Fury Trailer is out...

See what I did there?

 

Nice!!

 

With regards to some of the recent comments:

1. From what I have read, depending on the vehicle and where and how it was hit tank crews often stood a good chance of survival when they bailed out. Losses in tanks in armored units were often proportionately higher than losses in men, and it was not uncommon for a crew to have more than one machine shot out from under them during the course of a campaign. Some tanks were more vulnerable than others to certain kinds of damage. The Sherman (especially the early versions) was notorious for its tendency to 'brew up' quickly. This was not due to the use of petrol fuel, but rather to poor protection of the ammunition. Later models of the Sherman were somewhat better in this respect. The Churchill did not brew up so easily, and I believe it was also easier to escape from in an emergency.

2. As to that final battle scene...well, you can't always call in artillery fire or air support. In a fluid situation (like that in the film) it may not be available. What struck me about the SS unit was its extraordinary carelessness. In a fluid situation, with Allied troops roaming all over the place, that unit had no scouts out, no recce or advance guard at all. Despite the danger from the air the column was sauntering leisurely along in broad daylight, it was not well camouflaged, and I didn't see any air sentries or AA weapons on the vehicles. A Volksturm or Hitler Youth detachment might be that inept, but this was supposed to be a crack unit.

 

We discussed the movie and the scene with the SS battalion in depth over on the forums, and seemed that no one wanted to believe anything anyone else suggested. Too many experts on one panel it seems. Anyway, I suggested that since the time frame of the movie was sometime in April 1945 the unit was thrown together at the last minute from men from many units, and it seems that many of them were very young as the last scene indicated. The Germans were experts on ad hoc units from what I've read. The level of training was suspect, as was the level of experience of the individuals and the unit as a whole. The best and the brightest were buried from the French beaches to the shore of the Volga River and all points in between. It seemed to be about 300 or so men, give or take a dozen or so. Not saying that the scene was a bit much and one of Hollywood's greatest unbelievable shoot-outs, but the assumption that the composition of the SS battalion was a crack unit was suspect as well if you take into account what was mentioned here. Really doesn't matter that much, it's just a movie you know.

 

Before the ammo storage issue was addressed I have heard the average casualty rate per knocked out Sherman was one dead and 2 wounded. That was a consistent finding across both American and Commonwealth formations. It dropped to one and one when the ammo ignition rate was reduced. Getting out was not as easy as some have described it. A veteran of the 1st Hussars told me that the attitude of the tank, the ground underneath, the position on the main gun barrel and potential hatch jamming,from the impact of an AP round, all effected the ability to exit the vehicle.
He had 5 Sherman's shot out from under him from D-Day until the end of the war and lost at least one crew member each time. In two cases he was the only survivor.

 

Thanks for the info guys (especially TTH).

The Waffen SS (lack of) tactics in the final showdown was indeed very suspect and Hollywood "gung-ho". It made for good entertainment.

I've no doubt a battle-hardened unit would've approached the situation and dealt with it in a far more effective and less costly manner. As, I am sure, would a not-quite-so battle hardened unit. The experience of the unit's CO and it's NCOs would've been the influential factor here.

 

Then again, even experienced commanders sometimes become careless or simply arrogant. Michael Wittman's demise came from an ill-advised sortie over open ground with no flank or reconnaissance support.

 

An excellent example Canuck, although with officers of the calibre of Wittman it could be deemed as understandable that complacency had crept in, especially when their inner feeling of invincibility becomes clouded with combat fatigue?

 

I finally had some time to watch Fury last night. Having read the previous experten reviews I was surprised to find more that I liked than disliked.

Most of the major flaws have been called out previously. The use of modern speech idiom I agree is a big miss. The issue with continuity and the improbability of the final scene (I think the SS would simply bypass a disabled Sherman) don't help either. The battle scenes were generally well done and I actually found it compelling at an emotional level. A clumsy script at times with inevitable cliches but the movie did capture the dynamics and conditions for a tank crew quite well. The general mood, tension, casual brutality and the fatalistic acceptance of those circumstances were chilling at times.

Certainly not a complete waste of time like Inglourious Basterds.

 

I'm with Kate on this.

Diane was asking me the other week, if I sat there and shouted at a war film that I noticed that at flaws in it well I was shouting quite a few times.
There are some good bits I do agree but some of it is as what Graeme said "Pants"

 

Hi,

Ref the Sherman crews cas rates.

My late father told me that he had survived 2 Shermans knocked out within 3 days.

Regards, Mick D.

 

From a pure historical perspective one could obviously say that. Given that is was likely targeted at a young, male, American audience who almost certainly have no detailed knowledge, it was a reasonable effort. Many on this forum would naturally have both high standards and expectations from any war film. We are not representative.
Interestingly, if you go back and read what people did not like, many of those same criticisms would apply equally to Saving Private Ryan, which is arguably considered a classic.

 

I do not consider that film a classic. However, some of the combat scenes are good. The Omaha Beach scene is very impressive cinematically, and from what I have read it seems pretty accurate historically. Paul Fussell, a wartime platoon leader with the 103rd (Cactus) Division, thought so too. He suggested that the Omaha Beach scene should be shown as a separate short film entitled "Aren't You Glad you Weren't in World War II?" As I have mentioned before, I always showed that scene to my WWII class and it always got a strong reaction.

 

One Canadian veteran I spoke to said that in terms of accurately depicting combat all that beach scene was missing were the smells.

The Omaha scene likely saves that movie from being just ordinary and my cousin, a film producer, was unimpressed from a technical standpoint.

 

Watched it last night with the mind set of it being a war movie not a historical account of what happened - I didn't enjoy it at all.

 

may I refer you to Post #26

Pants

 

Sadly as expected it was a big disappointment.

The HA's were bloody useless - and Ayre's and co boasting how accurate it was, talking total hogswash.

 

I was amused by the square dancing tanks. But I have a question: Don't Tiger turrets rotate? I mean this wasn't a StuG.

 

Hrmm, watchable.
So in April 1945, you have a column of 300+ German SS etc, marching + singing down the middle of a road in broad daylight towards a strategic crossroads!
RAF,USAF,RCAF i think not.

Rob