My answer is about to contain some light spoilers so please turn away now if you don't want to see any!

The wrong:

1. The Sherman vs Tiger scene was a tad inaccurate. It's common knowledge that Shermans would have to gang up on Tigers in order to out flank them, but Fury is not a regular Sherman. Fury was an M1A3E8 or "Easy Eight" Sherman with a 76mm high velocity gun. Firing HVAP ammunition, Fury could actually have penetrated the frontal armor of the Tiger quite easily at the range the combat took place (< 1000 yards). A couple of other Shermans in Fury's platoon in that scene were also E8's and scored several direct hits on the Tiger, which in real life would have knocked it out pretty much immediately.

2. The movie basically completely lacks any sort of infantry tactics. Both the US and German Armies just have blobs of infantry standing fully upright while shooting from the hip. This is an insanely amateurish depiction of infantry combat. No regular troops in any army in the European theater at that time in the war would have fought like that.

3. At the ending scene, Fury's last stand against the SS battalion would have been a lopsided defeat. Immobilized tanks without infantry support are basically helpless. One thing they didn't do a good job of showing was just how hard it is to see outside of a tank while you're "buttoned up." One reason why tanks need infantry support is to keep enemy infantry from out flanking them, which is even more crucial when a tank is immobilized. There is absolutely no reason why the SS troops would have charged headlong into Fury's bow gun when they could simply have outflanked Fury and blown her into oblivion with their panzerfausts. Fury's crew probably wouldn't even have seen it coming while buttoned up.

The right:

1. When Gordo mentions "linking up with the British and Canadians" and "trapping a whole Kraut Army" and "fucking them up pretty bad" he's actually referring to the Falaise pocket. His description of the dead horses and bodies as far as one could see are actually pretty accurate. General Eisenhower described Falaise like this: "The battlefield at Falaise was unquestionably one of the greatest "killing fields" of any of the war areas. Forty-eight hours after the closing of the gap I was conducted through it on foot, to encounter scenes that could be described only by Dante. It was literally possible to walk for hundreds of yards at a time, stepping on nothing but dead and decaying flesh"

An additional question: the trailer has someone say "light 'em up." It seems to me that this is a modern phrase for targeting something with ordinance. Was this phrase used in WWII? Thanks.

Me: Former "Leg" Squad Leader; former antiarmor (TOW) Section SGT, EOD Combat Vet. Right: Small unit cohesion. You are never closer to someone than you are in a marriage or a small unit like a tank. I was never closer to anyone other than my wife than I was to the two other Soldiers in my HMMWV.

Fury at the enemy (Could that be where the name comes from?) makes you do things that you never thought you would, to include turning into an animal.

HVAP, as mentioned below, was tough to come by for US tanks. See the Wikipedia articles on things like armor penetration for the various US tank main guns. They may simply not have had it available to them. When you pull into a FOB or a resupply area, you get what they have to give you, not always what you want.

Mixed models of tanks in units was very common. Many US tanks were rebuilds of ones that had been hit previously. We were masters at rebuilding them so, again, what you had is what you were given to use. 75mm-armed Shermans were still the most common models at the end of the war. Having your original tank knocked out for whatever reason would explain why they were in an Easy 8. AT mines were very common.

A shaped charge warhead on something like a Panzerfaust are effective as long as they function as designed. Don't forget that the movie takes place within weeks of the end of the war when things like quality control for the Germans didn't really exist. If the plasma jet doesn't form properly, at best you'll get a partial penetration.

The use of obscurants. This was probably the second or third time that I've seen WP or smoke used properly. You can't kill a Tiger from the front? Don't let him see you as you maneuver around to his side.

Missing what you shoot at. Most times you shoot at something, you miss something no matter how good your sights. Who the gunner is, his experience, his training, the stress of the situation, all factor into your ability to hit what you shoot at.

German tanks burned too. They had unprotected ammunition and gas-powered engines just like US tanks.

Not so good? This isn't really a criticism because it was done for "Hollywood," but spacing. You never get that close to each other as the tanks normally were. Space can be your savior. If you're on top of each other, those incoming rounds have an easier time hitting something. I read an article the other day about the military liaison who worked on the movie and spacing was the only thing that he didn't get his way with and it was simply because it would have made the scenes too big to follow. He also commented on US tanks being easier to fight in because things like turret traverse and aiming/firing the gun were easier. The M4 was a roomier tank inside than the Tiger despite the size difference because its simplicity left more room available inside.

The most controversial part, I thought, concerned the bloodthirsty attitude that the Americans displayed. When the Sergeant forced his new asst. gunner to execute a German prisoner, I shuddered. From my understanding of the war, these things were not common on the Western front, though they did happen, especially during Operation Overlord and the Bulge/Ardennes battles. I'm sure that plenty of Germans were executed outside of these major operations, and for many reasons (surely it's not easy for an isolated platoon out on mission to handle POWs), but I have a hard time believing the brutality of that scene. Even knowing they were ambushed by anti-tank weapons, how often was some poor guy dragged out in front of the platoon, beaten and shot in the back while everyone laughed and jeered?

Also, a smaller point: the assault rifle that the Sergeant carried was the German StG 44, but it's a pretty large and heavy gun, not something I would think a tank commander would want around his neck while he's ducking in and out of his hatch. The ammo was unique to the weapon and probably not common loot, either. But that's just quibbling.

I also agree with many here that there's no way any regiment shown marching with that many anti-tank weapons could have met with such trouble from a single disabled tank, but at least this inaccuracy was central to the story...until you see all these Germans running across open ground at the tank and dropping like flies, even hours into the battle. Then it just became lazy/ignorant. I think there are many ways for five Americans to kill around a hundred Germans that don't involve the Germans lining up in front of American barrels.

When the tanks were penetrated, would they always immediately burst in all consuming flames? That happened I think every time a tank was hit in the film.

thanks all for wonderful explanations, I got question here, in this movie they always shoot with tracer bullets. both americans and germans. It looked sometimes a bit like star wars. Is that correct?