PDA

View Full Version : New WWII Film 'Fury' Features Last Working Tiger



Nickdfresh
10-14-2014, 08:32 PM
'Fury' Film Features Last Working WWII Tiger Tank
LiveScience.com
By Tanya Lewis, Staff Writer 11 hours ago

7203
The original Tiger 131, the world's last working Tiger I tank

The upcoming World War II film "Fury" puts tank warfare front and center in a depiction of the final Allied push into Germany in 1945.

In the movie, a U.S. Army sergeant (played by Brad Pitt) commands a medium-size Sherman tank in battle against a Nazi force with superior firepower, including a well-equipped Tiger I heavy tank. The film, which opens in theaters nationwide on Friday (Oct. 17), features the last working Tiger tank in the world.

The Sherman tank (officially called the Medium Tank, M4) was the most widely deployed tank in World War II. The workhorse vehicle was used by the U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps and the British, Canadian and Free French forces, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Designed and built in the United States, a total of 49,324 Sherman tanks were made between 1942 and 1946. [7 Technologies That Transformed Warfare]

The M4 was a reliable tank, but the German Tiger heavy tanks outclassed it. The Tiger I (officially known as Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger Ausf. H) was deployed on all German fronts during WWII. The formidable tank weighed 50 tons (54 metric tons) and was heavily armored. About 1,350Tiger tanks were produced in total, between August 1942 and August 1944.

During a scene in "Fury," four M4 tanks go head-to-head with one Tiger I, and only one M4 survives the fight.

An M4 Sherman like the one featured in the film could penetrate the upper frontal hull of a Tiger 1 from between about 1,600 and 3,300 feet (500 meters and 1000 m), while the Tiger could knock out an M4 from the front at about 2,600 feet (800 m), according to a Tiger crew instruction manual.

Both tanks used in the film the Sherman M4E8 and the Tiger 131 are real, and belong to the Tank Museum in Bovington, England.

The Tiger 131 was built in Kassel, Germany, in February 1943 and was shipped to Tunisia to join the 504th German heavy tank battalion, according to the Tank Museum's website. On April 21, 1943, the Tiger was taken out of action by a Churchill tank of the British 48th Royal Tank Regiment, and was captured and repaired. On Sept. 25, 1951, the Tiger was given to the Tank Museum.

The Tiger was "one of [the] most feared weapons unleashed by the Nazis," capable of destroying an enemy tank from more than 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) away, Richard Smith, the Tank Museum's director, told the BBC.

Yet despite its ferocity, the Tiger wasn't invincible. Its tracks would freeze up with mud and snow in the winter, which Russian forces used to their advantage in battle. The tanks engines' were underpowered, making them difficult to drive. The tanks also faced problems because of their large size. Since few bridges could handle the Tiger's weight, the first version contained a snorkel that allowed the tanks to cross rivers up to 13 feet (4 m) deep, but later versions lacked this feature, according to the History Learning Site.

LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/fury-film-features-last-working-wwii-tiger-tank-133737596.html)

Kilroy
10-15-2014, 11:49 AM
Aw that's why I have high hopes for this movie, I feel they have done so many things the correct way including the tactic with the four M4 Shermans and the many other things. The actors seems like they make a decent fit to their roles, so I am totally going to see it this Friday. Really Hyped about this! (kind of hoping it will the Saving Pvt. Ryan of this decade. in wise of popularity)

Churchill
10-15-2014, 02:20 PM
World of Tanks has been pushing this movie out for a couple months now. Their even introducing a premium E8 "Fury" tank. I'll probably go see it, but I'm skeptical about many things.

tankgeezer
10-15-2014, 07:45 PM
I'm planning on seeing it, I just hope that they really do a good job on it, and keep the "Hollywood" to a minimum, and pay close attention to details. (though I believe that WOT would do a better job than Hollywood) :mrgreen:

JR*
10-17-2014, 06:26 AM
I always reserve judgment on movies like this until I see them - but this one sounds interesting, and I look forward to seeing it. Given the presence of Brad Pitt and co. I would not be too hopeful about "Hollywood" being absent, but I can tolerate a bit of it.

Interesting, the comment about four Shermans facing a Tiger, but only one surviving. I recall that the Allied experts worked out a cold-hearted calculation that suggested exactly this ratio. The idea was that Sherman #4 would get behind the Tiger and "hit 'em up the ***", that is to say, at its weakest point. Taking on a Tiger in the open would have been a very bad idea even for improved-firepower versions like the "Firefly". Also, I recall seeing a number of interviews with veteran Allied and German tankers, recorded in the 1980s and '90s. The Allied veterans recalled taking no encouragement, at least personally, from the fact that destroyed Shermans could be replaced much more quickly than Tigers, since they would in many cases end up being destroyed along with the replaceable Shermans. The German veterans were quite open about the Tiger's drawbacks - mechanical unreliability, heavy fuel consumption, poor deployability, and so on. Asked the direct question, "which of the two, Tiger or Sherman, would you have preferred to be in in Normandy", both groups opted unanimously for the Tiger. Best regards, JR.

JR*
10-17-2014, 06:29 AM
Note that the Netnanny on this site dislikes the word "***". This could be a problem if anybody wants to talk about less members of the equine order ... Not really kidding, JR.

tankgeezer
10-17-2014, 03:39 PM
I went to see this movie today, and while there is more Hollywood in it than I care for, it is certainly worth seeing. The movie has some warts, and couple large ones at that. But, don't let this stop you from seeing the movie, its well worth your time.
Normally when I go to the movie house, there is some background jabber by attendees, with this film all was quiet. visually, very well presented, good authentic mud everywhere. (A universal truth when Tanks are involved. ) Go see it. (don't take your girlfriends though, unless they are big fans of Sam Peckinpah ) One spoiler,,, the Allies win. :mrgreen:

Churchill
10-18-2014, 01:38 AM
I just saw it and thought that it was pretty good. In all honesty though, for the feats that the E8 accomplished they should have been in an E2...

tankgeezer
10-18-2014, 09:29 AM
[QUOTE=JR*;193296]Note that the Netnanny on this site dislikes the word "***". This could be a problem if anybody wants to talk about less members of the equine order ... Not really kidding, JR.[/QUOTE
Use spaces between the letters, and it will accept them, or judiciously placed asterisks. I had similar trouble when posting about a local Civil War Fort Named ****erson, (D i c kerson.)

tankgeezer
10-18-2014, 03:16 PM
I just saw it and thought that it was pretty good. In all honesty though, for the feats that the E8 accomplished they should have been in an E2...
I would agree, the Jumbo would have been better as long as it had been upgraded with the 76.2mm gun. It would have been little trouble to Hollywood the E8 into a Jumbo. (unless this story is based on actual experiences by members of an actual unit.) The one problem with it is that there were so few Jumbo's produced. (256 IIRC) Even rarer than the Tiger I they encountered in the movie. Even being a much tougher target, the Jumbo was not impossible to stop, Cobra King of Bastogne fame, was damaged beyond salvage sometime after its Historic action. A combination of fire, and shell damage.

Churchill
10-18-2014, 04:22 PM
True. But for the purposes of the amount of damage taken versus the amount of armor, the E8 would have been toasty bits halfway through the movie...

Also, a couple of other things that bothered me: In the middle of the final firefight the tank gets hit with a panzerfaust yet doesn't explode, unlike the first tank to explode in the movie. And the AT guns covering the field were completely useless because reasons. Oh yeah, and Hollywood Time(tm) is a bit excessive.

tankgeezer
10-18-2014, 05:25 PM
Those were some of the Warts I spoke of, a lot of convenience is exercised in this film. I had some issues with the fight between Fury, and the Tiger, the 76.2 mm gun was capable of much greater damage against the Tiger, and did not in fact need to be altogether behind it to get a shot through. There are many more warts, but keeping spoilers to a minimum, I won't yet reveal any more of them yet.

Kilroy
10-20-2014, 09:49 AM
I saw the movie on Friday. I feel that there was a lot of things they did wrong but at the same time they did right. I like it so don't let any of our opinions stop you for seeing the movie. Though the only thing that bugged me is two things; when the final fight occurred it went to evening to black as a cat night in like 20 secs and the fact that you can see Germans moving around the tank but no shooting from behind. Hopeful I didn't give to much out.

flamethrowerguy
10-20-2014, 12:58 PM
I learned that the movie will come to German cinemas not earlier than January 1, 2015. So I just read about the plot...sounds like regular Hollywood stuff to me...

tankgeezer
10-20-2014, 01:37 PM
Despite the goofs in it, it is a good film, and anyone will find it worth their time, and coin to see it. If you like Sam Peckinpah style movies, (Cross of Iron for instance ) you will like this one. Very realistic, even more so than Peckinpah. Brad Pitt does an excellent job acting, and for the most part he gets lost in the character. I will point out the goofs via PM if someone wants to know, but not here,, no spoilers. (except that the Allies win) :mrgreen:

PS, I would support this film if for no other reason than they felt it important to spend the time, and money to use the genuine Tiger Tank, as well as all of the other real equipment when making it. Though some authenticity is sacrificed to convenience, at least we can see the real things all muddy, and doing something, rather than just sitting all prim, and proper in a display.

forager
10-28-2014, 07:09 PM
Stupid premise sitting there in a disabled tank.

Have not seen it, but if time allowed, a real crew would have fixed the track or simply bugged out.
The war was fini. Nothing to be accomplished being a martyr.
That is an early model Tiger and quite a bit different than a late war version.

The Brits spent a ton of money restoring it. There were some interesting pictorials on that.

Ardee
10-28-2014, 08:59 PM
Saw it this weekend. Combat realism was not, in my opinion, a high priority: e.g., soldiers armed with a panzerfaust close to about 20-30 feet to fire the weapon from the middle of a road, rather than firing it from 30 meters away safely in the brush. Another brilliant tactic: let's leave the extra ammo for the hull MG outside the tank! Plot developments were often predictable. Still, the movie was enjoyable if you just went with it.

While not discounting the possibility of a field mount, I was wondering about the M4 having both a .30 and .50 AA MG on the turret top. Has that any basis in reality (especially in April '45, when the Luftwaffe was such a "frequent" visitor to the skies)? I scrolled through a lot of pictures, and didn't see a single tank so well supplied.

tankgeezer
10-29-2014, 12:16 AM
Stupid premise sitting there in a disabled tank.

Have not seen it, but if time allowed, a real crew would have fixed the track or simply bugged out.
The war was fini. Nothing to be accomplished being a martyr.
That is an early model Tiger and quite a bit different than a late war version.

The Brits spent a ton of money restoring it. There were some interesting pictorials on that.
There were reasons for the crew not leaving, but no spoilers, so you'll have to see it. It is worth seeing, despite the screw-ups.

JR*
10-29-2014, 08:44 AM
Just had a look at the Bovington Tank Museum website. They are making great play of the advantages of lending Tiger 131 to the producers of "Fury" - and why not ? Bovington is already a huge museum attraction (in spite of its location in remote Dorset), and this can only promote its educational and tourism attraction.

As regards the movie - I have not seen it yet, and still look forward to doing so. However ... the movie scenario posted on the Bovington Museum's main site is hardly promising - looks a lot more improbable (to say the least) than that of "Cross of Iron" -

"In the film, it is April, 1945. As the Allies make their final push in the European Theatre, a battle-hardened army sergeant named Wardaddy (Brad Pitt) commands a Sherman tank and her five-man crew on a deadly mission behind enemy lines. Outnumbered and outgunned, Wardaddy and his men face overwhelming odds in their heroic attempts to strike at the heart of Nazi Germany. The film is written and directed by David Ayer and produced by Bill Block, David Ayer, John Lesher, and Ethan Smith.".

Well, it should still be interesting. Best regards, JR. PS - for anyone who has not done so, a look at www.tiger-tank.com (the Bovington project website for the restoration of Tiger 131) is very, very well worth a look. Best regards, JR.

Kilroy
10-29-2014, 09:59 AM
Though they really hated the SS. I don't think in reality they would of stayed in the tank and even before that, when facing the tiger; they should have turned back and told them "hey the other 3 Sherman tanks were knocked out we can't hold the point. They would have sent some infantry I bet along with fury if they went back. Just a opinion, I though of while talking to some other guys about the movie. I feel as if they did really good at the beginning but towards the end it kind of went a like downhill. Still really flipped good mates!

namvet
10-31-2014, 02:00 PM
im going to see it if i have to go alone

tankgeezer
10-31-2014, 09:14 PM
It's definitely not a chick flick, solo may be your best bet.

gott m1t uns
11-28-2014, 11:13 PM
Another American wwII EGO movie.

Really? One Sherman tank took out a tiger? America wins, germans look like fools. Spoken to many europeans, are sick of it really, so am I.

Next, in 50 years time they will say it took 5 tigers too take out a Sherman tank: thats how the Americans role.

I used to post here under vonss but i can no longer remember my password and my old email address is gone.

tankgeezer
11-29-2014, 12:59 AM
When the one (remaining) Sherman Easy 8 which had the much higher velocity 76.2 mm gun engages a Tiger I as portrayed in the movie, it can knock the Tiger out, that's a simple truth. As is the fact that the Allies did win. (just to refresh your memory) Agreeing that it's not by any means a perfect documentary of the times, and actions depicted, it is still well worth the time to see.
Should you wish to communicate your critique to the Film's Production Company, please utilize the following Link. INFO@QEDINTL.COM

gott m1t uns
11-29-2014, 02:37 PM
When three out of four shermans are knocked out immedaility, and one sherman survives the whole battle against a tiger and a whole SS unit, its pure hollywood american EGO fantacy!

tankgeezer
11-29-2014, 03:00 PM
No sittin' on the fence now,,, how do you really feel? As to Third Reich military looking like fools, from the movies I have seen concerning them, Fool could be considered kind of a warm, and fuzzy description compared with those of most all Topical movies not produced by the Reich itself. Just curious, what are they getting for a ticket these days in Oz ? Here in the Tennessee Mountains, it's 8 usd.

Nickdfresh
11-29-2014, 04:28 PM
Another American wwII EGO movie.

Really? One Sherman tank took out a tiger? America wins, germans look like fools. Spoken to many europeans, are sick of it really, so am I.

Next, in 50 years time they will say it took 5 tigers too take out a Sherman tank: thats how the Americans role.

I used to post here under vonss but i can no longer remember my password and my old email address is gone.

It happened several times, most notably with Firefly Shermans mounting 17-pdr's. They sent good old Wittman to Valhalla...

And the truth is the actual kill ratio of Allied tanks to German panzers was about 2:1 in Normandy, not 5:1. There weren't enough Shermans to fill that sort of mythical ratio and many tanks on both sides were lost to much lesser sexy means such as antitank mines, infantry with antitank weapons, antitank guns, etc. I wonder if you have problem with the American, Hollywood myth that it took aircraft to knock out Tigers, as in the end of Saving Private Ryan? In fact, only 6% of German tanks were knocked out by Western Allied air power...

tankgeezer
11-29-2014, 05:57 PM
The thing I found difficult to believe in the Tiger Vs. Fury scene, was that a second shot was needed to finish the Tiger, and that it had to be from the back. According to a work by R.P. Hunnicutt 1978, the 76.2 mm gun of the Easy 8 could at 500 yards penetrate 146mm of armor, and at 1,000 yards 127 mm (30 degrees off vertical) At the distance indicated in the dueling scene, 10-15 yards maybe? the Fury could have engaged from any side successfully. One further thought, the way the story played out, it bore a passing resemblance to the western film Magnificent 7 .

gott m1t uns
12-01-2014, 04:22 AM
It happened several times, most notably with Firefly Shermans mounting 17-pdr's. They sent good old Wittman to Valhalla...

And the truth is the actual kill ratio of Allied tanks to German panzers was about 2:1 in Normandy, not 5:1. There weren't enough Shermans to fill that sort of mythical ratio and many tanks on both sides were lost to much lesser sexy means such as antitank mines, infantry with antitank weapons, antitank guns, etc. I wonder if you have problem with the American, Hollywood myth that it took aircraft to knock out Tigers, as in the end of Saving Private Ryan? In fact, only 6% of German tanks were knocked out by Western Allied air power...

Wittmann destroyed so much before the brits got lucky... Very lucky!

No, why would I have a problem with that? That actually happened in WWII ie... Tigers being knocked out by air support.

Nearly all american wwii movies is not based on facts but for american egos! Fury is no exception!

Please guide me to the thread of "What army/ soldiers were best in WWII"....I know this forum has one, all wwii forums have this thread. The search isn't finding certain thread?

gott m1t uns
12-01-2014, 04:24 AM
The thing I found difficult to believe in the Tiger Vs. Fury scene, was that a second shot was needed to finish the Tiger, and that it had to be from the back. According to a work by R.P. Hunnicutt 1978, the 76.2 mm gun of the Easy 8 could at 500 yards penetrate 146mm of armor, and at 1,000 yards 127 mm (30 degrees off vertical) At the distance indicated in the dueling scene, 10-15 yards maybe? the Fury could have engaged from any side successfully. One further thought, the way the story played out, it bore a passing resemblance to the western film Magnificent 7 .



American wishful thinking.

Only air-strikes could take out the tigers...Unless an allied tank got very lucky!

tankgeezer
12-01-2014, 09:29 AM
That is your opinion,(to which you are certainly entitled) and as Nick said, History does not share it. Though it doubtless does not please your misplaced awe of the Reich to point this out, the easy 8's main gun had enough power to hole a Tiger with one hit, particularly from the flank, and especially from the back. At the initial engagement distance of 800 yds, a hit penetrating the frontal armor would not have been impossible, just not as likely. From the side, one hit would have ended the game for the Tiger, efficient, but not very spectacular. As far as watching a movie wherein the Germans do not lose, it'll have to be a movie about a war which they did not start, or participate in. I would recommend "Iron Sky" but it seems that they lose in that one as well. (but it's funny in spots, so you might like it anyway).

Churchill
03-04-2015, 04:47 PM
I know that this topic hasn't been used in a while, but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqMXJF13q7g

tankgeezer
03-04-2015, 05:11 PM
Actually much more interesting than Fury, and just a tad more accurate, and believable. And as always, the Germans lose. :mrgreen: Very enjoyable Churchill..

Churchill
03-04-2015, 07:48 PM
That guy's videos are pretty good, a nice mix of stop motion and real-time video.

leccy
03-05-2015, 04:09 PM
American wishful thinking.

Only air-strikes could take out the tigers...Unless an allied tank got very lucky!

Old and banned but don't you just love these wehberoo's

Who needs the 76mm -

The first Tigers to be knocked out by the Western allies were with humble 6 pdrs - penetrations starting at 800yds to turret in Tunisia Jan 1943, later others fell to Churchills with 6 pdrs of 48 RTR and NiH with more knocked out by med and heavy artillery (In Tunisia). The 6 pdrs only had the standard APCBC as well, 48 RTR went on to knock out the first Panthers by the Western allies in May 1944 in Italy - still with those same 6pdr gunned Churchies and no fancy APDS.

Nickdfresh
03-05-2015, 06:44 PM
Right, what Leccy said. I would add that after extensive study only about I think 6% of German armor knocked out could be attributed to air attack. It's just simply not easy to rocket a tank flying several hundred knots per hour despite enthusiastic pilot claims to the contrary. What should have been shown in Fury is the Shermans firing white phosphorous rounds blinding the Tiger before a grand flanking...

colmhain
03-16-2015, 07:05 PM
American wishful thinking.

Only air-strikes could take out the tigers...Unless an allied tank got very lucky!

7379
BTW, my turret was not blown by an airstrike.....

JR*
03-20-2015, 07:11 AM
Finally caught up with "Fury" on video a week ago. Interesting experience. I intend to watch it again soon. This movie is quite the "Curate's Egg" - good in parts. The scenario is a very familiar one - rookie joins hard-boiled crew, who eventually accept him. This scenario has featured in many war-type movies in the past. However, in my humble opinion, this was a superior version, connected with the great effort made by the producers at achieving a certain level of authenticity. This ran from the much-commented on good standard of accuracy in relation to equipment, vehicles, uniforms, weapons and so on to their effort to present the gritty, dirty, disgusting reality of the war for those fighting it. The amount of attention played to internal scenes in the lead tank is very unusual, and to a great extent revealing - although, nonetheless, it appeared slightly sanitized. As regards the acting - very good in my humble opinion, bearing in mind the obvious intention of showing soldiers who had spent a substantial period being battered, brutalized and reduced as broadly-focused human beings, relying for support on their small band of comrades. Brad Pitt's performance was particularly strong in this respect; this is one of his best performances for me.

Now for the weaknesses. I mentioned "scenario" earlier, because this movie has no coherent plot. It is hard to say at any given time what the crew are doing, beyond the fact that they are fighting. I have to say that I am not wholly sure that this is really a "weakness". The lack of any broad picture to place their activities in context seems to have been very common for soldiers at this level in WW2. Was presenting this also an intentional aim of the producers ? I would need to think about this further.

One very definite problem is the final section of the movie. Here, something resembling a plot kicks in from nowhere - not a good start. Worse, the whole situation presented is profoundly improbable - single tank sent off to protect non-combatant troops (who never appear) from nasty "elite" Waffen-SS unit threatening them. Where can I start ? So many improbabilities. The final battle is, in the manner of such things, entertaining, but is in itself riddled with improbabilities. One thing I would say - the matter of the crew's decision to hold on in their disabled tank is not wholly ridiculous. There are plenty examples of tank crew who held on in highly dangerous situations where they perceived that the situation required it. The problem here is that, within the ludicrous plot line guiding this part of the movie, this decision itself seems at least odd. But again, perhaps I misunderstand. The producers may have intended to present, not a rational decision to stand for a particular, rational reason, but rather a "last stand" scenario by soldiers so ... condensed by their experience of war that their only way our was collective self-immolation, even if this did not really make much sense at a time at which the war was about to end. Need to think further about this, also. Whatever is the case, it does not really excuse the generally ridiculous scenario/plot carrying this part of the movie.

This no "Longest Day", no "Cross of Iron", no "Saving Private Ryan", at least in dramatic terms. However, it is still a very interesting movie on a number of levels. It is quite possible to argue that from a psychological viewpoint, it is at least as interesting, and more realistic, than "Private Ryan" which leaves itself open to accusation of trite "Middle Mind" thinking. The technical merits of the movie are obvious and, as a general presentation of war from the viewpoint of the "grunt" level of soldier that did the actual fighting, I do find it definitely thought-provoking.

I shall certainly watch "Fury" again, soon. That, for me, is a compliment in itself. Best regards, JR.