Talk:Fury (2014)

M1918A2 BAR?

Is the BAR actually shown in any trailers or promotional images? As it is, the lack of screenshots and the description makes it sound like we are just assuming the BAR is in the film, as this was used by the real US Army at the time. --commando552 (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2014 (EDT)

• You can see one about 11 seconds in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OGvZoIrXpg: --User:Crackshot (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2014 (EDT)

Mortars

Early in the film some American mortars are firing, at the assembly poitn after the Lt's tank get knocked out. Were they 60 or 81mm?

Also, at that same point in the film there's a guy shooting periodic bursts with a M3 halftrack-mounted M2HB. Any idea why? I've heard of 40mm Bofors firing tracers at night to provide a directional referance, was it something like that?--Mandolin (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2014 (EST)

A soldier fires the M2 from an M3 half-track vehicle.

I think the tactic of using tracers to mark the axis of an attack was more of a British thing, and I have only ever heard of it being done with Bofors or Oerlikon. I do not think it would really work with a .50 cal, as I believe the tracer would burn out after less than 2,000m which really isn't good enough for this purpose (tracer from cannons would be able to go +5,000m I think, and would be more visible). I think I remember the scene you are talking about as it stood out to me as looking really odd. The gunner just seemed to be holding it pointing upwards at quite and angle, not aiming at all while firing. Possibly he was using it for AA (although I doubt it as he didn't move the gun at all) or was firing at a ground target observing the tracer impacts (if I remember correctly the gun was at such an angle that the rounds would have been being lobbed beyond the range of the tracer so this wouldn't make total sense either). At the time I remember wondering if the gunner was even actually firing as he seemed to have no reaction, or whether the firing effects might have been added in after the fact to make more stuff go on in the shot. Would need to see it again though while on the look out to work out what was going on for sure though. --commando552 (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2014 (EST)

We sure those are M2 mortars they're firing? They look a bit too long for M2.

Mortar in Fury.

M2 Mortar from Hot Shots! Part Deux.

--Mandolin (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2015 (EST)

Tell the truth, I'm not so sure myself anymore. Maybe M1s?Inceptor57 (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2015 (EST)

It looks like this thing which is French and called the LLR 81mm, it's also used by South Africa who call it the M3. I think it's possible that only the stand and base are real weapon parts, given all you need for a movie mortar is a smoke puff you wouldn't actually need to use an authentic barrel. Evil Tim (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2015 (EST)

German AT Guns

The other day I watched the movie in cinema and I was wondering if anybody could identify which germy AT guns were used? I think the one in the town was a 5cm Pak 38? The 2 guns which fired at the tanks from the dug in positions in the woods were 8,8cm Pak 43/41? They were only visible for a short amount of time, if I hade a Bluray it would be easier to identify. Looking forward to your opinions.--Hchris (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2015 (EST)

Given the smooth barrel and shape of the muzzle break, I'm calling it as a Pak 40 7.5cm.

7.5 cm Pak 40 anti-tank gun - 75x714mm R

--Mandolin (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2015 (EST)

Yes I agree, those are definitely 7,5cm Pak 40 guns. I really wonder why the makers of this movie made this very obvious mistake calling them 88mm guns? I remember Brad Pit saying that those are 88mm guns because he can hear the distinct whizz sound. Why didn't he simply say 7,5cm guns and everything would have been fine? Did they seriously hope that nobody would notice? Btw what gun was used in the town, the one hidden in the house firing at the Sherman full frontal? Could somebody please provide a screencap to see if it was a Pak 40 too? --Hchris (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2015 (EST)

Honestly, probably less than 1% (probably a LOT less) of the people who saw this film would be able to ID this kind of weapon from the brief glimpse of it covered in camo nets so it doesn't strike me as that cardinal of a sin. I imagine the reason for this discrepancy is that it was written as an 88 in the script, but the 75 was what they could get for filming (I believe there are more of these still knocking around). For the plot point they wanted to portray them as 88s, which I imagine also have more name recognition to normals, but if they couldn't get hold of them they used what they could as a stand in. --commando552 (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2015 (EST)

Well, given it's just a line by a character it could be explained that he was just wrong, much like you could explain Han Solo's "Kessel Run in less than five Parsecs" thing as him just seeing what kind of BS he can get the stupid farmboy to swallow. Evil Tim (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2015 (EST)

I'm pretty sure that it is likely they meant these to be Pak 43s, but they just used Pak 40s as stand-ins. There were 20,000 Pak 40s made as opposed to only about 2,000 Pak 43s so I have to assume that the Pak 40 is more common and less valuable than a real Pak 43, and from a practical point of view it is probably a hell of a lot easier to transport and work with Pak 40s than Pak 43s. Besides, for a few seconds of screen-time covered in copious camouflage, this looks enough like one of these that it doesn't matter that much really. --commando552 (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2015 (EST)

Fury's Top Mounted 1919

I think the one explanation for the additional 1919A4 is that it may have been a battlefield mod like a lot of add ons you see even today. Given the fact the Browning M2 on the Sherman was normally out of the tank commander's reach most times you would think they would want something more readily available. --Charon68 (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2015 (EST)