|
Post by insterburger on Oct 21, 2014 19:00:36 GMT -5
I agree that North Africa was important, not the least to cow the Spaniards and drive a wedge between Hitler and the Vichy regime, both of which were legitimate foreign policy concerns in 1942. What was an absolute waste of human life was 2nd Alamein. Monty knew full well that the American landings were coming, and that those landings would compromise Rommel's rear and force a withdrawal. That he threw the lives of British soldiers needlessly into the bonfire of battle so that England could take the glory for pushing back the DAK says a lot about him.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Oct 21, 2014 22:24:20 GMT -5
Interesting. I had never considered that. Monty was definitely a strange duck. He did finally provide England with a field military leader that showed he could be victorious in a major battle. His selective memory about all his battles (especially his role in Normandy, Market Garden and The Bulge ) was despicable. eisenhower grew to LOATH him and for good reason.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Oct 22, 2014 10:29:59 GMT -5
I believe more than a few British generals didn't care much for Monty either. And it would be interesting to hear some candid opinions on Patton from his contemporary American generals. From my reading of WWII I've come to the conclusion that success as a general was one part skill, one part good public relations, and two parts being in the right place at the right time with the right balance of forces.
An added thought. I think it was the historian John Keegan who once commented that Patton was the "best military traffic policeman" of WWII. And there's something to be said for that. It takes enormous skill to be able to get multiple armored divisions moving in the right direction at the right time, and it was something Patton excelled at.
|
|
|
Post by huxy on Oct 22, 2014 12:05:49 GMT -5
Well, premiere event's closing in. Will be 8 hours infront of the cinema and be watching the 9o'clock show with the rest of the re-enactor guys. I've even got a "period" haircut now so I'm all ready! So excited.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Oct 22, 2014 13:20:32 GMT -5
Awesome HUXY. i expect you'll love the movie. I wanted to go wearing at least some period clothes but my wife wouldn't let me. I have an actual M41 with a 2nd Armored patch on the chest which seemed appropriate and not too over the top. It will be fun to see pictures from your group.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Oct 22, 2014 13:35:21 GMT -5
My father couldn't stand either Patton or Montgomery and saw them both as marionette characters more prima donna than general. Interestingly he saw Mark Clark as perhaps the worst in that regard. Patton on numerous occassions acknowledged his prima dona style and even justified it by explaining its purpose. Both Montgomery with his deliberative and structured style and Patton with his bravada and brash style were the right men at the right time so long as they recognized their limitations. Montys biggest failure was Market Garden where he failed by trying to be something he was NOT. Bold, Dynamic and Dashing. i believe he pushed the operation to silence his critics who accused him of being to cautious. Pattons passion and narrow vision was nearly his undoing with the famous slapping incidents and numerous thoughtless statements. The study of assorted leadership styles is fascinating. Hitler, Jodl, Rommel, Manteufel, Dietrich, Doenitz are every bit as fascinating to read about as Roosevelt, Marshal, Eisenhower, Patton, Montgomery and MacArthur. The diversity of styles is infinite.
|
|
|
Post by insterburger on Oct 22, 2014 15:10:48 GMT -5
I think the title for worst "more prima donna than general"-- or at least the worst prima donna among generals-- has to go to MacArthur.
Famously, after MacArthur called Eisenhower (who had been his aide) "the finest clerk I ever had," Ike replied with, "Oh yes, I studied dramatics under General MacArthur for seven years."
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Oct 22, 2014 16:35:54 GMT -5
Eisenhowers talent for getting along must have been dearly tested while working for Mac Arthur who no doubt was the Prima Donna of all primadonnas. His father was a Medal of Honor recipient and truthfully in his younger day MacArthur should have been as well. i think he always was obsessed with measuring up. Patton had similar obsessions and was unflnchingly heroic in his youth. Monty was a momas boy. We sure got off topic in this discussion! any other thoughts on the movie itself? I am going again with friend who was a Tanker for the IDF in the Yom Kippur War ( 1973)
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Oct 22, 2014 18:20:09 GMT -5
I suspect there were times when FDR wishes he had ordered MacArthur to stay in the Philippines to the bitter end. I read one historian who said the only reason MacArthur wasn't cashiered after the fall of the Philippines was it would make the disaster look even worse than it was. Pity the poor bloody Australians. They had to deal with Mac, Blamey and the Japanese.
I think the Israelis were still using some of their upgraded Shermans in the 1973 war. When you look at what they did with them you can see the potential the design had that US ordnance barely touched.
|
|
|
Post by luftwelle93 on Oct 22, 2014 18:29:35 GMT -5
Just curious.I never read much about MacArthur but what was his behavior that made everyone dread him so much
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Oct 22, 2014 19:10:14 GMT -5
Arrogance, self absorption an ego bigger than Texas and an unwillingness to be open to any input or crtisism. He was of course ultimately fired by Truman during the Korean War following what truly was a great strategic move at Inchon then followed by wreckless acts and blatant disobedience of orders from Washington. He absolutely got too full of himself and felt he had all the answers and ignored the threat of Chinese intervention which ultimately occured.
|
|
|
Post by luftwelle93 on Oct 22, 2014 19:20:41 GMT -5
Ah I see.I knew he was a character but never knew of his behavior.Its all interesting to know how these generals were in behavior and strategy.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Oct 22, 2014 23:01:18 GMT -5
the Israelis created Super Shermans that somehow mounted more powerful guns than even the amazing British Firefly whos 17 pounder easily knocked out German TIGER tanks. The Shermans poor defensive armor was never remedied but the fact that WW2 era Shermans were still seeing combat 30 years after the war ended is a real testiment to their durability and reliability.
My Buddy crewed an American M-60 for the IDF which encountered RPGs and early wire guided AT weapons.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Oct 23, 2014 0:29:23 GMT -5
Back to Fury. It's interesting to go and read comments about this movie from both professional critics and common viewers. The critics often base their negative remarks on a complete lack of expertise on the subject of WW2 weapons, capabilities or tactics. Worse they comment on the personalities, behaviors and mindset of combatants having never been any where close to combat themselves.
The stereotypes depicted in war movies are trite because they quite honestly reflect the reality of a typical group of soldiers you actually find in combat units. The violence and attempts to steel ones self from the harshness of war as exhibited by the actors and sadly the barbaric behaviors are part and parcel to the realities of war. The vehicles were often bunched closer then they would have been in the field but this was done to provide scope and clarity of action. The explosive results of the tank fire into the woodlines was much more grandious than a tank main gun with HE would produce. The writers, directors and actors did a fine job on this film. My only critique would be that in the 40s the language (even in a combat group) was tame by todays standards with less extreme profanity. Remember that "I don't give a damn" was considered EXTREMELY profane in GONE WITH THE WIND and Patton saying HELL, GODDAMN and CRAP Through a Goose" was over the top and gutteral language in the day. F bombs were dropped back in the 40s but nothing like today. The final scene made the SS troops seem rediculously incompetent and a sniper...really? but hey...its hollywood
For attention to detail and authenticity, as a combat veteran I have to say this i s the best I've seen.
|
|
Ersatzjack
Corporal
"That silly Franz... he thinks we are winning."
Posts: 1,093
|
Post by Ersatzjack on Nov 4, 2014 0:11:01 GMT -5
I took my wife who told me afterwards that she really liked it. It made her jump twice in her seat and after the first few minutes she sat on the edge of her seat for the rest of the movie. Definitely not a chick flick for cuddling. I really enjoyed this movie and thought it very well done.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Nov 4, 2014 3:14:56 GMT -5
I was anxious to see your read on the flick. I have gone back a couple times (i obviously really liked it). i picked up and appreciated nuances and subtle details I had missed in the earlier screenings. This is truly an exceptionally well done. The muted colors and use of weather as a backdrop for the intensity was quite clever. loved this film!
|
|
|
Post by Rekkon on Apr 7, 2015 15:57:14 GMT -5
Fury was good. It came in low on the "WTF" count, which made it better than I expected. I am sure if any of my detail objections are off base, they will get corrected here.
1. In the first attack, it sure seemed like the Germans were using Spaceballs gunners on their Paks. All those shots and only one glancing hit. 2. Every single knocked out Sherman went down with the entire crew. I recall a similar figure to 2nd Bat's 1.5 casualties per loss, so losing 5/5 over four vehicles seems very unlikely late war. The knocked out Tiger crew of course survived so Brad could shoot them personally. 3. One of my coworkers pointed out that two Shermans jack-in-the-box when neither were buttoned up. 4. Why the frak did the Tiger shoot the *last* Sherman first? It had clearly seen the head of the column, so Fury should have been dead. They were not in a position where killing the last one cut off their ability to retreat, and you target the bigger threats first (i.e. the models with 76s). 5. I can kind of see the Tiger advancing out of the smoke, though my first thought was to use it to relocate so I would not be in the same place the Shermans last observed me while maintaining range. What does not make sense is firing on the move the whole time. "Panzer halt," and all three M4s are dead before any get close enough to circle strafe. 6. There was no reason to get to the Tiger's rear for the kill shot. The rear armor is just as thick as the sides (80mm), even before considering that 76mm HVAP was capable of penetrating Tigers frontally at combat range. 7. That whole final battle scene... Their plan made no sense, and Fury can only shoot in two directions at once, so the Germans clearly suffer from the bad guy "if I am not on screen I do not exist and/or cannot move" effect. It would have been cool had they slewed on one track to unexpectedly change the facing of the hull gun, but I am guessing the museum might not have looked kindly on that.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Apr 7, 2015 16:24:36 GMT -5
I only really have big problems with the final scene where the AI of the Germans was obviously set way too low for the video game that, that scene became. Brad Pitts HEALTH settings were way too high. How many lung shots and rifle hits can one endure. For Gods sake wardaddy, call your hits! All those panzer fausts in the troops shown marching apparenly went un used and even when they hit FURY they somehow only took out the loader and did not set off the stored powder fillaments. The logs on the tanks sides apparently worked way better than science would indcate!
Inspite of the Hollywood ending. I enjoyed this movie very much. My wife bought me the DVD and the cut scenes and background exrras were cool to watch. These extra scenes filled in some questions that were previously unanswered like wardaddys burns, his early rejection of Norman and why the Good Sgt spoke German, Why the city burning in the background was significant etc.
The details on some of the filming challenges were and the limitations in using the real TIGER. All quite interesting to me.
|
|
stuka
Sergeant
The one and only
Posts: 1,205
|
Post by stuka on Apr 8, 2015 1:11:33 GMT -5
I concerns of the tiger scene, it was late war so possibly new/inexperienced gunner. Maybe panicked or fatigued lead to poor shot placement.
In regards to brad's health, it seems far fetched but at the same time I have heard some crazy war stories. Granted there are no sources but at some point, they all came from something so it could be "theoretically" possible.
That said, I am kind of disappointed in how the SS did in the end, they were late war but where did the panzerfausts go?You had like 20 on march. I get to a point that they may have been new but come on now, is there no smoke or way to distract them?
|
|
|
Post by Rekkon on Apr 8, 2015 8:37:37 GMT -5
I concerns of the tiger scene, it was late war so possibly new/inexperienced gunner. Maybe panicked or fatigued lead to poor shot placement. The problem was not the gunner's skill. He had a first round kill on the column after all. The problem was trying to take shots on the move for half the time when the two forces were closing on each other. That was the TC's call.
|
|
stuka
Sergeant
The one and only
Posts: 1,205
|
Post by stuka on Apr 8, 2015 10:35:14 GMT -5
It's one thing to shoot a moving target, it's another to shoot one thats shooting back
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Apr 8, 2015 11:31:41 GMT -5
I enjoyed the movie, but in real life the Brad Pitt had perhaps ten minutes at most from when he opened fire in the final battle until his tank went up in flames from a panzerfaust or two. And the panzerfaust thing was a glaring oops. Somebody wasn't paying attention to the script ("Be careful. These are all we have") when they set up the scene with a bunch of guys carrying them on their shoulders.
One other thing, when the panzerfaust hits the hull and kills the gunner or loader (not sure which one it was), I don't think a human body in the way would offer enough resistance to prevent the stream of molten metal from starting fires in the tank. In real life, that was probably a kill shot for the whole tank.
|
|
|
Post by Rekkon on Apr 8, 2015 17:47:50 GMT -5
It's one thing to shoot a moving target, it's another to shoot one thats shooting back You miss the point. The gunner was already hitting things that were both moving and shooting back. Fury only made it to circle strafe distance by the skin of its teeth. No WWII tanks were very good at shooting on the move. Had the Tiger stopped when it should have, its accuracy increases significantly, and chances are very good that one of its several misses isn't and the whole M4 column is toast. While the movie hit should probably have done more, panzerfausts were not particularly great for completely destroying a tank. If the ammo or fuel did not go up, you had a relatively small hole and could often put the vehicle back into service. Late in the war there was a proposal for an incendiary faust to better set the target ablaze, but it was never developed.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Apr 8, 2015 22:07:06 GMT -5
The tiny hole results from the shaped charge shell (vs a kinetic energy shell like a tank round). This molten, focused energy is quite likely to result in a fire although the later war Sherman was much improved with the addition of wet stowage. A high percentage of shermans knocked out in combat were repaired and put back into action. The sherman was the only main battle tank equipped with the designed in ability to accurately fire while moving but very few tank crews were adequately trained on this system and few had enough confidence in it to use it.
As mentioned, all tank crews in WW2 preferred to stop entirely prior to firing their main gun. The use of WP to blind the TIGER and the PAK40s and heavy suppressive fire was quite authentic in the movie. The 76mm round did NOT provide substantially improved ballistic capability over the 75mm gun and was less effective when using High Explosive which constituted 75% of the rounds fired by US tank crews. the very best 76mm anti tank rounds were in very limited numbers and were primarily allocated to Tank Destroyers. The high velocity, super dense round would still fail against the frontal armor of both a TIGER and Panther beyond 500 meters barring an extremly lucky shot. And frequently fail at point blank range.
whats interesting is the frontal armor on a Panther was very very good but at normal combat ranges (inside 800 meters) the side armor was everybit as likely to be penetrated as a Sherman. It was thicker than a Sherman but with AT rounds from either side the point was moot. US tankers knew by this stage in the war NOT to waste rounds (other than to blind or suppress) on the TIGER or Panthers front armor. You had to trust the tank beside you to take out the enemy to your front. Can you imagine the discipline that would take?
|
|
|
Post by Rekkon on Apr 9, 2015 15:38:51 GMT -5
The Sherman was only vertically stabilized, and everything I have read says the system did not provide accurate firing on the move and was not intended to do so. Its purpose was to keep a target in the gunner's view so he could more quickly engage once his tank stopped. One of the Chieftan's articles points out the German interleaved suspension provided a smoother ride, providing a partially stabilized crew. The effects of a stabilized gun are somewhat moot if your gunner is being thrown around in relation to it. HVAP rounds were rare, but by the end of the war, so were the targets they were designed to defeat. At the time of the movie, it is not unreasonable to expect the Shermans each had 2-3 rounds. Chieftan's Fury article mentions 76s having killed Tigers at over 2km. I wish tarrif.net were still around, but the Wayback Machine was able to retrieve its penetration data. 76mm AP FHA 2000 meter penetration is listed as 45mm, less than half of what is required to defeat a Tiger frontally. HVAP is listed as 94mm, which might barely be enough under certain circumstances. I would not mind seeing his sources because these two things do not seem to agree. The Panther's side armor was nothing exceptional. That was one of the ways it saved weight vs. the Tiger.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Apr 9, 2015 16:13:37 GMT -5
A couple things I've been pondering (I'm retired, got nothing better to do). How the heck did they manage to run over what appeared to be the only AT mine in at least hundreds of yards. And why were there no AP mines? Typical AP and AT mines were mixed to disable tanks and take out the accompanying infantry. Yet they get out of the tank, stomp all around, the Germans arrive and stomp all around. No one gets blown up. So what? Some Germans came by and said "Hey, we got one mine left. Whaddaya wanna do with it?" "Ah, just bury it in the middle of the road."
Tactically speaking, Brad's decision to fight it out makes no sense. Down to one disabled tank, their original mission (hold the cross road) is down the tubes. They have no communications. They know a German force is coming. To me, the logical think to do is destroy or booby-trap the tank and hot foot it back to the nearest radio and let higher headquarters know what's happening. They may be short on troops, but maybe they can call in artillery or fighter-bombers.
But it's only a movie afterall.
|
|
|
Post by Rekkon on Apr 9, 2015 18:11:07 GMT -5
Ya, when the said they had seen a German troop concentration moving by daylight, I immediately wondered why it was not plastered with airstrikes and artillery. Did they have something better to do by this point in the war?
|
|
Relish
Private
PICMDEEP
Posts: 261
|
Post by Relish on Apr 9, 2015 18:52:40 GMT -5
I thought the same thing. Like, "oh they shot at my recon plane? I'm gonna do big circles until my big brother P47 gets here, then your ass is GRASS."
Plus, when the SS got to the intersection and still hadn't spread out since they genuinely believed the tank was out, would've been the perfect moment for an HE round RIGHT down the axis of their advance. Enfilading fire really doesn't get much better than that.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Apr 9, 2015 19:45:24 GMT -5
I thought the same thing. Like, "oh they shot at my recon plane? I'm gonna do big circles until my big brother P47 gets here, then your ass is GRASS." "I'm going to erase that grid square." - "Bat 21"
|
|
|
Post by Rekkon on Apr 9, 2015 20:43:34 GMT -5
I thought the same thing. Like, "oh they shot at my recon plane? I'm gonna do big circles until my big brother P47 gets here, then your ass is GRASS." Plus, when the SS got to the intersection and still hadn't spread out since they genuinely believed the tank was out, would've been the perfect moment for an HE round RIGHT down the axis of their advance. Enfilading fire really doesn't get much better than that. We'll play dead and let them surround us! They won't be expecting it. Right, cuz they ain't insane.</Jayne>
|
|