Fury (film) [Boxed spoilers]

Haven’t seen a thread yet.

Saw it yesterday. Pretty intense.

Not the kind of film you show to troops before combat. Any romantic notions about the glories of combat will vanish after viewing this. (I fear than anyone that has actually been in tank combat will say the movie sanitized it!)

I read the summations of several reviewers, and they seem to fault the film for not making some grand statement about War. Why does it have to? Can’t it just be a plain ol’ war film? For every Statement film (Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket) there’s a ton of just good war films. Of which this was one.

My wife, upon seeing the trailer, predicted two ways the movie would end.

Brad Pitt lives, the kid dies, or, the kid lives, and Brad Pitt dies

It was the latter

I give the movie credit for avoiding one cliche. When the scout runs back and says that German troops are coming, and he is asked how many, he does not say “all of them.”:slight_smile:

One thing that seemed a bit excessive, the gunfire used tracer rounds, so you could follow the action (and, of course, so the gunners knew where they were shooting), but I suspect the rounds were enhanced, because the battles made me think I was watching Star Wars, with blaster bolts flying everywhere. They even left red glowing holes in the bodies.

There was a one-on-one tank battle between a Sherman and a Tiger that seemed like Battlezone. One tank maneuvering to get the best shot, with the other trying to turn fast enough to avoid getting shot. But, at least Battlezone, after you destroy a tank,

the crew doesn’t come out on fire, and then shoot themselves in the head .


Good movie. I don’t think my comments will actually have spoilers, so no boxes here.

I thought the combat scenes were gorgeous (and disturbing). That said, I’m not sure that the dining room scene helped the movie. It seemed that maybe something was left on the cutting room floor that would have helped explain the rest of the crew’s behavior a little more.

Regarding tracers in dead bodies, I don’t remember that, but I do remember German soldiers coming out of a building with white phosphorus burning itself into their bodies. This was after a white phosphorus (Pitt called for a “Willy Pete” round) was fired into the building.

The battle against the Tiger was at least accurate in that the Sherman tanks were very badly outgunned. About their only hope was a shot into the rear armor of the Tiger.

I enjoyed it.
I agree that the dining room scene was unneeded exposition, since (for all we knew) the soldiers acting like animals might have always been that way.

I thought that for the first time in his career Shia LaBeouf did a good job. Until this movie, he’s been a crap actor.

Not having been a tanker, I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the fighting scenes, although it didn’t seem loud enough in the tank, especially when they get hit…

The tracer ‘blaster burns’ showed up in the night battle, and it was subtle. I figure they were saying the tracers ignited the clothing at the entry hole, and they were burning very slightly. (I missed the WP line.)

I agree about the dining room scene. Perhaps a bit heavy handed? Pitt trying to retain his humanity, while his crew (who he knows intimately) are apparently losing theirs, and wanting to doing something to the owners? Why would they all of a sudden behave like animals? That scene was almost as tense as the farmhouse scene that opened* Inglourious Basterds.*

And then what happened to the dining room afterwards? What was that about? “War is hell”? “Grow up, Norman”?

I thought it was a good movie. Personally I’ve never seen a war movie that featured tanks so prominently, so that was cool.

The dinner scene was puzzling and took away a lot of momentum.

I wonder if this will get many award nominations. I could see an acting nod for Pitt, but I doubt it will get a Best Picture nod.

Haven’t seen it, and probably won’t until it’s out on cable, but what they were probably trying to display was that the Tiger had heavier frontal armor and a bigger gun, but was slower and couldn’t traverse the turret as fast as a M4 Sherman.

Based on the commercials, “Fury” was a M4A3E8 with a 76mm gun, which would actually penetrate the Tiger frontal armor inside of between 400 and 600 meters, depending on where the rounds hit. The Tiger’s 88mm gun would likely have penetrated almost anywhere on the M4 inside of 2000 meters, considering that it only has 76mm of armor at the most. The Tiger had roughly a max traversal speed of 360 degrees / 1 minute, while the Sherman could swing all the way around in about 15 seconds. Strangely, based on what I can find, they were roughly the same in hp/weight and max speed, although the ground pressure of the Tiger was certainly much higher.

So basically the goal of the American tank was to get behind or beside the Tiger before it could swing the gun around or pivot in place fast enough to fire on the US tank.

Spoilerish post:
The battle originally started 3 Shermans on 1 Tiger, in an open field. The three Shermans were advancing on the one Tiger, crossing open ground at speed. The Tiger took out two of the Shermans. The Sherman ammo was seen bouncing off the Tiger armor. The third Sherman, Pitt’s, made it in close enough to get aside the Tiger. They were jockeying for position - Pitt was trying to get behind the Tiger before the Tiger could traverse his turret. It was like two gunfighters drawing simultaneously - who would be in position first, and would the shot hit? If you fired too early, you’d take return fire before you could reload.

Saw it last night. Pretty good movie.

Regarding tracers, I don’t think tracers are all that visible from downrange. I hope they’re not, because they’d give away your position. In the movie sometimes we were seeing them from downrange. It just helped us to see the fields of gire. An artificiality, but it was helpful. I’ve only seen tracers from the firing position, and they were red. You load approx 1 tracer round for every 5-7 regular rounds to save on costs.

Regarding WP, it was used at least twice that I remember.

I thought it was originally 4 Shermans?

Murphy’s Law states that tracers work both ways. They do.

If tracers are coming at you you probably won’t keep your head up to see where they are coming from. However if you are a bit away and can see where the tracers originate from, Fire for Effect.

They’re also well-nigh invisible in daylight. The one time I got to fire machine guns and what-not, the only way I knew we were firing tracers is that every 6th bullet had an orange tip, and that eventually the field downrange caught fire.

If I’m remembering correctly, the fourth got blowed up by the kid soldiers while they were going down the tree lined road, before the battle. I think it had the Lt.

Though that could have been earlier, and I’m confusing two different scenes. There’s a lot of battlefield confusion.:slight_smile:

Research is being done into tracers are only visible from behind.
(But, that’s a topic for another thread…)

Agree with just about everything above. Historically, the movie was quite accurate, which I greatly appreciate in a war flick. It’s usually an anachronism to see black GIs in WWII combat units, but at that point in the war, casualties had been so high and replacements coming in so slowly that they were pulled from support duties (e.g., the Redball Express) and put in the front lines alongside whites. From what I’ve read, Patton was glad to have them.

Pitt’s tankers, aside from being a stereotypical Latino and Southern white trash, were drunk and horny after taking the town, which is why they acted so badly at the dinner table. I thought that whole scene was pretty predictable; I knew Emma was not long for this world the moment she appeared on screen. (I was waiting for some incoming artillery to hit even before dinner was over.)

The GIs’ disdain for German civilians was also quite accurate. From what I’ve read, evicting the residents of a house so they could use it as a billet, and then taking whatever “souvenirs” caught their eye, was common. Incidents of rape by GIs, however, were not (it was seldom required).

Summary execution of SS officers, NSDAP officials, and the like also occurred much more often than most Americans realize, as did “failure” to take prisoners.

A few other things I noticed:

The vegetation was pretty lush for Central Europe in April, especially after one of the coldest winters in memory.

Pitt should have known better than to throw all four Shermans against a Tiger in a frontal assault. They were also way too close together. A flanking maneuver with lots more smoke would have been better than a cavalry charge across an open field.

Pitt, et al., kept saying “Copy?” when they were talking over the radio. Is this historically accurate? I’ve always thought “Do you read?” was the term they used in the '40s. I’ve never heard “Copy?” in any of the movies from that era, though it’s common in ones about Vietnam.

terentii - what the heck do you mean by this: " Incidents of rape by GIs, however, were not (it was seldom required)." ???

He is implying that the German women were willingly prostituting themselves to the American forces. I think we’re going to need a cite for that. I’m sure rape was way more common than we are willing to admit (if not as bad as on the Eastern Front).

I saw the movie today. It was just okay. Like the others have said, the rape/dinner scene was awkward, too long, and frankly, a total cop out. Sure, they fall in love and have sex within five bars of New Guy playing on the piano. Or Brad Pitt will rape her. Either make it realistic or not. I feel like they tried to make it edgy but still Hollywood sanitized and ended up with something that feels grosser than going with either option by itself.

Also, the end battle was pretty lame. You’re telling me that a tank is surrounded by Germans and no one thinks to go around the back and shoot Brad Pitt in the butt? Also, if I’m a German soldier who just saw 100 or so of my buddies wiped out by a single tank crew, I’m not going to keep quiet when I see a survivor crawling around.

Question: How many operational Shermans still exist? Were they CGI in the movie? (haven’t seen it)

From IMDB:

Also appearing: the only Tiger I still in running condition, from the Bovington (UK) Tank museum. Previous films featuring Tigers, such as Kelly’s Heroes and Saving Private Ryan used, I believe, cosmetically altered T-34s.

I also noticed at least two M8 Greyhound armored cars and what appeared to be an authentic German half-track.

Re the film itself, I thought it was very good at putting across the lives and risks of tankers, if not necessarily being all that accurate regarding tactics (I don’t claim to be an expert so I’ll leave it at that). Regarding the general atmosphere, it jibed rather well with my Dad’s (infantry) experiences in roughly the same time and place (although if he had lunch and a shag with any frauleins, he never mentioned it). The plot paralleled SPR rather too closely, IMO so it was rather more predictable than I’d like and, well, I already knew war is Hell; this film didn’t really seem to have much more to say than that.

Yes, to both. In Band of Brothers, Ambrose says that rape by GIs seldom happened, though I’m sure it did on occasion (as it would in any other time or place). With the Americans loaded with things like chocolate, nylons, and cigarettes, I’m also sure a lot of German women more or less willingly prostituted themselves, a great many (from what I’ve heard and read) in the hope that they might become war brides.

The situation was way different from the one on the Eastern Front, where indiscriminate rape and murder were acts of vengeance committed on a terrified population.

There’s one other thing I have a question about: The infantry captain was wearing a fleece-lined parka that did not look GI. It seemed to me it was the wrong shade of green, and it had odd-looking patches on the sleeves: rectangles with three horizontal blue bars. Was this American? British? Canadian? German?

Plus, if I had been in command of that SS battalion, I’d have been one helluva lot more cautious approaching an American tank with all of its guns pointing down the road at me, even one that looked as though it had been knocked out. That officer should have held his column way back and sent out a squad of infantry under cover to check it out before getting any closer.