Gibsonm Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) Plus firefly itself was quite rare on the battlefield (one in 5 shermans?)Well rarer actually in that the Firefly was the UK variant with the 17Pdr (76.2mm/3") AT gun in the turret.The US didn't have any of these but IIRC their M4A1(76)W and M4A3E8(76)W "Easy Eight" provide similar improved AT capability over the original 75mm gun. Edited October 12, 2014 by Gibsonm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outontheop Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Firefly, by definition, "the one with the 17 pdr AT gun in the turret"?890m average engagement? Is this including the Russian front? I had always seen estimates closer to 600mAs to the availability of 76mm HVAP: first, consider that the tank depicted in this movie is an Easy Eight. They didn't come until very, very late in the war anyhow; by the time they start showing up, HVAP is becoming more available, after having initially been issued only to TD units. Would they have an entire basic load of HVAP, of course not- but it would not be unreasonable to expect a tank to carry 2-5 for the express purpose of engaging Tigers. Second, I only mention HVAP because it has 1000+ m frontal perforation of the thickest armor on the Tiger I. 76mm APCBC will do just peachy from any other angle at distances to 1500+, or frontally at some 600-700 m (IE, normal combat distances).That aside, we could always get into the Hollywood (and armchair historian) mythology that there were, in fact, Tigers EVERYWHERE. There just weren't that many Tigers to go around. As alluded to earlier, most German tanks were MkIVs, all the way to the end of the war, and they were slightly inferior to the Sherman in most regards (though in early '44, they had a better gun until the 76mm-gun Shermans caught up).If we wanna get really historically accurate, the Tiger breaks down or runs out of fuel twenty miles from the movie heroes, and some random P-47 or Typhoon comes and drops it's cookies right down the hatches.Doesn't make for a terribly exciting film climax, though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Firefly, by definition, "the one with the 17 pdr AT gun in the turret"?Yes but the point I was making is that its a lot rarer than 1 in 5, since the 5 includes the ones in US, Soviet and whoever else's service, not just the ones in UK service.So for example (and the numbers are purely for point of argument only, so proportional not accurate).Say 60,000 Shermans of all types built.Say 5,000 issued to UK (not all at once but replacement pool, etc.)So if you mean 1:5 in UK service that's 1,000 Firefly's.But "one in five Shermans in service" would be 12,000 (60,000/5) and as the UK were the only ones to make the Firefly that becomes 1 in 6,000 (being the UK's production as part of the total pool). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 From interviews I have seen with WW2 vets.Crewing the firefly was pretty dangerous its the first tank the German TC's would engageIf they were conducting an ambush for obvious reasons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted October 12, 2014 Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2014 So is the movie any good or not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogwa Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 You'll have to wait until Fri to find out 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie61 Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 I saw the movie today and thought is was awesome. Kind of a split between Band of Brothers and Saving Pvt. Ryan to me. The movie didn't hold anything back. Dirty, grim and showed the horrors of war and the effects it has on the men who go to war. IMHO it won't be a box office hit. It's not an action flick, but a down and dirty war story. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 So is it really a lone Sherman tank blundering aimlessly around the back streets of the 3rd Reich (but fully fueled, with adequate ammo, etc.), desperately trying to achive some secret mission? I get that in something like Kelly's Heroes but not in something that's supposedly "realistic". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie61 Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 No. Without giving too much away, they started with a group of Shermans and they are moving into a blocking position to stop a German force on the move. This is towards the very end of the movie. The Tiger combat is quick & sharp in the movie. It's not Tiger's everywhere. Really only one tank on tank combat scene out of the many combat sections of the movie. Great movie, but the ending isn't a Hollywood ending of the good guys riding into the sunset. It's a war is hell, dirty, grim and the horrors of war flick. I didn't come out thinking war is fun, a great thing and let's all kill Germans and life is good. So is it really a lone Sherman tank blundering aimlessly around the back streets of the 3rd Reich (but fully fueled, with adequate ammo, etc.), desperately trying to achive some secret mission?I get that in something like Kelly's Heroes but not in something that's supposedly "realistic". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryOwen Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Though the Hollywood cameraman certainly has a different eye for distances and space than the gunner or cavalryman. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted October 19, 2014 Members Share Posted October 19, 2014 A regular stage for "Henry V" doesn't have the whole field of Agincourt either; the compression of time and space is an essential element in any drama. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDeath Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Is brad pitt some kind of superhero who cannot die like in World War Z? (he survived a plane crash!!) Or if he does, hes taking the whole german army with him? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tjay Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Is brad pitt some kind of superhero who cannot die like in World War Z? (he survived a plane crash!!) Or if he does, hes taking the whole german army with him? Yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CR2_Commander Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 A few of my mates played extras in the movie. All were ex tank commanders playing tank commanders amongst other things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tjay Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 A few of my mates played extras in the movie. All were ex tank commanders playing tank commanders amongst other things. Presumably you weren't picked Neil 'cos your good looks might have distracted attention from the star? On another matter, would you care to pm me re UKA or join the existing discussion on our forum? Many thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie61 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Yes. LOL! Thinking it's really "No" :clin: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 A regular stage for "Henry V" doesn't have the whole field of Agincourt either; the compression of time and space is an essential element in any drama. Thats partly a problem of SB too. Normal gameplay videos have problems capturing the audience. Unlike with ArmA and other "Infantry sims", you don't realy "see" the action. We fire at targets that are 2000+ m away...no "hollywood material" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDeath Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 An other Tiger movie : White tiger. Havent seen it yet, though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted October 19, 2014 Members Share Posted October 19, 2014 Good hardware ... fantasy story. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Colossus Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 From a technical standpoint, Fury is good looking in some scenes, the special effects look good.The story is very uneven, so I'll include a little lite spoiler warning.For all the grim dialogue and attempt to portray a grim, bottomless sewer depicting total war the fight sequences are more out of place, they feel like they belong in an action film, there's Rambo territory here. It rips off Saving Private Ryan in key moments, in fact one of the characters is the exact same character, you'll recognize him immediately.The story tries so hard to manipulate the audience, it's rather transparent. There is so much orchestral theme music going on during the battles, which is what SPR avoided. For instance, the fighting actually quits during the middle of a battle so that characters can have their dramatic dialogue, complete with theme music and that very typical female choir voice that sings that "whoaaaaaaaaaaa," and even piano music conveys sentimental feelings.The final battle is boring, it's just not realistic. Based on the trailer I'm not surprised they went for that, based on critics' reviews I thought maybe my mind would be changed in that the film might be more realistic. But no, it's more like the trailer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tjay Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 LOL! Thinking it's really "No" :clin:No. :clin: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Thats partly a problem of SB too.Normal gameplay videos have problems capturing the audience. Unlike with ArmA and other "Infantry sims", you don't realy "see" the action.We fire at targets that are 2000+ m away...no "hollywood material"nonsense. snipers have been depicted fairly decently in hollywood movies, and tanks are moving sniper rifles. it's just a matter of inept movie producers unable to film it properly.all you really have to do is give the protagonists a mission make the audience care what happends to the crews, and root for them to complete (or fail) their mission, and then you play on tension like in a horror movie, with an unknown enemy picking off tanks one by one,jeopardizing the protagonists mission, and then they either fail or succeed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie61 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 "No" meaning "Yes" or "No" meaning "No" :c:Originally Posted by Richie61 View PostLOL! Thinking it's really "No" No. :clin: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daskal Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 I have seen the movie today and kinda have mixed feelings.Spoilers.The equipment used in the movie and the sounds are excellenet. Visuals in general are OK, but the movie feels kinda like a low budget war movie with a very few extras at hand. I just never had the impression of being in the midst of the "big war".Tiger battle. It was short and kinda dumb. Too many misses at 500 meters... the whole sequence was just unrealistic. it was cool seeing it in action though, but the conclusion of the battle was just dumb.Crossroads - final battle. This is where it got boring and I kinda got disconnected from the movie. It was kinda like Rambo & Expendables, and the whole sequence was just weird. Not to mention the instantenious switch from day to night when the battle starts?? That so many infantry units are not able to take out a crippled tank? There were a couple of laughs actually heard in the cinema during the "sniper" scene where the sniper was missing (or hitting?) multiple times from like 50 meters...In overall - I still think its worth to watch it, but anyone interested in tank warfare might be a bit disconnected at times. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted October 28, 2014 Moderators Share Posted October 28, 2014 An other Tiger movie : White tiger. Havent seen it yet, though Only problem is the "Tiger" is horrible looking. It looks like a vismod KV or JS tank (I guess it probably is). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.