Fury Movie! Tiger vs Sherman

That's why they won the war right?

You're wrong about the Tiger scene though, because an Easy 8 with its 76mm could have punched through that Tiger's front at the range they first encountered it.

Sorry, but the shitty box design of the P4 and Tiger were outdated shortly after the war started. Please put away Mein Kampf and come back to reality.

If so, then why did the 88mm gun of the tiger bounce off the easy 8 three freaking times man?
Because you know, Hollywood

If so, then why did the 88mm gun of the tiger bounce off the easy 8 three freaking times man?
Because you know, Hollywood

Or because they ricochet when hitting at such a shallow angle?

The last scene really got me going 'hollywood...'
A decent movie, i liked the scenes with Emma.

@ Arclyte

German steel and engineering was simply better than anything the Americans put out. Why do you think the US had to send wave after wave of tanks to take out German tanks(Who had inferior numbers)? It's because the Germans had superior weapons and technology.

Sorry, but tanks like the Tiger and Tiger 2 were ridiculous and over-engineered designs that hurt their war effort more than it helped. They should have listened to Guderian sooner and reverse engineered the T34. They eventually came out with the Panther, but like most over-hyped German weapons/tanks, even that was overly complex for an implement of war.

Germans were also on the defensive pretty much the entire time. Hiding in a treeline is a pretty huge advantage. WW2 wasn't a game of CoD, so padding their kill/death ratio while losing the war really doesn't matter.

Best tanks of the war were the IS-2, T34-85 and Panther. Shermans were infantry support tanks, and weren't meant to engage enemy armor. That's what our unopposed air force was for.

That final scene was just absurd. It's been more then 70 years now, there is no need to portray German soldiers as idiotic puppets who march to their doom singing and missing anything that they face on the battlefield.

The final scene could have made Team America if it wanted, MERICAAA FUCK YEAHHHH

http://www.knox.army.mil/associated/samc/moh.aspx

Man, this thread leads me to believe that the only way Fury could have been good, would be if it was about a Tiger crew killing a hundred Shermans. It's like everybody forgot that Tiger I was actually a poorly designed and overall ridiculous tank.

Compared to what we can see in other movies, the Tiger scene was quite realistic. Several shermanns for one Tiger, and last Shermann destroyed it with alot of luck.
P.S.: I am amused everytime I see comments that shows how upset are some people who simply cannot admit that USA hadn't the best equipment from WW 2, on the contrary, it was quite obsolete related to german equipment.

It's like everybody forgot that Tiger I was actually a poorly designed and overall ridiculous tank.

You talk about the tank that had the best death/kill Ratio of all tank designs from WW2. About 1500 build tigers destroyed more than 10000 allied tanks.

The Tiger was the most effective tank of WW2. T-34s and Shermans were death traps with terrible negative death/kill ratios compared to it.

Germany also couldnt mass produce the panther because Germany is a smaller Country with almost no natural ressources it would have never had enough fuel or steel for 20000 or 30000 Panthers.

More tanks = more steel = more fuel = more tank Crews.

You talk about the tank that had the best death/kill Ratio of all tank designs from WW2. About 1500 build tigers destroyed more than 10000 allied tanks.

The Tiger was the most effective tank of WW2. T-34s and Shermans were death traps with terrible negative death/kill ratios compared to it.

Germany also couldnt mass produce the panther because Germany is a smaller Country with almost no natural ressources it would have never had enough fuel or steel for 20000 or 30000 Panthers.

More tanks = more steel = more fuel = more tank Crews.

Aside from obvious innacuraccies when making kill claims theres something very obvious that the insane german shwerer panzer battalion kill rates are horribly skewed.


Looking into it, it can be very easily explained.

Simply put it - germans and soviets accounted for losses differently.

A soviet tank ended up being destroyed even if it was inoperable for a very short period of tank e.g a tank stuck in the mud is already a loss, this lead to the same tank being lost multiple times over and over again until the tank was actually "destroyed", the same tank can also be "built" multiple times.

This can easily be proven by this



If you understand russian, then it should be very clear what this says. Even if you don't it should be fairly obvious. This shows the total amount of guns produced. Less than 20000 85mm guns were made in the entire war. Yet the soviets made over 22000 t-34/85s and 2000 SU-85s amongst other things. Keep in mind that tanks also should have some spare guns, because tank guns occasionally get broken and need to be replaced.

Kirosheev puts the total soviet tank losses something around 83000 , yet "irrecoverable losses" are only 63000 tanks and SPGs.

So putting the catasthrophic soviet losses at barbarossa, the soviets repaired 30% of the tanks they actually "lost".


The germans on the other hand accounted for losses very differently. They considered a tank destroyed, if theres was absolutely zero chance to recover or repair it.

So basically to make it clear lets look at a simple example.



3 tigers engage 10 t-34s.

Result : 2 tigers heavily damaged but sent to factory back for repairs , 1 destroyed
3 t-34/76s destroyed, 7 heavily damaged and sent to factory for repairs


Germans claim :


3 tigers engage soviet t-34s. 1 tiger is destroyed and 10 russian tanks are knocked out.

Claimed Kill to death ratio 1 : 10

Actual kill to death ratio 3 : 10

The tiger was by far not the best tank design out of WW2. The tiger I and tiger II were horribly overcomplex machines that weren't actually produced in enough numbers to actually do anything significant. Even if their insane kill to death ratios were true, they don't mean anything because the soviets could simply always make more. The panther while a much better tank, with exellent combat characteristics like the tigers but also alot more cheap and fast was alot better but was also pretty bad because it's final drive did not work which led to panthers being horribly unreliable and most of the time panther was broken.

For the best german AFV, the award definately has to go the the humble STUG, and a honorable mention to the PIV.


Oh and btw, the 76mm sherman could easily penetrate the front of the tiger

Why can't people just understand that it's a movie, not a tank warfare simulation recorded on film.

Already gave my review of Fury on this thread.

Nevertheless the Tiger Ambush was believable enough to be satisfying. Tank nuts need to tone their rhetoric down.

Besides, as many have pointed out, the Sherman E8 could easily penetrate the Tiger I armour at those ranges (Less than 1Km). Moreover the Sherman E8 was faster and had better suspension allowing for semi-accurate firing on the move at point blank range (20-50 m), a Tiger can't hit the broadside of a barn while moving, hell even current gen MBTs have trouble reliably hitting long distance targets at speeds superior to 20 km/h(Scratch that, did some digging, the only tank capable of engaging long distance targets on the move, accurately and consistently, is the AMX-56 Leclerc hitting targets 3 to 4 Km away speeding at 50 km/h on any terrain type). Lastly, Fury is set in April 1945, by then the Germans had a serious shortage of Tungsten/Wolfram (Portugal was no longer supplying it, switched to the Allies). Consequently they had inferior ammunition whereas the USA had plenty of high quality armour piercing ammunition, that's a perfectly plausible reason for the Tiger failing to penetrate Fury during the engagement. Also take in mind that Fury's crew was as veteran as you can get in the US Armed Forces during WW2.

In tank warfare, at the tactical level, is the better crew not the better tank that has the edge during an engagement as long as it's not an asymmetrical one, such as a T-70 knocking out out a Tiger I, lol that would be dubiously comical even if the T-70 had the most veteran crew ever.

On another topic, why do people think Germany was the most technologically advanced country during WW2?

That's a big misconception, I think people correlate too much technology with mechanical engineering. Yeah cars and tanks look impressive and advanced to the average joe, but the Germans did not achieve any technological breakthrough there, every other belligerent during that conflict had tanks, some even better ones. At the start of WW2, the most technologically advanced nation was the British Empire, they were the only country with an operational and extensive RADAR network, when no other country had established one, which gave them an immense advantage during the Battle of Britain, they also cracked the enigma machine. Fancy panzers did not achieve any strategic breakthrough on the Axis side. Then by the end of the war, the most technologically advanced nation was the USA. the Manhattan project achieved the splitting of the Atom and the introduction to a whole new Era, the Atomic Era, you don't get more advanced than that! What's more advanced than nuclear weapons & energy (Sure the Soviets did catch up quickly though). German scientists had nothing on the USA ones, there is no more impressive feat than the Manhattan project during WW2 it changed Warfare and the World forever.

Contrary to popular belief, where the germans did excel and had an advantage compared to other nations was chemistry, not mechanical engineering, just look how many chemistry nobel laureates were from the German Empire/Weimar Republic from 1901 to 1939.

Then they weaponized chemistry, first during WWI they came up with mustard gas and sarin to clear up trenches before any other belligerent. Then well, they gassed 7 million people during WW2... Furthermore their expertise on chemistry meant they had the most advanced rocketry systems in the World!

How do you think they came up with a proper propellant for rocket launchers like the panzerschrecks, panzerfaust (Whereas allies still relied on recoilless or springs AT handheld systems to deliver the explosive payload), the V1/V2 rockets; and finally with jet fuel to introduce the first jet fighter (Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet) in late 1944?! The Germans had the best chemists and rocketry scientist, that's why the USA and Soviets competed tooth and nail to get them in order to speed up their respective Space and ICBM programs! Nobody was interested in their panzers and engineers, both the Soviet Union and the USA had better mechanical engineers and designed better tanks (especially the soviets until the late 1980s).

Conclusion: German equipment was not overall the best nor the most advanced during WW2 (it was consistently very good tough), but they did have noteworthy niche with rocketry and chemistry.

If you look at this side and the statistics:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwere_Panzer-Abteilung

The kill/death Ratio gets even better in the Combat only section.

Around 1700 Tigers were lost during WW2(Tiger I and Tiger II).

-only 712 Tigers were destroyed by the Enemy.

-654 Tigers were destroyed by there own Crews mostly because of fuel shortage at the end of the war.

-214 Tigers were lost for other reason(Tiger Crews surrendered at the end of the war or simply panicking and abandoned there tank.

Death/Kill Ratio in combat only is about 1:12 for Tiger.
Death/Kill Ratio Overall is around 1:6,3.

No matter how you see it with the allied tanks were claimed as a kill but could be repaired again. The Death/Kill Ratio of the Tigers were simply awesome. The Germans counted a kill when the enemy tanks were blown off/exploded after a hit and the Crew inside death.

If you come with the Argument "But the Soviet/US/British tank could still be repaired and fight again..." well.........if you have enough time you could repair absolute almost everything that you want even the "irrecoverable lossed german tanks".It just makes no sense if the tank is so heavily damaged that the repair cost more time/ressources than to build a new one.

Unfortunately, quantity always won against quality.

If you look at this side and the statistics:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwere_Panzer-Abteilung

The kill/death Ratio gets even better in the Combat only section.

Around 1700 Tigers were lost during WW2(Tiger I and Tiger II).

-only 712 Tigers were destroyed by the Enemy.

-654 Tigers were destroyed by there own Crews mostly because of fuel shortage at the end of the war.

-214 Tigers were lost for other reason(Tiger Crews surrendered at the end of the war or simply panicking and abandoned there tank.

Death/Kill Ratio in combat only is about 1:12 for Tiger.
Death/Kill Ratio Overall is around 1:6,3.

No matter how you see it with the allied tanks were claimed as a kill but could be repaired again. The Death/Kill Ratio of the Tigers were simply awesome. The Germans counted a kill when the enemy tanks were blown off/exploded after a hit and the Crew inside death.

If you come with the Argument "But the Soviet/US/British tank could still be repaired and fight again..." well.........if you have enough time you could repair absolute almost everything that you want even the "irrecoverable lossed german tanks".It just makes no sense if the tank is so heavily damaged that the repair cost more time/ressources than to build a new one.

Sight, Affe you would make a splendid Wehrmacht armchair general. Obsessing with K/D ratios at the expense of the bigger picture and losing the war; strategy, that's where it matters not tactics.

Post-war exchange between the defeated USA and Vietnam: "You know you never defeated us in the field." Col. Harry Summers. "That may be true, but it is also irrelevant." Unknown North Vietnamese Colonel. On Strategy: The Vietnam War in Context by Col. Harry G. Summers Jr.

Kill to death ratios are utterly irrelevant...

If you look at this side and the statistics:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwere_Panzer-Abteilung

The kill/death Ratio gets even better in the Combat only section.

Around 1700 Tigers were lost during WW2(Tiger I and Tiger II).

-only 712 Tigers were destroyed by the Enemy.

-654 Tigers were destroyed by there own Crews mostly because of fuel shortage at the end of the war.

-214 Tigers were lost for other reason(Tiger Crews surrendered at the end of the war or simply panicking and abandoned there tank.

Death/Kill Ratio in combat only is about 1:12 for Tiger.
Death/Kill Ratio Overall is around 1:6,3.

No matter how you see it with the allied tanks were claimed as a kill but could be repaired again. The Death/Kill Ratio of the Tigers were simply awesome. The Germans counted a kill when the enemy tanks were blown off/exploded after a hit and the Crew inside death.

If you come with the Argument "But the Soviet/US/British tank could still be repaired and fight again..." well.........if you have enough time you could repair absolute almost everything that you want even the "irrecoverable lossed german tanks".It just makes no sense if the tank is so heavily damaged that the repair cost more time/ressources than to build a new one.

Yeah, and all of those tigers were very likely to be knocked out or damaged by enemy fire multiple times, they were not counted as a loss, but allied tanks that were knocked out WERE.
When comparing losses, you need to treat them equally.
And usually a tank is not repairable , if you know, it falls into the hands of the enemy, and you don't want that to happen, so you must blow up the damaged tank so it can't be repaired by the enemy. Hence the many tigers that were blown up by their own crews.

Most tanks do not blow off or explode after a hit, they get penetrated and the crew abandons them, later the tank can be recovered and repaired.

Yeah, and all of those tigers were very likely to be knocked out or damaged by enemy fire multiple times, they were not counted as a loss, but allied tanks that were knocked out WERE.
When comparing losses, you need to treat them equally.
And usually a tank is not repairable , if you know, it falls into the hands of the enemy, and you don't want that to happen, so you must blow up the damaged tank so it can't be repaired by the enemy. Hence the many tigers that were blown up by their own crews.

Most tanks do not blow off or explode after a hit, they get penetrated and the crew abandons them, later the tank can be recovered and repaired.

allied tank Crews also claimed to "kill" a tiger when they damaging them. But of course the allies WOULD NEVER DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. The allies were gentlemen they have always gone to the tiger Crew after a hit and asking them: "Erm sorry but is your tank destroyed?" and when the tiger Crew said "Yes" then the allies make a Party and celebrate.

And also many of the "damaged" allied tanks were so heavily damaged that they never saw combat again because it took to much time to repair them and field them again until the end of war.

allied tank Crews also claimed to "kill" a tiger when they damaging them. But of course the allies WOULD NEVER DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. The allies were gentlemen they have always gone to the tiger Crew after a hit and asking them: "Erm sorry but is your tank destroyed?" and when the tiger Crew said "Yes" then the allies make a Party and celebrate.

And also many of the "damaged" allied tanks were so heavily damaged that they never saw combat again because it took to much time to repair them and field them again until the end of war.

Thing is, soviets claimed a kill when an enemy tank was damaged, and they also claimed a loss when their own tank was damaged.
But really, who cares about what allies claimed to kill?

It's important to look at the actual statistics made by the accounting of both millitaries, not kill claims. When it comes to kill claims, germans used their own method of counting losses and claimed to kill a tank even tho it was later repaired.

You need to look at the statistics that are determined by the documents, and then make need to make them equal to one another since the method of accounting for losses are different, and then you can actually compare them.

Thing is, soviets claimed a kill when an enemy tank was damaged, and they also claimed a loss when their own tank was damaged.
But really, who cares about what allies claimed to kill?

It's important to look at the actual statistics made by the accounting of both millitaries, not kill claims. When it comes to kill claims, germans used their own method of counting losses and claimed to kill a tank even tho it was later repaired.

You need to look at the statistics that are determined by the documents, and then make need to make them equal to one another since the method of accounting for losses are different, and then you can actually compare them.

Year German Losses - Russian Losses - Kill/Loss Ratio
1941 2,758......... 20,500........... 7.43
1942 2,648......... 15,000........... 5.66
1943 6,362......... 22,400........... 3.52
1944 6,434......... 16,900........... 2.63
1945 7,382......... 8,700............ 1.18
Total 25,584....... 83,500........... 3.26
http://www.alanhamby.com/losses.shtml

German documents say only 25584 tank losses on the eastern front. Historians set the soviet tank looses to around 83500. No matter how you Count the soviet losses the german tank losses are still much less than the lost soviet tanks.

Year German Losses Russian Losses Kill/Loss Ratio
1941 2,758......... 20,500........ 7.43
1942 2,648......... 15,000........ 5.66
1943 6,362......... 22,400........ 3.52
1944 6,434......... 16,900........ 2.63
1945 7,382......... 8,700......... 1.18
Total 25,584....... 83,500........ 3.26
http://www.alanhamby.com/losses.shtml

German documents say only 25584 tank losses on the eastern front. No matter how you Count the soviet losses its still much less than the lost soviet tanks.

Yes those documents are right, but the accounting of the losses was different, if you remember Kirosheev puts the irrecoverable soviet losses at 63000 and total losses at 83500. The 25000 german figure comes from tanks that are utterly destroyed and are unrepairable.

That statistic is furtherly also meaningless, since most soviet tanks were lost to AT guns rather than tanks, and in 1941-42 due to abandonment and what not.


It's interesting tho, in 1943 that was the year when the "super tanks" like the tiger I and panther stepped in, yet german losses during that year almost tripled.

You talk about the tank that had the best death/kill Ratio of all tank designs from WW2.

A war doesn't work like a Call of Duty match. It's possible for a tank to have a 10/1 K/D and still be an overall failure. Ease of production and repair, reliability, ease of training and operation, cost per tank, fuel efficiency - all of those are extremely important. What did the Reich do? They deployed *huge* tanks in a situation where the enemy had air superiority, making them excellent targets. Produced gas-guzzling monsters when fuel was scarce. Manufactured massive steel behemoths that were absolutely unsuited to all-important urban combat. Diversified production into a myriad of variant on different chassis in a situation where their industry was ravaged by shortages, sabotage by slave laborers and poor management.

More specifically regarding the Tiger, they spent all that expensive steel on a heavy tank that didn't even use sloped armour, something the lowly T-34, and even some earlier designs, already had. Not only that, the Tiger was deployed to Russia despite being poorly suited to deep mud and snow, both terrain types that, surprise surprise, are pretty damn common in Russia.

The Germans had worse tanks than the enemy both during the invasion of France and during Operation Barbarossa, and I'd argue that the only truly great tank they've produced was the late-war Panther, but even then the very design was probably unsuited for the Reich's strategic situation.

Conclusion : Germany had the best TANK CREW.

With all the claims that Tiger was an inferior, haphazard machine yet somehow came out with the results recorded.... we can only conclude the above, more or less.

Unless these people are just determined to undermined the other side so bad that they go far as to find whatever "source" that will support their claims...aye...



One thing about the sloped armor : It cramps the insides so bad, the exhaustion actually limits its scope of operations.

Besides, T-34s could not change gears on the move.... Just think how maneuverable that would be.