And at the range they were fighting the 76 mm M1 on Fury would have had a good chance of penetrating the front armor of the Tiger, and certainly the side armor. And they perpetuated the myth about the Tigers rear being the only weak spot when in reality its side and rear armor was of equal thickness so they could just as easily have shot it in the side. They managed to get into a defilade position on the opposite side of the road from the Tiger and smoke him... Then they charge the Tiger head-on rather than use dead terrain to flank it. And that's just a tiny fraction of the historical errors and military ineptness displayed by the filmmakers. I do get that there are limitations as to what looks good on film, but it could have been done a lot better. The script felt sloppy and rushed.
to make a movie, the tiger fight had to be moved tighter, for the camera, as in any movie and any fight between enemies, to film it at the distances needed for accurate historical perspective, well it wouldn't have been much of a movie then!
The fight itself is the same fight I've read over and over, showing an attrition rate about on par with the scene,
the tiger wouldn't have been moving at all except to position its gun for the next shot as it would be in cover, the M4's would be advancing as fast as possible to get past it and hit it in the rear or sides near the engine compartment,
yes, the actual distance would have been greater,,, show me what movie used accurate distances to display this fight please?
