Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Gots our tickitos for Friday - Opening Day - for FURY. Here's a neat article: http://www.thecredits.org/2014/10/world-war-ii-veterans-helped-fuel-furys-realism/ “David is ferocious about authenticity,” says Pitt. “We got to meet several vets who were all in their 90s; they had survived D-Day landings, and the Battle of the Bulge…it was a very humbling experience to sit in their presence and listen to their stories. They had very visceral descriptions of what it was like to be in the tank: the heat, the exhaust, it was oily, the smell of death was always in the air. Most of them were undertrained, they were underequipped, they were dealing with incredible hardships and weather, lack of food, lack of sleep. And they had to push on under the most harrowing of conditions.” GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs Bonney SASS # 10171 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Gots our tickitos for Friday - Opening Day - for FURY. Here's a neat article: http://www.thecredits.org/2014/10/world-war-ii-veterans-helped-fuel-furys-realism/ “David is ferocious about authenticity,” says Pitt. “We got to meet several vets who were all in their 90s; they had survived D-Day landings, and the Battle of the Bulge…it was a very humbling experience to sit in their presence and listen to their stories. They had very visceral descriptions of what it was like to be in the tank: the heat, the exhaust, it was oily, the smell of death was always in the air. Most of them were undertrained, they were underequipped, they were dealing with incredible hardships and weather, lack of food, lack of sleep. And they had to push on under the most harrowing of conditions.” GG ~ Did the actors think war was a picnic catered between takes? I know they don't teach this stuff anymore but the degree of ignorance regarding the cost of freedom is a national disgrace. Those that have paid the price deserve much better than they are getting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted October 15, 2014 Author Share Posted October 15, 2014 Did the actors think war was a picnic catered between takes? I know they don't teach this stuff anymore but the degree of ignorance regarding the cost of freedom is a national disgrace. Those that have paid the price deserve much better than they are getting. Geez - gimme a break - Pitt doesn't think that at all. This article serves to describe the movie and what went into it and the realism they wanted to portray AND it seems that 'those who paid the price' helped this movie in that regard. GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocWard Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Did the actors think war was a picnic catered between takes? I know they don't teach this stuff anymore but the degree of ignorance regarding the cost of freedom is a national disgrace. Those that have paid the price deserve much better than they are getting. I didn't read that into what he was saying at all. The simple fact is those who haven't served don't necessarily think of the things they went through. I'm not sure they need to, unless they plan to lead the country, but that is a different discussion. It is enough that they know these men went into harm's way, putting their fear aside and their lives on the line, and understand the significance of that. I read what Pitt said, and it just indicates to me that he is appreciative of what those men went through, and why. Not that he was unappreciative or ignorant of it beforehand. edit: Posted before coffee kicked in this morning, and went on a bit of an unnecessary rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlin Buckhorn,SASS 51727 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 My neighbor was tank crew member in the Battle of the Bulge. He never talked about it. Wonderful man,dedicated husband and great father. Planning on seeing the movie to understand a little bit more about what our Greatest Generation did for us and the rest of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 I don't see anything wrong in Pitt's quoted comments....strange criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Thanks Gunner. Good article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duffield, SASS #23454 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 A long time ago I worked with Frank Handley, who had been an enlisted tanker from the mid 1930s through Korea. He went through North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France and Germany with General Patton's armored forces. What impressed me most was that he had survived! He would talk about it if asked. I wish I had asked him a lot more than I did. Duffield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted October 15, 2014 Author Share Posted October 15, 2014 Brad Pitt 'honored' to be in presence of U.S. military during 'Fury' filming http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/10/15/brad-pitt-honored-military-fury/ GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nasty Newt # 7365 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Piling-on parties just ain't what they used to be. Good try though, Bugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs Bonney SASS # 10171 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 OK, OK, I get it, it isn't necessary for him to actually DO anything as long as he is "honored" and shows respect. It used to be that movie heros had actually been in the service and knew what it meant. Now, it is enough to be told how it is. Guess I'm just getting old and cranky but somehow, I just don't buy talking the talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted October 16, 2014 Author Share Posted October 16, 2014 OK, OK, I get it, it isn't necessary for him to actually DO anything as long as he is "honored" and shows respect. It used to be that movie heros had actually been in the service and knew what it meant. Now, it is enough to be told how it is. Guess I'm just getting old and cranky but somehow, I just don't buy talking the talk. Whatever. GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original Lumpy Gritz Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Bugs ol'boy-Mr Pitt is show'n what is called, RESPECT. I thank you for your service I never served in the military- I have sent 3 sons to war. Try have'n 2 sons in 'theater' at the same time---Trust me, my wife and I do know. My wife never served-But there is a MOH in her family. Her last name is Schofield, out of Missouri. Your remarks are in poor taste-To say the least. LG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 OK, OK, I get it, it isn't necessary for him to actually DO anything as long as he is "honored" and shows respect. It used to be that movie heros had actually been in the service and knew what it meant. Now, it is enough to be told how it is. Guess I'm just getting old and cranky but somehow, I just don't buy talking the talk. Amigo, they're just makin a movie. Lot's of movie heroes never served or served in special service units. Lemme buy you a drink and melt some o' that crankiness away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 It appears to me that the tank "Fury" is a M4A3E8 (Easy Eight) with a 76mm gun. The Easy Eight entered service in the European theater in late December 1944. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocWard Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 OK, OK, I get it, it isn't necessary for him to actually DO anything as long as he is "honored" and shows respect. It used to be that movie heros had actually been in the service and knew what it meant. Now, it is enough to be told how it is. Guess I'm just getting old and cranky but somehow, I just don't buy talking the talk. Just a thought: It is a good thing this is the case, because it means we haven't faced a conflict with the need for overwhelming commitment since WWII. The desire to understand to the extent the actors can is important in my mind. After you finish Bob's offered libation, I will buy the next round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 And I can think of several Western stars who were never actually cowboys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anvil Al #59168 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 OK, OK, I get it, it isn't necessary for him to actually DO anything as long as he is "honored" and shows respect. It used to be that movie heros had actually been in the service and knew what it meant. Now, it is enough to be told how it is. Guess I'm just getting old and cranky but somehow, I just don't buy talking the talk. So if an actor has not served in war time battle. He is not worthy of playing a part in a movie??? That's what you are saying. REALLY???? IT'S A MOVIE. HE'S AN ACTOR. Think John Wayne played in a war movie or two. Guess he should never have done so either. Pitt showed respect for them and what they did. Good grief. He is one of the few actors in Hollywood that supports us gun owners. But heaven forbid he plays a part in a war movie. Who are they going to get to play that part. Those that was there are to old to play themselves as young men in the movie. So they get a good actor and have him talk to the folks that was there to help him play the part. Shows respect for what they did. And they it is not good enough for folks like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Scatterbrain Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Most actors have never been policemen, or doctors, or gunfighters, or been in interstellar space, or been in the mafia or bought & sold drugs- oh... well, you get my point though. Just a thought: It is a good thing this is the case, because it means we haven't faced a conflict with the need for overwhelming commitment since WWII. The desire to understand to the extent the actors can is important in my mind.I think we are facing that now, and have been for quite a long time, but nobody seems to realize it, or they won't admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted October 16, 2014 Author Share Posted October 16, 2014 It appears to me that the tank "Fury" is a M4A3E8 (Easy Eight) with a 76mm gun. The Easy Eight entered service in the European theater in late December 1944. ...and check out this tid bit on the Tiger from the original link - pretty cool indeed! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deX5GNS0YTM GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 ...and check out this tid bit on the Tiger from the original link - pretty cool indeed! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deX5GNS0YTM GG ~ Gunner, it is really cool that they have an original Tiger I in this movie. The Tiger I was a bad one that came into service in 1942. But the Tiger II (King Tiger) was very, very bad! The Tiger II came into service in mid-1944. I also might add that the Panther (Mark V) tank was another very bad German tank and likely more lethal than a Tiger I and from the front more difficult to knock out than a Tiger I. Tiger I (I believe this is the Tiger I used in the movie "Fury") Tiger II Panther Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted October 16, 2014 Author Share Posted October 16, 2014 Gunner, it is really cool that they have an original Tiger I in this movie. The Tiger I was a bad one that came into service in 1942. But by the Tiger II (King Tiger) was very, very bad! The Tiger II came into service in mid-1944. I also might add that the Panther (Mark V) tank was another very bad German tank and likely more lethal than a Tiger I. Tiger I (I believe this is the Tiger I used in the movie "Fury") Tiger II http://peachmountain.com/5star/images/AberdeenProvingGrounds/20060509_2154_NSengupta_AberdeenProvingGroundss.jpg Panther GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 The only thing I know about tanks is I don't want one shooting at me and I don't want to be in one. I like the fresh air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Harley, #14153 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Tanks always felt too much like "targets". Just couldn't get comfortable in one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original Lumpy Gritz Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 One of my sons was a Army Tanker. Loved the M1, Abrams Tank. LG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Who wouldn't Lumpy. At least on our side. Not sure about the rag heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Doh...! When I saw the first thread on this it didn't click properly... I thought it was s'posed to be a movie about the old comic book hero, Sgt Fury [and his howling commandos]! Now I get it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocWard Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Most actors have never been policemen, or doctors, or gunfighters, or been in interstellar space, or been in the mafia or bought & sold drugs- oh... well, you get my point though. I think we are facing that now, and have been for quite a long time, but nobody seems to realize it, or they won't admit it. What I meant was that we have not had so many men and women under arms as we did during WWII. Does the possibility loom in our future if current trends aren't rectified? I will say I worry about that very thing. That is a topic for a different thread, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocWard Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 I was never keen on the idea of being in a tank, too claustrophobic. Then I saw what an A-10 can do to a tank. So my first slot as a field medic was as an NCO in an ambulance platoon. With M113s, since I was in an armor brigade. Of course, we did have the big red cross on them. Still claustrophobic. Fortunately I didn't spend much time actually in one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 I was never keen on the idea of being in a tank, too claustrophobic. Then I saw what an A-10 can do to a tank. So my first slot as a field medic was as an NCO in an ambulance platoon. With M113s, since I was in an armor brigade. Of course, we did have the big red cross on them. Still claustrophobic. Fortunately I didn't spend much time actually in one. Given the coice to be cooped up in an 113 or an Abrams however, I'd take the one with the the real armor and bigass gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abilene Slim SASS 81783 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 IIRC, the Tiger II and Panther were so big and heavy they bogged down easily in open country when the ground was soft. They were also complex and time-consuming to build. Our armor might not have been as good, but we had a lot of it. Like a pack of wolves on an elk. Even if a direct hit didn't penetrate the armor, the concussion inside must have been hell on the crew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel-eye Steve SASS #40674 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Given the coice to be cooped up in an 113 or an Abrams however, I'd take the one with the the real armor and bigass gun. Wasn't the M113 the APC with aluminum armor that a 12.7 round could penetrate one side then bounce around the inside for a while? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Four-Eyed Buck,SASS #14795 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 That M-4 has the longer tube on it's 75mm gun. Gave it a little more range and punch, but still not enough to cope with a Panther or a Tiger head to head. Keep moving was the mantra. Out flank them and hit'em where the armor was thinner as long as they didn't hit you at ranges beyond your capabilities before you could accomplish it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted October 16, 2014 Author Share Posted October 16, 2014 Fun discussion on the Tiger I vs Tiger II - oodles of great pics and info... http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130916 GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Wasn't the M113 the APC with aluminum armor that a 12.7 round could penetrate one side then bounce around the inside for a while? Yeah. Shoulda been called a BAPC (barely armored personnel carrier). I believe an AP 12.7 round will penetrate sides (unless it hits somebody on the interior). The armor is only 35mm thick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.