FURY new Brad Pitt WWII film

[Elk101]

I keep on misreading this thread as 'Fury at new Brad Pitt WWII film'. I'm clearly getting way ahead of myself 

It would be nice if it was somewhere near an insight into life as a WWII tank crew without too much jingoism, etc. etc.

[former user]

boom!

[former user]

roll!

[former user]

and finally

[Barbarian]

-Roll your tanks as in a traffic jam, 10 meters of each others.
-Fire at each other at 30 meters.

Maybe they're playing FOW (or BA)?

 

[former user]

what do You think all those expensive tank heavy games get their ideas for rules from?  

plus, why do You think wargamers accept such 20th C firing distances as reality?  

and, it gets even better with battleships and military supersonic jets....

[FramFramson]

Hellcats were longer than Shermans (by about a full metre), but the one in that photo looks quite a bit smaller than any other tank in the shot, more like the size of a tankette. Really not sure if it's some sort of scaled down model or not.

[Elbows]

what do You think all those expensive tank heavy games get their ideas for rules from?  

plus, why do You think wargamers accept such 20th C firing distances as reality?  

and, it gets even better with battleships and military supersonic jets....

Wait, so you're telling me...that unlike Flames of War, artillery support can't shoot 30-50 meters from their own position?  NONSENSE!*

*I say this, but I admit that for gaming purposes, even in 28mm I've included somewhat silly short ranges for stuff, solely to differentiate between weapons...like almost every other game.  However, stuff like artillery on a board which represents a football field does make me chuckle. 

[Calimero]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/30/article-2439334-1867E95D00000578-775_964x477.jpg

Hellcats were longer than Shermans (by about a full metre), but the one in that photo looks quite a bit smaller than any other tank in the shot, more like the size of a tankette. Really not sure if it's some sort of scaled down model or not.

Well, look like there's something off with this last picture anyway... look at the SUV in the background it's almost as big as the first Sherman in the foreground...

[FramFramson]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/30/article-2439334-1867E95D00000578-775_964x477.jpg

Well, look like there's something off with this last picture anyway... look at the SUV in the background it's almost as big as the first Sherman in the foreground...

All the cars in the background are like that! What the heck?... 

[former user]

The picture is most probably from the enforced perspective set of the new Peter Jackson movie "The Fury of Smeaug"
in reality, the only measurement in which a Hellcat exceeds a sherman is the width...

Specifications  M18 Hellcat
Weight    17.7 metric tons (39,000 lb)
Length    6.68 m (21.9 ft) (with gun)
             5.28 m (17.3 ft) (without gun)
Width    2.87 m (9.4 ft)
Height    2.57 m (8.4 ft)
Crew    5 (Commander, gunner, loader, driver, co-driver)

Specifications  M4 Sherman
Weight    66,800 pounds (30.3 tonnes; 29.8 long tons; 33.4 short tons)
Length    19 ft 2 in (5.84 m)
Width    8 ft 7 in (2.62 m)
Height    9 ft (2.74 m)
Crew    5 (Commander, gunner, loader, driver, co-driver)

and:
"In contrast to the M10 tank destroyer, which used the chassis of the M4 Sherman, the M18 Hellcat was designed from the start to be a fast tank destroyer. As a result it was smaller, lighter, more comfortable, and significantly faster, but carried the same gun as the Sherman 76 mm models."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat#Design

[Silent Invader]

The black SUV looks like a new Range Rover (btw, often used for filming from the open rear - eg Top Gear) which has dimensions of:

Length 4999mm
Width 2220mm
Height 1835mm

[Elbows]

Remember guys, big settings like that (if it's to represent a armored unit camped or a fuel depot etc.) can also be using scaled models etc.  Stuff in the background of a shot does not need to be in scale to the actors if it's in scale to its surroundings.  Also perhaps some of the tanks/vehicles in the picture are large models to be used for explosions, tanks blowing up, etc.   Plenty of explanations.  I don't believe we'll see actors zipping around in midget vehicles.  Besides I think Brad Pitt in a Bren-carrier would be a little weird.

[Calimero]

...still there's something way off with that picture and I would like to know what's going on... it looks like the perspective its all over the place (so to speak) ...look at those two men in the background compare to the ones closer to the Sherman tank... what are they? 10ft tall?



I don't really care about historical accuracy at this point, I'm really just wondering what can cause this... is that a montage?

[former user]

I don't think it is a montage, nor downsized vehicles. Size is a matter of relation.
First of all, the picture is a crane shot, and that messes up scales in the first place. We expect perspective, but there is none - the eye tries to construct it, but the frame of reference, the walking surface, is viewed from above. I have measured the people marked by the arrows on the screen and they are about the same size. I believe the reason it appears distorted is that the "small"  people in the foreground are in contrasting colours to the whole brownish soup, and they have contrasting outlines as opposed to the uniformed ones. In addition, the dark clothed crew stands next to huge tanks that dwarf them, whereas the soldiers are in front of tents that match their height approximately, plus they wear helmets that pump up their heads  (the 28mm scale crep effect basically), The M18 looks small because it does not have a size relation - noone stands near it, and it looks too small. But measured on the screen, the width is the same as of the one sherman we see from the rear... And SUVs are huge and meant to look huge.
Look at the detail directly above the M18 turret in front of the black screen. the fist crew members visible, only viewed from the middle up, are seated, but appear to be closer and smaller than the ones standing immediately in front of them, because our minds impls perspective.

If I am not grossly mistaken (but why should a set photo be composed?)  this is a simple coincidental lesson in visual scales....