[FarmboyBill]

I watched it tonight, 10 19. As was said, IT IS INTENSE. Any vets having trouble sleeping at night shouldn't go to see this.

I was disappointed at the end. Heres one tank out on patrol by itself told to go to a crossroads, and hold it. A mine blows a tread at the crossroads, and there stuck there. What I didn't understand is why, in april of 45, with the war all but over, and we with superior airpower, didn't have any plains in the air over this tank.

Nother thing. They showed a hundred of our planes leading contrails with a doz or so german planes going to face the, leading contrails. I didn't and don't think that WW 2 fighters left contrails.

I didn't know they had Willie P small arms rounds back then.

They showed our tank rounds bouncing off of the Panzer tanks, an d there rounds taking off the turret of ours.

Alaso, the tanks moved about as fast, OURS, as WW 1 tanks.

 

[hawgsquatch]

With the right humidity and air density at the right elevation any aircraft over 120 mph will leave a contrail, even helicopters.

Before radar and good radios planes were dispatched for specific missions. They did not loiter over areas for hypothetical air support.

White phosphorus was used to make incendiary rounds as early as WWI for shooting down blimps and hydrogen filled airships.

Panzers had ten inch armor on Panzers and our small Sherman rounds did indeed bounce off anything except a shot to the back engine compartment directly behind and below the turret. The guns on the Panzers and Tigers were three times as powerful and destroyed our tanks with even marginal hits.

The Sherman topped out at about 40 mph full tactical speed and could not maintain it for long because of inadequate cooling. It was also gas fueled instead of diesel like the Panzers and when hit even lightly they caught fire. The Brits called them "Tommy cookers" for a reason.

 

[FarmboyBill]

Good info, and I know that you are right about them using WP rounds in air combat in WW 1. Just never knew they made it available for infantry weapons.

 

[FarmboyBill]

I also didn't know anybody had night vision back then. A German sniper shoots Pitt 3 times at night.

 

[Shrek]

Bill,

As I am told so often, "its a movie and creative license is acceptable unless its a true documentary." Was it worth the $15 ticket an $8 popcorn?

 

[ace admirer]

there are instances of point plank M4 rounds bouncing off panzers. i think the ratio was 4 or 5 M4's to one panzer kill. the m4 that the british fitted with their gun were successful on a one to one ratio. the fireflys i think they were called.

The advantage the m4 had over panzers was that we could make many more of them. basically...

but even in a "true documentary" its as true as the writer, and others make it....

 

[FarmboyBill]

Jay, it was $14 for the ticket and a med pop/

Yeah, I know its Hollywood, but ive always got a kind of kick out of spotting and pointing out the discrepetances in a movie.

 

[FarmboyBill]

I think it came from the time when I was in HS when I knew that they didn't use 45s and Winchesters in the CW , and 45s in the 1860s out west. And that Winchester was the ONLY rifle used after 66

 

[Jolly]

I may be wrong, but "Fury" looks to me like an Easy 8 Sherman. The Tiger in the movie is the ONLY operational Tiger in the world.

The uniforms are exact copies, down to the stitching detail.

While the movie certainly has its flaws, it's worth the price of a ticket.

 

[FarmboyBill]

Being French german(I wonder how that happened lol)< I couldn't read the signs on the hanged people that one Bosch officer had put on them. Were they hung for collberation?

 

[Malamute]

I haven't seen it, but want to. I rarely go to the theaters to see movies.

The tank nerds and war nerds that I've seen comment on it have few real gripes, it was pretty well done overall, with less than average Hollywood-izing. The general consensus seemed to be it was more right than wrong, so they just enjoyed it and lived with the small details.

Not having seen it, I don't know about what they used as a scope at night, but ordinary rifle scopes give vastly better vision at night. I watch the deer in my yard in the evening and night. I can easily see them and could make a shot when iron sights are way past impossible to see, let alone whatever you may want to shoot at being impossible to see. I carry a scope rifle when walking at night in the winter in the full moon.

 

[hawgsquatch]

I just saw this movie and it was fantastic. Rarely do I see a film and not find myself picking it apart and getting insulted by the inaccuracies. I was impressed.

 

[Malamute]

Saw this about it today,

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/david-rae-kept-fury-authentic-59afc67ebf11

 

[FarmboyBill]

That was pretty good reading. I didn't understand you about the night sight.

Did you say you can see a target at night with a scope, or without one?

By the way. I was at my boys Cowboy Church last Fri to help them with their Halloween Hay ride. There were places set up way apart from each other and lighted with a fire. There were cowboys who scripted their own scenes as wagons of people went by, paused, watched the scene shootout and then as they were leaving someone on the trailer would speak scripture relating to the incident. In the one I was in, I drew cocked 6 times there bouts with no problem.

 

[FarmboyBill]

Just found out that the germans DID have night sight, both on tanks and for soldiers with auto rifles.

 

[Malamute]

That was pretty good reading. I didn't understand you about the night sight.

Did you say you can see a target at night with a scope, or without one?...

A regular scope sight will allow you to see better in the dark then you'd think, so long as theres a little bit of ambient light. Not as good as a true night vision scope, but vastly better than iron sights.

I can see the deer and the crosshairs at dusk and in moonlight, when I cant even SEE the deer or the sights with iron sights. Once true darkness comes, they don't work that well, but just a little light, and you can do quite a lot with them.