Jump to content


The Realism of Fury


8 replies to this topic

Post #1 Guest_Spitfrnd_*

Guest_Spitfrnd_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 February 2015 - 01:29 PM

Having watched Fury last night for the first time, apart from the merits of the movies generally, I am confused about the model Sherman is depicted in Fury?  From the lack of effect of fire in the Tiger encounter it would appear that it had the original M4 75mm gun.  Yet the model used was a M4A3E8 was it not?  This mounted the improved 76mm main gun.  

 

What puzzles me relative effectiveness of the Sherman and Tiger shots in the Tiger scene.  No doubt the Tiger had the edge against any Sherman but wasn't it overstated here?  The Sherman hit the Tiger in the turret from the side with no effect at pretty close range.  Yet the armor / penetration tables I have seen for this matchup show a penetration of a Tiger I turret front with a 76mm AP shell at 700 meters and the side at 1800 meters, with a penetration of even the nose at 400 meters.  In fact, they even show a 75mm Sherman could have penetrated the turret from the side at 100 meters.  So the relative effectiveness shown appears to have been more appropriate for the older model M4 and even then the turret shot should have worked.  Is the data I read in error?



Post #2 hbforumadmin

hbforumadmin

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,396 posts

Posted 06 February 2015 - 02:19 PM

Technical side apart. Should I on demand it? Buy it? or wait for it to hit HBO?

 

Spitfrnd I have no clue about the scene/facts but it  doesn't sound like an Easy Eight should make 75mm dents. Sounds more like Hollywood prolonging a scene to make it visually appealing to the masses.


Matt Murphy


Post #3 Guest_Spitfrnd_*

Guest_Spitfrnd_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 February 2015 - 03:37 PM

I reviewed the movie in a separate thread.  

http://www.hobbybunk...?showtopic=2993

Post #7

 

It is not one I would buy but the tank scenes are pretty fun.  I would on demand it before I bought it.



Post #4 mitch

mitch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,852 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 February 2015 - 05:16 PM

Bill..

 

 the test that spring to mind is the Shoeburyness in May of 44 which I think tested the new US guns the 76mm  and 90mm  and Brit 17pdr. They were testing the effectiveness of these guns at 100mm plate which was the Tigers maximum armour. I think from memory the figures your stating were correct or are at least similar but, I recall an issue with exploding ammunition which caused lack of penetration. I don't recall when this was remedied but, have read of this issue even in Normandy and remember somewhere Eisenhower demanding this be addressed before D-Day. 

 

The high velocity 76mm could penetrate the side and turret armour of the German armour fielded however, there are many reports of allied gun shots being ineffective at close ranges against Tigers. I will have to look these up as there were tests immediately after D-Day because of issues at Balleroy in the July but, I think off hand they were mainly dealing with the 17pdr and new ammunition against what was seen as a more formidable opponent the Panther.

 

Not having seen the battle in fury with the Tiger I would say that the Tiger hit at short range from a 76mm at the side or turret would surely have been penetrated so, it sounds like a Hollywood issue to prolong the battle.

 

This is why I was surprised to hear a Tiger coming out from cover to fight a Sherman. The 88mm could take out at up to 2000 yards plus any allied AFV so, experienced tank crews would have sat and picked these off as we have seen documented many times. I suppose though the heroes of the movie being picked off by better German guns and tactics would not have had the same effect and ended the movie quite quickly.

 

I will have a read of the gun tests and add more info later

Mitch


The truth will set us free


Post #5 mitch

mitch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,852 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 February 2015 - 05:18 AM

From the clips and the discussion here it seems the Sherman was made to look invincible!! Does ''Ronsons'' remind anyone of an issue with Sherman's.
Mitch
  • Neil likes this

The truth will set us free


Post #6 Neil

Neil

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,910 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:?

Posted 08 February 2015 - 05:29 AM

From the clips and the discussion here it seems the Sherman was made to look invincible!! Does ''Ronsons'' remind anyone of an issue with Sherman's.Mitch


But would a "ronson " film make for good viewing mate that the question ?
Neil

Post #7 mitch

mitch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,852 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 February 2015 - 08:04 AM

Of course not. The film would have been over in 2 minutes had the Tigers and Panthers been depicted in the way they actually fought also, (what I am dreading)the final scene with a damaged AFV being attacked with Panzerfausts and surviving would have seen the ''heroes'' being turned into well done meat. it depends on whether you want fact or fiction in what you view and buy. I would rather see fact than fiction. Not every Tiger etc won every encounter but, we know and the film researchers should know by the kill stats what the Tigers could and did do to allied armour. We only have to look at the losses of 2nd armour through this period to see that.
Mitch


But would a "ronson " film make for good viewing mate that the question ?


  • Neil likes this

The truth will set us free


Post #8 Guest_Spitfrnd_*

Guest_Spitfrnd_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 February 2015 - 09:56 AM

Well this is a spoiler but in the film the Tiger did destroy several Shermans while being shown and invulnerable to their return fire.  When hit, the Shermans are caught fire, which by that date seems a bit overdone by what I have read.  My question had to do with the distances in the film at which the Tiger armor could not be penetrated since several were quite close.  Take a look at these two for example.

 

The first is a hit on the left side of the Tiger Turret from well under 1800 or 700 meters.  Note the burning Shermans in the background.

 

Fury-Tiger%20Hit%20Turret1.png

 

The second is another turret hit on the front at near point blank range, certain less than 700 meters.  They both just flare on the surface.

 

Fury-Tiger%20Hit%20Turret3.png

 

In hindsight I was thinking this is concession to the limits of film making akin to what they do with fighter combat scenes.  Normally the shots are take at 2-300 yards (for WWII) and much farther for jets but you just can't film that.  So I guess you could say these tank battle scene captured the relative vulnerabilities of the AFVs if not the tactics and the reality.  I could discuss the absurd Sherman formation tactics here but that is too much of a spoiler.  Maybe after all have seen it.

 

The last scene was over the top from any perspective.



Post #9 binder001

binder001

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nebraska

Posted 26 February 2015 - 09:00 AM

First, It's a MOVIE.  Second, when discussing an historical inaccuracies, see #1.  The intense action at short range makes for very exciting cinema. 





Reply to this topic