Typical American stereotype without substance.

Rating: 1/10 (29 February 2020)

I already quit watching the movie after seeing the lousy performance of those two 7,5cm PAK 40 AT guns, which would had ripped all four Shermans to shreds in seconds at that distance. No, the MG42 nest had to fire first (can't imagine why), and all four Shermans drove in a row towards the AT gun nest, surviving without a scratch. Yeah, sure! Normally those AT guns would had got the initiative, plus with an averagely capable crew firing 15 rounds per minute, meaning a 4 seconds reload time for each shell.
I later saw the Tiger battle on youtube. No better with the Tiger driving towards the Shermans instead of just remaining in place to maintain accuracy and distance.
Would be nice if American's would factor in some true issues the German military had, which wasn't stupid soldiers, but low resources (ammunition and fuel; the Germans even had their ammunition nummarised within each tank, AT gun or artillery piece due to those shortages), while allied forces had air superiority and sufficient ammunition to even constantly bombard and crossroad or important supply route 24/7 with artillery. That WG involvement (counselling?) obviously didn't help much.
That movie just is another proof that aside from Clint Eastwood Americans should probably can't and shouldn't do war movies. Also when looking at 1917, or perhaps Dunkirk the British seem to be better at that. David Ayer clearly achieved nothing here.