FAUXTON posted:Ahh good point. Most of their morale must have come from that Bauhaus-looking CO they had. Singing Nazi German folk songs demonstrably makes you fight hard but certainly die at the end of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:Singing Nazi German folk songs demonstrably makes you fight hard but certainly die at the end of the movie. So does quoting scripture and speaking German it seems 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
I enjoyed the movie, but it seemed like the writers of Fury had a checklist of all the war movie cliches and had to hit every one to get greenlit. I was also a little surprised how much like Star Wars the battle scenes seemed, with all those pink and green tracers; is that how automatic weapon fire looks these days?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
sullat posted:I enjoyed the movie, but it seemed like the writers of Fury had a checklist of all the war movie cliches and had to hit every one to get greenlit. Tracers are fairly  and have been for pretty much ever. They started throwing in coloring metals pretty quick because you didn't want to inadvertently guide your fire according to enemy tracers (unless you were firing at the source of those tracers  ) so you have stuff like red and green and purple and orange these days for various uses.Apparently some squad leaders would load whole magazines full of tracers to more easily direct the squad's fire, which is impressive. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
sullat posted:I enjoyed the movie, but it seemed like the writers of Fury had a checklist of all the war movie cliches and had to hit every one to get greenlit. Pretty sure Imperial Stormtroopers know how to take cover and shoot on-target and do more than just running around ineffectually in a big circle getting gunned down by grim-faced americans though. An immobile tank with no infantry support is basically a blind and deaf target dummy with some guns on the front. I can forgive the world of tanks fight with the tiger, I can forgive all the other clichés and bullshit of that movie, but the final battle scene is just so eye-poppingly stupid that it forever tarnishes that movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Fury wants to be "Come and See" but isn't.FAUXTON posted:and showing the audience that war involves seeing a burning tank commander's horribly disfigured face as he's blowing his own brains out with his sidearm because his tank got hit by a panzerfaust because the bow gunner of the next tank down the line hesitated to fill a literal child full of lead, This in particular came off as comical, like the writers were high schoolers trying to come up with the most hosed up poo poo. I liked most of the rest of the first half. Second half of the film sucked for sure, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Pretty sure Imperial Stormtroopers know how to take cover and shoot on-target and do more than just running around ineffectually in a big circle getting gunned down by grim-faced americans though. Behind him, to his right, 1 of our tank destroyers received a direct hit and began to burn. Its crew withdrew to the woods. 2d Lt. Murphy continued to direct artillery fire which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry. With the enemy tanks abreast of his position, 2d Lt. Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer, which was in danger of blowing up at any moment, and employed its .50 caliber machine gun against the enemy. He was alone and exposed to German fire from 3 sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. The enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back. For an hour the Germans tried every available weapon to eliminate 2d Lt. Murphy, but he continued to hold his position and wiped out a squad which was trying to creep up unnoticed on his right flank. Germans reached as close as 10 yards, only to be mowed down by his fire. He received a leg wound, but ignored it and continued the single-handed fight until his ammunition was exhausted. (I haven't seen the movie)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Here, have some tracer fire. Under illumination to boot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
German machineguns did indeed use green tracers back during WWII.FAUXTON posted:Ahh good point. Most of their morale must have come from that Bauhaus-looking CO they had. Things like that still happened even that late. For a big example, take SS-Panzerbrigade Westfalen. Probably the least "SS" SS-unit ever - it was a fully ad hoc command formed in late March, which was then thrown into the Remagen-Ruhr Pocket fighting and. IIRC, the only actual SS elements within it were it's CO and about a mixed battalion of tanks and panzergrenadiers taken from the SS tank training school. The rest of its two regiments was infantry from the local heer reconaissance school and several invalids' companies and a few remant heavy tank units were attached to it. Short of pretty much everything supply-wise (except Panzerfausts at the start), they would keep fighting until April 20th and were part of some of the hardest fighting around the Ruhr pocket. IIRC, they were the guys that caused Kirchborchen to be nicknamed "Bazooka Town" and caused the afaik only loss of an american Major General to enemy fire in the european theatre. Pretty impressive for a cobbled-together collection of training tanks, shattered units and halfway-trained recruits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Note also the range of budgets on display here--this regiment''s proto-uniform is grey, more or less, but the lower officer (?) in the center is wearing a coarser cloth while the captain or Oberst in the right foreground's got silk. He also has a complete suit of clothes--the jacket and pants match, as they're supposed to, and he's laced or hooked them together: the inside of a jacket and the waistband of a pair of pants either have little hooks and eyes in them, or holes for laces. You fasten one to the other and that's how your pants stay up. Every set differs from every other set, so if you're clothing yourself by robbing the living or stripping the dead, your pants and jacket won't match. Poorer officers and common soldiers in paintings often have pants and jackets that don't match, which means they can't fasten them, which is why the rank and file (like the pikeman on the far right in the second painting in this post, as well as the child servant) are often distinguished by jackets that ride up. This is stupidly interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Fury wants to be "Come and See" but isn't. The most hosed up poo poo is where Percy Jackson is cleaning the inside of the tank.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Crazy ricochet at 0:40. Azran posted:
Camouflaged tank?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:09
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Yeah. I'm guessing from the tracks and general shape it's a British Crusader.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Tricks like that were extremely popular with British forces in WW2.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Oh right, here's something I ran into on tumblr: Rescued Film Project. Someone found 31 rolls a American GI shot during the second world war and developed them. There's a lot of neat photos of period barracks in what I presume is England, and general waiting around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Tricks like that were extremely popular with British forces in WW2. I was going to say, I'd say the odds are pretty good that's at El Alamein.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:24
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I was going to say, I'd say the odds are pretty good that's at El Alamein. Although deception tactics were used extensively: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_Clarke quote:Induce the enemy to do something, not just to think something. A fairly popular book with mixed reviews was released about it: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4770487-churchill-s-wizards
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:28
|
|
Things I read today (on the topic of grimdark poo poo in Fury):quote:'Lieutenant Graeme records that even his 'oldest soldiers' had 'never witnessed such a sight'. He saw one poor Frenchman in a puddle who was so badly hurt that he ineffectually attempted to kill himself with his own sword, before being prevented by the riflemen; we do not know whether he succeeded. Read from the diary of a KGL Light Brigade Lieutenant from Waterloo, at La Haye Sainte.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Azran posted:
This is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
You do realise that the law of averages says there's probably some hairy-arsed squaddie in the back of there, either sleeping or having a quick one off the wrist, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Yeah. I'm guessing from the tracks and general shape it's a British Crusader. Yeah, I reverse image searched it and found a very nice article.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Fury wants to be "Come and See" but isn't. Fury is like a Vietnam movie set in WWII, with the problem that many of the thematic elements of 'Nam don't really fit in. Vietnam is where the classic war hero died, because his ideals can't exist in that sort of conflict. Neither the justification for Vietnam nor its outcome are justifiable to that hero, and the popular image of Vietnam is universally negative, and horrific. So the artistic depictions of Vietnam skew towards the negative, the gritty "war is hell" angle that was pretty new when those movies were first coming out. You have movies like Platoon, where Americans are outright "the bad guys", or Full Metal Jacket and the Deer Hunter, where the Vietnam war is almost secondary to the central concept of dehumanization and subsequent depravity. In Fury, it's actual Nazis fighting Americans in a conventional war, without the baggage of orientalism or cold war ideology to muddy the point of it all. So to bring out moral ambiguity, Fury makes the Americans sociopaths and falsifies the historical elements of the setting so they have a reason to be so desperate and violent. This would be excusable if there was a point to taking those liberties, but the movie is too confused to go anywhere with it. Brad Pitt's sociopathy is proved right because the Germans indeed start committing atrocities, not that much else is expected of the SS. The inferiority of US equipment is up-ended throughout the final scene, even though that point was really hammered for most of the film. The movie half-asses it's own premise, and it really is a drag to watch the entire thing. What a shame.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
The movie promised some really interesting scenes but then you see staples right out of the staged photos like the conga line of supposedly veteran infantrymen marching in a column right behind a tank, when this is exactly the opposite of how tanks and infantry operated, at least those with a semblence of experience. I mean it would've been a boring scene with Fury camped out behind advancing infantrymen using smoke to get across the open field, but still, it's a bit irksome. My problem with the final scene is.. why didn't the Germans just go around? It's clear they had the ability to surround the tank, and they had orders to attack somewhere past that, so why not leave the tank be once you figure out that it's unsupported? Leave a couple guys to keep an eye on the tank and keep going.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The movie promised some really interesting scenes but then you see staples right out of the staged photos like the conga line of supposedly veteran infantrymen marching in a column right behind a tank, when this is exactly the opposite of how tanks and infantry operated, at least those with a semblence of experience. I mean it would've been a boring scene with Fury camped out behind advancing infantrymen using smoke to get across the open field, but still, it's a bit irksome. How about 'leave the tank once you figure out that it's completely immobile and driven over a loving landmine'? Or maybe even 'duckwalk up to the back of the tank with a panzerfaust'? Lots of good ways to destroy a tank that CAN'T MOVE, especially at night time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
mastervj posted:This is stupidly interesting. Edit: Originally I said that the pants and jacket of a suit of clothes have to be made of the same exact material in the 30s, but I edited it out because that's not always the case after the first part of the decade. Surrender of Breda, set in 1625 but painted in 1635:  Contrast with Van Dyck, Portrait of Lord John Stuart and his brother Lord Bernard Stuart, 1638:  Simon Kick's painting is dated 1637, so perhaps the officer in the middle, whose jacket and pants differ in level of shine but not in color, doesn't have the opportunity to dress in the very tip-top peak of fashion? War certainly is difficult. Perhaps the next hostage will have something. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:How about 'leave the tank once you figure out that it's completely immobile and driven over a loving landmine'? Or maybe even 'duckwalk up to the back of the tank with a panzerfaust'? Lots of good ways to destroy a tank that CAN'T MOVE, especially at night time. Fair answer: 'because it's the SS in April 1945 and they're looking for a fight'. Same reason Wittman gets killed charging across an open field.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
I love that the general shape of the camo and the side-panels in particular makes it look like an Opel Blitz too. It's like they were going to try sneak a tank into a convoy or something and then just hose down the supply dump when they got there.Phobophilia posted:To be fair, you were at a convention, and you and your opponent probably had similar interests in nerdy stuff. So there was a preconception that your opponent wanted fair dealings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I love that the general shape of the camo and the side-panels in particular makes it look like an Opel Blitz too. It's like they were going to try sneak a tank into a convoy or something and then just hose down the supply dump when they got there. Those covers were mainly meant to fool long-range recon like aircraft, who couldn't identify more than general shapes at such a distance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Those covers were mainly meant to fool long-range recon like aircraft, who couldn't identify more than general shapes at such a distance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Speaking of fury, how did the previous assistant driver got killed? The tank doesn't seem to be penetrated, and the way bits are scattered doesn't suggest taht he was sticking his head out. Whoever had to de character design/make up for that movie is awesome, though. And while I didn't like the combined arms attack scene - especially the stand shoulder to shoulder while firing part in in the end - I think it's a very effective war is hell movie. Vehraboos lose their poo poo erry time. Panzer III is still my baby, tho.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Fair answer: 'because it's the SS in April 1945 and they're looking for a fight'. I honestly can't fault him for that, a spotter plane dropped a marker right on top of them and they set off and since a tank drives fastest forward, welp.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Speaking of fury, how did the previous assistant driver got killed? The tank doesn't seem to be penetrated, and the way bits are scattered doesn't suggest taht he was sticking his head out. He could have ate some shell shrapnel from a shell bursting in the air. If somebody shot a hole in a tank there's no way it'd just roll back on the line the next day. Previously I'd just been working off wikipedia summaries and short clips of Fury, so I went ahead and watched it. I think it's a shameful waste. The inside-the-tank scenes are not what I expected. There's talk of them being claustrophobic and cramped, but the interior shots are as comfortable as they could possibly be given the setting. There's usually only character in-shot at a time, and if there are others in the background they're deliberately left unfocused. Compared to something like from [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5TejyAlgc4o#t=1310]Das Boot[\url], which felt more uncomfortable watching Les Miserables than the scenes where
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
To be fair, the Sherman was pretty roomy for a tank. Now a movie shot in an original model T-34, that'd be cramped.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
All of you confessing how much terrible Clancy you've read makes me feel less bad about having read so much Turtledove. Less bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Is there anything wrong with Turtledove outside of being a terrible writer?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:All of you confessing how much terrible Clancy you've read makes me feel less bad about having read so much Turtledove. Turtledove is the cross-eyed adopted sibling to Kojima and Clancy who grew up on a magic mushroom farm. "WHAT IF THE SOUTHERNERS WAS NAZIS?" *writes 5 books on that premise*
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:All of you confessing how much terrible Clancy you've read makes me feel less bad about having read so much Turtledove. I liked Rainbow Six, but maybe not kgb kills the Pope book. What about Frederic Forsythe?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Turtledove is the cross-eyed adopted sibling to Kojima and Clancy who grew up on a magic mushroom farm. "WHAT IF THE SOUTHERNERS WAS NAZIS?" *writes 5 books on that premise* Guns of the South is good if you're in middle school, and then he kept writing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Is there anything wrong with Turtledove outside of being a terrible writer? If you're writing books that's a pretty big loving flaw to overlook.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
JcDent posted:I liked Rainbow Six, but maybe not kgb kills the Pope book.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 04:44
|
|