New Fury “Behind the Scenes” Trailer


Thanks to Ed Francis for this one. So, the new trailer for the Fury movie is out! And it’s very… stronk. Check it out.

The fact that the movie used the only running Tiger in the world (the Bovvy one) when making it is widely known, but nevertheless, it’s still damn impressive. When you look at the Tiger exhaust pipes for example, you will see holes – those were made by actual WW2 shells during actual war, this tank actually fired at and killed British soldiers before its capture. Even the famous “Saving Private Ryan” movie had a “Tiger” made on some other suspension (I don’t know what it was – T-34 as usual?).

Aaaaaaaaaand then it gets fucked up.

Why does everyone always assume that the Sherman was such crap? Some “producer” guy calls it “far better designed and protected” while “a Sherman tank was a vulnerable piece of tin” – in fact, the firepower of the 76mm Sherman (which is in the movie) was quite sufficient for pretty much everything. Tigers – while powerful, no doubt about that – were at the end of the war practically obsolete. Pretty much all the enemy tanks they encountered in 1944 (apart from the 75mm Sherman) could take a Tiger out (well, that’s why Tiger II was designed) and the Big Cat was nowhere near as fearsome as it was before.

Sherman on the other hand got only better and it proved to be such a good design that (like the Soviet T-34) it served successfully for years and years after the war.

The entire comment part of the trailer seems like they were channelling Belton Cooper from beyond the grave. I blame him for starting the “Sherman was crap” myth (that was debunked numerous times). The infamous “5 to 1 ratio was needed to destroy a Tiger” was crap too (explained here for example on a Panther). Or the crap about Shermans burning a lot.

I have a really, really bad feeling about this movie now.

98 thoughts on “New Fury “Behind the Scenes” Trailer

  1. The feeling is stronk in this one now. I cannot agree more SS. The sherman was a damn fine tank and only got better with time. Fucking Ronson crap has been debunked so many times.

    • Don’t forget, the Panzer IV was very much a good design on the same level of the Sherman. Germany decided their thanks needed to be completely invulnerable though.

      The Panther Ausf. F (7.5cm) would have been a worthy successor with the same reliable transmission used in the JagdPanther. This would then have been the best tank of the war, combining reliability with being only slightly more expensive than a Pz. IV H (~100k RM iirc) to build. You could make just over 4 Panthers (~120k RM iirc) for the price of a Tiger (~500k RM). Don’t quote me on the exact costs, this is from memory.

      Instead, they went for several generations of a type of tank they could not afford to properly build and support. So as it is now, it’s hard to say who built the best tank. Certainly, the Sherman is making a good run for the title. It was a good uprgradeable platform and wasn’t a shoddy piece of shit like the T-34s. (The Russian candidate for the title is actually the IS-2)

  2. ” (I don’t know what it was – T-34 as usual?). ”

    Yup Silent, you’r right. It was T-34 based Tiger!

    (Millions for a movie and using T-34 for Tiger replica! Noobs…)

    • The Tiger at Bovington was restored to running condition in 2002 or 2003. Saving Private Ryan is a movie from ’98.

    • Additional note on this. They wanted to build a Tiger from scratch off of official sources, though apparently the operation would have been too expensive and they didn’t gain the clearance (?) to do it anyway. It was much more cheap and convenient to base it off the readily available T-34 chassis which only needed to be adjusted slightly to match the proportions of the Tiger.

      Source: I’m a relative of one of the development crew for that film.

        • Objective, Burma would be the high mark for offence caused. It was withdrawn in Britain after a week in 1945 and rereleased in the 50s. Real soldiers who fought in Burma were throwing stuff at the screens.

          • I remember my Father expressing his dissatisfaction directly after my request to watch “Operation Burma” back in the days of four television channels. He was not a Burma veteran, but the offended feelings were shared by many back in those post war years of unity in Britain.
            I am expecting Michael Bay without the upgraded breasts and lip enhanced short skirt, tight top wearing female eye candy…

  3. I know SS nation has ass pain from Russian and German both. Truth is Tiger is true legend and any modern tank still building from that they learned from Tiger… No body produce cheap craps like Sherman or T34… Even Isreal produce really Quality tanks like Tiger… Tiger means Quality over Quantity.. Dont forget that.

    • Quality over Quantity is better in war? you must be stoned :) and comparing todays tank to tiger? :)

      • Entire World vs Germany. Even best quality tanks cant be stoned.. But Both Russian Americans Even Jews know reality and how hard a kill tiger… Lets continue belive NG History and Discovery propaganda bullshit. TigerE – PanterG – Tiger2b best tanks @ WW2. Qality over Qantity… Is M1 or Merkeva look like t34 or Sherman or Tiger? Look merkeva design and look 4502b design. And How heavy Merkeva is. Do you think heavy tank have advantage on lousy ground like desert sands? Even with this reason still most important issue is protection and Crew life. Like Germans did it…

          • do you ever work with pro. quality printing machine. Go and printshop @ euro. And ask for best machine for work. Like tank print machine must really reliable. You can never compare even english one versus german one. Only pro workers know what need for requried time for good print.
            Sry but if your life depends on machine. I prefer Tiger five times than Sherman. Because I know they making best.

            And one think i am not german fanboy. I dont understand their points @ politics too. They are good @ mechnaics. Nothing more nothing less.

            • Currently the best video games are made in Eastern Europe.

              And the best TECH wizards were in Ukraine. Not Crytek, 4A.

              Quality is not dependant on nation.

              If I were a general, Id rather command mobile and dependable machines that could do more then kill other tanks. So… nope, wont choose TIgers :)

                • I am not Ukrainian… where did you get that?

                  Fact. GSC and 4A are Tech Gods. We are discussing Video Games mainly here.
                  4A beat every other AAA multi million dollar Dev to the ground so bad it aint even funny with Metro Redux for both PC and console.

                  And no one has ever crafted ANYTHING that compares to STALKER.

  4. About Sherman being crap and tiger being great it’s more about gun. Tigers 88 could take out Sherman far before 76 could

    • I’m sure that must have given the Tiger’s crew a lot of comfort as they hid cowering in a ditch from American aircraft who also wiped out all their logistics support, while their tank broke down in the field, and if the lone survivor of their unit finally reached the battle zone they promptly encountered huge numbers of Shermans supported by TDs, self propelled and towed artillery, and motorized and mechanized infantry.

      • The reason why germans “cowered in a ditch” was because the “very brave” americans were carpet bombing every inch, they were WAY TOO AFRAID to attack with tanks, even though they had numerical superiority of – let’s say 10 to 1 although that’s grossly overestimating the germans chances.

        • War isn’t about being brave, it’s about winning. Using air suppiority to knock out logistics with bombing campaigns is a much surer way at achieving victory than throwing numerical superiority at the enemy. We won the war because we were smarter, not because we were necessarily braver.

          Also, Democracies don’t like losing men in battle unlike the communists (or even fascists to an extent). During the war captured German soldiers said they were surprised at the amount of munitions the US threw at such small amounts of German soldiers. Ammunition is cheap, men are not. The Western allies threw ammunition at their enemies while the Russians threw men. Leave the foolish numerical superiority attacks to the Russians.

        • Novody said that wars are about fair play. You use every advantage to destroy the enemy with the least cost for yourself. Bombs are cheap when compared to tanks and if you have plenty of bombs and tanks, you still use the bombs.

  5. Meh, I wouldn’t be too worried. I mean, Produces always talk shit about a movie they’re working on. They’re basically just morons. There is a reason I never watch these kind of segments. They’re always annoying. You even end up watching an actor you like talk complete rubbish. Who knows how much dialog was cut and snipped to assemble it.

  6. I call BS on the fact that the Tiger is rolling towards the Sherman over an open field without cover to close combat. One of the main advantages after all is the long range weapon, a tiger can destroy an Sherman from farer distance. The Sherman with the 76mm gun need to come closer. So why drive closer and give them a better chance to destroy you? And in a open field you are more in danger of airplanes too, the allies had the air superiority at that time. Makes no sense for me.
    I guess it is more thrilling for the viewer to see a tiger storming over open field with the commander standing in the open hatch fires his pistol, bouncing shots after shots. But i doubt that this situation was common back that time. Looks more like the typical “style over reality” nonsense, using historical vehicles dosn´t make a movie automatically more accurate.

    • This.

      It must be a child driving that Tiger, else it would have stayed in cover.

      Tiger doctrine said to engage the enemy at long ranges, (because German guns and optics were superiour to any of the enemies) and especially so late in the war a Tiger wouldn’t have ventured into an open field.

      Tiger was clearly the superiour tank 1vs1. Sherman doctrine was to avoid the Tiger all together. Let anti tank guns take care of them instead.

      Also, shooting on a moving target while still moving yourself was definitely NOT a part of any effective anti-tank doctrine. Tigers would always stop and take the time to aim. Why keep moving, negating one of your major advantages? Also – little to fear from a Sherman from the front.

  7. Somethings are true but not all.

    The Shermans burning??? well not all specially the model used in Pacific with diesel engines but the main problem in Shermas were the ammo storage… they solved this in part with wet ammo racks.

    5:1 false??? well hard to say but i doubt was to far from reality… IN COMBAT, other thing is that murricans count abandoned and captured tanks in retreats as destroyed by Shermans.

    I see Sherman later versions better than T-34 serie (T-34 was more revolutionary BUT had a lot of problems in other areas) in general but inferior to Panthers, you only need what type of tanks design USA after war… even Pershing was more Panther than Sherman.

    • Shermans “burned” (Rather, cooked off) because Brits loved to stuff them full of ammo in every spot they could possibly put it, outside of stowage spec. So it wasn’t uncommon for British Shermans to cook off. This wasn’t as big an issue with US-issued Shermans because ammo stowage was more strictly regulated. Then later when Shermans started getting wet ammo stowage from the production line the cookoffs virtually stopped.

      The Brits had the same problems with their own tanks in North Africa. You know. Diesel-powered tanks.

      It wasn’t the fuel. The fuel had little to do with it. That’s a myth. Just like the whole “Ronson” nonsense. When Ronson didn’t even start that ad campaign until the mid-50s…

      Shermans also had several advantages over the T-34. Namely in build quality, reliability and crew comfort and safety. The M4 actually had real ammo stowage. It didn’t have the turret crew standing ontop of ammo crates for stowage like the T-34 did.

      Neither were “inferior” to the Panther, because both the T-34 and the M4 could be counted on to actually work when they reached the fight. The Panther was likely to break on the way to the fight…which is why the Germans transported them by rail everywhere…

  8. You only now get a bad feeling about that movie?

    After seeing that last trailer I was already facepalming a lot… looks like garbage tbh, will most likely watch later but only “for free”.

    • Exactly! FFS it is a MOVIE (aka, entertainment) and we will get to see a REAL Tiger I in battle against a REAL Sherman Easy 8 (well, the A2 Easy 8 anyway; M4A2E8). Not to mention a lot of other WWII AFVs, equipment, uniforms, etc.

      No, it won’t be completely historically accurate and we amateur experts will pick out all the mistakes, but try to be happy that we get a high quality production of WWII tank battles. If Fury was simply a documentary it would be a complete bomb at the box office.

  9. If they seriosly are gonna keep the Tiger in its DESERT camo then i will laugh my ass off.

    Atleast do some pc magic and change it…

  10. Comparing a sherman with a tiger is like comparing an apple with a pineapple; sure, they are both fruit , have Apple in their names and are both an integral part of a fruit salad… the rest is just pure nonsense, to begin with. The other thing someone stated was the “just got better with time” stuff. It is as true as it is simple – but quite frankly, you can say that about pretty much everything in this universe…even including tiger tanks. And yeah – please don’t see this as an invitation to quote me and yet again compare apple’s and oranges (or pineapples, if you wish) of a later version. Just my 2 cents and as such a particularly hard currency. The rest is Hollywood .

  11. SilentStalker,

    I appreciate your work with ftr, and you are offering a lot of good information about the game, but the more I read of your dribble about real things the more I think that you neither have a clue nor much intelligence.

    First of all the entire movie is another stupid story incarnation of a small group of totally outnumbered and outgunned oh-so heroic American soldiers a.k.a. the Powers Of Good beating up hordes of mindless Nazi drones a.k.a. the Powers Of Evil by sheer means of their goodness and heroism. Some more Brad Pitt

    It’s interesting how the U.S. has to look back at the glorious days of their now rather distant past because there is nothing glorious they could look at ever since to reassure themselves that they still are the good guys.

    Second, even a Sherman Firefly (which was a British modification of the Sherman tank which had *not* been adopted by the U.S. army) was no match for the Tiger 1 due to its inferior armor. So many countries using Shermans after WW 2 is not a proof how great the Sherman was. It only says something about its availability (numbers and price). For the majority of WW2 tanks the Tiger 1 was a serious threat and a tough nut to the end of the war. Tanks that could handle it have not been available in numbers before the war ended (ofc, Tiger tanks weren’t exactly available in numbers either, but that doesn’t change anything).

    Your dumb talk is in line with the crap I have seen you post on the WoT forums recently.

    PS: I am not personally nationally offended by your post, and I don’t think the Tiger is a sacred device that must not be defiled. I just cannot stand bullshit like your post.

    • The butthurt is stronk in this Wehr-a-boo.

      And pls use more insults in your post so that no one takes it seriously.

    • Well, Silent at least posted some (hopefully credible) sources at the end of his article, so where are yours. It’s pretty hard to take your comment at face value without some supporting facts.

      He also didn’t say that the Tiger was crap or couldn’t take out a Sherman in a perfect 1 on 1 fantasy scenario (which is pointless to imagine anyway). He merely states that it wasn’t the OMG STRONKEST TENK EVAR that so many people think it was.

    • Instead of claiming I am dumb, present some sources to prove otherwise. Because I am very tired of raging morons lately – I would recommend you not to act like one, I am sure you can do better. Thanks.

      • 1. The Tiger 1 could still destroy a Sherman at distance where the Sherman had no chance of reliably doing the same to it.

        2. I already countered your argument of claiming the Sherman was so good because it got used by so many other countries. The Panther was considered the first modern MBT. I bet if those countries could have bought a (possibly improved) Panther version that had ironed out its weaknesses, they wouldn’t have gone for Shermans. Just think about it instead of asking me to do it for you.

        Not going to say anything about your recent fail post on the WoT forums (you are SilentStalkerCZ there, aren’t you? If not, I recall that part of my post.)

        • 2. You are as usal for a Wehr-a-boo, totally missing the point. The Sherman was used worldwirde because it united all good features of a tank which include beeing reliable and possible to mass produce while having a decent enough combat perfomance. Something the overengineered crap like Tiger’s and Panther’s could never match.

          Also the myth of the panther was already debunked in the source stated in the article.

          • I don’t know what a Wehr-a-boo is, but I am most definitely *not* a Wehrmacht oder German tanks fanboi. NOT AT ALL!

            I also never claimed the Panther was 5:1 superior to the M4. It was more mobile, better armed, better armored and had a better hull design than the Sherman. I think you didn’t properly read the article: It says that a tank’s success in fighting another tank depends on who engages first. That has nothing to do with the vehicle’s quality.

            So please leave me alone with your retarded dribble when you don’t really know anything about me, Vollhorst.

            • So close, if the number 1 factor in who wins a tank engagement has little to do with armor and pen of the gun, why waste resources building something that stresses and breaks the limits of transmissions of the time on things that don’t matter? That is how you end up not having enough materials to field a mobile army. Amazing almost 100 years of combined armed operations to look at involving tanks, artillery, infantry, and air power and people still don’t get it. The Tiger and panther were resource hogs that limited the armor support a German grunt could expect to have backing them up.

              Also I have family and friends that fought losing friends to stop communist aggressors. So you can close the fridge door saying the US has nothing to hang their hat on since WW2.

      • Maybe one more (bloody edit feature closes an editing operation after 5 mins even if it was started in time – well implemented, cough).

        You wrote that pretty much every tank on the field could take out a Tiger (1) in 1944. The majority of tanks a Tiger 1 met in 1944 were T-34s and Shermans with the 75 mm gun. These had no chance of damaging a Tiger at the combat ranges the Tiger could destroy them. They had to get real close for that. Their advantage lie in their huge numbers. So that remark of yours is plain bullcrap, and if you had thought about it just for a moment you’d have realized that.

  12. quote: “hat was debunked numerous times”

    debunked by who, you?!?! .. oh please!

    if the tank was so great why did it needed so many upgrades, or why did the US built and deployed the Pershing? why did they even built the “Super” Pershing on the battlefield

    • here’s something else that almost everyone ignores: the US,during WW2, did not deploy it’s tanks to combat enemy’s tanks, they were used as infantry support

      to combat the enemy’s tanks, they used the infantry

      the US combat doctrine, involving tanks, was completely different from how german used them

    • Sherman’s basic design was such that it allowed upgrades, while Tiger upgrade was Tiger 2, a completely different design. And the entire Tiger vs Sherman thing is so overblown, most Tigers fought on the Eastern front anyway. Sherman encountered many more Panthers than Tigers.

      As for the Pershing, it could have been fielded a year before it did, but one of the main reasons why it hasn’t was that Sherman was deemed good enough. Pershing was a logic step in tank evolution, but it had zero impact on the outcome of the war. And Super Pershing was a single tank experiment, nothing more.

    • Debunked by actual experts in the field.

      And the tank is great and all the upgrades, and different versions is a testament to how great it was. The only reason the Sherman would blow up after being hit was because of ammo storage, and that was only in the early versions. Later versions had wet stowage ammo racks which solved this issue. The Sherman tank then became the tank with the highest crew survival rate after being hit.

      Then there was the whole thing about being reliable, easy maintenance, easy in field upgrades, less of a logistical burden. You know, attributes than win wars.

      As for your statement on US combat doctrine, yes, the US did not use the M4s for specifically for tank vs tank combat but primarily infantry support. You get the 90mm armed GMCs or 76mm GMCs that carried HVAP which made short work of anything German. The same 76mm later Shermans actually got.

    • Taken your argument and turning it around: If the Tiger was so great, why did they even bothered building other Tanks such as Panthers or TigerII, huh?

  13. The fun thing is that Tiger I and Panther in the end where both tanks with very small evolution… Tiger I was a tank to do a specific mission (in the end Tiger I never was used on his role as “spearhead” tank and show that is much better a sniper to decimate enemy at range) and Panther a more complete tank than Tiger I only have minimal evolution (fix some problems in engine and made it easier to produce) but NEVER see the level of evolution you can see in post war Shermans… the fun thing is that the final evolution in Panther I (Panther F model using autoloader L71) could be superior to the last evolution patch of Sherman (M51 super sherman) even using WWII stuff in Panther.

    These movies are all for popcorn and autopromotion but ask to a WWII tanker what prefer… if be in a Sherman or in a Tiger/Panther, one thing is be capable to kill a big cat and other do it average, there are a lot of factors in tank VS tank.

    • 105mm L/44 French HEAT firing guns is still better than 88mm L/71 German guns any day.

    • You think the “evolution” argument is one? Who should have evolved the Panther? Which country? What industry?

      This is a non-argument.

      After WW2, countries looking for tanks had few options, and German tanks weren’t included (nor was there any tank industry being able to build and “evolve” them).

    • Well, duh.

      With the German war production destroyed or dismantled after WW2, no wonder the Panther didn’t see any evolution.

      Besides, the main features of the Panther – such as the gun and optics – were completely adequate for the duration of the war. They could penetrate any tank they met at a comfortable range. If it works don’t fix it. Panther engine had issues which were adressed several times.
      All in all, the Panther was a sound tank from the finished design to the end of the war, on par with or superiour to any soviet or allied tank.

      The Tiger was developed as an anti-tank-tank. In that role it performed well, despite initial problems. It’s gun and optics performed well above par for the duration of the war.
      It was over-engineered and expensive – and eventually replaced in it’s role by the Panther – with Hitler opting for the Tiger 2 because insane.

      • The Panther didn’t see any evolution because it wasn’t really that great a design. Had it come out the 35 ton tank it was originally intended to be, maybe. But it was far too mechanically unreliable to truly be anything more than a liability.

        The French tried to copy German designs and eventually gave up and went with Western-themed designs. The US based everything after the war on the Pershing, and the Soviets based everything off the T-34 and then the T-54. So no, the Panther saw no evolution. Because it was a dead-end. There was nothing to evolve that US and Soviet designs weren’t doing better/more efficiently.

        • Even with France which took some design themes from the Germans, they quickly shuffled a lot of the German’s stuff off to the side. Front mounted transmission, and german optical systems were never even toyed around with, and turret and armament were radically revised.

          • They accepted American M47s (Whether they accepted them or had them shoved down their throat is debatable) and then when they built the AMX-30, it was heavily based on American designs and the Leopard I, which was also heavily based on Western design philosophy. Even the Germans didn’t use any design ques from the Panther.

  14. Add to the equation gun acurancy, gun effect over chasis and ammo loaded… maybe L71 pen less BUT not a lot using the best WWII ammo for the gun, think in L71 using a more modern ammo… and well, Panther hull is a more stable plataform if you want mount something bigger than a 88mm gun.

  15. Ok ss, we all know that you have ass pain from Germans and Russians. So please, stop with your strooooooooooooooooooonk articles.

    • Oh, from Germans too?

      It’s always funny when the grand children of the people who had actually suffered WW2 start to develop a national trauma … substitutory suffering is what I call that.

      Well, keep suffering if you so enjoy it then.