I think the movie is very realistic, and was wondering how realistic it actually is. I only had my doubts when I saw that a Tiger 1 (German tank) was moving while firing its 88. I have read (can't find the source!) that it could do great damage to the panzer. And I think Brad Pitt's haircut might be anachronistic. Also, is it common that allied soldiers used/stole the German STG44 in combat?
I would like to use/recommend it as a teacher (altough it's very graphic) someday for its (possible) historical accuracy. It might give them great insight into the life of a soldier in WW2.
For those who haven't seen Fury. The movie is about a tank (named Fury) and it's crew during the final chapter of World War 2 in Europe. The crew fights in Germany against Wehrmacht, child soldiers and the (in the movie much hated) SS. Also I feel like it portraits the mental struggles in warfare really well. It is very graphic.
This topic has been discussed a few times at length; and the general consensus goes something like this:
Lots of little period details are correct, a few aren't. They worked hard to accurately set the scene and costume the actors and set very well.
Great acting.
The tank-on-tank action was well-done, exciting, and realistic based on feedback from vets and soldiers that actually drive tanks for a living.
The scenes against the German PAK gun and when they're mopping up ground troops are pretty great, but they get sloppy with actual small-unit tactics, and it's more an action movie than an actual war movie.
The last scene is just the movie 300 but with a tank. Pretty much everyone and their mother agree that an SS battalion with a shitload of Panzerfaust rockets should have been able to make extremely short work of a single immobile tank. They could have gone around it entirely, sent scouts up to check out the site, etc. Basically, the last scene existed only to kill off the remaining crew and let Brad Pitt do some sweet stuff.
Brad Pitt's haircut (commonly known as an undercut) has been around since early Edwardian times. It's in no way a Nazi thing, men in the British Isles were getting them in the teens and twenties, and the look was hardly unique to them. While wikipedia isn't an exhaustive source, I think it's sound enough to reference the curtained hair entry.
Officially, soldiers using captured enemy small arms (like the Stg.44) was strongly discouraged and in many cases outright banned for several reasons; soldiers had been trained on their own weapons platforms, a consistent source of Stg 44 ammo (7.92 Kurz) would have to be scrounged from the field, and the sound of a Nazi weapon being fired might cause allied soldiers to make a mistake shoot towards the source. IMO, Wardaddy having one was strictly a thing to make Brad Pitt look cool (see his .44 magnum revolver too). The US had the Thompson submachine gun, M3 Grease gun, and M1 carbine being typically issued to tankers, so compact firepower was not a thing tank crews lacked.
Tiger tanks didn't have any amazing gyroscoping auto-targeting systems for firing on the move, but it was done when necessary. The idea was to lay up in concealed position and blast the enemy before they even saw you. You'll notice that pretty much every engagement in the movie sprang out of an ambush attempt.
I'm not sure about the accuracy of a Tiger firing on the move, but the Tiger tank depicted is one of the world's last (probably the last in fact) functioning Tiger tanks, which was loaned for the making of the movie. (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-24987676)