# The movie, FURY



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Just finished watching it. I skipped the 2nd half of the Super Bowl to do so. 

Anyways, it was a good movie, lots of swearing and violence. Not a good pick for kids. 

When I was a kid, I was infatuated with tanks. I knew that if/when I joined the Army, I wanted to be part of a tank crew. 

Looking back, I'm pretty happy with the way things ended up. :smt1099


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Watched it last night. Thought it was ok, but it did have a good ending.


----------



## Scorpion8 (Jan 29, 2011)

On my list to see when available electronically. Headed out tomorrow night to see American Sniper.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

Pretty good movie all in all rough, crude, vulgar just trying to surive and get the job done


----------



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> When I was a kid, I was infatuated with tanks. I knew that if/when I joined the Army, I wanted to be part of a tank crew.
> 
> Looking back, I'm pretty happy with the way things ended up. :smt1099


So what went wrong? did they convince you that you could parachute out of C141's with the tanks?


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

I liked it OK. It seemed to be realistic, based on my extensive reading on the subject, and a couple of conversations with veterans of the European theater. Of course, they juiced it up a little, but maybe not too much.


----------



## Spike12 (Dec 10, 2008)

I thought it was ok. Major part of the plot was stolen from Saving PVT Ryan. I hate it when they used dialog from modern times. 

Our tanks really were that bad compared to German tanks. We just beat them on quantity and Hitler's stupidity.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

BackyardCowboy said:


> So what went wrong? did they convince you that you could parachute out of C141's with the tanks?


As I grew older, I realized that I was somewhat claustrophobic. And, the more I knew about tanks, the less I wanted to be in one.

I don't mind jumping out of planes, it's just that I hate flying in them.


----------



## dennis40x (Feb 27, 2014)

If you like to study history read the book "Death Traps". The M4 Sherman was an inferior design under gunned and under armored. The 3rd Amor Div suffered an horrendous causality rate. The M4 Sherman was no match for the German medium Panther and the heaver Tiger series. The introduction of the M26 Pershing was delayed in production due to Patton's influence concerning Armor Doctrine.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

I agree about the shortcomings of the Sherman tank, and that the Army knew about it, in advance. But, like a lot of other 'tools' of that era, the ability to mass produce Shermans made the difference in defeating the Germans. The human resources expended, as a result, were considered to be 'acceptable loss,' just as accepting the ~50% casualty rates for bomber crews and glider troops (over short periods) were viewed as necessary. 

This is a horrifying revelation to some folks, now, but at the time was considered unavoidable. The Germans had precision equipment and highly trained soldiers, but they could not sustain high losses, over time, and this was seen as the only way to defeat them. The ability to replenish losses of materiel and personnel is usually what determines the victor in a major conflict between similarly trained and equipped forces.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Saw the movie, was expecting more, somewhat disappointing.

I thought it would have had a better story. I found myself waiting for it, never happened.
Then realized at the end it was a brad Pitt flick.


----------



## AirForceShooter (May 6, 2006)

It was my pick for an Academy Award.

AFS


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

pic said:


> Saw the movie, was expecting more, somewhat disappointing.
> 
> I thought it would have had a better story. I found myself waiting for it, never happened.
> Then realized at the end it was a brad Pitt flick.


Yes, I know what you mean. I too, was looking for something more substantial than just swearing.

Maybe if Angelina Jolie had been the clerk typist............:watching:


----------



## hks95134 (Feb 13, 2015)

It was a great movie, yes. Reminded me of my dad -- he was a WW2 tanker.


----------



## iGuy (Feb 12, 2014)

Loved it.... Gritty and doesn't hesitate to show that soldiers aren't always heroic in their behavior. Not to mention they used the last functiong Tiger tank in the famous battle scene....props for that.


----------



## hud35500 (May 8, 2010)

I've been waiting to hear some Army vets comment on the movie before I watch it. I'm sure it has the usual inaccuracies that are endemic due to "creative license", but that doesn't really take away from the spirit of the movie if it's reasonably well done. Personally, I think any movie that shows what this great generation did for their country is an honorable undertaking!


----------



## hks95134 (Feb 13, 2015)

Ok here goes -- I am not Army though. My dad was Army. I was USMC.

The overall theme of the movie was as stated in the New Testament at Matthew 26:52 -- He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. The most literal translation of this out of the original Greek actually says "by the sword shall perish."

The tactical error that occurred at the end was with Brad Pitt as the NCOIC (noncommissioned office in charge) deciding to hold a hopeless position against a German Weapons SS battalion. One tank against a whole infantry battalion -- ridiculous.

The strategic error that led to this tactical error was by a mustang infantry captain (an older guy in a young officer's role) sending Pitt's tank platoon (4 tanks) against the German infantry and being intercepted and decimated by an entrenched German gun position before they could get there.

In the Armed Forces we call this FUBAR'ed.

Other than that, at the end, which gets Brad Pitt's character killed, it was a great movie (moving picture show) about the American invasion of Germany and the fate of all the older German civilians and the young pretty girls who were in the Americans' path.

It's worth watching. The tank small battles involving infantry seemed well dramatized. There is always a military guy somewhere in the credits who is in charge of all this, and this one did his job pretty well.

Normally if you were down to one tank and an enemy infantry battalion was heading your way, you would retreat alive and live to fight another day. The US Army does not teach about suicide missions or standing to the last man. That part was inaccurate.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

hks95134 said:


> Ok here goes -- I am not Army though. My dad was Army. I was USMC.
> 
> The overall theme of the movie was as stated in the New Testament at Matthew 26:52 -- He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. The most literal translation of this out of the original Greek actually says "by the sword shall perish."
> 
> ...


I agree with a lot of what you say - the premise of an NCO sacrificing his men in this way did seem unrealistic to me, although I did think the battle scenes were well done - who knows - most of these great men are gone, now, and probably would not have discussed it, anyway.

I disagree with your calling the officer a 'mustang.' I think you may have meant 'retread?' A mustang was an officer who was an enlisted man promoted up through the ranks for outstanding (or maybe just much needed) leadership ability, such as Audie Murphy. I know this from my father, who was commanded in Korea by a Lieutenant Colonel who had enlisted as a private and fought in the Italian campaign (WWII), and was promoted up through the ranks during over 500 days of combat. Many of the officers in that division were mustangs, due to high casualties among platoon leaders, who were typically 2nd Lieutenants with not enough training to fight the German army.


----------



## hks95134 (Feb 13, 2015)

The C/O was older than his rank -- Captain -- would normally warrant.

This usually means an NCO was battlefield commissioned -- mustang.

Retread usually means called out of retirement -- could have been that too. Either one.

Not sure what the script writer and director were trying to portray.

My dad was a sergeant in the Illinois National Guard, and on Dec 8, 1941 he was immediately promoted to 1st Lieutenant and not long thereafter sent to Europe as a tank commander.

It happened a lot in WW2.

God bless these men, and their souls in Heaven.

A 2nd Lieutenant is hard pressed to fight anywhere. But you are right -- against battle hardened Germans in WW2 it would have been especially hard. Even so, the point man always get's it ... as they say in the infantry and in the armor divisions.

It was a good Brad Pitt movie -- the silent hero type. I watched it a couple of times at the cinema. Reminded me of my Dad.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

My dad considered himself a retread, since he had served in the Army Air Force in WWII, and turned 30 years old while waiting to land at Inchon, as an infantry 1st Sgt. He could have also been a 'mustang' if he had accepted the offer of 2nd Lt. by volunteering to extend his tour. He said he declined for two reasons: (1) because he had yet to see his new son (me), and (2) the offer that was made was interrupted by a Chinese mortar attack, which was sometimes followed by a 'human wave' attack. He declined it while preparing to call for final protective fire (if necessary), and was really missing home, at the time.


----------



## hks95134 (Feb 13, 2015)

I am too old to be called out of retirement.

But if they did, it would be either for C/O of an artillery battery or X/O of a battalion.

Either way, I would become a retread, yes.

Hopefully Putin does not start anything big in eastern Europe. Hopefully.

But so far he looks like Adolf and the Kaiser all over again.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

I'm hoping that his narcissism will earn him a 9x18 to the back of the head by some of the other KGB retirees who have learned to love capitalism.


----------

