Fury (2014)

I didn't see the film what was unrealistic about the Sherman Tiger fight? While the Tiger has a definite edge there were times Shermans defeated Tigers.

 

The question that occurred to me in the Tiger scene, was why not keep shooting that 'smoke" (white phos) at the Tiger as they approached. They had no problem hitting the front of the Tiger, even though they knew they couldn't penetrate that armor. So, why not burn up his optics and viewing ports with a couple of WP shells? He can't shoot you if his optics are covered with carbon.

.

 

I remember reading of one case where a Sherman spotted a Tiger and hit it with a WP round and the crew bailed out.

 

I thought it was well-done and reflective of the "underdog" nature of combat between a Sherman v. a heavily armored late-war German tank in combat. Bottom line: I do not see any issues with the scene other than the god-awful "satanic"-type chanting orchestral soundtrack they chose to include for the scene.

However, if we want to get really nitpicky -- why did the Tiger move out from its covered position and expose itself to begin with? And even more nitpicky: at that range (less than 1000 yards and eventually evidently much closer than that during the final "flanking" manouver), a 76mm M1A2 with M62 would have been capable of penetrating the Tiger from the front. Not to mention M93 which would have been capable of frontal penetration from well over 2km (which - if my understanding is correct - the crew would likely have had 1 or 2 of on hand in April 1945).

 

They were already getting hits with AT.


.

 

You don't have to hit the port, just the front of the tank. Anything for 20 feet around is going to be blackened and on fire.

.

 

With WP if you crack the shell it will ignite. So the only problem is if you hit soft ground. The smoke can also get into the vehicle and it's not wood smoke. Diphosphorus pentoxide will react with water, say in your throat or nasal passages, to form phosphoric acid, which can be disconcerting.

 

In the film they were getting hits on the front of the Tiger. I just thought "Why not use Willy Pete?"

George Patton, above, says the 76mm AT shells being used should have penetrated the Tiger at that range (500 yards).

I just don't know enough about armor in general, but all in all I'd rather fight somebody that's on fire. I'll take any edge I can get.

.

 

Firstly,the tiger got two shots off at virtually point blank range,i think this would have caused more than a hydraulic fluid leak,regardless of the logs the sherman had on it as extra "armour".......these would have made no difference whatsoever.
Secondly,why did'nt the tiget crew make use of the tanks neutral steering.The tiger could turn on its own axis fairly quickly and tiger crews often used this to aquire targets quicker.......this would have made it impossible for the sherman to get around the back of the tiger.Also,as others have mentioned,the shermans gun could have penetrated the tiger at any point on its armour at that range so why did the crew feel the need to have to get a rear end shot off.........it just would'nt have happened like that.

 

People don't always behave in rational ways in combat. Admittedly one would expect fewer mistakes on the part of combat vets. On the other hand how sure would they have been that they didn't need to get a rear/flank shot for instance?

 

They would have known the capability of their own gun against different armour thicknesses at different combat ranges.They certainly would have known that their gun could penetrate the tigers armour at virtually point blank range.........so would have the tiger crew and thats why they would have used the neutral steering capabilities on their tank........films like this have their place for the entertainment value and to fill seats in the cinema,but to meet this end a certain amount of liberties are taken.

 

Would they? That's not always as clear as you seem to think. It would also depend on what rounds they had and how much experience they had with them. Originally US tankers were told their gun could kill anything that didn't prove quite accurate afterwards if not before there tended to be a bit of skepticism with regards to claims as to how good certain things were. As for neutral steering I remember reading of a pair of SAS types that decided to go tank hunting with a Piot. They borrowed one and an ammo box. When they got up close enough to use it they found the ammo box was empty about that time the tank spotted them They ran in a circle part way around the tank until they could break line of sight. Now if the tank saw a pair of infantry with an anti tank weapon and could get a mg on them by neutral steering why didn't it?

 

So what you are saying then is that the sherman crew may not have had the experience they needed to use the ap rounds that they obviously had an abundance of.And the other thing you are saying is that an experienced commander would'nt know that his gun could pierce the tigers armour anywhere at point blank range.......no wonder so many shermans were lost in ww2.......I think you are underestimating the sherman crews that fought in these machines.
As for your last statement,what tank was it they were supposed to have run around?

 

You could use a course in logic.

 

Respectfully, its a movie. Movies take liberties with the facts. I don't see why we're arguing about this. Would the Sherman crew have behaved like that in real life? Would the Tiger crew have behaved like that in real life? Would a random sampling of 5 Sherman crews have behaved the same way as in the movie, or even the same way as the others in the random sampling? What about 5 Tiger crews (well, if you could find 5 Tiger crews with operable vehicles in April 1945 which weren't flipped into ditches and on fire.....)? Who knows? I certainly don't. Both the Tiger crew and Sherman crew did what armchair quarterbacks like us would say were stupid things. If you were in the same situation you claim you would have behaved differently -- that's great. I believe I would have behaved differently in my Sherman too but I have no way to prove or quantify that and furthermore don't see how it means one party is "right" and one part is "wrong". As I'm sure you know there's a difference between reading of/planning a textbook attack and doing the same thing in real life.

Bottom line: its a movie, not a documentary.

PS: This scene is a load of crap because everyone knows it took 5 Shermans to take out 1 Tiger. This scene only had 3 of them!