various articles about the Panzerwaffe, yes, it is a reference in a way. One article also deals with Guderian.
Just wait till you see hundreds of infantry try to attack one tank in the most idiotic action of foot soldiers in history.
As an old tank commander, most of the combat scenes insult my intelligens (hope it is spelled correct)
It is are spelled right
@@danielbrown9368 Come on, spoke proper England like we all are.
its a film made for entertainment. it can be based on true facts, like every war film ever made, glorified for the screen but still based on history like the great escape, and many others.
Regarding the not mentioned Tiger scene, it reminds me of the scene in the original Red Dawn where the F-15 pilot is shot down. "It was five to one. I got four." My old man's uncle was a Sherman tanker, and said that the Germans could take out 4 Shermans, but we sent 5. Odd similarity.
When I first saw this film l was pulling my hair out at the way these tactics were used in the film. As an ex- Troop Leader in a tank regiment it was illogical to see vehicles used in such a manner. Your synopsis was excellent and I agree with everything you said. The later combat scenes in the film were also cringeworthy.
To be fair there's a lot wrong with this, but it's better than a lot of Hollywood movies.
I mean coming from Hollywood it seems very hard for them not to americanise historic movies. Have the heroic America's charge shrugging off hits. In a less accurate movie it would have one Sherman killing a hundred tiger with front hits. Yeah the tiger scene is stupid but it could be so much worse like other ww2 movies
The main dramatic premise of the film is silly. A tank holding out alone, surrounded by infantry? Not for long.
I mean there was situations like Audie Murphy where he faced German tanks and infantry. But in a case like this, it just doesn't make sense as there's so many things that would make Fury last less than 10 minutes in the fight that even a 4 year old could figure out how to take out the tank.
I remember counting the days down to opening day and going to the theater and being so terribly let down by the several combat scenes. A rotten movie in general. Sad because the actors are very good.
What this movie did EXTREMELY well, was the dialogue between the tank commander, the gunner and the driver. It's been a while since I was a Bradley gunner but the fire/movment commands and interaction between the crew in the track is spot on. This film made me feel like I was back in that gunners seat. Yeah, a lot of the combat tactics were completely nonsensical- that's hollywood.
When Gordo was yelling at the kid to shoot the bodies, this is very accurate. I remember being yelled at in OSUT, "you are not a F'king medic, you don't know what's dead! Shoot bodies before you cross over them. If ammo is a problem, kick them in the F'king balls!" Do your job!
I can't watch a lot of military movies- not because they offend me. They are often so comically bad I get bored. Fury found a balance to portray the violence and desperation in war in my eyes. Don't let the analysis deter you from experiencing this descent film. The only film I know of that actually portrays armor intimately. Combat tactics the average viewer won't even grasp because where there is combat, it is so visually impressive and intense it's easy to sit back and enjoy the film for what it is.
On that note, I was a dismounted Infantrymen on a combined arms battalion live fire exercise with tanks, mortars, birds and bradleys. It was the most breathtaking display of destruction I have ever seen. The ground really did shake..
Finally someone decided to speak up and tell people why this scene is bad.
Scene would make more sense if it was either a lighter AT gun or some kind of artillery piece. That would explain why it couldn’t shoot at the Shermans at long range. Needed them to get closer to have an effect.
7,5 cm PAK 40 was about the lightest AT gun in service in 1945, not counting some leftover toy guns scraped out of the training units/captured stockpiles or other useless stuff being done back then.
@@thomaskositzki9424 Best explanation for a 1943 production Tiger 1 to appear in April 1945 is that it’s been taken from a training unit. Evidence in the film for this sort of thing.
@@rorythomas9469 Yeah, stuff like that happened in 1945. I am German and live in Lower Saxony. From a very detailed history book of the capture of Lower Saxony I got the story of a evry early model Tiger I which originated from a training ground. It literally roamed around in the vicinity a few weeks and bagged a number of British tanks before being taken out by a British Comet.
So that part of Fury was actually plausible. The equipment was as good as it gets in "Fury".
It is a war “popcorn movie” not based off anything real or factual. It was just a movie.
> “popcorn movie”
I don't know about you, but I usually want to enjoy my popcorn without war crimes etc.
Top Gun for me is popcorn movie, Transformers as well. Something Inglorious Bastards is debatable, but Fury, uhm not sure where you are coming from.
@ what I mean is it is a fantasy made up boom boom movie. Like Rambo and the such. After 20 in the USMC in tanks and LAVs I turned off my “military mindset” and watched it for what it was.
I found the only “realistic” thing was when Brad was driving into the base camp and had to make sure to lower the antenna on the tank. Other than that. Just a glory boom boom movie.
Ok. I would say the main difference to various other movies is, that in Fury they went out of their way to make everything look historically accurate as possible and Steven Zaloga actually stated that some of scenes looked like photos from 1945.
My great grandfather fought on both the Eastern Front and in Normandy. Wounded twice, yet still lived well into his eighties.
He regarded all Hollywood war movies as utter nonsense.
slay
Omg, thank you for this video. The whole movie was so cringe and bad, not only this scene. 0 script, 0 continuity, 0 realism, 0 sense!
Awesome! Probably, next video will be called "These weapon scenes in Marvel movies are no good enough".