US vs German Squads (Mid-1944) Who was Superior? | Animated History

[@TheArmchairHistorian]

Protect yourself online by using ExpressVPN. Get 3 extra months free by using this link: www.expressvpn.com/armchair Which two nations do you want to see covered next? If you guys enjoyed this video, we can release our battle simulator on our website! **SPOILERS** --- BEHIND THE SCENES: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aIeveYpnbqd8nNU An explanation to the American victory: You are taking highly trained, freshly equipped, and battle-hardened (Italy & Africa) American troops, against mid-1944 static German infantry in Normandy. These troops don't even have enough supplies to be maneuvered, hence the name static. They were not the disciplined soldiers you would find on the eastern front. Regular infantry in this region comprised of foreign conscripts and wounded Germans. If we were talking about Grenadiers, Waffen SS, Panzergrenadiers, Volksgrenadiers, Fallschirmjaeger, or even just standard German infantry from 1940-1943 we'd probably see a German victory. Even still, we came to the conclusion these quickly thrown together units would win 46% of the time, which is extremely impressive. In fact, our simulation stated that the Germans would win 55% of the time in rural environments, when the Americans are being engaged at further ranges, negating one of the main advantages of the fast-firing semi-automatic M1 Garand. --- A note about the simulation: The team did not blindly depend on the simulation to write the script. The battles included were completely made up and animated by hand to serve as a narrative for a video. There was no church tower or storming of the tower in the simulation program. The engagements were constructed to reflect our research about how the two country's squads behaved. The simulation does take into account for morale, suppression, intelligence, training, etc., however, it does not have any visuals, it just provides data and numbers and was calibrated by our researchers. You can look at our sources for this video - even if we hadn't designed our battle simulator, we would have presented the video in the exact same manner and arrived at a similar conclusion. There was no actual footage, and I doubt my audience wants to see me present code for 10 minutes. That's something I can show on my side channel if there's interest. At no point did we claim we had scientific information, hence the disclaimer, "this is just our opinion" at the beginning of the video. Lastly, we make these videos to both inform and to entertain. In real life, these types of engagements would have lasted hours, but we've condensed the battles to make them easier and more interesting to watch and understand...

[@kilo276]

soviets vs americans or chinese vs japanese

[@whywhy1865]

Hi

[@papa7930]

You should ussr squad and american squad

[@CTRG]

Czechoslovak vs German 1938

[@harrisglidewell4112]

WWII France vs. German or WWII Britain vs. German (1940)

[@danielrogge3085]

So, two things I noticed in all three engagements, which I find curious: One, the Germans are always passive, being satisfied with pinning down the Americans. Meanwhile the Americans always try to gain the initiative via fire and maneuver. Two, all German squads have run out of handgrenades.

[@TheArmchairHistorian]

The simulation program tests both squads being aggressive, and both being passive. If I could go back and rewrite the script, I definitely would have shown the Germans on the offensive more and using their grenades. I think we ended up making them more passive because these are the type of low-quality static troops you'd find in Normandy, not the active and well equipped Panzergrenadiers, Waffen SS, or even Volksgrenadiers you'd see later on. And yeah the Germans definitely should have been seen using their grenades more, but really all of these problems are just in the narrative of the individual engagements and so the overall statistical results remain the same.

[@honkerhonkersson9694]

The Armchair Historian how did you write the script? And how could a script possible factor in human emotions etc.

[@jorgspelthahn3807]

@@DTOStudios actually your argument about german troops being passive/defensive at any point during WW II is not right. German doctrin was always to be aggressive. For reference consult Martin van Crevelds works o the topic. On the topic of grenades, the standard loadout for german riflemen should be somewhere between 1 and 4 grenades.

[@johnrichmond.4783]

@@DTOStudios '...would have been much more aggressive. ' Nope. The opposite was the case as veterans have told me and as the US Army concluded when it assessed it's own performance after the war. In very direct language your Army identified it's basic problem as not knowing how to, 'get it's soldiers to fight.' Gung ho? Possibly. Aggressive? No. The Germans would complain the Americans would always refuse to fight and relied on artillery and air power etc.

[@danielrogge3085]

@@TheArmchairHistorian Thanks for Clearing that up! It was very interesting to watch in any case, I truly appreciate your work.

[@ktjmitchell7722]

The Germans made a key mistake, they forgot Hans with the Flammenwerfer.

[@kilersocke]

Flammenwerfer*

[@SuperSpasticNinja]

It werfs flammen

[@robertwolf9380]

Correction hans get the big shovel!

[@jabiraidan]

as far as I know flamers were only used in bunker type scenarios, clearing out buildings and the like...the propane tank was a huge vulnerability, any stray bullet would take out the squad...but very useful in dealing with gorilla tactics...

[@shotsfiredandmissed9068]

@@SuperSpasticNinja lmao xD

[@euansmith3699]

Fortunately for the Allies, in the later stages of the war, American Sergeants were issued with waterproof matchbooks.

[@militaryjunkie6207]

This video is useless because the Germany’s were fighting other European countries and then everybody says the US won the wAR

[@PeyYiYong]

Well, they did, didn’t they? This video illustrates and explains a few scenarios where Us engaged German troops. It’s point is to show some engagements, not explain the entire war in hearts of iron style

[@euansmith3699]

@@PeyYiYong Sorry, I was just making a joke rather than a serious point.

[@CaptainAhab117]

I guess he lost his zippo lighter.

[@mrtaco-xy7sq]

@@euansmith3699 I think he is answering to the other guy that thinks america didn't win the war somehow.

[@owen2886]

I love that everyone here is only mad about the Germans not using grenades, not much else. Just “what about German grenades!!”

[@gilangw595]

@John Fallon yeah, from what ive read its mainly works by concussion effect, not the fragmentation. Thus, its much less effective than mills and pineapple grenade

[@DTOStudios]

@@gilangw595 yes, ive read the Germans had the stick blast grenade, and a smaller more round frag, the blast was supposed to be used to disorient the enemy before engaging in close

[@dr.willow2403]

I went to coments to write something about german granades and straight away found this...😄 And people are right. Tactic of german ww2 squod was to pin down an enemy with mg and destroy it with granades or mortar fire. Or with flanking move. So, GJ presented wrongly germ.sq. tac. here.

[@jinglejangle3287]

They are right. Germans used grenades too.

[@waterboyyyyy9523]

I like how these people want the nazis to win. Like there complaining how the nazis didn’t win. Smh I thought they were the bad guys. I mean I want things to be accurate just as much as the next but I don’t think a grenade would have really made them win

[@Ace-sw7ht]

The British vs Germans and Japanese vs Americans I would like to see

[@Amani-zo8ic]

I don’t think there was ever a standard American infantry against a Japanese one. It was just marines Edit: or a modified infantry unit specialized to fight in such terrain. But not a standard unit

[@ryanovski]

Also French vs Italians

[@Ace-sw7ht]

also Russians and Germans

[@Fercho-js6hs]

@@ryanovski one surrender and the other change side so both lose

[@caden1826]

I agree

[@joshuatumambo5674]

"Sir, I'm hit! I'm bleeding from my head!" "You'll be fine son, just stay down!" "SIR, I GOT HOLES IN MY STOMACH!" "Just a flesh wound! You'll be fine!" *NCO runs out of dry matches for his cigarette "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE"

[@partlycloudy9443]

Haha.. 😀👌

[@VietnamWarSummarized]

LMAO XD

[@toastygaming5365]

Mifthahul Fikri the DRY matches give them special powers that let their men not die when shot 10 time in the chest that’s why the us army make special never get wet matches so we can’t die if the NCO is alive and has matches

[@kaiserwillhelmthe2nd773]

I think a French 1940 squad v German 1940 squad would be cool Or a Italy v Britain 1941

[@flynnstone3133]

The French Army’s equipment outclassed the Germans in many ways in 1940. The problem was French military doctrine had not advanced past World War One. They, just like the rest of Europe, were not ready for the blitzkrieg.

[@theanglo-lithuanian1768]

Dispite both the British and Italians roughly having the same amount of training. The Italian equipment, especially on terms of reliability was terrible. So the British definitely held a advantage over the Italians.

[@404Dannyboy]

@@theanglo-lithuanian1768 Some of the Italian equipment was great. The bigger problem was that the Italian supply chain was an absolute nightmare. Virtually no Italian division was well supplied even before they were sent abroad. Then they arrived in the country they would be fighting in for Italy to fail to give them more supplies. Basically Italy was technologically advanced enough but didn't have 1/2 the industrial base they needed to supply their troops and were severely disorganized on top of that.

[@mr_babadook_0181]

@@flynnstone3133 not realy

[@mr_babadook_0181]

@Rango's old dead chann true

[@someguy6369]

Let's hope it doesn't get privated again.

[@VietnamWarSummarized]

why what happened

[@Pegasus_-lb7uy]

I’d really like to see Soviets versus Germans, around Stalingrad, or Soviets against Cold War Americans

[@bladfadsfblaadsfsadf900]

Do you watch Military History Visualized? I HIGHLY RECOMMEND his content for anyone interested in the organizational abilities of both the Soviets and Germans on both a tactical and strategic level on the Eastern Front. He even delves into modern warfare topics.

[@dflatt1783]

Everybody knows zis 'information' komrade. Does ze need 're-edukation'?

[@karsten3360]

Would't even be a competition between german and soviet troops but where the germans had skill the Soviets had endless waves of troops and tanks

[@nikitakuznetsov8446]

@@karsten3360 * Sigh * Again with the Cold war Propoganda about the Wermacht being skilled and proffesional soldiers while the Soviet troops just being endless mindless hordes?

[@nolang.9187]

Karsten Please read from the Soviet side. Your just getting your information from Cold War German story’s and stuff. It wasn’t just endless...

[@benjerke3592]

Summary: Grenade spamming is the superior tactic.

[@viefcheesecake]

@Jack Guyett and redpilled

[@fathan2gaming805]

based

[@TheArmchairHistorian]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aIeveYpnbqd8nNU

[@chazzibradbury5061]

You should be a General

[@jensjensen9035]

ben jerke based

[@nickvalentine3815]

The thing terrified me the most is MG42 effective range 1km, ROF 1k2rpm, and " LIGHT MACHINE GUN"

[@ryerial7723]

Curious what a German Heavy Machine Gun would be like…

[@skitzoritz]

@@ryerial7723 One example of a German HMG is a 13mm that's so heavy it would technically be considered an autocannon instead lol.

[@georgesakellaropoulos8162]

It's a GPMG, not a LMG.

[@Squirrel_314]

Pretty much considered the prototype general purpose machine gun, but I agree it’s terrifying.

[@Dummvogel]

@@ryerial7723 MG42 on a tripod. Light and heavy mean the doctrinal use and not the actual weight in the german army.

[@xcatrockz7972]

I can't light my cigarette because the matches are wet, the war is lost

[@SlavicUnionGaming]

Even when he did win he got diagnosed with cancer after the war ended

[@xcatrockz7972]

yea

[@Christopher-N]

"I do not have my code book. What does that mean?" -- René Artois, _'Allo 'Allo!_

[@coddpedo8946]

xcatrockz the US did have that kind of food in their MRE kits especially during the late war stage.

[@coddpedo8946]

xcatrockz during the late war stage the US soldiers would have received an early form of the M&M it was made to prevent chocolate from melting in fact the old slogan was “melts in you’re mouth not in you’re hand”.

[@tangle2531]

Fallschirmjäger vs. British Paratroopers next

[@flo1fication]

Good one

[@mrcolddrink2763]

I would have picked the American 82nd or 101st vs Fallschrimjagers

[@sheilahodge1158]

I agree that would be great

[@TimDutch]

Would be nice to look at the battle of Ypenburg (Netherlands 1940) there the Dutch decimated the Fallschirmjägers.

[@Fercho-js6hs]

Alot of new stuff we can get now with this new type of series

[@Raven-ne9cg]

I love how in the third round the Sergeant is half busy trying to smoke a cigarette the entire time he and his squad is in battle.

[@colbyphillips7039]

Well of course he is. A cigarette is the source of an American Sergeants power, energy, and overall bad*ssery.

[@rShakeford]

Lol yeah. And when the sergeant was looking for dry matches. To relight his cig? Lol.

[@stefans7220]

Its him trying to make himself seem active and useful, as bureucrats tend to do....the german groupleader and assistant were active brave fighters...

[@rpmcmurphy5125]

So this is basically a KZbin version of “The Deadliest Warrior”

[@possumsalad6614]

yo i was thinking the same thing

[@Key_highway]

@@possumsalad6614 yeah except it’s not complete horseshit

[@StrangeTamer178]

Dope concept

[@RCast-sc6fy]

Oh man lol I miss that show!

[@RCast-sc6fy]

@@Key_highway okay who got beat that got you all sour?

[@Iknowtoomuchable]

The Germans were doomed the moment the sergeant discarded his cigarette.

[@FallouFitness_NattyEdition]

Nice Band Of Brothers reference.

[@toasted386]

Lol

[@knightchef]

He was more pissed that he had to chuck his cig.

[@robertbarlow6715]

Daddy was a paratrooper he said the German soldier was a good soldier.

[@Netanya-q4b]

@@robertbarlow6715 My grandad was a paratrooper too, he said his one regret was he didn't get to kill enough Nazis.

[@Byronthebull]

I can see it now, germany vs soviet union. "As the 12 german soldiers round the corner one takes a shot at the closest russian seconds before the 340 russians notice him"

[@seanperson2032]

"The only problem for the Russians? Theres only 50 rifles to go around."

[@cosmiclino2080]

Sean Person Aye i saw that in a movie

[@sidkneeniggcheese6764]

People really need to stop getting all their history from enemy at the gates

[@jax3967]

The rest have submachine guns

[@benco41]

Why tf would Germans fire at Germans?

[@gingeryam9227]

That Staff Sergeant: Oh my god! My lighter is out! This is an EMERGENCY!!!

[@Schmidty1]

It seems like the germans forgot how to use their grenades in these scenarios...

[@Ruzaraneh]

well... it for historical accuracy... USF need to won period. imagine germans have their stielhangranate ready... those pesky flanking manuver would be done for.. but USF would lose and that is unacceptable and historically inaccurate

[@brojangles8816]

A lot of Germans weren’t equipped that well at this point so they relied on the MGs, most of their resources got spent fighting the Russians.

[@darkawakening01]

@@brojangles8816 Hello? Hand grenades were readily available and standard issue for every regular German infantryman, even in the later stages of the war. Your argument is nonsense.

[@brojangles8816]

darkawakening01 Obviously not my man.

[@darkawakening01]

@@brojangles8816 The German war industry did face major shortages in raw materials when it came to Tungsten, Oil, Rubber and various exotic metals. But there was never a shortage on explosives, as they can be produced with domestic resources. Just saying that your argument is not supported by facts.

[@RimmyDownunder]

I like the idea of this video, but without showing actual footage, outcomes or the code from the simulator you used, it feels very artificial to act as if you've got scientific information on exactly what squad would be better. I'm aware the simulator likely just lists kills back and forth after the code is done running, and so I highly doubt it actually features things like cover, stealth, and the garrisoning of buildings and the like. I get that you want to make the raw data actually interesting for a video, but at the same time it's hard to believe the outcomes when you get into things like garrisoning a church, storming it, being chased up the church and then causing a retreat by the destruction of an enemy position. The main thing is that depending on the code, the simulator could be as useful as wet bread. I love playing some Men of War, but I'd never use it to actually simulate real world battles because of the lack of a proper suppression system in that game resulting in men able to sprint about under fire without a care in the world, and the way that machine guns behave like hyper accurate instant death machines as opposed to suppression weapons as they should. I don't think there can truly be a system that anyone fully agrees realistically simulates combat. The existence of wildly different World War 2 tabletop war games is evidence enough for that, no one can quite agree how to actually game it out.

[@TheArmchairHistorian]

Hi Rimmy, The team did not blindly depend on the simulation to write the script. The battles included were completely made up and animated by hand to serve as a narrative for a video. There was no church tower or storming of the tower in the simulation. The engagements were constructed to reflect our research about how the two country's squads behaved. The simulation does take into account for morale, suppression, intelligence, training, etc., however, it does not have any visuals, it just provides data and numbers and was calibrated by our researchers. You can look at our sources for this video - even if we hadn't designed our battle simulator, we would have presented the video in the exact same manner and arrived at a similar conclusion. There was no actual footage, and I doubt my audience wants to see me present code for 10 minutes. That's something I can show on my side channel if there's interest. At no point did we claim we had scientific information, hence the disclaimer, "this is just our opinion" at the beginning of the video. Thanks for the feedback, Griff

[@baryonyxwalkeri3957]

@@TheArmchairHistorian I would definitely be interested in the way this simulator works.

[@TheZod00]

@@TheArmchairHistorian Would it be possible if the code was open sourced? I am curious to see what it looks like.

[@jimmytimmyy1747]

bruh rimmy really pulling up he said its an opinion at the start it was just a simulation they did not a scientific report.

[@TheArmchairHistorian]

Sausymayo We’re planning one turning it into a video game so I don’t want to give away all my code or even release the program yet.

[@MrCacruz1987]

Lmfao GI Jesus. That has got to be one of the best things I've heard.

[@cufflord7179]

GI Jesus is our savior

[@Biggocat]

Cowboy vibes :D

[@ghost_wolf8472]

Don't use the lords name in vain

[@Becker1535]

@@ghost_wolf8472 Exactly, mate.

[@sifis172]

@@ghost_wolf8472 yes don't use lord chamberlain's name in vain.

[@lordmarshal3799]

"I fear no German, but wet matchsticks. It scares me."

[@dalefrable8873]

Passchendaele

[@jockae306]

Wet matchsticks scare me to

[@carsonrichards9902]

I have constant Nightmares when I have wet matchsticks

[@darthbigred22]

Should've brought a zippo

[@MCLOVIN-nl7zl]

Nice tf2 reference

[@pseudonym9599]

Desert Rats vs Rommel's Ghost Division Allied vs Axis Paratroopers (I just love the Fg 42) WWI stormtroopers compared Stormtroopers vs clone troopers

[@michaeltheundeadmariachi4494]

"Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I READ YOUR BOOOK!!" -General Patton

[@noahfrelich5733]

The fg-42 is sooo sexy

[@dennis4774]

@@michaeltheundeadmariachi4494 O! look at that, the cowboy can read!

[@sgtmac46]

"On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances (emphasis in original). This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost." -Col. Trevor Dupuy

[@russcoleman2338]

Audie Murphy....'Hold my beer a minute......'🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@rorycraft5453]

Question, isn't the attacking force expected to take more casualties than the defenders?

[@aaronfleming9426]

What a great comment! I don't think I'll bother watching the video!

[@russcoleman2338]

My UK high school history teacher shot down 8 Luftwaffe planes with only 6 weeks flight training.....The RAF Polish squadron shot down Nazi planes at will. On Battle of Britain Day there was a 2 to 1 kill ratio in favor of the Allies. The Brits downed the entire Axis fleet at Cape Matapan. Lies, damned lies and statistics....🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@swampdonkey1567]

You see and no offense, that's not something a colorprole would have accecese too.

[@stummstefan9735]

When schultz forgets the grenades in paris

[@Hardi1Official]

😂😂😂

[@warsgaloregaming9926]

Mein Gott Schultz! You had von job!

[@GuatelmatecoAnonimo]

* sad hitler noises *

[@fellowcheesecurd437]

Dammit Schultz

[@dimitrypetrenko3470]

Guess they did NAZI that coming?

[@zacharybrazeau9218]

I’d like to see a French vs Germans in 1940 or a Japanese vs Americans in 1941-45

[@cpldalton5966]

Full Tilt Boogie well yes but actually yes

[@cpldalton5966]

Full Tilt Boogie they had a good reason to surrender.

[@wallybonejengles5595]

@Full Tilt Boogie America never fought a 100 year war you clown

[@Manomanali]

I think German troops easily Win against French and Japan probably loses against us troops because of equipment

[@davidchang5265]

@@Manomanali Hellllll NAHH by pure equipment the Germans had by far the better weapons and vehicles. If the Americans win, its probably cause of their creativity and better moral.

[@santiagocastro6333]

I would like to see a weird comparison: The Avarage Union Soldier Vs The Avarage Confederate soldier in the American Civil war

[@Spongebrain97]

It would be a 2-1 union victory. The one win for the confederacy comes at the start of the war where the union troops were overly confident and had less effective commanders but by around 1862/63 the union overcomes those obstacles

[@scarceboy3430]

I'd give early to Confederates but late to the Union

[@kampilandelacruz4925]

Union was highly industrialized compared to Confederate. No question there. Result will be the same.

[@kevray]

@@Spongebrain97 Nah by 1862 the Confederates were still superior. 1863 is when the Union became their equals and better

[@kevray]

@Netluxe TV I think we can count the Texans as “ professional” units lol

[@jamesroper4952]

The BAR wasn't the only light machine gun we had. You're forgetting about the M1919 Browning 30 caliber machine gun. It was also belt fed, and like the M1 Garand and BAR, the M1919 also fired 30-06. It had a slower rate for fire than the MG-42, but that meant it didn't overheat as quickly. The M1919 didn't require a barrel change either, it was also smaller and lighter than the Germans machine gun.

[@m26pershing98]

the m1919 was not a standard squad weapon but a platoon weapon. so it makes sense it did not appear in the video

[@crumpetcommandos779]

yeah it wasnt standard issue for an american squad

[@rcgunner7086]

True, but the M1919 wasn't an infantry squad weapon. There were like 4 of them in the rifle company's heavy weapons platoon and they were doled out as needed. They weren't an organic weapon for the squad, so they were probably left out.

[@IC3XR]

2:14 this guy casually shoots backwards over his head Pretty gangster

[@skyden24195]

What does the US infantry have in common with the US mafia...…? lol That was a funny comparison.

[@reconcostarica2362]

That's Random Bullet McGee from Chicago's Southside. The guy was a maverick at cold meat making.

[@Spaghetter813]

AOT refference?

[@tramlink8544]

i interviewed a German Lieutenant of the Fallschirmjägers who fought in Italy till wars end. he said that American organization was catastrophic. in one instance they were defending a valley near a forest edge and a US mixed patrol of infantry and armour was heading past the valley entrance. their Mg opened up on the US infantry causing some casualties as the rest took cover at a rocky section to the right of the valley entrance. the stuarts with them began charging towards the german lines, leaving the pinned down US infantry behind them. the Lt. said this was a perfect situation for them as tanks of that era were as close to being totally blind as it could get. without infantry suppourt the stuarts were destroyed with a mix of light AT and a panzerschrek they had. With the tanks gone, the remaning US infantry patrol retreated. other things he mentioned was that US patrols were loud, either hearing them talking at a distance or simply the heavy treading of them walking at night. this actually fits what Australian accounts had to say about US troops in Vietnam, that compared to Australian patrols, US ones caused a lot of noise. The other thing interestingly was the Camo nets issued to M1 helmets. for some reason the netting actually made the helmets stand out more in the forests and it was easier to spot US troops. This guy eventually took shrapnell to the throat and spent the last two months of the war in a field hospital. as a POW after the war he was part of a POW crew whose task was to find allied soldiers remains at older battlefields and bury them, they were only allowed by the British guards to bury German dead on their day off, sunday

[@Andreas-wv5px]

i have the same experience with my grandfather, his friend and others i know from my family when they talked about war. The US, were never 'good' in what they are doing in the war. Only the elite-formations like rangers or paratroopers doe something good. But the regular infantry units werent a match.

[@BlackRabbit223]

All the soldiers I have spoken to agree that the Americans were very noisy. Soldiers from both sides of the war. As for the Vietnam war, the vets I have spoken to say that you could smell the Americans before you heard them and you could hear them a long way off. The smell of Tobacco and Weed that is.

[@GareyPongat]

Anecdotes are useful but you can’t completely rely on them

[@deronwilliams3260]

Hello World umm the Chinese Indians British Australians and nukes helped Japan empire and America one on one America would lose the pacific war

[@deronwilliams3260]

Hello World also ussr joined in too

[@Ted4321]

"The squad leaders maches are wet" That one cracked me up pretty good

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

I’d have to disagree here. The Germans wouldn’t just stand idly by. Germans sections were taught to take initiative. The employment of Auftragstaktik would allow the soldiers and officers to manoeuvre whilst the MG subsection pours fire. German tactics are not static in nature. The purpose of the MG was to pin the troops whilst elements of their section move freely to flank with their enemies’ heads down. Plugging Military History Visualised channel here.

[@halpeters6297]

Stay out of this Frenchie

[@gianyfaritTV]

i was expectating that the germans use grenades, just like the americans. But it seems like they were short in supplies.

[@silentecho92able]

@@gianyfaritTV Well to be fair the Germans at this point have almost all but abandoned the east as the Russian front ended in failure. If im not mistaken a lot of supplies were diverted too the eastern front to defend against a growing Russian counter attack. Plus, the aerial bombardment on factories by allies were taking a huge toll on the German army, and the fall of their Italian allies in the south. Which forced Germany to divert soldier to defend the south.

[@TheArmchairHistorian]

You are taking highly trained, freshly equipped and battle-hardened (Italy & Africa), American troops, against mid-1944 static German infantry in Normandy. These troops don't even have enough supplies to be maneuvered, hence the name static. They were not the disciplined soldiers you would find on the eastern front. Regular infantry in this region comprised of foreign conscripts and wounded Germans. If we were talking about Grenadiers, Waffen SS, Panzergrenadiers, Volksgrenadiers, Fallschirmjaeger, or even just standard German infantry from 1940-1943 we'd probably see a German victory. Military History Visualized is correct, but taking the initiative and annihilating an American squad is not something these lower-quality troops would be able to do effectively. Even still, our conclusion was that they would win 46% of the time, which is impressive.

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

The Armchair Historian I understood those points but if we put them in the situations presented, and using standard late-war Wehrmacht units (not counting foreign because they are SS units) would make a better comparison. Foreign SS units were noted to have varied performance as a unit from worse to acceptable. Adding to that, NCO’s nonetheless had command, and the general Wehrmacht mindset was to win without overly necessitating specific instructions (thus Auftragstaktik). Given the situations presented, they would have had their subordinate NCO’s lead a subsection to commit to the action and themselves assign in-situ subordinates as well. NCO’s would’ve been experienced soldiers. Even if the men are in some forms, ill-disciplined, being lead by experienced persons can counteract this (ie. warfare from antiquities to early modern era). There were many opportunities in the scenarios for the MG to lay fire whilst the other soldiers manoeuvred to perform a tactical pincer. Overall, the German section may be able to eke out a win on a tactical basis, but on a strategic level, does not affect the status quo and the Germans losing nonetheless. Just my 2 cents. Love you daddy Grif.

[@kidsbooksbydavid_9150]

“And the squad leaders matches were wet, which made the predicament far worse. ~Griffin Johnsen 14:25

[@zealousdoggo]

The wet matches increases the predicament 10 fold

[@stalinsoulz7872]

@@zealousdoggo Wet Matches: A negative effect By -15 Of the Searge Leadership to Command. "Give em some dry ones to increase Squad Stats and Effects"

[@dominikadamkowski6684]

I would love to see US Vs USSR squads in period of Cuba missile crisis

[@vexintersect1312]

i want 1962 cuba and 1985 heartland america

[@truthmattison7106]

Yes

[@Amani-zo8ic]

Us relied on air support and helies. Soviets were still using more numerous men

[@Luuv_Jesh]

amani Just call in Air Support and bomb most of the Soviets into oblivion and then take out the rest.

[@Amani-zo8ic]

Sasongko Productions precisely

[@sparkshot289]

And don't even get me started on the M1/M2 Carbine, M1903 Springfield, M1941 Johnson. The yanks really had a weapon for EVERY situation.

[@crumpetcommandos779]

tbf the Johnson and M2 Carbines weren't really used in WW2 all that much with the Johnson only really seeing use with the Paramarines and the Red Devils for instance. But you are right on weapons like the M1 Garand.

[@sparkshot289]

@@crumpetcommandos779 true.

[@Railhog2102]

I like the Carbine however from experience of those I've spoke to they hated it because the weapon was sometimes ineffective and crap

[@Railhog2102]

@@crumpetcommandos779 The M2 Carbines glory days were in the Korean War. Some of my friends carried it

[@crumpetcommandos779]

@@Railhog2102 yep they were used a lot in Korea, they had some very limited use near the end of WW2 and were used by ARVN troops in Vietnam also

[@bisonmini]

IM HIT IN THE HEAD IM HIT IN THE STOMACH MY MATCHES ARE WET

[@stalinsoulz7872]

Should've brought some extras..*GODDAMMIT!*

[@pencilgaming1233]

Mom's spaghetti

[@subject_7]

A squad of Emus vs a squad of the Australian army 😂

[@patrick3254]

Someone knows his history here 😁

[@ohnibboi3102]

The emus would win. No competition.

[@debbie6505]

Emu is too OP

[@THEBATTLEXSHOW]

The Aussies have never being able to live that one down.

[@ThorrorkAirsoft]

I won't sleep until I get to see this!

[@LIETUVIS10STUDIO1]

"German superior training" Meanwhile 1944 German squad irl: child soldier NCO, cause all experienced NCOs died at Barbarossa.

[@woahhbro2906]

That's largely a myth. Maybe in Berlin, sure, but Hitler sent many battle-hardened units to the western front. Some of the best tankers Germany had were in France.

[@fatmanbatman9374]

WOAHH BRO he still had to keep most of his troops in the east

[@mulmusfistus4128]

@@woahhbro2906 most experienced troops were dead or on the eastern Front. The americans were only facing an completely outnumbered army without air support. Defence doesnt work when you get outnumbered by 1 to 6 in some areas.

[@TheAvalon81]

@@woahhbro2906 and so what.... allied air superiority wipes them out ;)

[@spqr1945]

@@woahhbro2906 Wehrmacht was on its peak in 1941, after veterans of polish, french and balkan campaigns were still in the army, and they had a whole year for training after they were done with France. But germans did not have any trained replacements, while russians had 14 million trained reservists. So quality of german troops degraded over time, experienced and well trained soldiers and NCOs killed or seriously wounded, and replacements did not have the same level of training and experience. After 1943 soviets wrote in their diaries, that germans are "not the same as they were".

[@gijoeimmortal1868]

The Germans were very good at defensive withdrawal, which was very common. If an allied squad made contact with a German squad , usually the MG42 nest would remain intact until there were casualties. Then they fall back, reset and do it again. It was demoralizing to the allies . What they learned to do later on was to use at least 3 platoons one in the middle and two on each flank. They would try to use pincers type movement to halt any retreating once the positions were engaged.

[@QuiXoLP]

you guys know, that the germans also hat little things called grenades? xD

[@oven5997]

The germans literally call their infantrymen grenadiers.. Also, when he said the American soldiers get more training, you have to keep in mind that Germans had some veterans who fought for years. There are some rookies in the German army especially in 1944, but not all of them. This is a little biased.

[@michaelcolt4196]

@@oven5997 Yes and no, while the german army had a lot of veterans, most of them often were engaged on the eastern front while the lower ranking officers normally would stay on the western front, up until 1945 in most scenarios. At least that´s when it comes to soldiers on foot, the Panzer divisions on the west were the strong suit of the germans alongside the Luffwaffe

[@Munibahmad241]

didn’t the krauts have Gewehr 43 and STG 44’s as well?

[@Kazymedic]

@@Munibahmad241 Not commonly.

[@dirtysniper3434]

Hm yes throw grenades and risk standing up. Grenades are limited and throwing them isn't easy and if dosen't kill them well then they know exactly where you are

[@zaqpak9391]

That environment looks surprisingly similar to the Carentan map from Men of War: Assault Squad 2...................I should know because I have nearly 4000hrs played on the damn thing haha! I recognise the assets

[@biggstheman60]

Carentan is a really good map. Love that thing. Have you tried playing Cerubolon's defense missions or Sir Hinkel's campaigns about the Eastern Front?

[@TheArmchairHistorian]

That's my favorite game. We used the editor to get screenshot references for our artists.

[@bridgehater5101]

@@TheArmchairHistorian there's a difference between referencing and tracing. I also have 2000+ hours on Men of war and the imagery used is near exact outlines with some changes in the foreground. I get that it's expensive and takes time for your animators to make unique visuals. But, it seems lazy and unconvincing when you use Men of War in simulated combat situation that's supposed to show how a real life squad would perform.

[@lordterra1377]

@@bridgehater5101 Oh comon give the guy a break. This is still quality free content so don't complain. Now regarding the video I would be interested to see how early US troops would fair against German squads. The outcome would likely be much different. I do feel they also missed a solid point on the fact the Germans were fighting a defensive battle at this point. Which cost the US some horrendous losses in men. Also the battles portrayed here made it seem like everything can be solved with a grenade? Umm the Germans had grenades too, did they forget how to use them in all 3 of the battles? What about the STG44? This late in the war the Germans would have some of these in their arsenal. Which is a amazing gun for it's time. They also had the G43 which is on par with the M1.

[@Георг-л5л]

@@bridgehater5101 you really gonna complain free content ? Wtf bro

[@waiting4aliens]

When you eliminate the outside advantages the allies squads had you ignore the realities of ground warfare as it was.

[@bcamp6088]

Remember the US never really faced the best of the German army, by 1944 the German military was a shell of it's former self

[@silenthunteruk]

In Normandy, a lot of the German units weren't even German.

[@silentecho92able]

well there is *"Battle of Kasserine Pass"* and year earlier at that was a slaughter to the US as well as a wake-up call to the war.

[@Fercho-js6hs]

German forces atleast had their second in comand using a mp40 or a g43 around 1944-45 he never mention the second in comand that its very important in a german squad

[@bcamp6088]

@@silentecho92able Correct, and even in this case the Africa Corps were hardly comparable to the full armies of Barbarossa

[@swisstianl7547]

What about the Battle of the Bulge?

[@spacemanjoe7074]

My grandpa really never told my family about the war other than this; the Germans didn’t miss like they were portrayed to in movies and pop culture, they hit just as often as anyone else.

[@wjsnow2195]

As much as I agree with the conclusion there’s some huge problems here. The effective range of an M1 is far beyond 450 meters. No competent soldier wastes his automatic weapons by placing them high up in bell towers. Machine guns need to stay low to sweep across multiple axis of fire. Put your best riflemen in the tower and have him act as a designated marksman and spotter for the others.

[@RichardDangles]

Is that inline with german doctrine at the time? And is there any modern doctrine that would support this idea?

[@sjbrooksy45]

I guess it would depend on the situation, there are tactics for having a machine gun rain down on the opposition, if they are stupid enough to be in the open and close together.

[@CharlesvanDijk-ir6bl]

The rifle is capable the average infantry man is not. In which environment do you have a bell tower?

[@yesyesyesyes1600]

exactly what I was taught in the Army :) And never ever put your machine gun team in a position where it gets no cover left and right by a two man squad

[@Chrischi3TutorialLPs]

"Feuerunterdrückungsleistung" I love how long german words can get.

[@randombosniancomment4367]

These polygons look like maps from men of war assault squad 2.

[@TheArmchairHistorian]

They are! :)

[@DW-mn6zt]

@@TheArmchairHistorian The whole episode was taken off of Deadliest Warrior

[@theShermanator]

@@TheArmchairHistorian someone said MoWAS2

[@ls200076]

@@theShermanator Wow

[@pencilgaming1233]

@@theShermanator I love your CoH plays

[@treeman1970]

I see everyone asking for the next comparison but u just gotta appreciate how much effort they put in this video, the animations, the research and how it all ties together. Thank you prob best ww2 I have seen!

[@seanperson2032]

I mean the recommendations are because at the end of the video he literally asks for recommendations for the next one they are gonna do

[@rShakeford]

@@seanperson2032 I think both of y'all can be right. I agree with Tree Man that we should appreciate how much effort Armchair History puts into their videos. And Sean you're right that he asked for suggestions/recommendations. We're all on the same page :)

[@Hardy_Productions]

"...he throws away his cigarette...", "...the squad leaders matches are wet..." -- You guys did a damn good job!

[@RealEvilLordExdeath]

Yeah a damn good job in doing some Hollywood version of a Fighting situation

[@MrThoVogt]

Col. Trevor N. Dupuy, Colonel US Army: "On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances (emphasis in original). This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost." so much for this video.

[@outtahere321]

Germans were formidable, but they had the advantage primarily of defending in the later stages, but still lost the war.

[@thecosmoreaper4336]

The thing is that being on defensive will give a positive kill to death ratio 99% of the time. Look at U.S. Forces during the Korean War. I hate to be this guy, but it's not a good way to judge how good each side was by the kill to death ratio between them. There's way more nuance such as terrain, supplies, how tired one is, luck, etc. Both sides had very effective soldiers that were well trained and efficient. If Germany had tried to invade the United Kingdom via an amphibious landing in 1940, they would have slaughtered as badly, and likely worse, than the allies were during D-Day. Does this mean that their troops would necessarily be inferior to the allies, no not at all. Defense means you almost always win the kill to death ratio. There's more to combat than that. There were many battles were the allies won the kill to death ratio, doesn't mean they were better than the Germans. It ain't that simple.

[@MrThoVogt]

@@thecosmoreaper4336 the difference in effectiveness was there attacking and defending. Pls re read the quote. So your point being?

[@MrThoVogt]

@@outtahere321 this was taken into account in the studies, as can be read in my initial post. The difference in effectiveness was there on defense and offense.

[@redaug4212]

Dupuy's research is incomplete and often taken out of context. He had only taken an analysis of 80 small-scale battles on the western front, all of which were sampled from the Italian Campaign or the Lorraine Campaign, during which the Germans held a massive defensive advantage over Allied forces. What's even worse, if you look at the casualty ratios in his study, there are multiple battles where the ratios are within a 50% margin, sometimes with the Germans' casualties being on the higher end. So his quote is even contradicted by his own study. I would post a link, but youtube keeps deleting it... just look up "military performance" on a site called "ww2-weapons".

[@QaamansLand]

What about the Soviets? Next video idea?

[@kuratr]

I think the soviets were just superior terms of quantity. They mainly focused on overpowering the enemy by steamrolling into battle in huge numbers. Crazy. Brave and strong, but still crazy.

[@user-rq6bg1gz6o]

@@kuratr This is incorrect. Soviets had tricky and efficient tactics.

[@irshkashirkle]

@@user-rq6bg1gz6o agreed, especially if you've seen the corners they cut in mass producing T-34s, they came up with some pretty ingenious cheap solutions to compete with german armor (floating track pins and slanted front armor plating comes to mind)

[@monkeydog8681]

@@kuratr You'd think that, but Russia is by far superior in winter offensive.

[@slicemf5347]

@@kuratr nope. WW1 prooved that machineguns and artillerry can deal with any manpower You can put on a field. Russian|Soveit meatwaves is just another myth. So soviet offensives were based on concentrated manpower heavy supported by concentrated artillery and mortars, with attaks on fake directions. I think concentration of Soviet artillery in big operations are not surpassed to a day. Also there were used such taktics as this - artillery fired non stopping moving fire from front into a deep and infantry followed this fire DURING fire, capturing front positions. This takes some skill in coordination. Germans base their tacktics around MGs 34\42. Soviets around 82mm mortar.

[@kevlarburrito6693]

The German squad of 1944, had 2 MP40's, and did not always have the MG42. MG34's were still in wide use by 1945 within German rifle companies. These squads also had more than one NCO.

[@Railhog2102]

The typical German squad would use bolt action Kar98k's, Schmisser Submachine guns, STG44s, and most importantly MG support or Panzerfaust or sherk launchers for taking on armor.

[@ringwraithdestroyer]

@@Railhog2102 The Stg was not in wide use as it was expensive to produce so not every squad and most certainly not your run of the mill squad would have one

[@kimjongun1348]

@@ringwraithdestroyer Pretty sure only the Waffen SS divisions used them kinda wide spread.

[@IHateYoutubeHandlesVeryMuch]

@@kimjongun1348 Volksgrenadier squads also used STG44s, but on an infantry level they were a mixed bag.

[@kimjongun1348]

@@IHateKZbinHandlesVeryMuch Gotcha.

[@Prizrak131]

The way he is standing at 1:15 makes it look like a character select screen

[@Pectus72]

This channel is meant as entertainment not as information.

[@Kiskaa-]

I like both styles of the US Army and Wehrmacht weapon descriptions. The Wehrmacht sounded like your typical propaganda. While for the US Army, I was just waiting for him to say "Get yours today for only $49.99"

[@UnDeaDCyBorg]

The direct translation of "spray and pray" sounds a bit cringey in German, though.

[@gabrielsistonamoca6963]

wrong! American squads would called artillery strikes and remove that town from the map.

[@inquisitorsteele8397]

*FACT*

[@404Dannyboy]

Some of the most chilling war accounts I have seen were German soldiers describing allied artillery on the western front. America and Britain really did live with the theory "If it provides opposition simply bombard it to dust."

[@skyden24195]

This is why the simulation called for NO outside interference. Pay attention.

[@benkooreal]

And then bypass it i think

[@icedwhitechocolatemochafra9851]

@@Isometrix116 "most allied were for destroying strategic targets" lol. Germany only started bombing german cities after a british raid. I fail to see how germam residential areas are "strategically important". Almost all sides bombed civillian targets because it was easy and damaged morale

[@thebrazilianhistorian6530]

imagine how amazing would a strategy game made by these guys, especially with that art style

[@lordterra1377]

The MS game Close Combat would be your best bet. Give it a shot!

[@andypham6335]

3:23 to skip ad

[@Hortifox_the_gardener]

No German would ever - never ever - say "Beten und Sprühen" - the direct translation of pray and spray. That just doesn't exist. No complaint. Just a footnote. Cool video. As always.

[@def3ndr887]

Whoever wrote this must have been playing csgo with an ak

[@danilovega2029]

Wouldn't it be something like "Draufhalten (und Beten)"?

[@toruko-ishibravo2zulu679]

Joseph Stalin gave us a footnote about his Nazi Germany history. Saying, '..respect comes when their boot is crushing your throat or your boot is crushing their throat.' No, he did not ask to learn which boot you'd prefer.

[@gerhardhuhn7230]

@@danilovega2029 If you are talking about suppressive fire than it would be Unterstützungsfeuer

[@lurox5183]

@@def3ndr887 you are probably a silver noob

[@ferdblu1946]

So the germans didnt have any handgrenades?

[@ergil4549]

Yes they even didn't have a semi automatic rifle too

[@hajunjebat8180]

not a lot. becouse limited resource.but nazy technology is number 1

[@thewierdlemon5956]

@@ergil4549 they had around 2, 1 in 1941 and a newer one in 43 (look up g41 and g43) only certain soldiers were issued it

[@nobuseoda4150]

balance: removed the grenades of german army, to make this vedio more balance

[@renegadusunidos6151]

nope they don't they were issued stones instead and still didn't use in this simulator i guess.

[@Airsoftbraga]

Nice simulation.... But history tells that when they fight in similar numbers, the germans almost allways won. And the Mg, never stayed in the same place to long. They know they were the favorite target

[@phineassmith5817]

Your assertions seem overly broad, simplistic, and dubious concerning a conflict as complex and sprawling as WWII.

[@judok1426]

@@phineassmith5817 I think he is simply refering to the statics that Germans on offense or defense often inflicted more casulties than they incurred. Being outnumbered on all 3 fronts, that is a testament to their field experience. But not neccesarily saying they are better soldiers or worse. But yeah real life isn't a spreadsheet of who's better, and these kind of videos aren't going to help relieve the twisted lens of history books. Like you have stated.

[@judok1426]

@Stephen Jenkins What is your source for the Western Front being "clearly matched"? Every source of History I have found it is more "clearly unmatched". The Germans had already drained their resources and best of their manpower by the time the Americans even entered the war, with the largest war in human history taking precedence in the East.

[@judok1426]

@Stephen Jenkins I do feel you are exaggerating the cause of the Americans entering the war in the west. This is my opinion only. I suggest watching a video on the changes to the German field uniform throughout the war (it taught me alot!) by the time the Germans invaded France in 1940, they already started to see reductions of leather in conservation acts, by 1944, they were not even issuing Jackboots to troops because of severe supply shortages in the East. The actual field blouses where of lesser and lesser quality, and the German airforce was stuck in a serious war of attrition in the east against a very capable Soviet late war machine. Let us not colour history with emotions, American, as well as commonwealth forces did certainly have advantages over the Germans by 1944. Yet the Germans still managed to inflict heavy casualties on the Allies with all odds against them. Market Garden, Bulge, Siegfried Line, Budapest etc. I watched a really nice documentary of surviving Hitlerjugend who battled it out with the allies in Holland. The Americans where effectively fighting boys aged 12-16 with officers about 17 until veterans of the eastern front came and lent a hand. Which quickly showed the underestimation of the Allies for the German resolve. Now let me tell you, they certainly wont teach you that in school! it doesn't sound so nice, American soldiers killing 13 year old German boys in a fight to the death. I will finish with this, I believe everyone lost world war 2, except some of those business savy tricksters, who made a large sum of profit off of the war. Me and you are free to have our individual opinions, but let us work together to benefit and not take sides. Bless.

[@Nothing-ui7pj]

judo k Well said, i totally agree with you and have the same Opinion, especially when you mentioned who the real victorious of the war is.

[@gunraptor]

Omg....you actually demonstrate understanding of the difference between clips and magazines. Nice.

[@EpicGamerino]

“I’d like to talk about our sponsor...” >>>>>>>>>>>

[@metallicat61003]

Same here. I’m so tired of hearing about VPN’s from literally every channel. All sponsors now get immediately fast forwarded through as quickly as my finger can tap.

[@mr_babadook_0181]

Just give them the money

[@789french5]

ssshhhhh that's a secret we all know and exploit but we can't let the marketing departments figure that out.

[@johnfurface]

I get it. But it’s pretty frustrating to still have to sit thru an ad literally embedded in the video that’s always about VPN or a stupid course despite paying for KZbin premium for a smoother experience

[@sbentsen2714]

😆😆

[@Historyguy-xu5ht]

“And the squad’s commanders matches were wet making the situation even more dire”

[@pguth98]

While the info about the M1A1 Thompson is correct, the one illustrated is actually an M1928A1.

[@quadroshfu2328]

How many Soldiers died during WW2? - _Germany:_ *[3.1 million]* - _Yugoslavia:_ *[446.000]* - _United States:_ *[416.800]* - _United Kingdom:_ *[384.000]* - _Hungary:_ *[300.000]* - _Romania:_ *[300.000]* - _Austria:_ *[261.000]* - _Poland:_ *[240.000]* - _France:_ *[217.600]* - _Canada:_ *[45.400]* - *SOVIET UNION: [11 MILLION]*

[@Kaneisback2]

Not sure about this, the germans didnt throw/have a single grenade throughout the whole 3 scenarios. + in these scenarios on the defence germans would often have either sniper or artillery support. Sure this was just squad vs squad, but germans wouldnt be as static as these scenario's suggest, just waiting to be hit by a rifle-grenade without the above mentioned supports.

[@esco17k83]

I do say that your right about the germans not throwing any grenades, but as the video states there not using any support for nun of the units, Americans or germans. In the video there mostly using the weapons that were more common with the doctrine and what was common on the field of battle that’s why there’s no grease guns or captured german equipment, oh and in the video there wasn’t any rifle-grenades being used they were just throwing the grenades. Last I will say this necessarily can’t be gone off of as the point you made, but people have there opinions honestly the only thing we have is records and real life scenarios that played out, and in most the Americans won due to there superior training and tactics, and there motivation/luck.

[@plugmanjohnson7456]

Grenades arent typically used when your defending a spot. Which the germans were in all scenarios

[@tylerg.2599]

@@plugmanjohnson7456 The Stielhandgranate was both an offensive and defensive hand grenade though.

[@seventh-hydra]

It must be poorly sourced. It disregards even the American's own perception of how German squad tactics worked from archival footage of the time. I want to give Griffin the benefit of the doubt since a lot of his content is very good, so I wont claim bias, but, that being said: Here, we have him saying the Germans were very static. In archival WW2 training footage from the US, they describe a German squad as having a 3 man machine gun team (2 MG Operators, *One* supporting fire rifleman) holding the center. They'd have 6 riflemen, split into two teams, advancing across the right and left flanks, taking turns providing covering fire while the other advances, until eventually the MG team advances. Using rapid movement to overwhelm the enemy and not staying in once place for long. When in cqc, they'd use smoke and grenades to disorient enemy positions with "sound and fury" before going in for bayonet charges. It even goes on to say "Fire and movement, the principle underlying their assault" The same thing this video claims was an American trademark tactic. ( _The German Infantry Squad in Action - A Demonstration of Minor Field Tactics_. Further backed up by _The German Squad in Combat: 1943_ by the Military Intelligence Service). Field manuals for US tactics emphasized the idea of having soldiers concentrated in a single area, applying large volumes of fire onto a narrow, small group of targets in order to achieve fire superiority and try to break them, while an automatic rifleman 'sweeps' the enemy position to give suppressing fire. They would move forward along a center-based approach, and only moving as many as they could while keeping fire superiority, usually 1 to 3 at a time, until the whole group had moved up. This 1-2 'leapfrog' approach would have the forward covering the rear, and the rear covering the forward, until close enough to mount an assault. Simple, direct orders were preferred over anything complicated or scattered, for a squad leader to maintain cohesion. The final assault in close quarters would then employ a flanking attack from one of the two groups to 'hammer and anvil' the enemy, at which point it's pretty much the same deal. Smoke, grenades, although preferring a large volume of fire at close range over bayonet charges. If sufficient fire superiority could not be held while advancing, they'd remain static and continue dumping large volumes of fire on their target, until the enemy stopped shooting back. Very similar to how the Germans are in this video. ( _FM 7-10, FM 23-5, and FM 23-15_ by the War Department) TL;DR: Americans preferred slow, deliberate advances and overwhelming firepower on single points of attack. Germans preferred a more spread out, rapidly advancing and flanking style. Both utilized fire and maneuver, but the Americans preferred the 'fire' part and the Germans preferred the 'maneuver' part. Seems like he got them backwards. Furthermore, the situation in this video would never take place anyways because American squads were trained to not to engage the enemy unless possessing a 2 to 1 numerical advantage ( _Tactics Part 2: Rifle and Heavy Weapon Companies_ by Colonel Paul S Bond)

[@SirNarax]

Because it was just how they told the script. The main reason I would suspect grenades were not mentioned because they were not as decisive comparatively. If the Germans threw a grenade what would be their best target? The squad leader sure but the US had the same target but then the MG and German squads tended to fall apart when the MG was gone. So a German grenade would just kill some people where as the US could get a more decisive result. And the reason no external soldiers outside the squad were added because what is the point? You would just have to keep adding and scaling up the comparison until you got to a war sized comparison at which point we know who won. They were not as static as displayed in the video obviously the script is just to sort of 'walk you through' what could happen rather than what DID happen but the biggest weakness of the German squads was they were naturally more static. Both strategies had merit and in fact modern militaries specifically the US adopted a combination of the two types. If the German was truly better you would expect it to be adopted and only it and you would have also expected the Germans to you know, win.

[@theoneduckson2312]

I would argue that the Americans had a disadvantage seeing as the Germans were usually on the defence.

[@Amani-zo8ic]

True

[@Amani-zo8ic]

And when the German did try to push they lost

[@cavalr1002]

Also the German soldiers was mostly veterans. They have seen war on multiple fronts and have gotten a lot of experience from that. the Americans have not gotten that much war experience at that time. Of course they had gotten good training at home. But I think a war veteran know what they are doing a little bit better.

[@biggstheman60]

All good points

[@opperturk124]

@@cavalr1002 The germans posted the wookies on the western front. They had commited some crimes against humanity and done horrible things in the east, and the were hella scared of the soviets. They placed their best units in the east. The young, the old and the wounded were stationed in the west. So no, the germans in the east were not battle hardened at all. The American however had fought in africa. Africa ofcourse is not comparable too germany, but it is fighting.

[@th3r3aper64]

these cities that are drawn here are definitely inspired from Men of war.

[@kedarunzi9139]

yes

[@jkuhl2492]

There's also the fact that the Germans in France were mostly leftovers and foreign troops (and a few traitorous French) who were deemed unsuitable for the war in Russia. So they were sent to France since there was nothing to do but watch the ocean all day long . . . until D-Day. With a few exceptions, they weren't the cream of Germany's crop.

[@SD-tj5dh]

Its nice to see an army comparison that doesn't involve a Russian sock puppet.

[@noodles5438]

Binkov’s Battlegrounds?

[@obiwankenobi4252]

Lmao

[@stalinfortimee5065]

"won't be visiting GI Jesus today" idk why but that had me dying😂

[@Mikkall]

Numbers. The Allies had numbers, of everything... in the ETW. Lots and lots of numbers. That is the only reason the Germans were defeated. German units on the western front were also, typically, depleted and/or reinforced with Volksgrenadiers (severely undertrained) and plenty of them weren't even German, other than uniforms (ie: Czechs, Romanian etc). There's a reason the Germans steamrolled Poland, France, Nordic countries & Russia... for a time. Oh, and Hitler's ego, that cost the Germans dearly as well. And for the sake of realistic posterity, the "Germans" weren't all Nazis, and not every German was thirsty for Jewish blood. Never forget, the winners also win the right to write the history books.

[@saupreinmadl3391]

Couldn't agree more ...

[@darkalan7736]

Why Germany lost the war: "Hitler's Ego" The answer of a moronic simpleton who has no clue what he's talking about. You wrote a lot there, for a clueless ldiot, clown. Germany lost due to oil.

[@Hannibalkakihara]

You make some seriously good points. Its easy to dehumanize any enemy. In this case the german army were just guys serving their home and everyone they cared about and knew(even the legendary omaha machine gunner befriended a normandy invading soldier years later) it was really the waffen ss/ss that were the fanatics. Im a proud american, but we cant underestimate everyone else and oversimplify things just to feel better about ourselves. The germans and japanese were both truly formidable enemies

[@Mikeanium]

Agreed But add to "Hitler's Ego" "Oil Crisis"

[@sonicart77]

Yes. Conventional war in the end comes down to numbers.

[@space4166]

As a wise man once said You see a sqaud walking you shoot them above the head. If they respond with highly accurate rapid rifle fire it’s a British If they respond with a machine gun and solders flank it’s a German sqaud If it’s artillery fire with men charging with no cover it’s Soviet If nothing happens for 5 minutes then artillery and bombs rain down and there is unlimited tanks it’s American If men charge with bayonets drawn and rapid fire it’s Canadian and Australian

[@r.9158]

Grenades dont make a giant plume of smoke/dust large enough to conceal an entire section...

[@dorrion4x237]

I think it was a smoke grenade

[@assassin_rk42]

@@dorrion4x237 before that armchair historian said an actual grenade made a huge plume of smoke, which they dont.

[@dorrion4x237]

Assassin_rk42 well they can depending on the environment it was detonated, if it’s surrounded by rubble of concrete and dust then it can make a ploom most likely not big enough to conceal movement like described but it’s definitely not impossible

[@assassin_rk42]

@@dorrion4x237 yeah but the plume disappears soon after, a smoke grenade creates a plum of smoke that would actually conceal movement

[@r.9158]

@@dorrion4x237 AN ENTIRE SECTION. Obviously they kick up dirt. It's an explosion.

[@Aerial_Morello]

Well of course the Germans lost the competition, they didn't have any grenades or the inclination to respond to being flanked for some reason and the German MG assistant didn't turn up for work.

[@TheArmchairHistorian]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aIeveYpnbqd8nNU

[@Aerial_Morello]

@@TheArmchairHistorian Ah it's against static infantry divisions, I didn't read that you were pitting 2nd rate German troops made up of ex-wounded and POW conscripts against crack American infantry veterans of 2 campaign's. In that regard I suppose those numbers make sense, thank you for the response :)

[@sevsquad]

@Jack Freeman a 1.15:1 casualty ratio is pretty awful ratio when you're on the defensive...

[@sevsquad]

@Jack Freeman So your genius strategy to change my mind that the Americans and Germans were evenly matched is to point out that the Americans were one of the few armies to trade evenly with the germans? This is not to mention the fact that it has always been harder to be the aggressors in a war. this is common knowledge, It would take a far more granular approach than looking up the casualties for the battle of France and the eastern front to understand where most of the deaths came from. A vast majority of the time most casualties come when an enemy has been broken and is on the run. But in the western front there was never a breakout, so of course it's easier to see the defender bias.

[@swagmeisterVLR]

@Jack Freeman Weird that the Americans lost more, well it is infantry I suppose. There was a report showing that for every Sherman lost by the Americans on the Western Front, 3.6 Panthers were lost.

[@chrischir2048]

Mmm, just a few minor squad level skirmishes cannot tell the true superiority of the army. The German army was organized for offense, not for defense. It took 6 months for the US army to advance from Normandy beach to Rhine river. But it took only 2 weeks for the German army to advance the same distance from East Prussia to Minsk.

[@redaug4212]

That's no fault of the US Army though. A lot of that comes down to logistics. The Army had to bring men and supplies across thousands of miles of ocean, then have them wait for weeks at congested ports, then finally haul them for another couple hundred miles to supply depots. Monty's refusal to capture the Scheldt estuary was chiefly responsible for stopping any momentum the US had after the Normandy breakout.

[@chrischir2048]

@@redaug4212 Hey, hey take it easy. Not thousands of miles of ocean, but only 20 miles of English channel. The USA has been using the English isles as a huge logistic depot for many years. If the US army was in the position of defending the onslaught of Stalin's red army of 6 million strong, they could hold up only a few weeks. But the German army held them up for 3 years.

[@redaug4212]

@@chrischir2048 Yes thousands of miles of ocean. How do you think the US transported supplies to England? Where do you think the millions of US troops came from? I'm not playing the what-if game with you. I'm just saying the reason it took as long as it did for the US to actually gain major ground in Germany was wholly because of logistical errors from senior commanders, not actual Army performance.

[@chrischir2048]

@@redaug4212 Zero US infantry soldiers died during the Atlantic transportation, but mostly cargo ship sailors. Million tons of stockpiles of fuel, food, ammunitions were gathered safely in British isles, while the main German concern was concentrated in the Eastern front. So, the real distance of American logistics was only 20-mile length of the English channel, where the Anglo-American naval power was dominant. Now, US army performance was literally lazy during the whole course of the war. Basically, they were the chickens. Only the massive American air cover could make them move their asses. There are universal academic agreements on performance grading on major belligerent armies in WWII. No 1 was the German army, 2nd was the Russians, 3rd was the British, 4th was Japanese, the 5th was the US army.

[@chrischir2048]

@@redaug4212 I don't think any of US commanders made the logistic errors. US Army was not in the package tour, but they were at the battleground. Armies are always short of supplies. They have to overcome with their tenacity. Germans did, Russians did, the Japanese did, but Americans couldn't do. Simply they were up against the stiff German resistance and they called it was the logistic errors. Americans won the war by their airforce and navy, not by their army. Like always, the purpose and intention of the US army were to support the Airforce. In the Pacific, the US army's sole purpose was to secure the airfield for B-29's atom bomb delivery.

[@paulpatrick3057]

In 1944 the Germans were in the defensive, hitler had declared most major cities as “forts” which meant the German army was to fight to the death defending it, they were poorly supplied, mal-nourished and demoralized. It’s a wonder that the wermshat and oberkommando were able to put up as much of a fight as they did

[@schafer8576]

Such is the might of the Germans

[@wern943]

Actually it is recorded that the German morale was just as high, even higher in some units, by the end of 1944 than in 1939.

[@Lagmaster33]

Market Garden, Hürtgen Forest, the opening weeks of the Ardennes offensive....shows how much fighting spirit the Germans had despite heavy losses previously.

[@sasasa1541]

As bad as the Nazi regime may have been, their economic recovery was incredibly impressive. Going from a nation that was fated to a century of debt in the 1920s to a powerhouse that could overwhelm the rest of Europe, a transformation that occurred while the rest of the world was struggling with one of the worst depressions in history.

[@kingtigerthomas318-69]

Everyone Knows that you should NEVER put all your eggs in 1 basket Germany: **Let's focus solely on the MG-42**

[@nikirki25]

Well, it worked at the beginning of the war.

[@ravenspeak00]

The parameters of the opinion experiment in this video don't put the typical german squad in the larger context of the german combined arms philosophy. When you add artillery, mechanized squads, tanks, and air support, the way the german squads operated makes a great deal more sense. For the purposes of this video, those elements weren't important.

[@jamesr9400]

ahhh but what if they had TWO MG-42's per squad

[@brojangles8816]

Shawn Deem Yes but this is in the context of the western front where the Germans were under equipped and didn’t have support all the time, this wasn’t a blitz for them so it was just buying time in the hopes that they could turn things around in the East.

[@MrOiram46]

James R Or imagine a squad with 1 MG42 and the rest are armed with StG 44’s

[@Phoenix-xn3sf]

What a weirdly suggestive, and surprisingly tone-deaf video. Makes you wonder how the Germans plowed through Europe and Russia at all, when they're clearly more comfortable remaining in place huddled around their precious MG.

[@AsukaLangleyS02]

How is it impressive beating up tiny nations with little to no military and France just being stupid? Didn't even win against the Soviets, they just came back and raped.

[@joedatius]

"plowed through Europe" aka wasted ammo on untrained soldiers and kids and had to fight a losing war for multiple years after real military powers got involved

[@catlat3606]

The quality of this production is absolutely impeccable

[@zenmastergaming6424]

It keeps getting better and better

[@Darkxxironxxseaxxx16]

Not sure why Germans are always shown defensive and reactive only, whereas we all know that the Wehrmarcht and the Waffen SS had an offensive training and known to be extremely disciplined and combat focused, I was a bit surprised

[@just-usofficialyoutube5480]

probably because at this point of the war the germans were on the defensive. if they used early ww2 German soldiers vs early ww2 US soldiers. the germans would most likely win

[@TheArmchairHistorian]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aIeveYpnbqd8nNU

[@thegoldencaulk2742]

"Waffen SS" "extremely disciplined" Meanwhile the Wehrmacht are often seen in memoirs and reports complaining about how bad the Waffen SS was to fight with. One of the predominant complaints was they were too gung ho, and threw themselves at the enemy stupidly. So yes, it's true they were more aggressive, but at the cost of discipline.

[@Kanoshe]

@@TheArmchairHistorian i love the new series this was extremely well done. while it appears you had some confirmation bias. the video is excellent in every aspect

[@thefloridamanofytcomments5264]

Their big offensive was the battle of the bulge, and it ended in surrenders and suicides through May of ‘45

[@soco2020]

The M1A1's charging handle was on the side, not on top.

[@Railhog2102]

That's actually a M1928A1

[@soco2020]

@@Railhog2102 They literally referred to it as a M1A1 in the video.

[@redmask6952]

German soldier:no! you cant just shoot me while I cycling my 98k US soldier:haha my garand go bang bang semi-automatically

[@quintinjansevanvuuren9638]

PING!

[@hampter1279]

“Our boys won’t be seeing G.I. Jesus today”

[@thekhans2823]

STORMIU , Hah 🤣

[@ALmO_MC]

This formet throw me in thos days where I watched "Deadliest Warriors", thet TV show was popular in my country, the memories.

[@TheGhjgjgjgjgjg]

Man I used to get so pumped to watch that after school was I was 16-17,good memories

[@gzboti]

Don't forget that Germany had considerable loses on the Eastern Front before '44, and many of the best forces were tied down fighting the Reds.

[@GreenPandaGuy]

The simulation seems like a effort to sound more sophisticated than what this actually is, just some random battle that you put your opinions into. Nothing different than a historical 'Who would win?'.

[@matthewpham9525]

Well, looks like the channel name checks out

[@stalinfortimee5065]

It was a more analysis on tactics used, especially in the late war the Germans always based themselves around the mg42, by the end of the war the americans, would spread thin to combat the Germans formation usually doing something called a L flank, which would effectively give them the advantage of being able to advance on the enemy position and give them fire suppression on two sides, once closer the Americans had the better rifles and lighter BAR in comparison to the MG42. In close combat the americans could fire more then the Germans could. Despite his opinion on a battle the tactics that were used could determine who would overall be the better infantry.

[@vw8gip8c]

I would like to see Chinese Nationalist Army versus Chinese Communist Army during the second Chinese Civil War.

[@toruko-ishibravo2zulu679]

You still can. Immigrate into Taiwan and join their Defense Forces before 2021 ends.

[@orangeandbanana8864]

@@toruko-ishibravo2zulu679 chinese spy

[@Hadrian592]

For anyone who's genuinely interested in this topic I recommend reading this article on the matter: www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1985/05/05/their-wehrmacht-was-better-than-our-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/ TLDR: ""On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances (emphasis in original). This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost. The inescapable truth is that Hitler's Wehrmacht was the outstanding fighting force of World War II, one of the greatest in history. For many years after 1945, this seemed painful to concede publicly, partly for nationalistic reasons, partly also because the Nazi legions were fighting for one of the most obnoxious regimes of all time."

[@henrikg1388]

Apart from the Waffen-SS, it is a bit of a stretch to call them "Nazi legions". Yes, they fought for a criminal regime, but even through all propaganda, I think most of them felt they were fighting for Germany. Unlike the Red Army, every squad didn't have a political officer. Hitler himself thought that this was one of his biggest mistakes, to not politicize the entire army like that.

[@kuvasz5252]

"If you want to get an idea of the German training program you can read “The Forgotten Soldier” where Guy Sajer, a member of the Grossdeutchland Division describes the ordeal of training. It was a grueling ordeal that turned men into machines. The trainers were brutal but not sadistic. They food was plentiful and good and always available. The soldiers trained in every possible condition up to 18 hours a day and when they graduated they were tough men. The sergeants got the equivalent training of Lieutenants in the US Army: the officers were required to bunk, eat and stay with their men and fight from the front. "No answer would be complete without a mention of Col Trevor Dupuy who conducted a qualitative study of German soldiers throughout the war. He determined that the average German soldier was worth at least 1.5 Allied soldier and as many as 6 or 8 Russian soldiers at the beginning of the war and still better than 2 to 1 at the end. This study has been reviewed many times and while much is subjective it is usually agreed that the Germans were better soldiers than any Allied soldier on average, even at the end of the war. “The Germans liked soldiering. We didn’t” is a common quote from the study." www.quora.com/How-physically-tough-was-the-average-German-soldier-during-World-War-2

[@MackTheGovnah]

This is artificially inflated because of the high casualties Germany inflicted upon Russian troops. Wehrmacht did not inflict %50 more casualties on US troops.

[@robertosanchez6803]

Puro Marines perro

[@MackTheGovnah]

Henrik G the entire Wehrmacht committed war crimes right along with the SS.

[@voyomaypl1608]

If I'm correct "typical" german tactic was to supress enemy by MG and then rush and throw grenades. German troops were quite grenade heavy. + German army was sometimes reffered as "army of officers" because during interwar period their's army was limited so every solider had to be well trained (quality over quantity). This is ofcourse at the beggining of the war but still it's hard for me to belive that death of commander would cause surrender.

[@carsonrichards9902]

Right but in this scenario it's in a later time of the war where the Americans where popping soldiers like drug addicts pop pills at this point. also Germany was now fighting a 2 front war. America, french and britain on one side and the soviet union on another. with this being a later war time period the death of a commander would be a wrap for the germans that would cause a surrender. with little to no men it would be in the germans best interest to surrender to the americans than to keep fighting and wipe out the remainder of their forces.

[@moogiibat5845]

@@carsonrichards9902 Most of the soldiers and most of the better trained and experienced soldiers were fighting the more threatening enemy the soviet union in the eastern front by that time. Until battle of bulge Americans rarely faced any confident German force.

[@bermby]

I'm pretty sure they would surrender given the circumstance of both your commanding officer, MG and most of your squad destroyed.

[@voyomaypl1608]

@@bermby I said "death of commander" not "50% casualty rate"

[@voyomaypl1608]

@@carsonrichards9902 unless you take into account fanatical SS divisions. But we don't.

[@alexlun4464]

Some years ago, when you asked an Omaha beach veteran how did they win the beach, they'd most certainly reply 'we didn't win, the germans ran out of ammo'

[@zachcardwell1013]

Funny how that story wasn't true when Rangers climbed Point Du Hoc and successfully defended the highest point from three consecutive counter-attacks.

[@MrLord-qd4ce]

@@zachcardwell1013 murica

[@reypocais3760]

Then that's why Allied won.

[@tomtacker8744]

Cause all spots had been the same right? In a fight 1:1 or 1:2 or maybe even 1:3 the defender normally always wins. And in regular German troops had been superior in many parts. Why they still lost? Cause of American tactics of quantity. Troops see the enemy and are pinned down? Let's call air support and artillery and after that, let's enter. With that, allied troops would never win the war, luckily for all of us, they had it. Ansonsten könntet ihr mich jetzt ohne Google verstehen... Thanks God for quantity over quality on the battlefield.

[@charloteauxvalerian3875]

@@tomtacker8744 Aaaaw no. Air support is the primary basic over battlefield. French loosed the battle of France, but they never ressorted to that lame excuse of quantity when they loosed. Also, how come to explain that the sheer superiority in number of the russian didn't crush the German in the summer campaign of 1941, or 1942. Or did the same to the Finns in Winter war. Number is good but it's not the whole explanation and serve only to make excuse. The true problem is that the German believed that they had quality, when in fact they didn't. Many material was of an overall good quality but inadapted to their tactical and operational needs Take the Tiger I, very lethal, very armoured, yet, that tank was unable to cross most of the bridge because he was just too heavy. He was also a pain in the ass to repair, so even a damaged track render it almost useless. The Panther was better, but he was in the field too early, and suffered many problems in the field. The SS agressive recruitement and expansion ended to cripple the whole army, as they took away many werhmacht officer, and gave them low quality recruit and diluted the overall quality of their own division. (IE many officer from the Hitlerjungend came from the stock of the NCO from the SS division Totenkopf, which operated badly in France.) In the airborn battle, priority was given to bomber, and the Director of the Fighter Galland, made disastrous decision by exposing old pilot untill they died, sucking the experience pool and leaving the German Fighter dried. Which accelerated the air superiority of the allier air force which in turn, gave a knack for the allied infantry and armoured division on the field. Ultimately, if you look closely on the battle in the western front, the German never really succeeded in any offensive : the counter offensive of Mortain failed in normandy, the Battle of the Bulge too as did northwind. Each time the Werhmacht really shined on the western Front, it was when it was going defensive, but most of their offensive were quite lame and ineffective, Tiger or not. Air force or not. The late Werhmacht was an army poisoned by many unseen flaws that are too often ignored by their defenders. One of his main flaw was that that their was not cohesive tought of the army. The SS and the Werhmacht often despised themselves a thigher level. Luftwaffe infantry division was infantry were a joke serving only to flatter Goering. The SS themselves had the bad habit to keep oil from themselves, making the displacement of infantry division more difficult, if possible. Model, one of the best general of the werhmacht, had the habit of stealing men and material by politicking lobbying, making the effort of the sixth army in stalingrad even more grueling and making the creation of a reserve impossible. Some feld Marchal were going so much that they wanted to dueling with Hitler as a Witness ! No such thing among the allied army even if the relation between Montgomery and the american were far from smooth. A war, a modern total war isn't winned only in the field, but also in the logistic and the decision making in the upper strata of command and in the factory.

[@msh-17]

That's not enough i think.....the biggest thing why the Americans often win such tactical battle its because the Sherman Tank which is very often appear on the battlefield, backed with Artillery shelling, Air Support, and make it worse for the German they have barely of supply line, communication, organization, and their morale plummeted after keep losing battles.

[@KristerAndersson-nc8zo]

There were valuations done after the war and they came to the conclusion that 100 German Soldiers had the same battleworthiness as 120 Soldiers from any other army.

[@georgehall7749]

I believe German Squads were 10 man vs American 12 man squads.

[@KristerAndersson-nc8zo]

@@georgehall7749 And that prove my Point,

[@sonofjapheth5382]

I guess they should have won then......lets ask the 101st...

[@KristerAndersson-nc8zo]

@@sonofjapheth5382 it is not easy when you are at war with half the World. Besides 80% of the Wehrmacht was busy fighting the Russians.

[@sonofjapheth5382]

@@KristerAndersson-nc8zo Making war on half the world is pretty STUPID to begin with...especially if you're gonna start something you know you can't finish...if the Americans enter the fray, and they all knew it.

[@karlo1199]

A interesting fact I recently learned. If a German army squad ever lost the machine gun/gunner. The squad is disbanded and the remaining soldiers are assigned to fill the empty positions of other squads. This reinforces an article I’ve read where the machine gun is the main or center of the squad and the rifleman are the supporting element. In contrast to the American squad of the rifleman as the machine gun supports the rifleman.

[@AnonEMus-cp2mn]

Bingo!

[@wirdnichtverraten9432]

Not true! Every german soldier had been trained to use all the weapons in the squad. If the MG gunner was down, another one picked it up and continued fighting. If the NCO had fallen, the next higher rank took control of the squad. Even if there were only privates left, everyone could make themself the leading soldier during a fight, because everybody knows the mission. The NCO's usually told all of his soldiers what the mission was and who was in charge if he's out of action. That's called "Auftragstaktik" or Mission type tactics.

[@renegadusunidos6151]

sarcasm at its best lol

[@PoleTooke]

@8:19 “GI Jesus” I can’t 😂😂

[@tyrionlannister4920]

I loved evrything about this video... The idea behind it, the animations, the top down bird view to follow movements and lines of fire, the original weapon videos... Speaking of which... The american and german guy(s) who wrote the scripts for the weapon introductions deserve a raise :D Short, but informative and even funny(the original videos i mean) All in all an very nice video and well spent 15 min of my life 🙂

[@joshuatywater5352]

"sorry kraut our boys won't be visiting GI Jesus today" lmao

[@ConfusedFroug]

This just an exaggerated version of men of war assault squad 2 and I love it

[@michaelhawkins7389]

do you have steam? I have that game its Amazing

[@jamesr9400]

@@michaelhawkins7389 itd be amazing if it didnt take 30 mins to get a 3v3 started

[@jamesr9400]

and then 10 seconds into battle, 1 person leave