MovieChat Forums > Fury (2014) Discussion > What do Germans think about "Fury"?

What do Germans think about "Fury"?


If there are any German people reading this, what do you think about FURY? I'm certain you knew German WWII tanks generally outclassed American ones except for the M26 Pershing. Late in 1944 the Americans introduced the M36 'Jackson' tank destroyer, basically an M10 with a 90mm cannon instead of the 3-inch (76.2mm) of the M10. The M36 could knock out any German tank, BUT, the M36 still had the thin front glacis armor of the M10 and its vulnerable open top turret. The M26 Pershing was America's penultimate tank, equal to and capable of knocking out Germany's best, the Panzer Mk IV, the Panther, the Tiger I and even the vaunted Tiger II.

After the war it became known in America that the M4 Sherman was inferior to the German tanks. It took 4 to 5 M4 Shermans to destroy one German panther, tiger I or tiger II. M4 losses were high. But since America won the war, it wasn't a big deal it seemed. But it was a BIG deal with the U.S. Army. The disaster against the German tanks influenced American tanks after the war. With the exception of the postwar light M46 Walker bulldog tank, the American Army standardized on heavy tanks. That is something the U.S. should have done in 1943, not 1945 when the war was just a little under three months from the end.

reply

It took 4 to 5 M4 Shermans to destroy one German panther, tiger I or tiger II


Nah...plenty of cases of a good Sherman jockey outsmarting & taking out a Tiger or a Panther...Michael Wittmann comes to mind when he got 'toasted' by a Sherman Firefly--and many fresh faced Panzermen in middle/late 1944 were nowhere near as experienced as Wittmann or Barkmann.




Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

M4 losses were high

Most American tanks that were lost in Europe were destroyed by mines, infantry AT weapons, and AT guns that had been designed to kill Soviet heavy tanks like the KV. Replacing Shermans one for one with M26s, assuming they were ready a year earlier, would have had little effect. In fact, as they would only have been able to deploy half as many M26 as and given the mechanical unreliability of the M26, there would ha. This is because the campaign to liberate France would have taken much longer and infantry would have often lacked the armour support they had in real life.
With the exception of the postwar light M46 Walker bulldog tank, the American Army standardized on heavy tanks. That is something the U.S. should have done in 1943, not 1945 when the war was just a little under three months from the end.

Not quite. The trend since 1939 was for medium tanks to get bigger and carry a bigger gun. In 1939, British medium tanks like the Cruiser Mark II weighed in at under fifteen tons. By 1945, the newest British medium, the Centurion, weighed in at over forty tons. Nor did the heavy tank go away. The Soviets, British, and Americans developed and deployed heavy tanks during the fifties - the T-10, the Conqueror, and the M103. They only went away when 115 and 105 mm guns suitable for mounting in medium tanks were developed.

Improvements in infrastructure also made it easier to deploy tanks heavier than the Sherman.
That is something the U.S. should have done in 1943, not 1945 when the war was just a little under three months from the end.

They had a heavy tank ready in 1942. They decided not to produce them as they realized that given the limitations of port and cargo ship cargo handing equipment, and landing craft, they would only be able to deploy half as many of them overseas as Shermans. Given that until mid summer 1944 and in one theatre the Sherman had proven more than good enough, it's understandable that they would not have a heavier tank until late 1944. One should also note that there was no way that the M26 would have been ready in 1943. Indeed, it was barely combat-worthy by 1945.

reply

An additional new tank would also complicate an already complicated supply chain. New tank means additional/different spare parts. A new gun would mean different ammo. This, plus additional training for tank and maintenance crews.

reply

If there are any German people reading this, what do you think about FURY? I'm certain you knew German WWII tanks generally outclassed American ones except for the M26 Pershing.


Qualitative German superiority over American tanks actually lasted only a period of less than nine months, from June 1944 to late February 1945. The Sherman was superior to the Panzer Mark IV. The Tiger I was first encountered by US tanks in 1943, but in very small numbers in North Africa and Italy. It wasn't until after D-Day that it and the Panther were encountered in large enough numbers that SHAEF began to recognize the threat, and it wasn't until the Battle of the Bulge that the Army decided they had to get as many M26s as possible to the front line yesterday, and those didn't become operational until February. It was only a period of less than nine months, but it was arguably the most critical nine months of the ground war in Europe.

reply

To give some perspective, about 90 percent of all tank rounds expended were high explosive and smoke, not armour piercing. Only half of all tank casualties were from AP rounds, mostly fired by towed AT guns or lightly armoured SP guns like the Marder and Hetzer rather than by tanks or assault guns.

About two thirds of German tanks and assault guns were based on the pre-war Mark III and IV tanks. The number of Panthers came as something of a surprise, but didn't cause American tankers much trouble until September 1944 as before that, they had been almost exclusively deployed against British forces until the ones in France were nearly all destroyed or abandoned in Normandy.

Tigers were encountered in such low numbers as to be almost irrelevant. US forces, for instance, only engaged Tiger Is three times before they were replaced by Tiger IIs. I don't have numbers for Tiger II engagements, but given how few were made (under six hundred) and that they mostly were deployed against Soviet forces, it couldn't have been very many.

Panthers were also far from invulnerable and a good Sherman crew could take advantages of their vehicles faster traverse and superior situational awareness to engage. The 75 mm could kill a Panther from the side if they could get a shot with minimal deflection. A 76 mm could kill a Panther from the side and rear at any angle. Starting in late summer 1944, 75 mm armed Shermans began to be replaced by 76 mm armed ones.

Just to compare numbers (from Wikipedia):

From 1943 to the end of the war

Mark III and IV based tanks and other AFVs: about 20,800
Panther: 6,557
Tiger II: 569

T-34 based tanks and assault guns: 45,596
British all types: 5,852

From 1943 to the end of 1944*

Sherman: 34,156
M10,M18, and M36 TD: about 10,000

*Few if any vehicles from 1945 production would have time to get overseas before the war ended.

reply

The Sherman was superior to the Panzer Mark IV.


arguable...there are many variants PZKW IV..originally it only had a fire-support gun...actually some variations in the M4, too, 75mm gun vs the 3", that kind of thing..

reply

German people are rude, have no sense of humor,

This doesn't describe the Germans I've met. It's just an old and discredited stereotype.
and are always proud of their German heritage when they ought to be embarrassed by it.

IN fact, while justifiably proud of German accomplishments in art, science, and philosophy, Germans are quite conscious and ashamed of the crimes committed by Germany during the Nazi era.
They loved Hitler

So they did - in the 1930s. For some reason, that high regard seemed to have worn off over the next few years. Eighty years later, the overwhelming majority of Germans have the same negative opinion of Hitler and his party as most other Europeans.

reply

The German's take pride in their heritage, and rightly so. They are among the most industrious, ambitious and intelligent people on the planet. They've rebuilt their nation from ashes to one of the elite economies on the planet.

Nazism was thrust upon them in a bizarre set of circumstances. The greed of the Allies in the Treaty of Versailles also played a role in the rise of Hitler.

reply

yup...and you can say much the same re the Japanese.


who also get accused of this 'no sense of humour/rude/cold-unfriendly stuff.."

(and I have encountered it...and worse in Koreans, who seem more Japanese than the Japanese are)
nonetheless...how may outfits could have done what they did in the bracket, say, 1945-1965...RU *beep* kidding me?

what BOTH of these bunches did with the occupation...versus certain other strains of savage that we have failed to civilise in some similar circumstances,more modern examples of 'nation building"..

reply

Its not even about the view of a German, while I am German Ive come to realize in the past 10 years how deep the saying "history is written by the victors" actually goes.
Id first like to talk about how the movie portrays German Soldiers in general and later on Ill go on about tank fights.


Im not gonna debate what is true and what not because a lot of what people believe is literally drilled into their heads by the media(oh, hi Fury!) and school.

Fact that remains however is that the media since so many years has painted every Country as evil that did not have a Private Central Bank, Hitler Germany didnt, Lybia didnt, Iran doesnt, Syria doesnt and since Putin came to rise Russia doesnt anymore. Its hilarious how the list of so called evil countries fits the list of countries without Private Central Banks.

To further elaborate this point Ill put up some Quotes from Winston Churchill

"Should Germany Merchandise again in the next 50 years we have led this war(WW1) in vain" - Winston Churchill, Times, 1919

"We will force this war upon Hitler if he wants it or not." - Winston Churchill, Radio Broadcast, 1936

"Germany becomes too powerful. We have to crush it." - Winston Churchill, November 1936 to US General Robert E. Wood

"This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany" - Winston Churchill, Autumn 1939 broadcast

"We could have if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot. But we didnt want to." - Winston Churchill to Truman, USA March 1946

"Germanys unforgivable crime before ww2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independant exchange system from which the world-finance couldnt profit anymore" -Winston Churchill, Book The Second World War.

General Patton has also spoken out against the war after World War 2 was over, saying Germany was the victim and that Germans were the only civilized people in Europe.
Obviously he had an "accident" soon after, how strange.
Its one of the many reasons why I hated the movie so much because German soldiers were portrayed as barbaric, hanging "traitors" and the like outside of town as a warning to townsfolk. The Quotes above make me more than confident that it was actually the other way around. And why the more I watched the movie the more it felt like a Propaganda piece.
But as I said, history is written by the Victor.


Regardless, if we look at Tank strength, then the Tanks themselves dont matter so much, its also one of the reasons why I disliked the movie so much is that when World War 2 was over, a lot of surviving German Tank Division Captains were interviewed. A lot of them showed respect towards General Patton on his Leadership skills as Tank Division Leader himself, however they also said while they did respect him, it wasnt because he was so good, he was only at a medium-ish level in comparison to German Tank Leaders, but simply because Allied Tank Division Leaders were horrible in general.


The German's take pride in their heritage, and rightly so. They are among the most industrious, ambitious and intelligent people on the planet. They've rebuilt their nation from ashes to one of the elite economies on the planet.

Nazism was thrust upon them in a bizarre set of circumstances. The greed of the Allies in the Treaty of Versailles also played a role in the rise of Hitler.


Please check the quotes I wrote above, it really gives new meaning to who was right and who was not. "Nazism" has rebuilt a country within 3 years were people were starving to death just before that.
Nationalism has been abolished ever since. And that is wrong, non nationalism is whats killing Europe. If you look at Switzerland who are quite nationalistic, then you'll probably agree, being the wealthiest country in europe with the highest living standard and the lowest unemployment rate.
Israel too btw. Nationalistic af.

reply

"Germanys unforgivable crime before ww2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independant exchange system from which the world-finance couldnt profit anymore" -Winston Churchill, Book The Second World War.

How interesting. In which of the six books in that series was it? What edition? What page number? It's odd that I can't find out where when I look for this quote and that the only sources for it are neo-Nazi and other conspiracy theorists sites. Similarly, those other quotes have no provenance. That means they're fake.
German Tank Division Captains were interviewed.

Were they indeed. Though I should think that one might want a wider selection of opinions that assorted Hauptmaenner and Hauptsturmfuerher.
General Patton on his Leadership skills as Tank Division Leader

How odd given that Patton was not an armoured division (Panzer Division)commander during the war. He was a Corps (Korps) commander and Army (Armee) commander though.

reply

because German soldiers were portrayed as barbaric, hanging "traitors" and the like outside of town as a warning to townsfolk.


this happened..it is well-documented, it is portrayed even in the German "Untergangen"..

as for your allusions to Patton's accident...do you have any idea what the military road trauma stats were in NW Europe in this period? You think a General in a jeep is immune?

I have not checked your quotes re churchill, I'd like to, they remind me in style of some I have seen attributed to Ariel Sharon ...probably same kind of *beep* source.
As with the innuendos on Patton and Eisenhower.
Stormfront.

reply

What I thought about this movie? Words cannot describe the level of disdain I feel for this piece of crap. It was an absolute insult to intelligence and common sense, full of hatred on a scale never seen on a movie before.
brad Pitt can refrain from touching German soil from now on. He should be banned for lifetime. And if you think I am the only one saying this, wathc the ratings in Amazon.de

https://www.amazon.de/Herz-aus-Stahl-dt-OV/dp/B00WY21CGS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1468707812&sr=8-1&keywords=herz+aus+stahl#customerReviews

The only ones providing 5 stars are idiotic retards.

reply

Yeah right pal...I'm sure Michael Wittmann begs to differ. You aren't that same psychotic clot who posted some *beep* who got the Ritterkreuz, for killing 100 Russian Soldiers & knocked out 13 tanks (by manning a 50mm A/T gun/MG34 position singlehanded) to show that there was no way the Fury crew could survive the furious assault of the panzerfaust toting late war dregs and all the while overlooking that this Wehrmacht hero did more or less what the Fury crew did?




Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

hello nicky boy! You still here? Talking bout psychotic clots... Are you still touching yourself while you watch this war porn fantasy you love so much? What turns you on the most? Seeing the truck driver agonizing in pain in the ambush scene? How Brad Pitt shoots off heads of German soldiers? or Brad Pitts terrible German accent?
Get out your basement you pathetic loser and beep yourself.

reply

Awwww....did your Wehrboe feewings get hurted? Wanna get me to watch a WW2 film? Get a few deutchmarks in a pile & make a movie about Otto Carius; I enjoyed his 'muddy tigers'. Long as the Germans act like real men & stop moping around.












Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

Damn Wehraboos are EVERYWHERE

reply

Yeah...now don't get me wrong-I LOVE the kit from 'le Boche', (I always play as a German in all my flight sims, FPS & tanker sims) and admire their fightin' meng (to quote Tony Montana) but I still have in my mind who they fought for.




Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

"Wehrboe feewings get hurted?" na not really. What I find insulting and hurting is your idiocy and retardedness lol. A nerd, as apthetic as the movie you defend so much.
"act like real men & stop moping around" real man like yourself? :) LOL
Go continue touching yourself :)

reply

The only thing I touch is the control stick of my Dora-9, to keep the Jabos from turning my Kammeraden into mincemeat.




Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

my Dora-9


nice...second Airfix kit I ever made..

there is that painting print around of JG26 D9s...I think it is on the cover of a book about JG26..I want one of those.

reply

No I get excited when I get my hands on my flight sim joy stick as I strap into that FW 190-Dora so I can fly support & keep those cursed 'Jabos' off the necks of my Commeraden down in the Ardennes.





Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

ht sim joy stick as I strap into that FW 190-Dora so I can fly support & keep those cursed 'Jabos' off the necks of my Commeraden down in the Ardennes.






Kameraden...


the Bismarck survivors hauled about Dorsetshire were singing a song "Ich hatte ein Kamerad"..well, after they dried off a bit and loosened up a little...

reply

😁




Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

Can't read the reviews, they are in looser speak.

reply

What I thought about this movie? Words cannot describe the level of disdain I feel for this piece of crap. It was an absolute insult to intelligence and common sense, full of hatred on a scale never seen on a movie before.
brad Pitt can refrain from touching German soil from now on. He should be banned for lifetime. And if you think I am the only one saying this, wathc the ratings in Amazon.de

https://www.amazon.de/Herz-aus-Stahl-dt-OV/dp/B00WY21CGS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1468707812&sr=8-1&keywords=herz+aus+stahl#customerReviews

The only ones providing 5 stars are idiotic retards.


From what I could read with google translate they seem upset with the ending being unrealistic.

To that I have already replied;
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2713180/board/thread/250874108?d=259874553#259874553

It no more implausible than events that actually took place.

reply

Too bad they couldn't have memorialized an actual act of outstanding heroism, and given these characters real names.

That said, I like the film. It captured the ethos of soldiers who know they are on a suicide mission. That does happen, that is real.

reply

https://www.amazon.de/Herz-aus-Stahl-dt-OV/dp/B00WY21CGS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1468707812&sr=8-1&keywords=herz+aus+stahl#customerReviews

Not that this is a scientific survey, but I note that nearly as many people, 47% liked it as did not.

reply

I'm sure they recognize it for what it is--a terrible movie.

reply

Wrong again...

reply

Go read the reviews. Loser speak? What are you? a winner? Get a life, you brave internet warrior. Lol. How pathetic.

reply

Such anger...

Germany lost. Get over it.
I'm sure your years of Call of Duty have made you an uber-warrior.

reply

Germans aren't stupid. I'm sure they can recognize an ineptly made piece of @#$% when they see it.

reply

You're just upset because the Germans lost.

reply

Hanomag

reply

I think I've seen one of those in the old modelling mags...name rings a bell, anyway...their army and stuff was so cool.

reply

Sounds like it, sometimes.




Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

asguy1, it took like 7 countries to bring down Germany. I'd equate Germany to a viking and the rest of the world as a 100 midgets with knives.

reply

Sort of.

But was Germany really as strong as such a superficial analysis suggests? No.

Germany's limited economic base meant that she had to focus in critical areas and let the others go. This translated into a weak navy and no effective nuclear research program, among other strategic weaknesses. Germany had a lead in rearmament in the 1930s, and this lead conferred some easy victories in 1939-1941, most notably Poland and France, but also Denmark, Norway, the Low Countries, the Balkans, and even Greece. They also swept through much of the western Soviet states, inflicting huge numbers of casualties in a surprise offensive.

But looking back, the end was never really in doubt after Germany declared war on the USA. The US had a very small Army in 1939, and had to build a large Army almost from scratch and transport that Army to Europe and the Pacific by 1944. They did so. The US Navy was challenged by Japan's Navy for many months, but had fully seized the initiative within a year of entering the war despite heavy losses. By late 1943, the US Navy was the most powerful on Earth, and still growing rapidly. The US Air Force was stronger than Germany's and Japan's combined by mid-1944.

Germany's defeat was not easy, but was assured. The need for the Soviets to recover, for Britain and the USA to rearm, and for the USA to transport large land and air forces across the globe, something Germany could not even attempt, and this bought the Germans a bit of time, and this delay creates the false impression that Germany was stronger than she really was. The easy early victories gave Germany some added industry and manpower from which to recruit troops and workers, which also inflates Germany's perceived strength.

Germany was a significant regional power, but not a global superpower. Only Britain and the USA have ever been global superpowers.

Given a fair fight in neutral ground, say Iceland or Argentina for example, Germany could not have seriously challenged Britain or the USA. That US troops drove across Germany and were in Czechoslovakia at the end of the war is in stark contrast to Germany's inability to land more than a few spies and saboteurs on the American coast. And then we can compare the million+ tons of bombs the US dropped on Germany to the zero tons Germany dropped on the USA.

Germany had no real chance of victory after December 1941.

 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

reply

But looking back, the end was never really in doubt after Germany declared war on the USA.



There are those that would argue it was never really in doubt after Germany declared war on The Soviet Union.

The Soviets bled the Wehrmacht white.

Germany would have had to eventually pull out of occupied Europe to throw everything at the Eastern Front instead of the Ardennes in the Battle of the Bulge.







We will put new American metal into the spine of this nation.

reply

Perhaps. That war was bloody for both sides, most especially the Soviets. I could imagine some sort of negotiated settlement of that one, absent the prospect of aid and significant offensive pressure from the West.

 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

reply

They had a small chance to beat the Soviet Union in 1941. They might even have managed to starve them into stalemate assuming the Soviets ran out of money to pay for food imports or even fight them to one if they couldn't import the means to push the invaders back. Once the US decided that they would the give USSR what ever it took to beat the Nazis without needing to be paid, they were unbeatable.

I'd say the turning point was not 7 December 1941, but 11 March 1941 when the Lend Lease Act became law. After that, the Allies could not lose so long ads they had the will to win.

One could alternatively make the case that it was when the UK decided it would continue the war alone after the Fall of France. That meant that Germany was doomed to a war of attrition that would inevitably end with American participation.

reply

That meant that Germany was doomed to a war of attrition that would inevitably end with American participation.


If you assume American military involvement is inevitable, then sure. Otherwise, it's the date Germany declared war on the United States. I believe that was 8 December 1941, or close to it.

 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

reply

Close enough. It was 11 December, not that the three more days mae a big difference. By that time, even without direct military involvement (which in fact was already under way in the Atlantic) Lend Lease meant that the Allies were not going to run out of material before the Germans did. Having the US officially in the war probably shortened it by years, though.

reply

not quite. Germany had no real chance of victory after losing Stalingrad in 1943. It looked all but lost for the Soviets when the Germans approached Moscow in 1941. Stalin had a breakdown and was ready to abandon Moscow, Churchill thought there was no hope either.

But this is where Hitler started making strategic blunders, he diverted Panzergruppe 2 ,which had reached the outskirts of Moscow, to instead move South to attack Kiev. Taking Moscow would have certainly changed the war's outcome altogether.

Also Stalingrad was another huge blunder: Hitler could have avoided it altogether and focused all his troops on Moscow, but he wanted the city plainly because it had Stalin's name on it.

He also couldn't accept defeat and realize his mistakes, and should have retreated all his armies when the winter came no later than late 1941. The German supply lines were overstretched and his troops were not prepared for winter. They should have got the job done (take Moscow) in late August 1941.

reply

When one side is strategically outnumbered, it can afford no significant defeats. Continued war makes at least one such defeat inevitable. Stalingrad was the first big defeat for Germany. Midway for Japan. But the outcome of the war would have been the same if their first big defeats had occurred later and elsewhere.

 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

reply

But lets suppose Moscow capitulated to the Germans. Do you think Russia would have surrendered?
What country has ever won a war after their capital was taken?

reply

China.

Usually, mot countries that have lost their capital have done so once their armies have been completely defeated in the field. In most cases, the ca[ital is also by far the largest and most important city in the country.

Note that most countries are not the size of Russia. They lost Moscow in 1812 and bounced back. True, it was not then the capital, but was still symbolically important as well as being a major city, barely second to St. Petersburg if not bigger.

reply

I'm not big on the Napoleonic Wars, but didn't Napoleon take Moscow and then lose the war?

 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

reply

Well, Moscow wasn't the actual capital then, St.Petersburg was. As I said, though, Moscow was an exceptionally important city both economically and symbolically.

reply

The U.S.
See War of 1812,

reply

When one side is strategically outnumbered, it can afford no significant defeats.



The exact reason for the defeat of the Confederate States of America.







We will put new American metal into the spine of this nation.

reply

iven a fair fight in neutral ground, say Iceland or Argentina for example, Germany could not have seriously challenged Britain or the USA.


I thought that's what North Africa was..

looked like they challenged Britain to me.With a tiny sideshow force.

reply

And then we can compare the million+ tons of bombs the US dropped on Germany to the zero tons Germany dropped on the USA.


and you know why...the expedient of a large secure-except-for-submarine-threat forward island base...

apart from that, the US was not much more able to bomb Berlin than the Luftwaffe could bomb NYC..ok, the industrial base supported the building of a large 4-engined bombing force...and the UK had prioritized a relatively large bomber force, which was first forced immediately to fight at night only, and rarely accomplished anything worthwhile for at least 2-3 years, and then not an enormous amount, whilst always suffering what I'd call wearying losses..

As did the US day bomber force for almost the entire campaign..

reply

the US was not much more able to bomb Berlin than the Luftwaffe could bomb NYC.

In large part. it was because they didn't have to. They could base from the UK, so aircraft like the B-17 and B-24 could do the job.

Had they needed to fight from American bases, they would not have placed development of the B-36 on hold. By the time those aircraft would have been ready, the US had nuclear weapons for them to deploy. Germany had nothing nearly as capable even on the drawing board and their nuclear weapons program was so ineffective, they virtually cancelled it.

reply

As did the US day bomber force for almost the entire campaign..


I was surprised when I learned that more U.S. airmen were lost in the European theater than Marines killed fighting in the Pacific theater.

The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner

From my mother's sleep I fell into the State,
And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze.
Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life,
I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.
When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.


-- Randall Jarrell







We will put new American metal into the spine of this nation.

reply

I was surprised when I learned that more U.S. airmen were lost in the European theater than Marines killed fighting in the Pacific theater.


not that surprising...even non-combat wartime flying was high risk, actually, training was very heavy casualties..

read a book like 'Savage Wilderness" about a B24 crew who got lost and crashed in remote north coast of Australia...the first chapters b4 they went on the combat mission which led to their accident, is filled with shocking incidents of what happened nowhere near the enemy onw airtime airbases..

the ground soldiers always griped about flyboys, who typically lived in nice barracks with beds with sheets and nice prepared warm meals ...all of that was largely true, but in combat or even in the air generally operational wartime flying, it was a frigging horror show..accelerated during actual missions against defended territory..
imagine all of it, plus at night in darkness..

there are vids on Youtube called 'the Wings of the Storm" part 1&2...it is about the back-story of RAF bomber command flying that you don't see in movies or Commando comics..it is sobering, more like chilling...

reply

If you were an airman in RAF Bomber Command you had a 45% chance of being KIA. A front line British Army infantryman around 5%- basically a 1 in 20 chance of dying. Being wounded around 1 in 10 though.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

reply

yeah, they did not consider that..

I'm confidant a tour in a bomber, US or RAF , in NW Europe,however long that took to complete, would age you more than the same amount of time in front line of ground war..
I seriously doubt I'd be signing up for a second one, even if I got through the first one...of course, if not, you might be sent to an OTU to instruct..and spend your time there waiting for a 'Hun' to kill your ass on a training flight.

Of course you had people like Cheshire who it never seemed to phase and may have been the closest thing to literal fearlessness...while people are cracking up LMF all around him, that ice-man just did not seem to feel or show anything...

reply

I don't look at it that way.

Multiple countries against one sound ideal to me. If you are in a fair fight, you've done something wrong. Besides, Germany wasn't in it alone. Hungary, Romania, Finland, just to name a few.

Besides, I think that Germany could have been eventually brought down by either front, though it would have been even bloodier than it was.

Also, keep in mind that the Reich was cracking from within when you consider the coup attempt in 1944.

reply