I know a lot of people like to tear this scene apart and even I did after seeing the film the first time, but I still love it. Despite the issues it's still one of the best movie tank battles out there. All the actors nailed the intensity and desperation of the situation, and the fact the film was able to use the real Tiger 131 that was captured in WW2 is insanely cool.
Its amazing, I love the way the turret pops off the sherman, I think the only real way to make some scenes more realistic and still have this column scene would be if they got more shermans in their production but with the amount of shermans they have now and their budget, I think they did a great job
Fun fact the Tiger tank used in the movie for this scene was Tiger 131. The famous last fully functional running example of an early production Henchel Panzerkampfwagen VI. Fully restored by The Bovington Tank Museum where it now resides. And comes out for the annual tank parade on the Bovington Tank grounds.
The Tiger was really tough but not all-powerful at first, the Shermans couldn't destroy it, it was almost impossible. But here it is already April 1945 and the Fury is modified with a 76 mm gun that could destroy the Tiger from 250 yards and this whole situation with a blow from behind is just for a tense scene in the movie.
The only Sherman variant that can actually pen a Tiger’s front was the British Sherman with the powerful 17-Pounder gun. Just because it was a 76, but it had a lot more kick behind it since they decided to have a longer barrel so they can give it more propellant to shove that round harder on heavy armored targets like the Tiger.
@@diablo56100 No both the 17 pounder and the 76mm on the M4A3E8 can penetrate the Tigers frontal armor. Even the 75mm can penetrate the tiger frontal armor from about 100m give or take. Maybe you are thinking of the Panther? That thing cant be penetrated by the American 76mm
One thing I find funny is that the E8 was much faster the other two Shermans. The Sherman that got its tank commander killed was a 76(W) and it was a early Sherman. So not fast. The next one that took the shot to the hull was M4A3 and it was a late war version. Better engine and armor, but not much, and it was still slow.
By 1944-45, veteran U.S. tank commanders knew enough about the reality of their combat environment to deal with German armor and anti-tank guns. I rather doubt a group of Shermans, advancing to contact, would do so in column, unless the terrain required it. They would advance in a 'One up-two back' formation, spread out enough so that the tanks didn't mask each others fire and vision. They would most likely have an element of armored infantry with them[ Half-tracks, in various models, with at least a 81mm mortar carrier in the group], and would move with over-watch and using any cover to flank the enemy position.
@@kieranhurst8543 My Dad's youngest Uncle was a Marine Corps tanker, fought on Saipan and Okinawa. I talked with him about his service and he said the only tank-on-tank action he experienced was on Saipan, it was risky enough against the less capable Japanese armor and anti-tank guns. Yeah, the action is nice and dramatic, but I like historical context as well.
As good as this film is, this scene is what ruins it for me. There is no way a Sherman tank could get hit twice (side and front) by a Tiger tank without being destroyed, led alone disabled. In reality, that Tiger would've won, despite the fact that he went by his hubris, and exposed himself out in the open without staying put where he initially was.
@chriskey7440 Bruv, I'm more calm than you'll ever be. But when it comes to films, especially WW2, they should always be based on FACT. So if there was a film (based in WW2) where one German soldier holds off the entire US military at Omaha beach, you'd be okay with that???
@LoneWolf-zh1iy if it was entertaining yes, because I know films like this are meant more for entertainment, than reality. But if I watch Schindler's List, then I'd expect more realism, as that movie holds massive significance, compared to Fury.
@chriskey7440 By the sounds of it, you'd happily let the filming industry (Hollywood) shit on reality, by casting facts aside just to peak your amusement???
@LoneWolf-zh1iy for certain films yes. I don't go to Hollywood for facts, I read, I increase my knowledge the old school way I guess. To each their own, but you sure seem the opposite of calm haha.
I know a lot of people like to tear this scene apart and even I did after seeing the film the first time, but I still love it. Despite the issues it's still one of the best movie tank battles out there. All the actors nailed the intensity and desperation of the situation, and the fact the film was able to use the real Tiger 131 that was captured in WW2 is insanely cool.
They also set up with these Reenactors
Its amazing, I love the way the turret pops off the sherman, I think the only real way to make some scenes more realistic and still have this column scene would be if they got more shermans in their production but with the amount of shermans they have now and their budget, I think they did a great job
Fun fact the Tiger tank used in the movie for this scene was Tiger 131. The famous last fully functional running example of an early production Henchel Panzerkampfwagen VI. Fully restored by The Bovington Tank Museum where it now resides. And comes out for the annual tank parade on the Bovington Tank grounds.
The Tiger was really tough but not all-powerful at first, the Shermans couldn't destroy it, it was almost impossible. But here it is already April 1945 and the Fury is modified with a 76 mm gun that could destroy the Tiger from 250 yards and this whole situation with a blow from behind is just for a tense scene in the movie.
The only Sherman variant that can actually pen a Tiger’s front was the British Sherman with the powerful 17-Pounder gun. Just because it was a 76, but it had a lot more kick behind it since they decided to have a longer barrel so they can give it more propellant to shove that round harder on heavy armored targets like the Tiger.
@@diablo56100 No both the 17 pounder and the 76mm on the M4A3E8 can penetrate the Tigers frontal armor. Even the 75mm can penetrate the tiger frontal armor from about 100m give or take. Maybe you are thinking of the Panther? That thing cant be penetrated by the American 76mm
One thing I find funny is that the E8 was much faster the other two Shermans. The Sherman that got its tank commander killed was a 76(W) and it was a early Sherman. So not fast. The next one that took the shot to the hull was M4A3 and it was a late war version. Better engine and armor, but not much, and it was still slow.
I didn't know that thanks
By 1944-45, veteran U.S. tank commanders knew enough about the reality of their combat environment to deal with German armor and anti-tank guns. I rather doubt a group of Shermans, advancing to contact, would do so in column, unless the terrain required it. They would advance in a 'One up-two back' formation, spread out enough so that the tanks didn't mask each others fire and vision. They would most likely have an element of armored infantry with them[ Half-tracks, in various models, with at least a 81mm mortar carrier in the group], and would move with over-watch and using any cover to flank the enemy position.
Yeah nobody cares mate, we're for cool movie action
@@kieranhurst8543 My Dad's youngest Uncle was a Marine Corps tanker, fought on Saipan and Okinawa. I talked with him about his service and he said the only tank-on-tank action he experienced was on Saipan, it was risky enough against the less capable Japanese armor and anti-tank guns. Yeah, the action is nice and dramatic, but I like historical context as well.
Amazing movie 2014 along with Interstellar
As good as this film is, this scene is what ruins it for me. There is no way a Sherman tank could get hit twice (side and front) by a Tiger tank without being destroyed, led alone disabled. In reality, that Tiger would've won, despite the fact that he went by his hubris, and exposed himself out in the open without staying put where he initially was.
It's a fictitious movie, calm down haha
@chriskey7440 Bruv, I'm more calm than you'll ever be. But when it comes to films, especially WW2, they should always be based on FACT.
So if there was a film (based in WW2) where one German soldier holds off the entire US military at Omaha beach, you'd be okay with that???
@LoneWolf-zh1iy if it was entertaining yes, because I know films like this are meant more for entertainment, than reality. But if I watch Schindler's List, then I'd expect more realism, as that movie holds massive significance, compared to Fury.
@chriskey7440 By the sounds of it, you'd happily let the filming industry (Hollywood) shit on reality, by casting facts aside just to peak your amusement???
@LoneWolf-zh1iy for certain films yes. I don't go to Hollywood for facts, I read, I increase my knowledge the old school way I guess. To each their own, but you sure seem the opposite of calm haha.
(M4 Sherman)
(WAR):
(WORLD WAR 2)
(Korean war)
(Vietnam war)
Fury is my favorite war movie. Great story and excellent cast led by Brad Pitt.
Hey I was going ask you can you give me the movies clips of venom on my Whatsapp for edit❤