Fury Counter-Review by a Tanker

Hello everyone, this piece of text was written by a real life tanker and posted on other site. You know I did not like the movie, but for the sake of balance, I decided to post it as well as per our mutual agreement. -SS

A review is, of course, purely subjective, and it is shaped as much by expectation as it is by personal preference. I rather liked Fury, and believe that it achieved the goal it set out to. Before the movie was released, there was some major concern in the US tanker community (real tankers, not PC ones) that the film was going to turn out to be another Pearl Harbour or U571. It wasn’t until after people came back and started posting their reviews online that the concerns were allayed. I think our disagreement is because SilentStalker has rather missed the woods for the trees. He’s looking at it primarily as a war movie, involving tanks. Tankers view it as a movie about tankers in a war. Granted, like SilentStalker I could have done with a little less apartment scene, and a little more shooting, but what the hey. At least there’s no politics and little moralising, things I hate in a war movie.

“Wardaddy” is a term of endearment. The platoon sergeant in a US Army platoon is occasionally known as “the platoon daddy”. Platoon sergeants in WW2 could, if they were really respected after demonstrating themsevles in combat, end up with the name “War daddy.”

Anyway, the key to understanding the movie is that it attempts to get across the variety of things tankers would come up against, while constrained to two hours and one tank crew. The director is upfront about it, and this is why we see a 76mm Sherman shooting WP at things in the ETO. WP was fired by Shermans, in a manner similar to that shown. Granted, from 75mm and 105mm tanks, but the movie only has time to focus on the one crew and that crew happened to have a 76mm tank for the film. Pretty much everything in the movie happened. Not necessarily to the same crew, of course, on the same tank. As a result, we have some creative license. Could Collier have still been a respected War Daddy if he kept shooting prisoners? I don’t know. But that such things happened, one cannot discount. The movie tries to capture as many of the experiences of US tankers as it can within the limits it has of time and money.

The LT’s tank, as memory serves, was a 75mm. So yes, a brew-up could have been possible with a Panzerfaust hit. I’m not sure I see the huge problem there. Similarly, the M4 which pops its top is also a 75, and presumably dry stowage. It happened that in the original ​sc​ri​pt, the four Shermans actually encounter -two- Tigers, losing two to one and one to the second, but this was cut from production for budget/time reasons, hence the three-for-one exchange in the movie. Of course, that’s not relevant to an audience member, it’s just background.

And yes, the final battle is a bit hard to swallow. That said, the big shootout scene in To Hell and Back is probably equally hard to swallow, with one American mowing down scores of Germans supported by tanks with just a single .50 cal while he’s standing exposed on the back of a burning Sherman. But it would be very difficult to state that scene in the movie as a concept was accurate (certainly the Germans just stood up in line to get killed with little tactical acumen in the movie), but the bottom line is that the event depicted was -not- fiction, and one soldier really did break an attack of two infantry companies supported by tanks while shooting a .50 cal on a burning AFV. (An M10, but one wasn’t available for the movie, I guess). In fact, the actor in the movie was the same guy who actually did it in real life. So if one guy on a .50 cal can do what he did and survive, it is actually not beyond the realms of possibility for five guys in a generally functional M4 to cause havok with a couple hundred Germans for a while before succumbing.

But the realities of the tank depiction is actually secondary to why Fury is a great movie for tankers. The emotions of being a tanker -are- actually captured in the film. The image of four tanks on line blazing away with every weapon at once and laying waste is precisely why we became tankers. Well, that and it’s easier than walking and carrying a .30 cal. The cameraderie and conversations inside the tank are spot on. The refusal to leave the tank “It’s my home”, is also reflective of the real attitudes we have. It’s why the most famous lines in The Beast of War, another movie US tankers love, is the exchange between the tank commander and the crewmen when they are given the option of being flown to safety.

Daskal: Get back in the tank.

Kaminski: What for?

Daskal: Because I said so.

Golikov: We’re going home, sir.

Daskal: Yeah. In the tank.

Kaminski: Why can’t we go home in the fucking helicopter?

Daskal: Because you’re tankers.

(Another great line in the movie: “Out of commission, become a pillbox. Out of ammo, become a bunker. Out of time, become heroes”. Sounds familiar for Fury watchers.)

The end result is that there is now a flurry of “Best Job I Ever Had” memes and merchandise being made up by US tankers. When talking to other people about the movie, I give two answers to the question “Is it a good movie?” My answer is that if you’re a tanker, it’s a fantastic movie (well, barring the apartment scene). If you’re not a tanker, it’s not the best war movie out there, but it’s worth a watch. This is because I’m not sure that the typical cinema-goer is going to understand and relate at the higher levels to what is being shown. You either ‘get it’, or you don’t, and in the case of SilentStalker, who isn’t a tanker, I think much went over his head.

 

34 thoughts on “Fury Counter-Review by a Tanker

  1. Here’s my review;
    FURY is a rather infuriating film. World War II is a distant memory now, and David Ayer’s feature doesn’t have anything very new to add to the movies set during that awful period. Unlike, say, Quentin Tarantino who also starred Brad Pitt in a World War II movie, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, and had fun with it, you could hardly describe anything about this film as fun. It’s true that many of the action scenes are very well staged, and that the scene in which Collier and Norman visit the apartment of a couple of German women is filled with tension, but the film suffers from the fact that none of the characters is given anything in the way of a back story – we know nothing about them, and so it’s hard to care about them, even when they do an unlikely 300 Spartans for the film’s protracted climax. In addition, much of the heavily-accented dialogue is pretty incomprehensible.

    A movie certainly worth the bandwidth from a torrent but not a seat in a theatre.
    2.5/5

    • “A movie certainly worth the bandwidth from a torrent but not a seat in a theatre.
      2.5/5″ – this says all that could be said about Fury

      alex

    • It is movie about war not a ‘fun’ war movie.
      Inglorious Bastards was utter, utter, shite.
      Fury, while still too much Hollywood and overglamourising at least made the attempt to portray the horror of war.

    • I think it’s worth going to a theatre to see it, not because of its quality, and so on, but for the soundtrack : whistling shells, ricochets and stuff.

  2. Yo SilentStalker, good on you for posting this. Real big of you.

    I like the review, and agree with it.

    To me the movie was ok, but almost too devoid of story or meaning. It was almost like a horror movie or pr0n in that way ;p

  3. Nice review, and I’d like to thank the Tanker who did the review for his service.

    I’ve not actually seen “To Hell and Back”, so will have to pick that up somewhen.

    • “To Hell and Back” is a really good WW2 movie based on an actual person and events, Audie Murphy. Read up on him before seeing the movie and it might make the movie a better experience for you.
      For those of you not familiar with Audie Murphy, he was an American movie star in 1950′s to 1960′s.
      The scene mentioned by the reviewer did happen. I was kind of down on the “Fury” movie because of the John Wayne shoot out at the end, but I’d forgot about the Murphy event, so will lighten up a little on my part.

      • Audie Murphy’s badass achievements didn’t end there, either. In the 1950s, he recognized that he had an addiction to sleeping pills (because of his PTSD), took a week in a motel room by himself and broke it, and before his death in 1971 in a plane crash, recognizing his own symptoms in the soldiers who came back from Korea and who were coming back from Vietnam, spoke out about his PTSD (still known at the time as “battle fatigue” and “shellshock”) and called upon the US Gov’t. to not only increase the studies of the emotional/psychological impact of combat on individuals, but also extend health care benefits to Veterans. Sabaton also wrote a pretty damn good song about him on their “Heroes” album titled “To Hell And Back”-
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZNeastYxEc

  4. “but the bottom line is that the event depicted was -not- fiction, and one soldier really did break an attack of two infantry companies supported by tanks while shooting a .50 cal on a burning AFV.”
    yeah yeah. have fun further believing the myths used for propaganda. Taking everything as facts you really make a good soldier. You’ll blindly do everything you are told.

    • I know of a guy who charged three machineguns and rpgs, destroyed two and continued to attack other enemy. Then after that battle was over the last remaining enemy fired a full magazine at his back from close range……and missed.

      His name Ben Roberts-Smith VC MG

      • That’s because 7 from 10 mens(or women) are not killers, it’s in our nature not to kill another human, that’s why are few heroes in close combat they (the heroes) are the other 3 which have no remorse on killing another man. Long range combat it’s another thing, soldiers don’t shoot hummans they shoot uniforms but on close range when they see the faces of the enemy most of them are shooting away and are killed.

    • Same can be said about Simo Hayha, Michael Wittman or Oskin/Kolobanov.

      While some details may be slightly exaggerated, the core truth is and will remain there and it will not take away anything from the achievements of those men.

      However, that still makes you nothing more than a gigantic cunt.

    • You’ve never heard of Audie Murphy?

      Seriously, read up on the guy. The stuff in “To Hell and Back” is actually UNDERSTATING what he accomplished (they toned it down because nobody would’ve believed the real story).

  5. Still, why wouldn’t 200 germans armed marching with Panzerfausts use them? Did someone pass a memo round the marching troops as the Fury opened fire to suddenly misplace all the scores of anti tank weapons they were marching from the previous scene. Even if making them march with them was an editorial mistake, how and why would they still waited till the casualties mounted before opening their “last batch” of Pzfst? After all even if these troops were not veterans, it was demonstrated for the viewers that even children can (and did) destroy invading tanks with Pzfsts. This movie may capture the family of a tank crew working together – but seriously someone should have told them, how dumb the last scene was.

    • Here, i’m telling you: You are dumb. FFS when was the last time you shot at tank? What game was it? I can not believe the level of stupidity these war games brought to real life people. If you bothered to read the whole text you would of seen that similar thing actually happened. On a BURNED tank. 2 companies in army = 300+ soldiers. Panzerfaust did penetrate FURY.

      Give it a rest. 99%of you ,, omg the last scene sucked,, people haven’t even fired a pistol. How in hell did u all became combat veterans and tank killers to explain the reality vs the scene?

    • Not seen the movie but for a little explanation.

      Most Panzerfausts were the Panzerfaust 30 (along with the earlier Faustpatrone) – simple name explaining its range of 30m (both still produced in 1945) and the Panzerfaust 60 with a 60m range

      Both pretty damn close before you can use them and they were not particularly accurate at those ranges either.

      • Awww… come on! Don’t spoil the fun for the haters….
        Panzerfausts were sophisticated tank-killers hitting with millimeters precision targets which were miles away! They had to be so good – they were made as a perfect german war machine… and they were able to penetrate frontal armor of any tank from any angle!

  6. This review proved that the movie failed. The director tried to deliver an anti war message, showing that tankers became brainwashed and twisted doing their jobs resulting in such shining examples of humanity as “fuckface” Shane, and multiple war crimes being commited by the Fury crew. But of course every anti-war movie is actually a pro-war movie and so we have mr clever tanker reviewer enthusing over the so-called camaraderie among the crew (actually the crew all ganging up to bully the new guy) and rushing out to buy “best job I ever had” t-shirts.

    • I think it came off more, as schurem above said, as a “tank porn” movie than anti-war. It’s hard to see an anti-war movie when there’s a heroic last stand moment. Yet compare it with Generation Kill, where so many Marines hated it (and/or the book), because at the end is a bunch of soldiers who survived, won and now get to sit back and actually reflect on what they just did.

      The horrors of war rarely manifest themselves while they’re happening, only during the quiet of victory (or defeat) does it all come crashing down. That’s what’s missing for the anti-war theme anyway.

    • Message sent (If indeed there was a message) is not always the message received. And something as complex as a movie can hardly be cooked down to one message or expected to deliver any coherent message. Narrative demands that the final battle must be bigger, better and more heroic (and more final) than all that went before. So with the meta narrative of all war movies — the latest (ultimate again) movie must top all that went before in what ever way it can. Fetishising authenticity seems to be the latest way to go but when the characters are no more that one dimensional as this it ends up appearing little more realistic than Team America….Fuck Yeah!

  7. Good job posting this review, SS. At the guy who wrote this: wait, what, Bradd Pitt was in the army?

  8. This guy was right on. The movie was more about a ton of stories about tank crews all packed into one tank crew.

    And yes Audie Murphy did a much more “Unrealistic” last stand type battle than was in Fury.

    All you would cry “MURICA STRONK” if you read the action report and reports of Germans and it was true.

    Anyways while not super authentic, the actual physics of combat was very real. It was good to show the audience what 4 tanks pushing with MG`s blazing could do,

  9. Thanks for posting this SS, it didn’t bother me you don’t like Fury, what bothered me was how imbalanced I felt it was that you only put up a load of negatives.

  10. I don’t usually go to theaters to watch movies and previous visit before Fury was over 10 years ago. Nice experience after I got over the Swedish subtitles.

    “My answer is that if you’re a tanker, it’s a fantastic movie”

    Indeed! My service time was only one year but I’m full-blooded tanker. After seeing Fury my thoughts were overall very positive. Then I see lot of reviews with negative attitude towards the movie. Sure, it wasn’t perfect movie but I still was pretty surprised by them. Well, world keeps rolling and I didn’t think it that much. Now that someone has put it in words it’s so easy to see it: most of the people aren’t tankers. Yep, that explains a lot.

    I also loved The Beast of War when I saw it first time from TV. What a great movie too. This was nice review. Points for that! :)

  11. The scene you describe in “To Hell and Back” is from a movie and perhaps sensationalized a bit. Your analysis is flawed in that event truly happened and that battle gained Audie Murphy the Medal of Honor. They don’t give those medals away without considerable eyewitness documentation.

    Having read Murphy’s biography, he believes he was able to fend off the German attack for a few reasons. His unit had been calling in accurate artillery fire as the Germans advanced causing infantry casualties and he was firing the .50 cal from the back of a burning tank. He believes that the Germans could not locate the source of his fire since they discounted that anyone would be using the burning tank for cover as it was clearly about to explode. Since the resistance seemed too strong, the Germans called off the attack.

    I cannot recall actual casualty figures but I believe his single handed actions turned back an attack by an infantry company with at least 1 platoon of tanks.