This FURY scene is BAD & here is why
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ก.ค. 2024
- An Analysis of the Anti-Tank Scene in the movie Fury (2014), we look particularly at US and German tactics or better their absence.
Cover: Columbia Pictures, Sony Pictures
»» GET BOOKS & VIDEOS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Tank Assault - Combat Manual of the Soviet Tank Forces 1944 - stm44.com
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
» StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
» Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» TH-cam Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
»» SOURCES ««
FM 17-32, August 1942.
FM 17-10, March 1942.
H.Dv. 470/7: Panzer! Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
CAMO: F. 500 Op. 12480 D. 137: OKH, Ausbildungsabteilung: Ausbildungshinweis Nr. 14, 30. Oktober 1943.
Anti-Tank Scene: • Anti-Tank Gun Fight | ...
#fury #tank #ww2 #analysis #tactics
00:00 Intro
00:31 The Good Things
00:54 What I will & won’t mention
01:40 Anti-Tank Gun Scene
02:35 Preparation for Anti-Tank Gun Scene
03:07 Description of Events
05:06 US “Tactics”
07:24 German “Tactics”
07:46 But the Germans were combat ineffective at this time…
09:41 But Dramatic Effect…
10:01 Corrected Scene
12:42 Intro Scene is also bonkers
14:17 Summary
Anti-Tank Scene: th-cam.com/video/2sfPo6QDgzk/w-d-xo.html
H.Dv. 470/7: Panzer! Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
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.
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
"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
"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.
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.
@@basilmcdonnell9807and… 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 . 😅
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).
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
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.
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 😂!
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.
@@MrJal67 He had Panzerfausts with him, but didn't use them first. The Germans mined a crossroads they were still using. The tank didn't blow sky-high, so they used an antipersonnel mine on a road. The SS were marching west on a road in broad daylight, and singing. They should have been hiding in the woods, or marching east. And no one, no one, no one is going to make a last stand when the war is nearly over.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"So I finally watched Fury"
I'm so sorry.
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.
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'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 TH-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 TH-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 TH-cam to have actual people look at something and make a valid judgement call is pretty dire at this stage. TH-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 TH-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
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.
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.
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 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.
The movie causes me fury
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.
Personally, I think Oddball is a far more competant tank commander than Wardaddy
Next you're going to tell me Kelly's Heroes is not an accurate representation of World War II... 😡
That would be going TOO far!
@@memonk11 A Bridge Too Far?
@@ianc8999 A bank too far...
Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves?
But it was fun at least!
Fury is a Parodie of a tank movie
lol I made a screenshot of that comment and sent it to some historians :)
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.
😝
That’s quite a bold and provocative title…almost like you want to ambush us…
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.
Just wait till you see hundreds of infantry try to attack one tank in the most idiotic action of foot soldiers in history.
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?
The movie causes me fury.
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.
"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 ...
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.
Womble has become a staple of this channel, and idk if he should be happy or insulted haha
14:30. 🤗🤗🤗🤗
"This FURY scene is bad"
You should probably be a bit more specific in the title because right now it describes every scene in the entire movie.
lol, you are butchering the movie more than I butcher the pronunciation of cities in Eastern Europe :D
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.
Finally someone decided to speak up and tell people why this scene is bad.
My problem with depicting the enemy as utterly incompetent is that we diminish the sacrifice of those that actually fought them.
Thy 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.
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
The last scene was what we as ten year olds played out in our heads in the back yard or bedroom!
😂
The main dramatic premise of the film is silly. A tank holding out alone, surrounded by infantry? Not for long.
So much wrong with Fury, and it starts with the opening crawl.
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.
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).
“You might think I’m late, but as historian I assure you I’m not “ brilliant humor. 😂
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
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)
Now I want to become an historian just to quote You next time someone tells me I'm late.
I'll give due credits in the bibliography too.
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!
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?
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.
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
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.
Next time, channel your inner "Critical Drinker"!
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.
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.
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".
Seems like hollywood didnt want people like us to watch this movie
It seems like Hollywood doesn't know what the fuck they are doing
Most people sadly go for loud bangs , blood and guts , far fetched heroics , explosions and cliched hard man sterotypes when they go to see war films . Accuracy . realism and historical facts take second place to them so that is why l've seen so many war films they fall below par or are just complete rubbish . That said the good and great ones of which there are quite a few stand out like diamonds in a field full of cow pats . The bad one's sadly far outnumber them .
@@clouddog2393 Every Brad Pitt WWII movie relies on audience enthusiasm to see Nazis die to carry the movie.
Then they shouldn't have made it a public release
Holywood knows we love fake, because If we wanted real tanks, we'd volunteered to ukraine
The reason why film-makers should take note of issues like this is that improper tactics destroy the suspension of disbelief that knowledgeable film watchers have. This is a tank film, it stars tanks, it shows tanks in battle. As a result, the film is likely to be watched by people who know stuff about war. Getting the clothing and vehicles right is essential - so no Leopard I's being presented as Tigers, no M60s being presented as Shermans, and so on.
Getting tactics right should be an essential part of the process. Had the film-makers consciously decided to use late-WW2 US tank tactics, it would have resulted in a major change to the script. But with a predetermined outcome, say the tank battle between 4 Shermans and 1 Tiger that leaves 3 shermans and 1 Tiger destroyed, knowledge and use of real tactics would've created a different battle, but a battle in which the main tank and its crew survive.
Example: Fury should've been the last tank in the column, and the Tiger should've destroyed the leading tank first. That is classic tactics. Brad Pitt then orders the Fury into fast reverse, and an AP shell from the Tiger hits the edge of the turret, causing a noticeable gouge mark. The two tanks in front of him desperately maneuver around and one of them is able to identify the location of the Tiger on the right hand side at the treeline. Fury then takes off behind a small cover - say hedgerows or a building - and heads towards the treeline to the Tiger's left. Another Sherman is destroyed, and the remaining sherman in the Tiger's line of fire fires and fails to penetrate the armor. At this point, the only vehicle moving is Fury. As it tries to escape, the 2nd last Sherman is destroyed by the Tiger. At this point Fury is located to the left of the Tiger and fires an AP shell into its engine. The German crew escape, and Fury moves up to completely destroy the Tiger. So there's what should've happened.
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.
When I saw the movie when it was first released, I was able to tolerate most of the movie. I figured it was just Hollywood hokum, but when the last scene with the Germans attacking the lone Sherman came on, it was too much.
You can get past the copyright by flipping the video and Tweaking the audio a little so the auto copyright checking system doesn't catch it.
Throw on the "Time and peace" music, or whatever that one is that is on every short these days...
"Captain the square heads have an anti-tank gun position ahead what should we do?"
"Call in the tanks and charge at the anti-tank guns straight ahead through open field"
*victory noises*
When I saw the movie, I thought to myself if they ever release it in Germany, they will have to say it is a comedy.
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.
Well, the answer is that they consult historians for the aesthetic accuracy but want nothing to do with them when it comes to script writing. I myself was very disappointed with this movie. Not because of the overall tone because I feel like that was appropriate for the horrors of war, but they simply had a story they wanted to tell and didn't care about if it made sense doctrinally or historically.
If you want a great World War II story that is extremely hard-hitting, but also remarkably accurate, just go watch Band of Brothers. You will immediately appreciate the difference.
Good video, I agree, the US attack makes no tactical sense, a frontal assault over an open field against an entrenched enemy. The tanks did not lay any white phosphorus / smoke, they did not flank, they did not use their mortars, they did not fire at range to suppress or soften the enemy. The German gun crews would have had that whole field in zeroed in. To me this was just a director flexing his camera. The one thing I got out of it, is that a tank is a terrifying weapon to infantry with no support.
Back when I used to play WW2OL, I would routinely do sorties with ATGs solo and rack up an average of 3-4 tank kills in a row simply by not being as completely smooth-brained as whoever wrote the battle scenes in Fury. You *never* fire at the front of a tank. You *always* wait in hiding for it to drive by and double-tap them in the flank; one in turret so it can't retaliate and then one in the engine to set it on fire.
The rear of the Tiger was *not* the weak point. It was the back-left, because the gas cap was thinner than the actual armor around it, and was thus easily penetrated (and explosive).
So we're not going to mention that in April 1945 the Allies had total air supremacy and ground attack aircraft ranged the battlefield at will?
probably
you should really comment on the last battle scene - a pile of smoking garbage
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
Don't get me started on the Tiger breaking cover scene and charging lighter, nimbler, faster Shermans.
I have "Fury" on DVD. I've never made it past 20 minutes.
Surprised you're willing to take on the army of fanboys with facts, they don't react good to those
It's because the movie was actually sponsored by world of tanks, and everyone knows that the best tactic is everyone run into each other and fist fight
a historian is never late nor is he early he arrives precisely when he means to .
@14:28 I kinda hope, Soviet Womble will make a reaction to this :]
The final battle in "Fury" did not make sense either. On discussion forums that I've read, the consensus among tank veterans is, if your tank is immobilized and you have no way to repair it, and a "goddamned SS batallion" is marching down the road where you are, hightail it out of there. You are massively outnumbered. The Germans have not spotted you yet, they are literally marching (on foot) towards a place of battle you did not even see on the way, they won't waste much energy chasing a 5-man tank crew down. As long as you remain unseen, you just might be able to escape
But because the script called for a "battle", then the common reply among them is:
-start shooting when they're still far from the tank, but visible enough that hits could be scored without wasting much ammunition, while they're still coming from a single point, the road. You are beyond the range of their panzerfausts, they haven't deployed their MG's properly yet, and that sniper is probably still chatting with another soldier at the back of the column.
-don't let them get close and surround the tank. The Americans did not know how the Germans would "inspect" a burning enemy tank. What if they were cautious and fired a panzerfaust on it first, then inspected later? Wardaddy and crew would have been cooked
-Fire your weapons beginning from the one with the longest effective range, the tank gun. The Germans are coming from a single point, not yet scattered around you. Let the shells wreak havoc and terror. HE, WP. Then the .50, then the .30s, and so on.
don't let them get close and surround the tank.
but that won't create the drama of Pitt shooting a German peeking through the tank hatch.
The lack of artillery and mortar support makes sense. The US infantry trapped in the field is definitely Danger Close for indirect fire. Basically they'd be taking a major risk of short rounds falling on them while they are stuck out in the open if not being in the blast radius of rounds hitting the Germans. That's probably the only thing that makes sense about the scene.
Another alternative to calling up armor to extract the infantry who are stuck in a field covered by AT guns would be to wait for nightfall and withdraw under the cover of darkness. Nobody has night vision and they could have crawled out. The Germans appeared to be making zero effort to push on them when the tanks got there.
If you couldn't make it past the first forty-five minutes, don't bother watching the rest of the film. Ever. It only gets worse from a tactical perspective. The movie goes from "dumb" to "dumber."
It's really disappointing because it had so much potential.
On one hand I can't wait for the rest of the series, the movie only goes down hill from here and it will give you a lot to talk about. On the other I wish you strength for the ordeal you have ahead of you!
My biggest gripe with that movie is they tried to make a WWII movie with Vietnam era vibes and characters.
Also the ideas that a US Tank would be out on the front with no support or infantry is pretty laughable.
The way they presented the US 'heroes' committing war atrocities did feel very Vietnam.
The us doctrine on tank separation was a minimum of 75 yards between tanks during the day and only close enough to see the rear marker lights at nights. I did view the original training film from the 1940s on periscope films .
Fury is terrible in basically all regards
The short answer about the failure to portray realistic tactics is that the film makers know nothing about tactics.
They dont know and ...they dont care. They just want good visuals.
Nah not really, David Ayer knew about tactics, but only British Normandy 1944 tactics. This shit makes zero sense in April 1945. You have Sherman tankers doing the most desperate and idiotic things that they didn't do in '45. But if these were British/Canadian/Polish tankers, it'd absolutely make sense, because the Battle for Caen showed us that things really did get that desperate, that Shermans really did just randomly blow up because they were all early dry ones, and that vital crossroads had to be fought to the last man.
There is a nice making-of-video for the movie on the yotube chanel of the Tank Museum Bovington because the Tiger and the namegiving Sherman tank were borrowed from the musem. The tanks were driven in real outdoor scences by staff members of the tank museum and the actors and other film crew got a basic training course. Therefore they should know it better
The last scene of the movie when the tank is surrounded by a waffen ss division on all sides and they proceed to possess no knowledge of how to take on a tank and then get wiped out
Don't care.
It's an entertaining Brad Pitt action flick set in WW2. Don't know why anyone would expect it to be historically accurate or even just tactically sound.
But I'm also a guy who didn't even make it 5 minutes into "All Quiet on the Western Front" (the newest one), because that guy was shooting a Gewehr 98 from prone, with the stock supported only by his nipple, and he didn't even flinch (and the rifle didn't recoil, because they weren't even trying to pretend to actually shoot it).
So much for authenticity.
The film is typically American - as usual the 'heroes' end up fighting off overwhelming numbers of Germans who have all the tactical nous of Bluto's henchmen in a Popeye cartoon.
members of the SS didn´t bankroll this movie, thats all i´ll say
been saying this for years... thank you
From my understanding foot soldiers had a love hate relationship with the sherman. They loved it because it drew fire and they hated it because it drew fire to an area where soldiers were.
It seems like video game logic - open up with weak units first, bring in stronger units later, and have units attack one at a time.
For the German officer on horseback, it could be explained that it's April 1945. There are badly mauled German units all over the place, many of which are likely not cooperating very well with each other. Communications between units are breaking down so the only way to get messages back and forth is on horseback or foot. With the frontline as patchy as it was at that point in the West, a messenger stumbling into the remnants of a recent battle isn't that far fetched. A similar thing happened in the Ardennes when a German officer on a horse rode straight into an American patrol.
The German artillery might have only just received word that there was a tank battle lost in that sector and started to lob in shells to try to take out the victorious American survivors. They wouldn't know the officer was there.
Sure, but, again, these are all things that could have been explained with a line of dialogue. They weren't, because Ayers didn't bother to do his homework, as usual, and so all these issues were never even considered.
@@michaelccozens What dialogue exactly? Unless you want the officer on horseback talking to himself at the start of the movie.
It's also kinda weird debating realism when real life troops mostly defy their standing doctrines in some campaigns. The Battle for Dompaire with how incompetent the German tankers were and the initial clashes on June 7th with the Sherbrooke Fusiliers getting their shit kicked in by 12th SS Panzer come to mind. The argument that because a scene makes no sense according to tactics falls apart when you take the real life experience into account.
1) Brad Pitt is portrayed as an effective, experienced and competent commander.
2) The German unit was in position, dug in and knew the terrain etc. If it was attacking/counterattacking that would make far more sense, but they were sitting in a fine position, saw everything, had engaged an enemy there before etc.
The 106th Panzerbrigade did a counter attack. The Sherbrooke Fusiliers also attacked. Attacks are far harder to pull off.
I see your point, but very different circumstances.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Thanks for the quick reply. I think more of what I was going for is that in the accounts of WW2 we do have, a lot of units do very stupid things even regardless of the difficulty of the thing being performed.
I think the real problem is that because we are seeing this through the eyes of a moviegoer, we expect everything to be absolutely on point. I think everybody would roll their eyes if you made a movie about the Battle of La Gleize for example, a good example of a German defensive battle, where tanks of Peiper just sat there and took the punishment from TF Lovelady, when doctrine would have prescribed a counterattack to exploit the Americans still being on the road to Roanne Coo. Personally, I think this is a difference between the intuitive sense of tactics that most people have, and what can happen during war.
Also, I'm not sure if you saw the other comment, so I'll just say it here for safekeeping: Fury's problem is that it tries to use Normandy 1944 anecdotes, when British/Canadian/Polish tankers were still figuring things out, for the April '45 setting, where Wardaddy should absolutely know what he's doing.
The issue is with counter attacks is that one has to take the initiative and the Germans particularly in the west got regularly pounded by artillery in counterattacks. th-cam.com/video/mElnH-U9Q0w/w-d-xo.html
In Band of Brothers there are plenty of examples with blunders, e.g., the one were Speirs is called in, but those are explained, the other commander froze. In Fury, there is no explanation given for the errors etc.
If Brad Pitt would have been portrayed as a glory hound that was reckless or if he was not informed about the AT guns, etc. that would have made more sense. Yes, errors happen all the time, but generally, there is an explanation why people acted that way and two simple ones are emotions or ego.
My main issue is with the logical inconsistency in the movie itself. The scene alone without context is far less jarring, but with all the additional information: briefing, etc.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Oh yeah, you're exactly right. I absolutely think this is a thing that the movie suffers from incredibly because of deleted scenes. In one scene that they cut, Brad Pitt explains that he was a convict sent to Tunisia '43 for a drunk driving car crash, and basically says things to the effect of "I really want to die" which explains the suicidal tendency in his tactics. The movie cut that for time, and holy crap, did it lose so much for it.
I love that Sovietwomble is the archetype image for soldiers with no tactical sense
The Tiger "Ambush" scene is just Ridiculous and Hilarious at the same time.