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. *

More...