Reaction to the Tank Battle in FURY (2014) | 4 Shermans VS 1 Tiger 

This is exactly what I said to this video on another channel, and the response I got was "oh well I guess in your world the Nazi's won the war since your rooting for them, how do you know they are vets?? Huh? You don't. These could be unlisted young cadets that were just told to kill the enemy, you don't know the kinda crew this tank has"

The Tiger in this movie isn't the only Tiger left. There is a Tiger 1 and even a Tiger 2 in the "Panzermuseum" (Tank museum) in Münster, Germany. I didn't know if they are actually fully functional (besides the Canon) but as far as I know the Germans, they are in good condition.

Lol fax

🤦‍♂️

Facts...I bought the fury....still one of my best tanks..3 marks of excellence...hella high win ratio...

Yeah your right also wasn't there a time where in both WOTB and War Thunder were giving the Fury tank in some special offer or something like that

And Fury prem tenk

XD

@@kevinpeng8295 Your mom.

@@kevinpeng8295 Your dad.

@@kevinpeng8295 my uncle

@@kevinpeng8295 Your sister

This is what triggers me HARD

Yes you're right the producer in this film are used real tanks such as tiger tank and sherman, real ww2 guns, artillery, and ww2 custome.. Overall, that movie is intent for entertainment purposes.. I hope you get it my point.

It's a movie - NOT a documentary.

Yeah, bud I don't know what you were expecting. You're either very naive or a child. It's a movie, not a documentary. You can't have it all, and the directors, writers and producers certainly didn't have all the time or money in the world that you might think they have, let alone the actors. So, stop being so negative. A productive member of society doesn't list everything a movie did right just to bash it for the one thing it did wrong. The fact that you said it pisses you off is confusing too. Angry people have angry reactions I suppose.

@@edp5886 extremely disrespectful

Yeah that commander made a big mistake the way to stop a colum is to shoot the front tank first then the rear one second stupid decision he started rushing the shermans why idk you have the better tank why throw away you’re advantages third they would try to kill fury first since he has the 76mm gun

still enjoyed the movie

Without HVAP the 76mm won't get through the front of a Tiger I beyond 500 yards and there is no verified documented case of any Sherman variant penetrating a Tiger frontally over around 300 yards. The Tiger Is nickel steel of 265 Brinell Hardness and slight angles (24 degrees on the lower front plate) actually gave it an effective thickness of up to 130mm. And then if the Tiger was standing oblique at, say 2 o' clock then that 130mm becomes 160mm.

@@lyndoncmp5751 because it never happened, most veterans said they only had a chance at 500 meters or closer. Games act like it was easier then it really was in battle tanks arent gonna hit the weak spot everytime. I take veteran accounts over gaming.

the upgunned shermans had a problem with the bigger gun - especially the firefly. It kicked up a lot of dirt and had a nasty recoil in a more cramped turret. that made it harder to accurately fire quickly.

@@tileux alot of issues but no one brings em up or pretend they exist to discredit germany. Its almost like poor sportsmanship. Like the tiger wouldve won every historian who views this movie has yelled about it for numerous reason. The biggest one. The first tank in the line. Two biggest fucking gun so you go for it. Tiger wouldve easily went through at that range. Spalding.

Could, but rarely did. There are only several spots where it can successfully penetrate at 1km. It certainly cannot and did not penetrate the turret, mantle or lower glacis. The flat "step" at the upper glacis, as I like to call it, is the only place you can reliably pen and that can be done with any shell that exceded 100mm penetration as it's nothing but 90 degree flat plate with ammo stored behind and had some effective thickness of 80-100 (Depending if it's Tiger H or the later E variant). The 76mm didn't make it more "effective" frontally from short distance, it just gave it a bit more range. Even the 75mm could pen it, just not from as far. But 1km is a bit far fetched, not to mention you don't really aim at that distance anymore, optics weren't advanced enough, you just aimed for center mass and hoped for the best. And it didn't really work that well against Tigers as hitting a relatively small weakspot from such a distance is like hitting a fly on a dartboard. Most Tigers were taken out of service because of Technical malfunctions and the rest against Soviet troops where 90% of the Tigers and Panthers were sent. Allies really don't have a extended battle history against them. Soviets however did, and they made excellent guns later on that could easy shred them. T-34-85, KV-85, later IS-2 which had a monstrous 122mm gun that could pen a Tiger ANYWHERE frontally or otherwise. The 76mm american gun is a pea shooter in comparison. It's the Brits that made it good by mounting their own gun on the Firefly version. Now they had good guns, just like the soviets did.

The height of the hit means it wouldn't hit the ammo stowage. Likewise it's possible the log triggered the fuse for the round.

@@peterson7082 if you look at the add on armor plates on the right side of a sherman, wich were applied to cover the ammo racks, the tiger hit dead on the hull aft rigth ammo rack. Pz.Gr.39 has a delayed impact fuse on the bottom of the shell, the frontal 2/3 are penetrator cap and penetrator (meaning the projectile i 2/3 solid shot and only explodes after impact). It is just bullshit hollywood plotarmor at that point. the logs that were hit arent even protecting against standart rifle caliber rounds, for that you need a pretty substantial tree. The Tiger is not shooting HE here.

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 The wet stowage _M4's_ be it 76mm. or 75mm. armed had six to seven ready rounds on the turret floor laid almost flush with the floor. Then the compartments underneath the turret had the rest of the ammunition. No sponson racks were fitted as standard. All 76mm. tanks save for some _"Jumbo's"_ had the all sub-turret stowage. Now fragmentation can be the wrench in the cogs but as the movie showed it fragment as it was supposed to. So arguing that from either of us would end up with us going in circles. > *_"Pz.Gr.39 has a delayed impact fuse on the bottom of the shell, the frontal 2/3 are penetrator cap and penetrator (meaning the projectile i 2/3 solid shot and only explodes after impact)."_* That log is about six inches thick. That's theoretically enough force to trigger the fuse. So a partial penetration then detonation which created a small penetration and fragmented shredding some gear and the turret hydraulics is not implausible.

​@@peterson7082 thats is not quite corrcect. In the a2 and a3 versions (like every 75, 3in and 76 Sherman variant) the the hull sponson racks remained. They lost a bit of capacity due to the Wet Stowage Configuration (wich was not implemented on every Tank). Thee 3in and 76mm AP ammunition are, besides a little bit of different shape around the neck, almost identical in volume and external shape (its the inside that counts), so the same ammo rack and storage configuration was chosen. So no, Fury was hit directly into one of its Ammo Racks, the Penetration of the Projectile and delayed impact fuse of the Projectile are designed to penetrate 4 times the amount of hardened steel armorplate that Fury had + Log on the point of impact. It was at an 50°-60° angle. Here the Pz.Gr.39 had the capability to penetrate 120mm hardened armorsteel plate with a 100% chance. The Log would have had no furtther impact on the projectile or fuse, the shot would have hat pentrated and exited on the other side of the vehicle or the delayed fuse would have detonated inside the fighting compartment. This shot was not survivable for Fury in any way. Unless the Tiger´s Ladeschütze (loader) had a stroke and loaded HE. Wich is unlikely, as these crews were only transfered into Tiger´s when they had a certain amount of experience and training. *Btw if you look at the footage of the Film in 0.25 speed, you see a really weird and impossible ricochet of the round. It bounces off upwards to the back of fury in a 130° angle to the shots direction. That would be almost a 90° change in 2 dimensions. It is just bullshit

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 > *_"In the a2 and a3 versions (like every 75, 3in and 76 Sherman variant) the the hull sponson racks remained. They lost a bit of capacity due to the Wet Stowage Configuration (wich was not implemented on every Tank)."_* All 76mm. tanks unless it was a _"Jumbo"_ or a post war refitted tank *were* equipped with wet stowage and had no main gun ammunition stowage in the sponsons. Only in sub-turret compartments and in the ready rack. Even if the glycol-water mixture was not used the stowage arrangement of said tanks were the same. It is possible that stowage in the sponsons were reintroduced to increase ammunition capacity- but that was *only* recorded a handful of times and done as solely an ad-hoc measure. > *_"Thee 3in and 76mm AP ammunition are, besides a little bit of different shape around the neck, almost identical in volume and external shape (its the inside that counts), so the same ammo rack and storage configuration was chosen."_* Only three* tanks were armed with 3" guns in trials. And yes were not wet-stowage but that was passed by in early 1943 with the 76mm. gun _M1's_ and later the slightly shorter _M1A1, M1A1C,_ and _M1A2's_ creation. > *_"So no, Fury was hit directly into one of its Ammo Racks, ..."_* I will repeat- it wasn't. There was no such stowage, even shown in the movie being spaced used for personal gear, spare equipment and the only ammunition being stored was for the machine guns. > *_"the Penetration of the Projectile and delayed impact fuse of the Projectile are designed to penetrate 4 times the amount of hardened steel armorplate that Fury had + Log on the point of impact."_* Mostly correct, but the delay is begun when impact is made. It is observed 88mm. albeit in a different application being triggered by trees between 12cm. (~5") and 20cm. (~8") thick and thus exploding soon after such. > *_"Wich is unlikely, as these crews were only transfered into Tiger´s when they had a certain amount of experience and training. "_* That was the hope, but not explicitly the case. > *_"*Btw if you look at the footage of the Film in 0.25 speed, you see a really weird and impossible ricochet of the round."_* I see what you mean, but stopping immediately at that moment even close by the tracer seems small and is possibly coming from the fragmented cap to the round? *(From what I could research based on Steven Zaloga's book _"Armored Thunderbolt"_ (2008))

Actually, it's not that uncalled for. By April 1945, most of the heavy tank battalions were dissolved and training _Tigers_ were being pulled from tank schools into combat. There was at least two of these schools near Schonebeck, which is roughly the region this movie is set in. And 2nd Armored reported at least one lone _Tiger_ from one of these school units being encountered by their own armor. Albeit it's unlikely- it's not unreasonable.

@@peterson7082 the tiger commander actually has several medals on his uniform so unless they just put those on the uniform because it’s Hollywood you could be correct

Because the tiger was the most feared tank of the war duh lmao

If they were trying to convey that, then the movie would end right there with the Tiger moving off into the distance, leaving 4, instead of 3, smouldering allied tanks.

1000% agree...mark4 was a very good tank also...but ya there were very limited numbers of heavy tanks...most were getting repaired in the rear lol

Love they used a jagpanther. But in town ambushes and that late in the war it would likely have been a Hetzer or stug they would encounter. Since they got a smaller profile and there would be no need to have an 88 in close range engagements.

@@mikkel066h I think the showrunners used what restored vehicles they had access to at the time.

@@mikkel066h They used a Vismod Stug at the end of the scene when Bull is in the ditch.

There was a case in USSR, where one gun immobilized armored column of germans shooting first tank and then second one. Then he almost olbiterated entire convoy with ease, before enemy troops managed to get to soviet gun emplacement. I'm sure that same should be happened here - remove first and last tank, obliterate anything in between. Drink some shnaps. xD

I mean, Band of Brothers is a first hand account from the men that were there.

Actually, Shermans were particularly unlikely to throw their turret. It also was not caused by built up pressure, but by ammo detonation. Most WW2 tanks stored the majority of their ammo in and around the turret basket or in the sponsons. It was just the best way they could do it. This meant that a side hit under the turret was actually very likely to detonate the ammo. As you might imagine, a few dozen high caliber shells, a significant portion of which would've been high explosive, is going to make quite a bang when it goes off all at once. Sometimes, that would be enough to shear through the turret ring bolts and lift the entire thing off of the chassis

@@filmandfirearms "It also was not caused by built up pressure, but by ammo detonation" High air pressure inside the tank is almost synonymous with ammo detonation inside the tank. You and OP might effectively be saying the same thing. When ammo explodes, that's because the propellant ignites and when it does the it creates a sudden intense pressure wave / increase in air pressure like any explosives. (Actually so much so that i'd be surprised if simply having the hatch(es) open would be sufficient to dissipate it fast enough.)

Exactly it's time to go to the bathroom😅😅😅😅

Not explicity the case. Given the last tank, the first one destroyed was the brightly camoflauged of the vehicles there there was a good chance they didn't the other _M4's_ until they turned.

Thank you means a lot! The beach attack is actually very realistic but for sure it is on my To-Do list

@@historylegends I'm really excited to hear that, you do an excellent job. And thank you for the reply!

If you’re into podcasts, there’s one called Based On a True Story. He compares movies to the actual events they’re based on and he did an episode on Saving Private Ryan.

I agree to you by 100%! No matter how green a german tank commander was, he would have always ordered to shoot the first and the last tank in line to trap those inbetween! And also its just balls for the tiger to leave its well covered position. Even encountering a tiger tank in the western theater was actually pretty rare. It more or less was a myth and frightening legend among allied tankers to encounter that „monster“.

@@theducklover2652 yep, they were elites of elites. It's a movie btw, they wasted the great resources they had like every other movie.

Exactly, the "looks" and "feel" of the movie is realistic, but it's just sad that they portray German soldiers like idiots

Those outfits are actually accurate

@Tai Korczak That's what's so annoying. All that money for the best equipment and effects that is possible, only to ruin it with an extremely dumb movie script.

@@historylegends problem is i dont think you are really gonna get that especially out of hollywood. they want the germans (or in their eyes the nazis) to be bad in all aspects. they want them to just be stereotype evil but dumb soldiers that the good guy can wipe out. its a movie trope that ww2 films have used in a ton of films because hollywood doesnt want to portray the german in any good light when it comes to ww2. not excusing it just the fact that this was much better than most hollywood films where germans have worse aim than the stormtroopers from star wars.

@TheLapster not only to move, but to advance lmao

Yeah it is based on a true story aswell

@@artfinnerz7151 Yes

Will need to do some research first but yes, great idea

@@historylegends That movie motivated me to join the army

Also, most of the high burn rate Sherman stories were due to the British overloading them ammo, even leaving rounds rolling around on the hull floor. This was something the British did with all of their tanks. Once the Americans convinced the British to stop doing that, their burn rates went down drastically, to about the same rate as the Panzer 4 and T-34

I watched a lot of their battle scenes and it's a masterpiece

@@historylegends Glad to hear that 👍

I think it's a little obvious that if you destroy the lead tank, which was the Firefly here, the column has to stop and therefore becomes an easy target. I don't think you need to be a high-level SS commander to know this.

Exactly

It is entertaining for sure

Tiger 131 the One used in this movie Is preserved in Museum in uk

Not exactly.

@@peterson7082 what do you mean?

coming soon

@@historylegends Yes please

@Rudolf von Ribbentrop either way that’s common fucking sense

Facts I was in the us army and part of a tank crew + shooting guns and a 75 mm cannon is not accurate what so ever

The tiger on the other hand was literally a heavily armoured sniper (as tanks comes). Tigers could penetrate shermans and t34s up to 2km. Also like he said, the tiger would never had revealed itself in real life. It would sit cozy and nice in its position and pick of the shermans. It is usually the one that fires first that wins a tank battle in real life. The panzer ave michael wittman who destroyed that british convoy did it from an ambush position. Michael wittman himself died a few weeks after when his tiger got caught in a british ambush by fireflies

@@klevdud Granted he ambushed a stopped, largely dismounted convoy.

"Kelly's Heroes" from 1970 was more realistic than that :D

Interesting, thank you for sharing!

@Dusty Pluskrat Which is what makes this scene even more ridiculous.

Thats not true, America only faced tiger tanks 5 times thus wouldn't be able to prove itself. Almost every comment is false in the comment section in a way and it f'ing bugs me.

I love the series because it is SO realistic, I will gladly do a review

The propaganda piece movie obviously worked

@@sugma3475 yep. all russian and US war movies are the same - they are always heroic and the enemy is always cowardly and evil. the best ww2 movies are made by the germans ironically enough...

You waited for so long eh

No tanks could fire accurately on the move in this era. It wasn't until in the later parts of the cold war that the gyros became acceptable to fire on the move.

@@carpetclimber4027 The sherman had it. and it could.

@@mestupkid211986 Very overrated. Gyros weren't good until the later part of the cold war.

@@carpetclimber4027 You're conflating "good" with "widespread".

@@mestupkid211986 If you consider it a huge achievement to straddle along on the battlefield at the speed of a bike, that's up for you to defend. Meanwhile, basically every army in the world considered the gyros pure shit and still continued to instruct all tanks to shoot in a still position 20-30 years later. But what do I know? Apparently this shitty tractor version of the Sherman gyro was amazing because some youtube asshat said so, yet no tanks in the cold war EVER took advantage of that, not even Murican tanks. Have you ever wondered why? Maybe your source was full of shit? Considering the historical reality, I'm sad to say that's probably it. This Murican propaganda of the mythical gyro is almost worse than the amazing turning point the D-day had on the war.

He shot the front tanks first then drove through the column. He had flank cover from the other Tigers.

@@historylegends "Wittmann's Tiger emerged from cover onto the main road, Route Nationale 175, and engaged the rearmost British tanks positioned on Point 213, destroying them." Reynolds, Michael (2001) Steel Inferno: I SS Panzer Corps in Normandy. Da Capo Press. "I had no time to assemble my company; instead I had to act quickly, as I had to assume that the enemy had already spotted me and would destroy me where I stood. I set off with one tank and passed the order to the others not to retreat a single step but to hold their ground." Taylor, Daniel (1999). Villers-Bocage: Through the Lens of the German War Photographer. Old Harlow: Battle of Britain International, p. 38. " The Tiger emerged from cover onto Route Nationale 175 and knocked out a Cromwell, the rearmost tank at Point 213. A Sherman Firefly was then knocked out, caught fire and blocked the road." Taylor, Daniel (1999). Villers-Bocage: Through the Lens of the German War Photographer. Old Harlow: Battle of Britain International, p. 18. And if you don't believe me: The Interview Wittmann gave DIRECTLY after his battle at Villers Bocage: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PCvDqFhMQvI.html

Also might be the case as they had been idling for most of the engagement just no energy to turn for neutral steering. Especially on moderately muddy ground like such.

True

I appreciate that!

Yes, the other 76mm was the M4A1

That nickname was never specific to the _M4._

​@@peterson7082 The early models of the M4 had several nicknames for catching fire. On later generations they switched from petrol to diesel, gave them additional armour and wet storage of ammo. At this point the tommy cooker & ronson thing was over.

@@saubarmann6581 My point was the nickname "Tommy Cooker" was never specific to the M4, as it was used prior to the M4 seeing service. It was used in regards to the Crusader, Valentine, and to some degree the Matilda, not just for the reason of them burning but also discomfort of desert combat. Fuel never really switched (M4A2 was produced from the beginning to end of the M4's entire production run) and didn't make much of a difference in combat.

But Fury’s 76mm(the other Sherman also has a 76mm) is capable of penetrating the tigers frontal plate at the start of the engagement.

Yes and actually from the tank column scene you can see that the first two are 76 Sherman (they have longer barrels than the last two), although different variants (one being the easy8 and the other one being the casted hull one). Another thing, during the charge you see that the 3rd one is a casted hull 76 while the middle one is the standard Sherman, so they magically switched positions.

shermans had gyro stabilazers which worked up to 25km/h and would keep the gun still all the time

@@yeahboi7779 assuming that it worked 100% of the time. Find me any working military vehicle that has absolutely no mechanical issues at all. Especially vehicles that have been in use heavily like the tanks in the scene. On paper yes they had gyros but still you never know how well they worked

@@Xavieus i never said it always worked but it could have helped for firing on the move

@@yeahboi7779 The gyros in this era were still very bad. It wasn't until 30 years later they would be acceptable.

@@carpetclimber4027 yeah im sorry for my mistake. i wrote that when i didn't have much knowledge about tanks and just slapped there the stats war thunder gave me. hope this clears the confusion

Most tank guns even before the _Tiger_ were semi-automatic... Some forced to use more older guns like some of the prototype Soviet tanks used a screw breech but even then that's rare.

If both the tanks were returning from the aftermath of some battles and they accidentally met each other then yea you could give the scene a pass, but otherwise it's just a complete meme.

Not really the case.

@@peterson7082 Why you think so?

@@alucardonus Sights were intuitive but generally were much narrower field of vision. Not to mention lack of auxiliary sight for the gunner. Rate of fire was slow in Tiger I, at least sustained due to loader's positioning.

@@peterson7082 But crew is expecting to fire at least 4 shots. They can have rounds ready at racks. If tank is still, they can manipulate rounds pretty good to fire few rounds really quickly. Also they need to look just to front as THERE is the enemy in this case... This is no-win for Shermans.

well made garbage.

Canada i believe

No.

@@historylegends very evaluated response, uhmm full of hard facts and arguments i see.......

@@Tamburahk well let me ask, are you an Experte in military/ww2 tactics or a historian like him?

@@marcoherrmann1820 He is not historian nor expert...... and even if he was with degree that does not mean he have patent for truth....... Assuming that his degree make his false claims any more trustful is wrong

@@Tamburahk non-historian nor expert complains about what another non historian nor expert says, if you think your claims are anymore trustworthy, you are not the brightest bulb lad