"Fury"

[MaDuce]

I watched it the other day. A relative treated me to it as an early Christmas gift. It was a good film. Apart from the fact that it had a Tiger in it, the only thing really unique about it is that they did a pretty good job of depicting the "not so cut and dry" nature of tanks shooting big guns at one and other and some of the hazards ground troops faced when caught in the middle of it. As far as blood and gore, to any who haven't seen it yet, it's basically got allot of people getting shot by big guns. If you recall the scene from Saving Private Ryan where those GIs got shot to pieces with a 20mm Flak, well, it's got allot of that. Otherwise I'd compare it overall to Enemy at the Gates in terms of realism, quality and Hollywood distortion.

 

 One bad thing that got my blood boiling is the whole "rape" thing. I am all for reminding people that some of our troops raped women in that war as it is vital people be reminded that  good and evil can be found in every culture and army but to have a soldier trying to get away with raping a young girl and then spending the rest of the movie glorifying him really pi$$ed me off to say the least. I nearly found myself briefly rooting for the Germans when they splattered his stomach all over the tank. That's my only complaint though.

 

 It appeared to me that they took a bunch of true stories from WW II and blended them all in to one. Perhaps the one thing I most appreciated about the movie was bringing to life so many subjects you occasionally hear whispers about but have yet to be treated to in a recreation of WWII on screen. For example, the SS forcing women and children to fight or die, the sometimes sick and demented behavior by some of our troops, the radical nature of the SS (though I think Stalingrad probably did a better job then any modern American films about portraying just how evil and sick in the head true radical Nazis were) and of course, how outmatched we were by German tanks. And yeah, allot of weapons in that film that you usually don't see in WWII films like the M3, Sturmgewehr 44, Panzerfaust and I think I even saw a G43 in there.

 

 Overall it was a good film and worth watching. I doubt the movie was a direct true story, rather a bunch of true stories all blended in to one but if you're not up to speed on your history, you'll probably find it educational.

Edited December 2, 2014 by MaDuce

[blue109]

soooo...you were rooting for the nazis because an American contemplated (but didn't commit) rape?

keep digging.

I watched it last night and thought it was awesome. best movie I've seen in a long time. certainly made me thankful the tank I was on is the reigning king, and not the underdog. also, I watched a pirated copy so none of my money went to Hollywood which made it even better.

best job I ever had

[Sisco]

soooo...you were rooting for the nazis because an American contemplated (but didn't commit) rape?

keep digging.

I watched it last night and thought it was awesome. best movie I've seen in a long time. certainly made me thankful the tank I was on is the reigning king, and not the underdog. also, I watched a pirated copy so none of my money went to Hollywood which made it even better.

best job I ever had

My father, may he rest in peace, worked as a production line engineer on one of your armored partners, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the first three years it was introduced. He also knew quite a bit about the Abrams and was very impressed by it. He was puzzled about some of the decisions made about the Bradley, but thought they turned out a pretty good vehicle given all the requirements they jammed into it. Half of which were unnecessary.

[MaDuce]

soooo...you were rooting for the nazis because an American contemplated (but didn't commit) rape?

keep digging.

 

 Any you keep putting words in my mouth.

[blue109]

brads are junk. they have adapted to the role, but should have never left blueprint stage. we could have done more. I'm guessing alot of people with no knowledge of combat had a hand in those decisions. the Abrams is fantastic....and the diesel engine retrofit concepts will fix some of its shortcomings. its been the king of the jungle for a long time and I don't see anyone else fully unseating it any time soon. the leopard is a bad beast too. rolling across broken terrain at 40mph and keeping the crosshairs dead on a target 1500m away is a powerful feeling.

Edited December 2, 2014 by blue109

[blue109]

Any you keep putting words in my mouth.

actually,this is a first for me. its been other guys the last few of your threads ;)

[Sisco]

brads are junk. they have adapted to the role, but should have never left blueprint stage. we could have done more. I'm guessing alot of people with no knowledge of combat had a hand in those decisions. the Abrams is fantastic....and the diesel engine retrofit concepts will fix some of its shortcomings. its been the king of the jungle for a long time and I don't see anyone else fully unseating it any time soon. the leopard is a bad beast too. rolling across broken terrain at 40mph and keeping the crosshairs dead on a target 1500m away is a powerful feeling.

The big problem with the Brads was what the Army wrote in their requirements. It was a knee jerk reaction to the Soviet introduction of the BMP, before they had an accurate assessmentof the capabilities of the BMP, which turned out to be not very good. The Army wanted a troop carrier/On the move fighting vehicle/ Tank Destroyer/ that was light enough to ford rivers, could substitute for a tank in a pinch, chop, slice, dice, and make wonderful Julienne frys, etc., etc., etc.. Then they insisted on putting in a Hughes Thermosight that in 1977 dollars cost as much as the rest of the vehicle. So you ended up with things like aluminum armor ( thank goodness for the Kevlar liner). A vehicle that was too high in silhouette, A ridiculous inflatable fording skirt, gun ports that didnt work because they filled the bradley with gun smoke, so they had to put in permanent modified M16's with outside venting exhaust tubes, etc. etc. Like you said, they adapted to the role, but they should never have been used as a vehicle to substitute for the tank.

Blue one thing you could clarify, Friends who served on the Bradley really did like the 25 mm Chain Gun what was your impression.

I did not know about the diesel retrofit, but that makes sense, just from a fuel economy/operating range perspective. As far as the Leopard II, that came very close to being the standard American Battle Tank instad of the Abrams. Thankfully, the Abrams borrowed the 120 mm Rheinmetal cannon of the LeopardII. That is one heck of a cannon.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Sisco

[blue109]

I've never had the pleasure of firing a Brad...but I think its weapon system is gtg. the 25 will wreck anything short of a MBT, and nothing on the battlefield can stand up to a tow. you nailed its biggest issues. the armor is crap. and it looks like a house on tracks. I had a few years as OPFOR so I have an enemy perspective on our equipment. brads skyline everywhere. they are impossible to hide. they are easy targets. additionally, they put off a huge exhaust plume. I've literally tracked them from behind a ridge by the plume and soon as they poke their nose out or take a peek with the gun....BANG. Easy pickins. the gun Ports do suck....but anyone not familiar with the firing port rifle version of the m16 should check it out. glorious.

[blue109]

M2 vs BMP. disclaimer...I only have experience on BMP 1&2. my understanding is the 3 has much better fire control.

start with maintenance....the Russian stuff runs long and hard. better than our stuff. problem is that when it breaks, you just give it a bullet in the head. not field level maintenance friendly at all. lots of special tools and funky access hatches. us stuff breaks all the time, but its easy to get it running again.

chassis..the BMP blows the Brad out of the water. its fast and handles like a racecar. its sleek and low and easy to hide. blends well into terrain. I've outrun Abrams in bad terrain on several occasions in my BMP1.

turret...Brad hands down. the BMP had Shitty night vision. no stabilization. its single missile sucks. you need to keep the crosshairs on the target the whole time its in the air...not an easy trick, and only works while stationary. the exhaust port is on the right side of the track so the exhaust can obscure your sights when aiming the gun at 2 oclock.

inside....BMP is very cramped. no room for extra stuff. guys in the back are like contortionists. ever notice the video footage tends to have the rear hatches open and troops standing up.the rear doors are fuel tanks. also, the seat back that runs down the center of the crew compartment is the main fuel tank. bye bye crunchies. its a death trap.

if you have no dismounts...the back of the bmp will hold a respectable amount of coolers and bbq equipment, golf clubs, any other field essentials, and the rear seats make a great place to sleep.

Edited December 2, 2014 by blue109

[shepp]

Any you keep putting words in my mouth.

No words you said they "glorified" rape. I saw the movie they made the Hispanic and drunk hillbilly out to be assholes I don't think they glorified any bit of it. It's fucking Hollywood for fornicate sake, look at lone survivor lattrell was on set and it still got all hollywooded up........

[Sisco]

Interesting stuff Blue, thanks for sharing it. What I read of your Opfors guys is interesting. Didn't you guys run the old Sheidan for a while, modified to look like Com Bloc? Interested to hear your perspective on that. A fellow I know was stationed on one in the Fulda gap in the 1970's.

[blue109]

ugh. Sheridan. what a pile lol. I was in the interesting position of being part of the recon company. had its good and bad, but maintenance time was bad. we were responsible for our Abrams that we did gunnery and training on, our Sheridan that sat in the motorpool most of the time, and our BMP that sat at the MI motorpool.

the M551 was a pile. slow, awkward, night vision sucked if it worked at all. cramped. broke constantly. if you made it 3 months on the same engine you were doing great. we didn't have any that were duty ready though so we never fired one. would be cool to see that Shorty 155 go bang. I don't know how we did as well out there as we did, but I can only think of 1 rotation that we definitively lost. around late 97 1st cav flattened the entire regiment. other than that we always seemed to win, or at least break even.

[Sisco]

The Sheridan was another idea that didn't quite make it. That 152 mm cannon, when fired supposedly the recoil would break the fire control system. Then the Shilaleigh missle system would be useless. My friend said he felt like cannon fodder in it.

[blue109]

the missiles were stored in the drivers hole at your right shoulder, so you would need to spin the turret so the "door" in the screens was there and then slide it to the loader. then get back on target. that thing was suppose to be air droppable. you would pull the torsion bars out of the road wheel arm sockets and drop it on a sled out the back of a plane from very low altitude. I seriously doubt this was ever done successfully lol. even if it was....it would take forever to get all the torsion bars back in place. those things were the reason I reclassed. just miserable.