| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Fury (2014)
M1918A2 BAR?
Is the BAR actually shown in any trailers or promotional images? As it is, the lack of screenshots and the description makes it sound like we are just assuming the BAR is in the film, as this was used by the real US Army at the time. --commando552 (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2014 (EDT)
- You can see one about 11 seconds in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OGvZoIrXpg: --User:Crackshot (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2014 (EDT)
Mortars
Early in the film some American mortars are firing, at the assembly poitn after the Lt's tank get knocked out. Were they 60 or 81mm?
Also, at that same point in the film there's a guy shooting periodic bursts with a M3 halftrack-mounted M2HB. Any idea why? I've heard of 40mm Bofors firing tracers at night to provide a directional referance, was it something like that?--Mandolin (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2014 (EST)
- I think the tactic of using tracers to mark the axis of an attack was more of a British thing, and I have only ever heard of it being done with Bofors or Oerlikon. I do not think it would really work with a .50 cal, as I believe the tracer would burn out after less than 2,000m which really isn't good enough for this purpose (tracer from cannons would be able to go +5,000m I think, and would be more visible). I think I remember the scene you are talking about as it stood out to me as looking really odd. The gunner just seemed to be holding it pointing upwards at quite and angle, not aiming at all while firing. Possibly he was using it for AA (although I doubt it as he didn't move the gun at all) or was firing at a ground target observing the tracer impacts (if I remember correctly the gun was at such an angle that the rounds would have been being lobbed beyond the range of the tracer so this wouldn't make total sense either). At the time I remember wondering if the gunner was even actually firing as he seemed to have no reaction, or whether the firing effects might have been added in after the fact to make more stuff go on in the shot. Would need to see it again though while on the look out to work out what was going on for sure though. --commando552 (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2014 (EST)
We sure those are M2 mortars they're firing? They look a bit too long for M2.
--Mandolin (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2015 (EST)
- Tell the truth, I'm not so sure myself anymore. Maybe M1s?Inceptor57 (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2015 (EST)
- It looks like this thing which is French and called the LLR 81mm, it's also used by South Africa who call it the M3. I think it's possible that only the stand and base are real weapon parts, given all you need for a movie mortar is a smoke puff you wouldn't actually need to use an authentic barrel. Evil Tim (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2015 (EST)
German AT Guns
The other day I watched the movie in cinema and I was wondering if anybody could identify which germy AT guns were used? I think the one in the town was a 5cm Pak 38? The 2 guns which fired at the tanks from the dug in positions in the woods were 8,8cm Pak 43/41? They were only visible for a short amount of time, if I hade a Bluray it would be easier to identify. Looking forward to your opinions.--Hchris (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2015 (EST)
- Given the smooth barrel and shape of the muzzle break, I'm calling it as a Pak 40 7.5cm.
.jpg){kind=link}
--Mandolin (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2015 (EST)
- Yes I agree, those are definitely 7,5cm Pak 40 guns. I really wonder why the makers of this movie made this very obvious mistake calling them 88mm guns? I remember Brad Pit saying that those are 88mm guns because he can hear the distinct whizz sound. Why didn't he simply say 7,5cm guns and everything would have been fine? Did they seriously hope that nobody would notice? Btw what gun was used in the town, the one hidden in the house firing at the Sherman full frontal? Could somebody please provide a screencap to see if it was a Pak 40 too? --Hchris (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2015 (EST)
- Honestly, probably less than 1% (probably a LOT less) of the people who saw this film would be able to ID this kind of weapon from the brief glimpse of it covered in camo nets so it doesn't strike me as that cardinal of a sin. I imagine the reason for this discrepancy is that it was written as an 88 in the script, but the 75 was what they could get for filming (I believe there are more of these still knocking around). For the plot point they wanted to portray them as 88s, which I imagine also have more name recognition to normals, but if they couldn't get hold of them they used what they could as a stand in. --commando552 (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2015 (EST)
- Yes I agree, those are definitely 7,5cm Pak 40 guns. I really wonder why the makers of this movie made this very obvious mistake calling them 88mm guns? I remember Brad Pit saying that those are 88mm guns because he can hear the distinct whizz sound. Why didn't he simply say 7,5cm guns and everything would have been fine? Did they seriously hope that nobody would notice? Btw what gun was used in the town, the one hidden in the house firing at the Sherman full frontal? Could somebody please provide a screencap to see if it was a Pak 40 too? --Hchris (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2015 (EST)
- I'm pretty sure that it is likely they meant these to be Pak 43s, but they just used Pak 40s as stand-ins. There were 20,000 Pak 40s made as opposed to only about 2,000 Pak 43s so I have to assume that the Pak 40 is more common and less valuable than a real Pak 43, and from a practical point of view it is probably a hell of a lot easier to transport and work with Pak 40s than Pak 43s. Besides, for a few seconds of screen-time covered in copious camouflage, this looks enough like one of these that it doesn't matter that much really. --commando552 (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2015 (EST)
- That's because that picture is a Pak 40 :P. This is a 43. Evil Tim (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2015 (EST)
- Oops, wrong link, changed it to the proper one. They are from the same angle and if you flick back and forth between the two there really isn't too much of a difference. Don't get me wrong, you can tell they are different if you know about these things and it would have been great of it was a real Pak43 or 43/41, but to the other 999 people of the 1000 that are watching the film, it is a close enough match. --commando552 (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2015 (EST)
- Yeah, much like how they figured in Red Tails that most people don't know that you can't open a B-17's bomb bay doors by setting the fuel mix for the number two engine to the idle cutoff position. Evil Tim (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2015 (EST)
- Well, not really. That is incompetence, when they went to the effort to get something but used it wrongly, especially when I am sure there would have been somebody on set who knew if they had bothered to ask (also, I have never seen the film but from what I head that is hardly the most egregious mistake). With these guns my assumption is that for story purposes they wanted the guns to be Pak 43s, but for whatever reason they had to use the superficially similar Pak 40 so I choose not to get butt-hurt because they couldn't find a functioning, rentable, fucking huge gun that only had 2000 made 70 years ago. --commando552 (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2015 (EST)
- I think in that instance it was deliberate, the fuel mix control is a more dramatic-looking lever and has the benefit of actually being in the cockpit rather than having to cut down to the bombadier's position to show him operating a tiny little hand-lever. Evil Tim (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2015 (EST)
- There was no mistake in the script or what the character said at all. The only mention that Pitt says 88 was identifying the round the Tiger tank fired (which is not wrong). In the Hedgerow battle, he called the cannons "Kraut High-Velocity guns." Also, the screen caps of the AT gun in the town, looks like a Pak 40 though.
- I think in that instance it was deliberate, the fuel mix control is a more dramatic-looking lever and has the benefit of actually being in the cockpit rather than having to cut down to the bombadier's position to show him operating a tiny little hand-lever. Evil Tim (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2015 (EST)
- Well, not really. That is incompetence, when they went to the effort to get something but used it wrongly, especially when I am sure there would have been somebody on set who knew if they had bothered to ask (also, I have never seen the film but from what I head that is hardly the most egregious mistake). With these guns my assumption is that for story purposes they wanted the guns to be Pak 43s, but for whatever reason they had to use the superficially similar Pak 40 so I choose not to get butt-hurt because they couldn't find a functioning, rentable, fucking huge gun that only had 2000 made 70 years ago. --commando552 (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2015 (EST)
- Yeah, much like how they figured in Red Tails that most people don't know that you can't open a B-17's bomb bay doors by setting the fuel mix for the number two engine to the idle cutoff position. Evil Tim (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2015 (EST)
- Oops, wrong link, changed it to the proper one. They are from the same angle and if you flick back and forth between the two there really isn't too much of a difference. Don't get me wrong, you can tell they are different if you know about these things and it would have been great of it was a real Pak43 or 43/41, but to the other 999 people of the 1000 that are watching the film, it is a close enough match. --commando552 (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2015 (EST)
- That's because that picture is a Pak 40 :P. This is a 43. Evil Tim (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2015 (EST)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
but honestly can't tell much from here. Inceptor57 (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2015 (EST)
- If that is the case (I'll have to take your word for it, haven't seen it since the cinema) the whole discussion is irrelevant then so nevermind. As for this gun, shape of the shield makes it look like a 5 cm Pak 38. --commando552 (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2015 (EST)
- The gun shields are all pretty much alike. I'd call it a Pak 40, we know they had them on set.--Mandolin (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2015 (EST)
- I'd agree on Pak 40. The round size looks about similar to the Pak 40s used in the Hedgerow battle. Inceptor57 (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2015 (EST)
- No this is without a doubt a 5cm Pak 38. Look at the muzzle break, it looks completely different to the 7,5cm Pak 40. Also the shape of the shield identifies it as 5cm Pak 38, the barrel is much shorter and the metal structure at the back of the gun (not sure how it is called in English) is also definitely the 5cm Pak 38. Could you please add it to the page? Or am I allowed to add it? --Hchris (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2015 (EST)
- I call that piece of metal a recoil shield (you are talking about the part that stops the gunner getting too close to the recoiling barrel right?) but do not know if that is correct. As for the statement "The gun shields are all pretty much alike" they really aren't if you look at them closely. The Pak 40 shield is essentially 3 flat planes rather than the 38 which is more complicated and has a flat middle, then the slanted sections are curved, with then some straight wings on the end. Also, in the caps you can see that there is a circular bulge on the top of the shield which although not visible on our stock image can be seen on [File:PaK-38-batey-haosef-1.jpg other Pak 38s]. It is definitely a Pak 38 rather than a 40, so whoever wants to add it can (I would do it but can't remember what is actually going on in this scene). --commando552 (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2015 (EST)
- Yes Commando, I was talking exactly about this piece of metal, called the recoil shield. Thank you for your help with explaining :-) I will add it to the page if it is ok with everybody else.--Hchris (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2015 (EST)
- Yeah, the muzzle break is right for Pak 38. You're right.--Mandolin (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2015 (EST)
- I call that piece of metal a recoil shield (you are talking about the part that stops the gunner getting too close to the recoiling barrel right?) but do not know if that is correct. As for the statement "The gun shields are all pretty much alike" they really aren't if you look at them closely. The Pak 40 shield is essentially 3 flat planes rather than the 38 which is more complicated and has a flat middle, then the slanted sections are curved, with then some straight wings on the end. Also, in the caps you can see that there is a circular bulge on the top of the shield which although not visible on our stock image can be seen on [File:PaK-38-batey-haosef-1.jpg other Pak 38s]. It is definitely a Pak 38 rather than a 40, so whoever wants to add it can (I would do it but can't remember what is actually going on in this scene). --commando552 (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2015 (EST)
- No this is without a doubt a 5cm Pak 38. Look at the muzzle break, it looks completely different to the 7,5cm Pak 40. Also the shape of the shield identifies it as 5cm Pak 38, the barrel is much shorter and the metal structure at the back of the gun (not sure how it is called in English) is also definitely the 5cm Pak 38. Could you please add it to the page? Or am I allowed to add it? --Hchris (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2015 (EST)
- I'd agree on Pak 40. The round size looks about similar to the Pak 40s used in the Hedgerow battle. Inceptor57 (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2015 (EST)
- The gun shields are all pretty much alike. I'd call it a Pak 40, we know they had them on set.--Mandolin (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2015 (EST)
Fury's Top Mounted 1919
I think the one explanation for the additional 1919A4 is that it may have been a battlefield mod like a lot of add ons you see even today. Given the fact the Browning M2 on the Sherman was normally out of the tank commander's reach most times you would think they would want something more readily available. --Charon68 (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2015 (EST)
I believe it's just to illustrate that they have been around for a long time. They went back and forth between a single M2 and a single M1919, if M4 Sherman at War is accurate. -John 234 (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2015 (EST)
M4A1E8?
I don't believe that is actually an M4A1E8. E8 is the experimental designation for tanks with the Horizontal Volute Spring System. Old Phyllis appears to be an M4A1 76 with standard VVSS suspension. The shape is distinctive (HVSS has a horizontal cylinder, and it lacks the large visible return rollers that HVSS has.) An M4A1E8 would also have skirts above the suspension due to much wider tracks - these are totally absent on Old Phyllis. -John 234 (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2015 (EST)
- Fixed it. I thought the E8 meant the tank was equipped with a 76mm gun. Inceptor57 (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2015 (EST)
- Actually the real tank names according to the official war era manuals would be:
M4A2E8 Sherman ----> Medium Tank, M4A2E8(76 MM) "Sherman"
M4A2 Sherman ----> Medium Tank, M4A2 "Sherman"
M4A1(76)W Sherman ----> Medium Tank, M4A1(76 MM) "Sherman" (I would delete the W, or are you really sure that it had wet ammo stowage?)
M4(105)HVSS with a 76mm turret ----> Medium Tank, M4(105 MM HOW.) "Sherman" with a 76mm turret
M4A4 ----> Medium Tank, M4A4 "Sherman"
Tiger I -----> Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. E (there was never ever any mention of Tiger I, nor was it ever called Panzerkampfwagen VI)
Panther D ----> Panzerkampfwagen Panther Ausf. D (this tank was NOT called Panzerkampfwagen V or anything, only Panther Ausf., this was ordered via "Führerbefehl" by Hitler)
Panzer IV Ausf H ----> Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf. H
Jagdpanzer 38 "Hetzer" ----> OK!
--Hchris (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2015 (EST)
- Bear in mind that for the Shermans, this film was shot in the UK so some of (if not all) of them would be British/Commonwealth variants so technically they would be (in the order listed above) a IIIAY, III, IIA, IBY and a V. On the topic of the British Shermans, this could also be a reason for the additional .30 cal on the roof. The British thought that the AA Browning M2 was ineffective and not worth the effort either having no gun on the roof, or an M1919A4 mounted ahead of the commanders cupola just like on the film Shermans (meaning that the M1919 mount may be the original and the M2 one is bolted on). This was not only an "early" thing, with there being pictures of British/Commonwealth Shermans with M1919s until late in the war, such as the Sherman Tulips used by the Coldstream Guards during the crossing of the Rhine. --commando552 (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2015 (EST)
