Reaction to The Attack of the German Village - Fury (2014) | How real is it? 

5:22

interesting! Do you have an example?

Isnt the old say that "How does the enemy know what we are going to do if we dont even know what we are going to do?"

@@historylegends I actually have one. We were conducting training with our squad. I was pretending to be a local National commander. We needed to get them to a safe house. Doctrinally they’re taught to never travel on the roads and utilize vegetation as much as possible. Scouting. But the Captain said “fuck walking 7 hours through the brush, we’re taking the road”. Literally did the exact opposite of what they were supposed to do. Completely ignored doctrine. They actually got lucky that our OPFOR didn’t get them lol. That’s an example. Sometimes we don’t follow our own doctrine because it’s better to adapt. Other times commanders are just lazy 😂.

Former Belgian Army infantryman and US Army Armor Crewman here. What you are talking about is a training scenario though. You and me both know that a large part of training is just doing things as fast as possible so we can call ENDEX and go back home lol. I doubt they would do shit like that on a deployment (But i also never deployed so correct me if i'm wrong).

@@harryvh3356 It happens downrange too. Complacency is a bitch sometimes. Plus sometimes guys aren't as good at their job or they're so good they know better than doctrine. Really it all depends. We try to follow doctrine, but sometimes it just doesn't happen. I remember our squad leader in Iraq was told to do something that followed doctrine by our Commander, and he said "Fuck that, he's stupid." Sometimes the NCO knows better than the Officer. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure you saw a huge change in how NCOs lead between the Belgian and US Army.

In Gene Garrisons book he mentions their MG section made slings out of mule harnesses so they could hip fire their 1919's on the move.

Would make more sense that one of the Inf men would have mounted the tank and used the 50 cal

In ww1 that was their operation press the enemy while the squad or unit moved with the pressing fire.

The point of firing it like that in that situation isn't necessarily about hitting a target it's about suppressing the target long enough for soldiers to grab cover and adequately return fire.

Interestingly our sniper needed for his second shot longer than 10 seconds, longer than the tank gunner to aim and shoot. Maybe the sniper was too angry at the civilian traitor so that he chose him. After that he felt so heavily burdened with guilt that he accepted to be killed. That's the only reasonable explanation.

@@varelion These were the Waffen SS that were hanging their own child soldiers for not wanting to fight. I don't think guilt would hold them back. It's just plain Hollywood.

@@guilzd5836 Sorry, but my post was just a joke. Of course, it was plain Hollywood. I remember an old Indian shooter, I mean a western, where an Indian sneaked upon a cowboy and tried to aim at him. It took him ages to lift his weapon and he didn't shoot. Only when the cowboy turned towards him, he seemed to be ready to fire. But then he got hit just in time, of course. I can't stand those dumb scenes.

What if he was such a bad shot he hit the old man while attempting to shoot brad pitt 😆

@@varelion killing a civilian serves no strategic purpose or advantage. If you're angry then just kill the officer. In fact I think it would be treason if it was a soldier surrendering

Might not have had a clear shot on the tanker. I suspect it's mostly just cinematic bad guy move though.

@@tSp289 in real life he would have gone for the tank commander and that would have been the end of Fury, without a commander the crew is confused and won’t know what to do.

@@charles5895 Then Improvised lol

@@tSp289 not a good shot??? They are the same distance.

Ah yes and a PaK 40 bouncing off a Sherman at 20m is perfectly realistic. I think he says he misses because he thinks the shell grazed the armour, because there would be no other explanation for this. Anyway either the grazing or direct hit scenario is utter bullshit.

Eh street fighting was not new in 1945. By that time most units had cleared dozens of towns at that point and SOPs were made at that point for how to clear and defend different buildings. Even though it was a new aspect of war, but not at the point were they had no idea what to do.

@@mikkel066h I thought that was mostly in the eastern front, where Russian soldiers very quickly became intimately aware of how to do house to house fighting during the battle of Stalingrad. With the Germans, they tried to avoid it as it required long drawn out engagements as they swept each and every house, which kinda contradicted their doctrine of movement based warfare

@@eugeneoliveros5814 No, the Germans had specific doctrines and operational procedures on how to capture and hold towns and cities. So did the Allie’s. The Hetzer is a good example of how they developed equipment for specialized roles in urban warfare. They used the Hetzer as an ambush vehicle inside towns, which would easily be able to be positioned inside of houses, debris or other concealed positions. Take out an allied tank and quickly reposition to another location. Another version of the Hetzer had a flamethrower, giving them the ability to subdue positions inside of towns quite easily. The US developed the Jumbo Sherman and Sherman with a 105mm howitzer. The western Allie’s also went for a. “Crush resistance by volume of fire approach”, so when they saw a city or town held by the Germans they would do an intense bombardment either by artillery or air. To break the will of the defenders. And it would be naive to assume that large and modern militaries did not have an appropriate approach to a defended city.

Much appreciated!

Glad you like them!

dunno if anyone gives a damn but if you're bored like me during the covid times you can stream all of the new series on Instaflixxer. Been streaming with my gf recently :)

@Frederick Reece Definitely, I've been using Instaflixxer for since november myself :D

Oh.... oh no!... and who's going to testify against the shooting of the SS and the old man?

Impossible! The americans cannot commit war crimes, that's paradoxical!

Well, the Geneva Convention wasn’t a thing in 1945

@@gaberodriguez7938 the original 2 treatises were made in 1929 so there was a proto convention, that is why gas was not used in ww2

@@gaberodriguez7938 that didn't stop the allies from holding axis forces to geneva convention standards after the fact.

Except the Americans (well the main characters) ultimately lose? What are you on about?

The problem is that an anti-tank gun should not even be positioned there. A barricade and a Panzerschreck team would be enough.

Exactly, you can even see the sparks fly from the shell bouncing

You have a point, but like you said, suppression role. In this case, the guy snipes all the enemies with a hip firing BAR.

It's not a BAR. He's hip-firing a M1919A1 machine gun - which makes it ridiculous.

@Mock Harris Not rare, and varies on accuracy. Not something you'd see everyday but you see it often enough in reports and photographs.

Dude that’s not a BAR that’s m1919 browning machine gun

@@Theakker3B again... this is TEXTBOOK use of an m1919 per the manual... held against the leg for CQB there are LITERAL TRAINING videos... showing the EXACT technique used here... I feel like all of you guys think war is like a fucking video game... Hip firing basically EVERY automatic weapon (that can reasonably be held by one person) has been commonplace since their inception... for all you armchair commanders out there... lookup "Instruction on the use of the M1919 Browning machine gun for close quarter battle"

The point was that the Anti-Tank should have never been there in the first place, it has a 2km range

Wait didn’t you say the anti tank grew could fire 14 rounds a minute in the ambush attack video

Many died, us marines win, Japanese get pushed back in strategic island hopping campaigns.

Actually the dude with the M1 Garand is the dude who said “Auf Wiedersehen” to the SS man.

But that would require to show that the Wehrmacht wasn't as stupid as many want it to be

Orrrrrr Brad Pitt's plot armour

@@MetalFreak187 Well if he died, no more movie so.

so dumb

Not from a 5cm, even if it was a 7.5cm _L/46 PaK 40_ it would struggle against an _M4_ at that angle.

It would if it wasn’t angled about 10cm

Agreed, but in this scene, the field of fire was way too small.

@@historylegends exactly

Realistically at that angle and the placement of the timing, it would ricocheted. If it aimed to the left at the weaker side then maybe it would kill it

@@Blacksixxer ok, got you, but answer me this: Were the Shermans that good or the german anti-tank weapons were that bad?

@@gatopreto-xq4dd Neither, Its about the physics in the situations. If you throw a rock at paper that is slanted and at the angle that it was, it can bounce. But if you were to flatten it out then it has a better chance at going through. Just like irl with AT systems and Armor, if the armor is slanted and at angle- its better even if the armor is dogshit like the front of shermans that were often 70-90mm armor which can bounce something at the right angle, the PAK38 used in the scene also has a piercing chance of 60-180mm depending on the shell but that's depending if the target isn't using the best tactic with its advantage of armor.

@@Blacksixxer ok

I saw someone speculate that once

A LOT, but after watching deleted scenes from the movie, I understand it more. However, the way they portray the Germans is ridiculous

I've seen it both ways, if we are talking 40-43 even early 44 germans definitely. But it's very well written that by 45 they didnt even have enough fuel to teach tank drivers how to drive let alone fight. So it's not unlikely that that tigers crew was inexperienced. Besides the Shermans should have stayed at distance, they all had 76s and would of killed the tiger anyway.

other movies/series have done it well within that same timeframe

@@historylegends exactly

how do you get startled waiting for an enemy to come from a prepared position and by a tank slowly crawling around a corner? they had all the time in the world to aim at it's weakspots

@@archer8849 well, I’m times of war, people get scared, so therefor they rushed. They have a giant Sherman coming at them, plus maybe they didn’t know the weak points into the tank.

And footage from the Battle of Cologne, there are at least two gunners hip-carrying a _M19A9A4_ with a handle and a _M1919A6._

Ok but still, hip firing a 30+ pound gun won’t have the accuracy depicted😂

Sadly, a lot of WW2 footage is staged btw. And yes you are right it's plausible, but his hip fire is so accurate that it because ridiculous.

In the British Commonwealth forces firing light machine guns from the hip on the attack was considered the way to do it.

@@RandomStuff-he7lu Bren guns were 19-22 pounds, the 30 cal browning was 30+😂

No, it makes no sense.

@@historylegends well to some Germans it did

It did, he told them his position

@@pxu_190 i guess old man "TrAItoR" kill is more worth than tank commander

@@bruh-jv8qd He could have shot both, and it were more than 1 german soldier, so they could have shot at all of them at the same moment

@@pxu_190 ouh yeah that work to

@@bruh-jv8qd Most of them had probably a Kar98, at this range its not a problem to shoot the commander and the old men, or they could have should earlier

He speaks german

hehehe

If you actually paid some attention the infantryman actually used some carbines and did you know that submachine guns and lmgs can be hold by SPECIFIC role

@@succysuccyfuccyfuccy8140 XD, u still wana defend this shity movie

@@SLOWOT funny how u dont even know what u talkin about but still commenting

It is NOW but not back then I think

@@Bromyguywhayisup I'm pretty sure it was still a war crime back then but I may very well be mistaken

it's only a war crime when Axis forces do it - USA logic.