Bel8910
Rep: 80.7  
votes: 5
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 1:25 am Post subject: FURY vs Close Combat (Tongue in Cheek Critique) |
 |
|
Just watched Fury. Awesome tank movie! However, that stuff never happens in Close Combat!  When can 4 Sherman's drive across open country, in a line, and defeat 2 emplaced AT guns? The gunners in the movie were sloppier than anything I have ever seen in the game! And 3 Sherman's taking on a Tiger?! C'mon, across open ground like that...it was a suicide run. And a tank team holding of a BATTALION of elite SS? Really, except for CCMT, the tank crews run as soon as the vehicle is destroyed.
Flame me if you want..this if for fun only. I really enjoyed the movie especially since there are few movies made from a tank point of view. Add this to your World War II movie list right alongside Saving Pvt Ryan, A Bridge too Far, Midway, Tora! Tora! Tora! and the Longest Day!!
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
dj
Rep: 157.5
votes: 9
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:28 am Post subject: Re: FURY vs Close Combat (Tongue in Cheek Critique) |
|
|
Yes I just watched the Blu-Ray DVD last night. You're right a lot things were done just terrible in the movie. Exactly that was the worst part of the whole movie at the end. As if an entire SS battalion would not have a single PanzerShreck, long-range PanzerFaust, or lousy 3.7cm AT gun of any type? And reliance on MG's and sniper instead? Seriously doubt the Krauts would be singing in April '45 in combat zone to tip-off their arrival.
A lot of things were done right though too in the movie, so it's a wash. The artillery, depiction of AT and MG rounds, use of real Tiger tank (borrowed from museum) and what life maybe was like for a tank crew were well done. Uniforms and vehicles were spot on. It was the first time a real Tiger tank was used in a movie. Yeah although they blew it with that ridiculous battle scene. And tanks on both sides constantly without any infantry support at all highly unlikely.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
ke_mechial
Rep: 89.1
votes: 2
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:49 am Post subject: Re: FURY vs Close Combat (Tongue in Cheek Critique) |
|
|
| Fury is full of errors. But, in the name of special effects, it is ok.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
US_Brake
Rep: 24.2
votes: 22
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 11:27 pm Post subject: Re: FURY vs Close Combat (Tongue in Cheek Critique) |
|
|
| Good Movie. Not many WWII action films anymore, I'll take what I can get.
|
Close Combat's most infamous SOB |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Dima
Rep: 87.3
votes: 16
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 9:56 am Post subject: Re: FURY vs Close Combat (Tongue in Cheek Critique) |
|
|
| Quote:
|
|
Good Movie. Not many WWII action films anymore, I'll take what I can get.
|
second that!
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
platoon_michael
Rep: 56.2
votes: 25
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:21 pm Post subject: Re: FURY vs Close Combat (Tongue in Cheek Critique) |
|
|
My disappointment stems from many things regarding this movie.
Most reviews when this movie came out are once again driven to get you to go to the Theater and see it.Which I really wanted to do, I don't go to the Theater very much unless its something created visually I know my TV cant produce.
Following the forums here and other internet reviews paints it differently.
Now lets compound the fact that for 18 years I went and saw every child movie ever created and my now 18 year old son who said he would go see it with me when it came out....backed out.
Twice,
So here I am in my apt. all by myself anxiously awaiting the DVD release date.
And reluctantly spent the 5.99 this morning through On Demand to watch this so called long awaited WWII movie.
And unfortunately I have to agree that US_Brake said it best.......
Not many WWII movies made anymore.........I'll take what I can get.
Here's hoping that god knows how many years from now someone will actually make something worth watching.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
platoon_michael
Rep: 56.2
votes: 25
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:24 pm Post subject: Re: FURY vs Close Combat (Tongue in Cheek Critique) |
|
|
| Lone Survivor with Marky Mark was better than this.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
vobbnobb
Rep: 73
votes: 6
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 7:27 pm Post subject: Re: FURY vs Close Combat (Tongue in Cheek Critique) |
|
|
| Bel8910 wrote (View Post):
|
Just watched Fury. Awesome tank movie! However, that stuff never happens in Close Combat! When can 4 Sherman's drive across open country, in a line, and defeat 2 emplaced AT guns? The gunners in the movie were sloppier than anything I have ever seen in the game! And 3 Sherman's taking on a Tiger?! C'mon, across open ground like that...it was a suicide run. And a tank team holding of a BATTALION of elite SS? Really, except for CCMT, the tank crews run as soon as the vehicle is destroyed.
|
| Bel8910 wrote (View Post):
|
Really, except for CCMT, the tank crews run as soon as the vehicle is destroyed.
|
Initially, the Fury tank wasn't destroyed just immobilized at the start of the big ending. In CC the crew will still operate fully in an immobile tank as well..
Sure it was a dumb move for Shermans to move across open ground where the open ground is where the Tiger and Panthers are best in. The tanks didn't know what was lurking below the horizon or I don't think they would have left cover. The Tigers turret rotation speed is VERY slow and it shows just how a fast sherman could defeat it. The shermans could never go head to head with these tanks so they had to come up with exploiting tactics like that that DO work in close combat games as well. I don't think they were SS soliders they might have been a massive volks groups
(old men and kids mixed in with maybe some SS) Now think of if those shermans would have used smoke first before making that move, they ight have all survived and the tiger would be dead quick. A Tiger can't do anything blind.
In close combat you can build your tanks crew experience as well, if you have an elite crew and the driver gets killed the tank will move cowardly/backwards and expose its sides to enemy armor because of the dumb greenhorn driver. SAVE YOUR TANKS AT ALL COSTS. Use Bazookas and AT guns A lot! In ww2 A way to kill a tank was NOT with another tank more options are on the table here.
|
My WW2 CC Series TimeLine
http://tinyurl.com/n2vrec5 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Pzt_Crackwise
Rep: 64.9
votes: 1
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 8:28 pm Post subject: Re: FURY vs Close Combat (Tongue in Cheek Critique) |
|
|
| I don't want to sound vulgar and impulsive but there are no better expressions to illustrate my distaste in this movie. I just could not stand the stupidity of the film and was gonna f*** myself from anger due to nothing making any f'ing sense. I just can't stand illogical things...
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
platoon_michael
Rep: 56.2
votes: 25
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 9:08 pm Post subject: Re: FURY vs Close Combat (Tongue in Cheek Critique) |
|
|
Was or was not the Tiger in Hull Down?
Did he or did he not have the advantage of Terrain?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
jakebullet70
Rep: 39.3
votes: 1
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:56 pm Post subject: Re: FURY vs Close Combat (Tongue in Cheek Critique) |
|
|
A good tank movie is Lebanon. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1483831/
Completely takes place in the tank.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Dima
Rep: 87.3
votes: 16
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:12 pm Post subject: Re: FURY vs Close Combat (Tongue in Cheek Critique) |
|
|
| Pzt_Crackwise wrote (View Post):
|
|
I don't want to sound vulgar and impulsive but there are no better expressions to illustrate my distaste in this movie. I just could not stand the stupidity of the film and was gonna f*** myself from anger due to nothing making any f'ing sense. I just can't stand illogical things...
|
Fury is much more realistic than Saving Private Rayan for instance.
I recall I've read your comments in the other thread about tank commanders watching battlefield from an open hatch - and yes, that's how experience commanders did that. F.e. O.Carius who died last week has keep telling in his book and interviews that that was one of the worst mistakes of the Russian tankers that they didn't overwatch the battlefield from the open hatches.
Bel,
| Quote:
|
|
When can 4 Sherman's drive across open country, in a line, and defeat 2 emplaced AT guns?
|
very experienced US tankers vs green Germans - why not?
usually it took 3-4 shots to score a hit against moving tanks and they did score a hit that gone ricoshet.
but of course it's impossible to show in movies how tanks attack zig-zaging.
| Quote:
|
|
The gunners in the movie were sloppier than anything I have ever seen in the game!
|
there are very many memoirs of the German tankers in 1941-42 when Russian ATGs couldn't hit them although opened fired first.
| Quote:
|
|
And 3 Sherman's taking on a Tiger?! C'mon, across open ground like that...it was a suicide run.
|
actually 76mm M1A2 of M4A3 could make a nice holes in Tiger's frontal at 300-500m no problem.
in movie that was just a visulisation of an old myth that you need 4-5 Shermans to KO Tiger.
| Quote:
|
|
And a tank team holding of a BATTALION of elite SS? Really, except for CCMT, the tank crews run as soon as the vehicle is destroyed.
|
there wasn't a battalion, and of course there were not infantry elite SS in 1945 - obviously some rookies after 2-3 weeks training.
btw I've come across numerous accounts of the Russian tanks in same situations fighting German infantry for many hours/days.
Fury is just a bunch of urban legends and myths but IMO that's one of the best WW2 movies depth-wise of all times 
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Pzt_Crackwise
Rep: 64.9
votes: 1
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:37 am Post subject: Re: FURY vs Close Combat (Tongue in Cheek Critique) |
|
|
Dima, I did not say that opening the hatches to get an overview of the battlefield was a stupid thing. What I did say is, that Brad Pitt keeps the hatch open and his head dangling all the time in an urban fight, even after when the guy next to him has his brains exploding by a sniper shot.
I think you have missed my points entirely in the previous post: The Germans don't have any reason to try to destroy the immobilized tank, they actually need to be keep moving to reach their destination. Germans remember they have pzfausts after they have lost half of their strength with human wave attacks.
These are only some of the dumb issues I repeat here. And you are saying that this movie is one of the best WW2 movies depth-wise? Historical accuracy and logical coherency are not the same thing, mind you. Fury may be historically accurate, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a dumbed down illogical piece of mess.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
mooxe
Rep: 221.7
votes: 25
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 6:16 pm Post subject: Re: FURY vs Close Combat (Tongue in Cheek Critique) |
|
|
The top down view of the tank battle actually reminded me of CC instantly. The actual camera angle looked fake to, maybe it was.
Remember the guy who wrote this movie wrote U-571. This was not meant to be historically accurate for the die hards out there.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Dima
Rep: 87.3
votes: 16
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:11 pm Post subject: Re: FURY vs Close Combat (Tongue in Cheek Critique) |
|
|
| Quote:
|
|
What I did say is, that Brad Pitt keeps the hatch open and his head dangling all the time in an urban fight, even after when the guy next to him has his brains exploding by a sniper shot.
|
guess beeing hardened veteran he knew that a chance to get killed is lower when you can see enemy and engage them instead of sitting inside a tank with virtually no observation in comparison.
| Quote:
|
|
I think you have missed my points entirely in the previous post: The Germans don't have any reason to try to destroy the immobilized tank, they actually need to be keep moving to reach their destination. Germans remember they have pzfausts after they have lost half of their strength with human wave attacks.
|
my thought is that they had some vehicles with them carrying ammo and heavy weapons that couldn't not drive through wet fields around that village.
there are instances when an immobilized tank was a real pain in the ass blocking supply for much larger units.
another my thought is that after a rest (that's why they came so late to that village) they put all their heavy weapons in those vehicles and that's why the first Germans (probably forward reccoinassance) didn't have them available for immidiate use. Or maybe these recce unit just didn't carry AT weapons to be as light as possible.
and of course they didn't loose half of their stength...
| Quote:
|
|
And you are saying that this movie is one of the best WW2 movies depth-wise? Historical accuracy and logical coherency are not the same thing, mind you. Fury may be historically accurate, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a dumbed down illogical piece of mess.
|
once again, there is nothing impossible in such situation pictured in Fury. Even Tiger scene is alright, taking it was at 700m and they smoked it first and then it had to move out of smoke and that's why missed the first shots at moving Shermans.
but in this movie the soldiers look like bored soldiers and not like Holywood stars, even Pitt is not a hero but just a guy who does his job, overall enviroment (mud, dirt, blood) and scenes are great. Tactics is shown good as well.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
dj
Rep: 157.5
votes: 9
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:13 am Post subject: Re: FURY vs Close Combat (Tongue in Cheek Critique) |
|
|
| mooxe wrote (View Post):
|
The top down view of the tank battle actually reminded me of CC instantly. The actual camera angle looked fake to, maybe it was.
Remember the guy who wrote this movie wrote U-571. This was not meant to be historically accurate for the die hards out there.
|
True I remember that brief scene, top down view. That part definitely looked like CC and must have been fake with cgi. That explains everything, I didn't realize it was the same writer as U-571. Fury was an improvement for him vs U-571. Hollywood always tries to portray movies on historical stories as "based on true events"...but rarely if ever do they get things right. At least finally we have a movie with real tanks from both sides and correct uniforms. But that ending was absurd. The writer himself termed the German advance as entire SS battalion, which also matched the uniforms of the troops. So the writer and director were their own worst enemies in the category of historical accuracy. The only part at the end they got right was showing the advancing column use initial flanking maneuver and occupy the house.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
US_Brake
Rep: 24.2
votes: 22
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
CloseCombatRob
Rep: 6.3
votes: 1
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:00 am Post subject: Re: FURY vs Close Combat (Tongue in Cheek Critique) |
|
|
| Whilst fury was a great movie, it was heavily biased towards the americans, in hollywood movies they make it look like all germans are retards and just run in front of american guns, also the tiger bouncing off the side of a sherman, what was going on there, that would of never happened in real life, sorry i love to nit pick xD
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
