Fury: Brad Pitt commands a sherman tank in WW2

khorum

Murder Apologist
24,338
81,363

They actually brought a real Tiger I tank out of a museum to film duelling Brad Pitt's M4 Sherman. So it's either a really short movie or it has little bearing on reality.
 
196
1
Isn't this the movie where Shia Ladouche attempted to pull a Daniel Day Lewis and method act, effectively pissing off his costars to the point they kicked him off set? I remember hearing he went as far as to never shower and pulled out his own tooth in order to get a "feel" for what it was like in the proverbial trenches and instead came across as an asshole
 

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
Brad Pitt and the quest for the Golden Man.

Yea this is that movie, DDL he ain't
To be fair, a lot of people who worked with DDL, hated it and they said was a nut he was. The difference is just in success. DDL makes his co-stars suffer and then brings them awards; Ladouche makes them suffer and then makes their movies tank.
 

Pumpkin Thief

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
1,481
13,884
I'm all in on this. I have to wonder if the success of the World of Tanks game had any influence on this getting made.
 

Erronius

Macho Ma'am
<Gold Donor>
16,480
42,416
They actually brought a real Tiger I tank out of a museum to film duelling Brad Pitt's M4 Sherman. So it's either a really short movie or it has little bearing on reality.
As I haven't seen the movie yet (obviously) and all we have to go on is the last few seconds of that trailer, that scene might actually be one of the few way that a Sherman (or what looks like a M4A3E8) might have a chance against a Tiger. Many of the German tanks had issues with slow traverse speeds and the Shermans, depending on what types of ammo they were issued, might actually have had to close in to point blank range to have any chance at armor penetration on the major slopes and glacis anyways (not that the Tiger had much glacis armor design, but whatevs). Their best chance might actually have been to try getting a favorable shot to side/rear armor and that might be what is seen at the end of the trailer.

I have a book written by a WW2 vet from one of my old armor battalions and the author mentions in it that they often had to do similar with M3/M5s as they would never have had a prayer in a nose-to-nose slugging match with most tanks. As a result they would have to try flanking German positions and using their maneuverability to gain favorable shots (with their woefully inadequate 37mm, mind you). Of course I don't think they ever went up against Tigers, prob more early Pnzr IIIs and IVs, but still.
 

Kalaar kururuc

Grumpy old man
532
456
prob more early Pnzr IIIs and IVs, but still.
Yeah I watched one documentary where they said that everyone mentioned fighting Tigers but the fact was that there were not very many made (relatively) and most that were made fought on the eastern front, very few fought the western allies. Just everyone had heard of the Tiger and that's what they all thought had been fighting them. Look up Michael Wittmann for what a Tiger could do.

The real killer though was the 88 gun either as a stand alone piece or mounted to shit like the Jagdpanzer, but it wouldn't be much of a movie if 5 seconds in an 88 shell went through the Sherman's armour, from over a mile away, and killed everyone on board.
 

Cad

<Bronze Donator>
24,487
45,378
Yeah I watched one documentary where they said that everyone mentioned fighting Tigers but the fact was that there were not very many made (relatively) and most that were made fought on the eastern front, very few fought the western allies. Just everyone had heard of the Tiger and that's what they all thought had been fighting them. Look up Michael Wittmann for what a Tiger could do.

The real killer though was the 88 gun either as a stand alone piece or mounted to shit like the Jagdpanzer, but it wouldn't be much of a movie if 5 seconds in an 88 shell went through the Sherman's armour, from over a mile away, and killed everyone on board.
I wouldn't have wanted to be in a Sherman on the Western front just the same.
 

Chesire_sl

shitlord
331
1
The only way we can take a tiger is to pound in the ass - oddball from kelly's heroes

Mom was quite pissed when I relayed that information to her.

After the old man took me to a classic war movie marathon on the post one saturday .
 

Asshat Brando

Potato del Grande
<Banned>
5,346
-478
I'd have to dig out some old books for the figures but there were definitely more than just a handful of Tigers on the Western Front. Aside from the British Firefly which used the 17lb gun the Allies had nothing that could penetrate the frontal armor from basically any distance in theatre so aside from the swarming tactics it was just bombers that killed the majority of German tanks. The US had a 90mm gun capable of working which was used on the M26 Pershing but the head of the US Tank Doctrine believed that Shermans shouldn't fight other tanks and that should just be left to the TDs so he prevented their release to the ETO. Getting assigned to a Sherman crew was basically a death sentance is the long and short of it.
 

khorum

Murder Apologist
24,338
81,363
The only piece of equipment the sherman crew ever really needed was called the Republic P47 thunderbolt. Historically, most panzer crews died without a single sherman or allied armor in sight. Sherman crews definitely dreaded getting within sight of Panthers and Tigers, but the sight panzer commanders feared the most was a sunny day. P47s could carry HALF the bombload of a B17(wtf!) and generally raped shit up down and sideways if the weather allowed for any visibility.
 

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
71,717
213,030
looks like a military style haircut. dunno if its a 2014 style, but there is really only so many ways you can cut a man's hair without it being faggoty. movie looks good. character driven war drama centering around a ww2 tank, count me in.
 

Cad

<Bronze Donator>
24,487
45,378
The only piece of equipment the sherman crew ever really needed was called the Republic P47 thunderbolt. Historically, most panzer crews died without a single sherman or allied armor in sight. Sherman crews definitely dreaded getting within sight of Panthers and Tigers, but the sight panzer commanders feared the most was a sunny day. P47s could carry HALF the bombload of a B17(wtf!) and generally raped shit up down and sideways if the weather allowed for any visibility.
If there was any campaign in WWII where conditions were perfect for airpower to demonstrate its ability to kill armour, it was in Normandy in the summer of 1944. The Allies had air supremacy (which is much more then just air superiority) and during daylight hours they could attack any target at will, with the single proviso of avoiding very nasty concentrated Flak guns. They had thousands of some of the best and most powerful ground attack aircraft available in WWII. They had virtually unlimited supplies of ammunition, fuel and huge amount of logistical ground support. Air bases were in easy range, targets were concentrated in a small front line area, and the weather could not realistically have been better.

According to the RAF, the Hawker Typhoon was the most effective ground attack and tank killing aircraft in the world in 1944, which may have been true. No fewer than 26 RAF Squadrons were equipped with Typhoons by mid 1944. These aircraft operated round the clock during the Normandy campaign operating in 'cab rank' formations, literately flying above the target area in circles, waiting their turn to attack. Official RAF and USAF records claim the destruction of thousands of AFVs in Normandy. There are many examples such as:

During Operation Goodwood (18th to 21st July) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tanks, respectively, as destroyed. Of these, 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using RPs (Rocket Projectiles).(2)
During the German counterattack at Mortain (7th to 10th August) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed to have destroyed 140 and 112 tanks, respectively.(3)
On a single day in August 1944, the RAF Typhoon pilots claimed no less than 135 tanks as destroyed.(4)
So what really happened? Unfortunately for air force pilots, there is a small unit usually entitled Research and Analysis which enters a combat area once it is secured. This is and was common in most armies, and the British Army was no different. The job of The Office of Research and Analysis was to look at the results of the tactics and weapons employed during the battle in order to determine their effectiveness (with the objective of improving future tactics and weapons).

They found that the air force's claims did not match the reality at all. In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs (less than 3% of those claimed).(5) Even worse, only 3 out of 87 APC examined could be attributed to air lunched RPs. The story at Mortain was even worse. It turns out that only 177 German tanks and assault guns participated in the attack, which is 75 less tanks than claimed as destroyed! Of these 177 tanks, 46 were lost and only 9 were lost to aircraft attack.(6) This is again around 4% of those claimed. When the results of the various Normandy operations are compiled, it turns out that no more than 100 German tanks were lost in the entire campaign from hits by aircraft launched ordnance.(7) Thus on a single day in August 1944 the RAF claimed 35% more tanks destroyed than the total number of German tanks lost directly to air attack in the entire campaign!

Considering the Germans lost around 1 500 tanks, tank destroyers and assault guns in the Normandy campaign, less than 7% were lost directly to air attack.(8) The greatest contributor to the great myth regarding the ability of WWII aircraft to kill tanks was, and still is, directly the result of the pilot's massively exaggerated kill claims. The Hawker Typhoon with its cannon and up to eight rockets was (and still is in much literature) hailed as the best weapon to stop the German Tiger I tank, and has been credited with destroying dozens of these tanks in the Normandy campaign. According to the most current definitive work only 13 Tiger tanks were destroyed by direct air attack in the entire campaign.(9) Of these, seven Tigers were lost on 18th July 1944 to massive carpet bombing by high altitude heavy bombers, preceding Operation Goodwood. Thus at most only six Tigers were actually destroyed by fighter bombers in the entire campaign. It turns out the best Tiger stopper was easily the British Army's 17pdr AT gun, with the Typhoon well down on the list.

Indeed it appears that air attacks on tank formations protected by Flak were more dangerous for the aircraft than the tanks. The 2nd Tactical Air Force lost 829 aircraft in Normandy while the 9th USAAF lost 897.(10) These losses, which ironically exceed total German tank losses in the Normandy campaign, would be almost all fighter-bombers. Altogether 4 101 Allied aircraft and 16 714 aircrew were lost over the battlefield or in support of the Normandy campaign.(11)
Hmmmm.....
 

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,476
33,766
Yep.

German tanks were not impervious, but they did typically have to be outflanked, confronted by tank destroyers or become so far separated from supply lines that abandonment was the only option for the crew. While the Tigerwasvery nimble (despite misconceptions due to its size), the turret traverse on them made them very vulnerable to proper tactics employed by American tank commanders.

Realistically, aircraft and artillery are both far overplayed at their role in the actual destruction of German tanks. What they did do flawlessly, however, was cause the Germans to slow down. About ~135 Tigers were sent to rebuff the Normandy landings, but only ~35 made it in time since they could only move at night. Keep in mind most battle tanks are not meant to travel over open country, they are meant to be transported to the conflict area and maneuver. You can't do that without rail service in 1944. By the time a lot of tanks engaged the allies throughout the Western front, they had so much wear on their complicated interleaved torsion bar suspensions that the majority of tanks were not battle worthy at any given time.

More generally, German tanks could not risk being out in the open. Massed artillery could immobilize or destroy an entire tank column rather easily if they allowed themselves to be caught in the open. Keep in mind that a huge HE shell may do no damage to a tank (or may miss entirely), but itwillcreate a track-throwing crater underneath it.

I should note that the primary combat for any tank is tank vs infantry. Tank vs tank combat is very rare all things considered. Besides the certain periods on the Eastern front and the Ardennes, they didn't connect as often as portrayed in popular culture.
 

Faltigoth

Bronze Knight of the Realm
1,380
212
As a former tanker, I have no doubt that this is going to kick ass. Especially if it ends up with some of the feel of 'The Beast'. 'Why can't we go home in the helicopter?' 'Because you're tankers!'
 

khorum

Murder Apologist
24,338
81,363
I'm all in on this. I have to wonder if the success of the World of Tanks game had any influence on this getting made.
I don't think they had anything to do with producing the film but they're marketing it together.That trailer debuted at the E3 World of Tanks panel, the director was even there... they're doing some kinda tie-in with the game too apparently. There was some kinda diorama of the tank with the brad pitt and the rest of the cast too.
 

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,476
33,766
Yeah I watched one documentary where they said that everyone mentioned fighting Tigers but the fact was that there were not very many made (relatively) and most that were made fought on the eastern front, very few fought the western allies. Just everyone had heard of the Tiger and that's what they all thought had been fighting them. Look up Michael Wittmann for what a Tiger could do.

The real killer though was the 88 gun either as a stand alone piece or mounted to shit like the Jagdpanzer, but it wouldn't be much of a movie if 5 seconds in an 88 shell went through the Sherman's armour, from over a mile away, and killed everyone on board.
Very few were operational in Normandy. Tiger IIs in the Ardennes Offensive were fairly sparse as well. But, yea, the STUG III or a Jagdpanzer was far more effective in numbers. The other thing about Tigers on the Western Front though, is that standing orders between Normandy and the Ardennes (when obviously the Tiger IIs came to the allies...) was simply to surround the spotted Tiger battalions during the day with entire armies. So there might be some truth to the proliferation of the 'boogie man' because you had entire divisions being told 'THAR BE TIGARS' and they'd just section off areas and wait until the Germans abandoned their vehicles or tried something dumb at night. So in truth there wasa lotof contact with Tigers in the broader sense, but most of them in passing or single out of gas Tigers parked in a garage that would act as a stationary 8,8.

Of course the Tiger wasn't the big worry, the Panther was. US Army intelligence woefully under-appreciated the role of the Panther. They thought it was a new Tiger, specialized and so few that its presence wouldn't matter. What they really didn't count on (and why the M-26 was so late into theater) was that the Panther was really the world's first main battle tank. It was fast, well armored and well armed with the long 7,5. The only good thing (for the allies) was simply that it was a very complicated vehicle to use well in battle and there were almost no experienced German tankers left by the point they started making them. Plus the normal logistical issues, IE shitty steel because foundries were all bombed out, no gas, etc.