Fury: Brad Pitt commands a sherman tank in WW2

Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,603
34,138
Gamma Rays_sl said:
The movie looks like it could be good.

Re: the discussion here. I just hope in the movie that they use reality in the depiction of the Sherman vs Tiger mis-match. And to have Brad Pitt and crew know that they have the odds greatly against them if they encounter a Tiger. And voice their fears, build up tension / audience expectation.

We see in the trailer that they do ( A tank movie will need to have tank vs tank I figure )

That should be the embodiment of their fears. The movie should play it that way and use that as a major plot and character drive. Which could work really well.

It'd be silly to dump that and try to paint the US tank as a capable 'Tiger fighter'. Older WW2 movies I've seen that were made shortly after WW2 made it seem that way, just not wanting to admit reality.
Click to expand...
Well since they appeared to be actually using the only tactic that might work against a mobile Tiger at close range in the film (outrunning its traverse), I'd say it's a pretty good idea that it's leaning heavily on the 'realism' side.
 
V

VariaVespasa_sl

shitlord
572
5
Brando_sl said:
You're saying that likes it's a bad thing. Guderian spoke at length how the German lack of mass production ultimately made their losses irreplaceable and the war as good as lost. But hey, you built 1 Maus prototype right?!
Click to expand...
2 actually, one of which actually saw some action iirc. Wargaming (the company that runs the World of Tanks online game) recently started a project to restore the remaining Maus to running condition.

World of Tanks is worth a try if you like tank combat, and as usual these days the first taste is free.
 
Brando

Asshat Brando

Potato del Grande
<Banned>
5,346
-478
If it saw action then it saw action as a pillbox, not as an actual moving tank.
 
khorum

khorum

Murder Apologist
24,338
81,363
They only finished two Maus prototypes and only one had a turret. Neither saw action.
 
Erronius

Erronius

Macho Ma'am
<Gold Donor>
16,491
42,462
Soon.


Not sure if the international trailer was posted; it does give a slightly different impression that the other one. It might even be a bit spoilerish, so to speak, as it seems to paint a different and perhaps more specific chain of events.


 
Caliane

Caliane

Avatar of War Slayer
14,623
10,125
Can we get a Rocketeer remake/sequel with Brad Pitt talking about killing Germans for 3 hours?
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
If those tanks were so useless against other tanks, why did they deploy them against other tanks?

If the Numedian cavalry is going to decimate your Etruscans, and you know it beforehand, wouldn't you try to get some better use out of your horses?
 
Erronius

Erronius

Macho Ma'am
<Gold Donor>
16,491
42,462
Iannis_sl said:
If those tanks were so useless against other tanks, why did they deploy them against other tanks?

If the Numedian cavalry is going to decimate your Etruscans, and you know it beforehand, wouldn't you try to get some better use out of your horses?
Click to expand...
Someone get Palum on the batphone
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Its an honest enough question. I didn't mean it in a smartass way. One obvious answer is, "because you have to meet them with something, and the tanks you have are the tanks you have". And maybe that's just all there is to it.
 
Brando

Asshat Brando

Potato del Grande
<Banned>
5,346
-478
The short answer is that US Army tactics at the time called for the M4 to avoid where possible tank vs. tank battle and to leave the tank killing to the AT assets such as the M10, M18 and the towed 57mm AT gun. There's thousands of pages written on the use of the M4 and US Army doctrine that could better explain than I could in regards to the rights and wrongs of this strategy. Suffice to say it was unrealistic as tanks ultimately had to destroy other tanks. At the time the M4 was designed it was more than a match for the PzIII/IV then in use by the Wehrmacht. What's harder to understand in hindsight is the complete lack response by the Army to the greater than expected use of the Panther and Tigers in the Normandy battlefield and beyond. The British as a stop gap put their excellent 17lb gun into the Sherman to create the Firefly and at least give their tanks the ability to knock out heavier German armor without being in suicidal range of it. The US had a similar gun in the 90mm which was eventually put into the M36 and the Pershing but refused to use it as the British and Germans did with the 88mm in a ground support and anti-tank role. Until early '45 most M4's still carried the short barreled 75mm with only a few 76mm armed Shermans per unit which itself couldn't attack a Tiger or Panther frontally from range. Up until his death in Normany the head of the Army Ground Forces, McNair, refused to release the available Pershings to the European Theatre as he thought it unnecessary, most didn't show up until almost '45 when it didn't matter by then anyway.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,603
34,138
Iannis_sl said:
If those tanks were so useless against other tanks, why did they deploy them against other tanks?

If the Numedian cavalry is going to decimate your Etruscans, and you know it beforehand, wouldn't you try to get some better use out of your horses?
Click to expand...
Here's the thing: tanks primary mission is supporting infantry. Tank vs Tank combat (absent air power and infantry) isexceedinglyrare but spectacular, as you see with stuff like Kursk.

Generally tanks would go through all their HE rounds and need resupply without even firing any or few AP, APCR or HEAT rounds. Hence the short 105mm was the best gun for the Sherman that the US had for the best combat effectiveness, despite all the glory given to the Brits putting a 17 pdr in the Firefly. That's not to say tank combat never took place for the US, it certainly did in many places including the Ardennes and while the US could have used more than 4 operational M26s in theater they were never going to universally replace the 105mm with its huge HE rounds for infantry support with an HVAP gun like the 76 or 90mm guns.

Also, as stated, the US thought was that they could not beat the Germans with the weight of armor. The TD doctrine was designed to keep mobility at a maximum. TDs sacrificed a lot of armor for a tank-ending gun. The Mediums were designed to exploit holes in lines and murder the shit out of infantry and light vehicles. Obviously that didn't quite pan out - but keep in mind the entire US thought process wasalwaysbeing on the defensive due to the German's aggressive tactics- even in the microcosm of a single battle. Blitzkrieg literally scared the shit out of people thinking they would land in NY and break straight through to DC while slow ponderous heavy US tanks would be hundreds of miles behind like a Maginot line with significant transmission troubles.
 
Brando

Asshat Brando

Potato del Grande
<Banned>
5,346
-478
Considering the fact that accepted Allied, specifically US, strategy contradicts everything you stated in your last paragraph I'd like to know what you're referencing to state such bullshit.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,603
34,138
Brando_sl said:
Considering the fact that accepted Allied, specifically US, strategy contradicts everything you stated in your last paragraph I'd like to know what you're referencing to state such bullshit.
Click to expand...
I dunno, Wikipedia doesn't disagree.

U.S. Army and counterpart British designs were very different in conception. U.S. doctrine was based, in light of the fall of France, on the perceived need to defeat German blitzkrieg tactics, and U.S. units expected to be faced with large numbers of German tanks attacking on relatively narrow fronts. These were expected to break through a thin screen of anti-tank guns, hence the decision that the main anti-tank units - the Tank Destroyer (TD) battalions - should be concentrated and very mobile.
Click to expand...
Very simply - German, British, Russian TDs - casements and heavily armored fronts. American TDs- roadsters with turrets.

Keep in mind most of these doctrines are being designed at the time of the fall of France, with Dunkirk and the pending BoB... Until Pearl Harbor, mainland invasion by the NAZIs was a possibility. Hell we had battle plans to invade Canada in case GB came after us before the NAZI party showed its hand.
 
Brando

Asshat Brando

Potato del Grande
<Banned>
5,346
-478
We're in this thread about a movie in regards to a tank in France or Northwest Europe during 1944, right? There are voluminous source material available and while Wiki is good for a general idea if that's the best you can do then I suggest starting with the Green Books and moving on from there.

Palum_sl said:
but keep in mind the entire US thought process was always being on the defensive due to the German's aggressive tactics
Click to expand...
Please source this.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,603
34,138
Brando_sl said:
We're in this thread about a movie in regards to a tank in France or Northwest Europe during 1944, right? There are voluminous source material available and while Wiki is good for a general idea if that's the best you can do then I suggest starting with the Green Books and moving on from there.



Please source this.
Click to expand...
Please note the 1942 WWII TD field manual found here:http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/fm...yer/index.html

Excerpt:

"Tank destroyer groups are intended for action against massed tank forces. As part of the mobile reserve of the high command, they are initially so disposed as to facilitate their rapid entry into action against large armored forces.

a. Tank destroyer groups which are attached to units engaged inoffensive combat assist the attack by furnishing protection against large scale counterattacks by hostile tanks. They follow the attack closely, moving by bounds from one position in readiness to another. In enveloping attacks, they are usually echeloned toward the interior behind the enveloping flank.

b. Tank destroyer groups attached to units whose action isdefensive are usually held in mobile reserve until the enemy's main effort is indicated and then engaged in mass against the hostile armored force. Depending on the situation, this may be prior to or after the launching of the hostile armored attack. "
Click to expand...
Tanks push, TDs are in reserve to smash the Blitz, hence 'always on the defensive', even when attacking.
 
Erronius

Erronius

Macho Ma'am
<Gold Donor>
16,491
42,462
GOD DAMNIT I WAS TYPING THE SAME FUCKING SHIT


EDIT: well kinda, fucking lonesentry.com


I don't think Palum was wrong per se, and it seems to me like you're just trying to go after one specific thing he said while ignoring a lot that he said was correct. And when he said "defensive", it reminded me of deep battle doctrine and the differences between Soviet/American views on it:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a258092.pdf

American doctrine and practice, embodied in the battlefield framework, treats deep battle as one of many components of a fight. Moreover, although we speak of the offense, American deep battle is primarily defensive in nature: The aim of deep battle is to prevent the enemy from massing, and to create opportunities for offensive action-"windows of opportunity"--that allow us to defeat him in detail.'
Click to expand...
Of course I have no idea if that is what he meant, and there are a couple potential complaints here (one being timeframe of recognized US adoption of these type of tenets). But there is also the issue of the Germans having been fond of rushing to engage enemy armor then almost immediately retreating when they would come under fire. Allied armor would then give chase and run straight into the jaws of well prepared AT positions. After the AT guns would finish mopping the floor with the pursuing Allied tanks, the German armor would then turn around again and advance virtually unopposed.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/attactics/index.html

Later the lieutenant colonel was asked a question about the use of tanks in action. He said:

The Germans towed their 88's behind their tanks. (Maybe they brought up 75's, or both; I know they brought up 88's.) They towed them up and dug in. Their tanks came out and attracted our attention, and, until we caught on to their tricks, the tanks led us right between the guns, got behind us, and gave us the works. We learned not to form the habit of going for the first 88's which shot at us. There were likely to be several much closer up. The first 88 that barked and the first tank were generally bait, and we had to refrain from plunging at them.
Click to expand...
Again, I don't know what Palum meant, but there is also the impression that I've gathered over the years that in regards to US infantry and armor usage, is that if you are going to go on the assault at the very least...

LOL DIDN"T FUCKING FINISH
 
Brando

Asshat Brando

Potato del Grande
<Banned>
5,346
-478
The TD doctrine was there because the Army was mainly run by infantry officers so the tank had to be an infantry support vehicle and it proved a failure as was quickly seen in the ETO. Palum is claiming tactically this was because we were defensive by nature in response to German tactics which is patently false. As Erronious is linking above the Germans were tactically defensive and why is that? Because in every fucking theatre we invaded with the purpose of crushing the Nazi scum.
 
Erronius

Erronius

Macho Ma'am
<Gold Donor>
16,491
42,462
Brando_sl said:
The TD doctrine was there because the Army was mainly run by infantry officers so the tank had to be an infantry support vehicle and it proved a failure as was quickly seen in the ETO. Palum is claiming tactically this was because we were defensive by nature in response to German tactics which is patently false. As Erronious is linking above the Germans were tactically defensive and why is that? Because in every fucking theatre we invaded with the purpose of crushing the Nazi scum.
Click to expand...
Actually they used those AT tactics both in offense and defense. Offensively they'd operate exactly like a bard or ranger running out to pull mobs back to the waiting AT guns, then once the AT assets mopped up they'd go exploit the gap they just created.
 
Brando

Asshat Brando

Potato del Grande
<Banned>
5,346
-478
Erronius_sl said:
Actually they used those AT tactics both in offense and defense. Offensively they'd operate exactly like a bard or ranger running out to pull mobs back to the waiting AT guns, then once the AT assets mopped up they'd go exploit the gap they just created.
Click to expand...
Please tell me you're joking, please......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.