Fury: Brad Pitt commands a sherman tank in WW2

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...

How is this patently false? I provided a 1942 copy of the TD Field Manual which in general terms anticipates German armor punching through lines at all times and suggests masses of mobile TD forces to counter this. This is backed up by obvious physical markers such as the design characteristics of American TDs, which in every way differed from other armies of the era, just as their tactics did. TD tactics, and therefore by extension mobile armor tactics, were dictated by a rampant fear of the unstoppable Blitzkrieg. That they seldom worked out that way is why the last vestiges of the doctrine were gone by the end of the war, and the T26 and 76mm HVAP werefinallypursued in earnest due to the Normandy 'tank panic' partly caused by the Panther suddenly appearing in far greater numbers than originally planned. Unfortunately, the various branches of the army never quite agreed until too late in the war. Even then, once the 76mm conversions began to counter the presence of Panthers and the odd Tiger1 & KTs, it was only ever planned for ~20-25% of M4s to have this upgrade - they still relied on the TD principles even if the overall strategy had by this point proven to be a failure.

You, on the other hand, just keep repeating that it's false. You Misting?

Brando_sl said:

You provided a field manual from 1942 for a weapon that is defensive by nature whereas a tank is offensive. Does the use of TD's mean US tactics were defensive in nature? I'd like you to find one instance were this is actually the case in practice as you are claiming unless I'm completely misunderstanding your point which started as the US was so afraid of Blitzkrieg tactics. Here is the Green Book section for Arracourt, I don't see a single instance of what you are saying:

http://www.history.army.mil/books/ww...aine-ch05.html

The year 1942 is interesting as well as in that Torch started and every theatre there after the Allies were on the offensive to get the grips with the German army in the West and destroy it. I guess we were so afraid of German tactics that we just sat around and waiting for the Russians to win the war as Araysar is so fond to state.

Click to expand...

I think it's as simple as you are presuming that I am equating doctrine (which defines procurement and worthless manuals) with real world tactics and field command. As I stated tanks (like the M4) became infantry support weapons and it was their primary use, but the original specifications for the M4 were that it was to be used to raid enemy supply lines as a rear element. Infantry was to be the support arm which took and held ground, with TDs to counter enemy blitz tactics with their armor, and the medium tanks to dart through while the rest was going on and ensure the German tanks and infantry had no supplies. The TD doctrine AND tank doctrine and overall battle tactics as envisioned by the military think tanks in the states were pretty much worthless, as was the threat of continual blitzkrieg. All that said, even the grossly different field conditions experienced by US troops and commanders didn't affect production and design specs (to fill these doctrines) until almost the end of the war when the various industrial and military bureaucrats were finally forced to accept the realities of combat experience in North Africa, Italy and finally France. Just because Patton saw how ridiculous the TD doctrine was after one successful engagement in theater with 75% unit losses didn't mean the paper pushers stateside figured it out.

This movie looks like it has so much potential. PLEASE DON'T SUCK!

Saw it tonight, pretty amazing/brutal.

God, as someone who plays World of Tanks and WarThunder time to time, it never ceases to amaze me how much people will argue on those boards about some of the most stupid shit possible known to man.
Details the people who built the tanks probably don't even recall. Didn't expect it here.

Hope movie is good, think I will pass on the theater though. It is sad I have a bunch of free tickets that expire in 2099 ( ya no shit ) but Regal seats suck so bad in my city I have to get up and walk around to make it through a movie.

Someone give a hard review of it. I want to take my dad and I last went to movie about 15 years ago, with him.

Olebass_sl said:

God, as someone who plays World of Tanks and WarThunder time to time, it never ceases to amaze me how much people will argue on those boards about some of the most stupid shit possible known to man.
Details the people who built the tanks probably don't even recall. Didn't expect it here.

Hope movie is good, think I will pass on the theater though. It is sad I have a bunch of free tickets that expire in 2099 ( ya no shit ) but Regal seats suck so bad in my city I have to get up and walk around to make it through a movie.

Click to expand...

This.

Shut up nerds and enjoy things getting blown apart.

Imma go watch me some Brad Pitt blow some shit up soon.
Hope it's good!

---

I'd say its a 7.5/10

Certainly not going down as one of the best WW2 movies of all time but I had fun. Any movie that ends with a pile of dead nazis is ok in my book. 7/10.

Boy, did that young guy just erked me though out the whole thing. I get sick of the "I didn't sign up for this!" cliche real fast.

Pretty much that exactly. Solid war flick with some good acting, great scenes and tons of clich?.

Waaaaaaaay too much cliche. Shia and Shane from the Walking Dead just really shit the movie up beyond repair. The characters were 'caricatures' and only Brad Pitt had any soul or believability to his performance... but even his shit went too far over the top two or three different times in the movie.

The movies biggest failing was that it felt it needed to beat the "tragedy of war" drum so hard. That message has been sent, loud and clear, but many, many movies that have come before it. Movies like Platoon, Thin Red Line, and Saving Private Ryan just did it so much better and brought some originality to the presentation as well. I will be generous and give it a 6/10, crediting the action scenes and the suspense they were able to build throughout (mostly by just being brutally graphic, which is a cheap trick).

Fight_sl said:

Waaaaaaaay too much cliche. Shia and Shane from the Walking Dead just really shit the movie up beyond repair. The characters were 'caricatures' and only Brad Pitt had any soul or believability to his performance... but even his shit went too far over the top two or three different times in the movie.

The movies biggest failing was that it felt it needed to beat the "tragedy of war" drum so hard. That message has been sent, loud and clear, but many, many movies that have come before it. Movies like Platoon, Thin Red Line, and Saving Private Ryan just did it so much better and brought some originality to the presentation as well. I will be generous and give it a 6/10, crediting the action scenes and the suspense they were able to build throughout (mostly by just being brutally graphic, which is a cheap trick).

Click to expand...

Damn, was hoping this would be an epic war movie like "Glory." They really just don't make movies like they used to.

The battle scenes were top notch. The rest of the movie was kind of eh. But if you want to see some awesome scenes full of tracer fire, go.