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: ruclips.net/video/2VLHW19BIfs/видео.html 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...
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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
"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"
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
@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
@@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
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
@@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.
The M1 rifle was a significant improvement in firepower over the Mauser 98 (itself great for a bolt action). I own both... great guns. On the other hand, the MG42 was a much more modern and effective LMG than the old M1919 the US was using at the time. The BAR was reliable but was pretty poor for its intended role as a lighter more portable LMG than the M1919 as it didn't have a quick change barrel and was very heavy for what it was. It also was limited to a 20 round magazine. The Bren gun was a much better gun in a similar role.... or the FN made BAR variant that the Polish adopted... quick-change barrel and pistol grip....truly the peak of BAR development.
I had no idea there was an FN BAR. I just looked it up. It was from 1928. It looks like a hell of a weapon. But the Bren was the best for it's role. Also the standard section load out have room for 150 Lee Enfield rounds and 2 bren clips. That's a lot more mobile and convenient than the belts and huge ammo boxes you'd see the entire German squad lugging around instead of firing their rifle
My name is "User Name", I BAITED so badly by jager that I lose my credibily to anyone sees my comment. I got paraded, tossed and dragged with all total humiliation and embarassment, I played by jagers hands. I spent years policing the comment section and perfectly polish it to look that I am believable, but I lost it all. To my family, friends and fellow workers especially my mother you can't look at me I'm in total shame now 🤡🤡🤡
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
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”.
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.
@@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?
Jonathan Bielawski The Gewehr 43 was not a common sight, especially later in the war, they were expensive to produce and suffered from parts breakage in the field, so german production remained focused on the K98k
The most recent armchair history success known to this National Speleological Society member happened when Google Earth had seated explorer residents of Alberta . To locate any undiscovered cave entrance. It allowed them to locate, explore, and do Grade- 6 Cartography of the deepest limestone cave yet found in North America, I can see today where this Deadliest Warrior Edition needs a pair to explore shallow social topography .
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 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 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.
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"
"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
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....🤣🤣🤣🤣
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 :)
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.
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
@@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.
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.
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
@@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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
I had an uncle who served in the British 6th Airborne (Gliders) and was made a POW during the Ardennes Offensive, a.k.a. “The battle of the Bulge”. He related the incident to me and it transpired that his unit was attacked by a unit from the Waffen SS. He said they were the most professional soldiers he had ever seen. He did not like them but acknowledged their efficiency. The last he saw of his jeep in that incident was it being dismantled by a 20mm flak cannon. He also said that the only thing that truly scared him was the Mg42 and saw his friend torn apart by one. There is little question that the German soldier was a formidable foe and it was only the strength in numbers and the unavoidable attrition that eventually beat them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@Voucher765 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
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.
@@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.
@@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".
One of the best history channels I have stumbled upon recently, the style of it, the showcase of weapons is all favorable and unique. Keep doing what you do.
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 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)
@@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.
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
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
@@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
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
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"
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 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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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".
@@wellardme They made some pretty solid ones towards the end of the war, The MkVII Churchill for example or the Comet/Firefly, in fact it is thought that the firefly was one of the few tanks capable of penetrating the frontal armour of the king tiger (citing the curator of the tank museum) but there were some more questionable ones towards the beginning of the war for sure. The main reason for such high casualties in Africa was due to a lack of coordination with the infantry.
Tacticalsquad 5 early during the war British tanks were on a par with the vast majority of German armour and superior in many ways, it was just the British doctrine which was flawed. The majority of German tanks used in the Battle of France were Panzer I and II which even at the time were considered obsolete. It was testament to Blitzkrieg tactics that the German offensive was so successful despite the poor quality of their armoured force.
Das MG42:"...und setzt den willen unseres Führers auch auf distanzen von bis zu 1100 metern durch." The BAR:"...sorry krauts, but our boys won't be visiting GI Jesus today!" Die MP40:"...im zweifelsfall, truppführer, sprühen und beten!" The Thompson:"...good old chicago typewriter..." The scriptwriters for the weapon instruction videos are legends 🤣🤣🤣
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.
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 RUclips premium for a smoother experience
interesting to see the influence of the MG42 being very common in just about all forms of WW2 media, the visual of german soldiers in a defensive position using MG42s is iconic
boomgoesblitzhound obviously that happened a lot but the British are often over shadowed by the Americans in late ww2 and id’e love to see one comparing the two
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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."
@@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
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
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.
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.
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
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 🙂
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
Damn... the quality on this video is stunning! The animations, the new “studio” and camera quality! I’ve been with you since the very beginning and it’s amazing to see how much has the channel grown and professionalized :) congrats and keep it up!
Don't forget - Hans with Flamethrower Germans had also Handgranades Germans was not always sitting down and waiting for enemy's attack... And...many of German soldiers at this time was 5 years in action - battle experience is more important then training. 🤷♂️ This is also the reason of kill ratio. Check the numbers.
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?'.
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.
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 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 :)
@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.
@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.
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: ruclips.net/video/2VLHW19BIfs/видео.html
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...
soviets vs americans or chinese vs japanese
Hi
You should ussr squad and american squad
Czechoslovak vs German 1938
WWII France vs. German or WWII Britain vs. German (1940)
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.
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.
The Armchair Historian how did you write the script? And how could a script possible factor in human emotions etc.
@@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.
@@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.
@@TheArmchairHistorian Thanks for Clearing that up! It was very interesting to watch in any case, I truly appreciate your work.
Fortunately for the Allies, in the later stages of the war, American Sergeants were issued with waterproof matchbooks.
This video is useless because the Germany’s were fighting other European countries and then everybody says the US won the wAR
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
@@PeyYiYong Sorry, I was just making a joke rather than a serious point.
I guess he lost his zippo lighter.
@@euansmith3699 I think he is answering to the other guy that thinks america didn't win the war somehow.
"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"
Haha.. 😀👌
LMAO XD
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
I love that everyone here is only mad about the Germans not using grenades, not much else. Just “what about German grenades!!”
@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
@@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
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.
They are right. Germans used grenades too.
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
Let's hope it doesn't get privated again.
why what happened
The Germans made a key mistake, they forgot Hans with the Flammenwerfer.
Flammenwerfer*
It werfs flammen
Correction hans get the big shovel!
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...
@@SuperSpasticNinja lmao xD
I think a French 1940 squad v German 1940 squad would be cool
Or a Italy v Britain 1941
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.
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.
@@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.
@@flynnstone3133 not realy
@Rango's old dead chann true
The M1 rifle was a significant improvement in firepower over the Mauser 98 (itself great for a bolt action). I own both... great guns. On the other hand, the MG42 was a much more modern and effective LMG than the old M1919 the US was using at the time. The BAR was reliable but was pretty poor for its intended role as a lighter more portable LMG than the M1919 as it didn't have a quick change barrel and was very heavy for what it was. It also was limited to a 20 round magazine. The Bren gun was a much better gun in a similar role.... or the FN made BAR variant that the Polish adopted... quick-change barrel and pistol grip....truly the peak of BAR development.
The consumption of ammo for the MG 42 or 34 was too high and with lousy logistics the Germans were at a severe disadvantage to the Allies
Comparing an M1 with a k98 is like comparing a G43 with a Springfield. Stupid
I had no idea there was an FN BAR. I just looked it up. It was from 1928. It looks like a hell of a weapon. But the Bren was the best for it's role. Also the standard section load out have room for 150 Lee Enfield rounds and 2 bren clips. That's a lot more mobile and convenient than the belts and huge ammo boxes you'd see the entire German squad lugging around instead of firing their rifle
The MP/StG44 was a major improvement over both the Garand, and the BAR,…but to few in quantity and ammunition.
My name is "User Name", I BAITED so badly by jager that I lose my credibily to anyone sees my comment. I got paraded, tossed and dragged with all total humiliation and embarassment, I played by jagers hands. I spent years policing the comment section and perfectly polish it to look that I am believable, but I lost it all. To my family, friends and fellow workers especially my mother you can't look at me I'm in total shame now 🤡🤡🤡
The British vs Germans and Japanese vs Americans I would like to see
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
Also French vs Italians
also Russians and Germans
@@ryanovski one surrender and the other change side so both lose
I agree
I can't light my cigarette because the matches are wet,
the war is lost
Even when he did win he got diagnosed with cancer after the war ended
yea
"I do not have my code book. What does that mean?" -- René Artois, _'Allo 'Allo!_
xcatrockz the US did have that kind of food in their MRE kits especially during the late war stage.
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”.
I’d really like to see Soviets versus Germans, around Stalingrad, or Soviets against Cold War Americans
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.
Everybody knows zis 'information' komrade. Does ze need 're-edukation'?
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
@@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?
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...
The fact that the MG3 that Germany uses today as a medium machine gun very effectively, is almost exactly the MG42 speaks for itself.
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.
Well of course he is. A cigarette is the source of an American Sergeants power, energy, and overall bad*ssery.
Lol yeah. And when the sergeant was looking for dry matches. To relight his cig? Lol.
Its him trying to make himself seem active and useful, as bureucrats tend to do....the german groupleader and assistant were active brave fighters...
The armchair historian: Forgets a weapon to give a small documentary
*cries in kar98k*
The most produced among the featured and obviously more reliable ...
Or maybe the Gewheir Semi Automatic Rifle
Jonathan Bielawski The Gewehr 43 was not a common sight, especially later in the war, they were expensive to produce and suffered from parts breakage in the field, so german production remained focused on the K98k
watch C&Rsenal. They give 1hr long documentaries and discussions about different guns (so far they are only WW1 weapons)
what about the american M3 Assault rifle?
Summary: Grenade spamming is the superior tactic.
@Jack Guyett and redpilled
based
ruclips.net/video/2VLHW19BIfs/видео.html
You should be a General
ben jerke based
So this is basically a RUclips version of “The Deadliest Warrior”
yo i was thinking the same thing
@@possumsalad6614 yeah except it’s not complete horseshit
Dope concept
Oh man lol I miss that show!
@@Key_highway okay who got beat that got you all sour?
Armchair Historian: Deadliest Warrior Edition
The most recent armchair history success
known to this National Speleological Society
member happened when Google Earth had
seated explorer residents of Alberta . To
locate any undiscovered cave entrance. It
allowed them to locate, explore, and do Grade-
6 Cartography of the deepest limestone cave
yet found in North America, I can see today
where this Deadliest Warrior Edition needs
a pair to explore shallow social topography .
make it happen!!
Make more of these happen! I’d love to see more of these
...miss that show
Even better than Deadliest Warrior
Fallschirmjäger vs. British Paratroopers next
Good one
I would have picked the American 82nd or 101st vs Fallschrimjagers
I agree that would be great
Would be nice to look at the battle of Ypenburg (Netherlands 1940) there the Dutch decimated the Fallschirmjägers.
Alot of new stuff we can get now with this new type of series
Lmfao GI Jesus. That has got to be one of the best things I've heard.
GI Jesus is our savior
Cowboy vibes :D
Don't use the lords name in vain
@@ghost_wolf8472 Exactly, mate.
@@ghost_wolf8472 yes don't use lord chamberlain's name in vain.
The thing terrified me the most is MG42 effective range 1km, ROF 1k2rpm, and " LIGHT MACHINE GUN"
Curious what a German Heavy Machine Gun would be like…
@@ryerial7723 One example of a German HMG is a 13mm that's so heavy it would technically be considered an autocannon instead lol.
It's a GPMG, not a LMG.
Pretty much considered the prototype general purpose machine gun, but I agree it’s terrifying.
@@ryerial7723 MG42 on a tripod. Light and heavy mean the doctrinal use and not the actual weight in the german army.
This project reminds me of History Channel shows from way back when they were about history.
Woah woah, are you saying Bigfoot’s romance with lizard people isn’t historical?
Katsarelas good point 😂
What about :
Monster motor challenge?
Tiny house makeover,
Shipping wars,
And other food tv shows?
Aren't they historical enough 4 u?
Tbh i don't blame 'em. They need money, and most people are too fucking stupid to care about history
I don't believe you, so let me call a buddy of mine to examine your comment more thoroughly.
"I fear no German, but wet matchsticks. It scares me."
Passchendaele
Wet matchsticks scare me to
I have constant Nightmares when I have wet matchsticks
Should've brought a zippo
Nice tf2 reference
The Germans were doomed the moment the sergeant discarded his cigarette.
Nice Band Of Brothers reference.
Lol
He was more pissed that he had to chuck his cig.
Daddy was a paratrooper he said the German soldier was a good soldier.
@@robertbarlow6715 My grandad was a paratrooper too, he said his one regret was he didn't get to kill enough Nazis.
That Staff Sergeant: Oh my god! My lighter is out! This is an EMERGENCY!!!
It seems like the germans forgot how to use their grenades in these scenarios...
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
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.
@@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.
darkawakening01 Obviously not my man.
@@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.
Desert Rats vs Rommel's Ghost Division
Allied vs Axis Paratroopers (I just love the Fg 42)
WWI stormtroopers compared
Stormtroopers vs clone troopers
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I READ YOUR BOOOK!!" -General Patton
The fg-42 is sooo sexy
@@michaeltheundeadmariachi4494 O! look at that, the cowboy can read!
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"
"The only problem for the Russians? Theres only 50 rifles to go around."
Sean Person
Aye i saw that in a movie
People really need to stop getting all their history from enemy at the gates
The rest have submachine guns
Why tf would Germans fire at Germans?
"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
Audie Murphy....'Hold my beer a minute......'🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Question, isn't the attacking force expected to take more casualties than the defenders?
What a great comment! I don't think I'll bother watching the video!
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....🤣🤣🤣🤣
You see and no offense, that's not something a colorprole would have accecese too.
When schultz forgets the grenades in paris
😂😂😂
Mein Gott Schultz! You had von job!
* sad hitler noises *
Dammit Schultz
Guess they did NAZI that coming?
I would like to see a weird comparison:
The Avarage Union Soldier Vs The Avarage Confederate soldier in the American Civil war
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
I'd give early to Confederates but late to the Union
Union was highly industrialized compared to Confederate. No question there. Result will be the same.
@@Spongebrain97 Nah by 1862 the Confederates were still superior. 1863 is when the Union became their equals and better
@Netluxe TV I think we can count the Texans as “ professional” units lol
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
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.
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.
Anecdotes are useful but you can’t completely rely on them
Hello World umm the Chinese Indians British Australians and nukes helped Japan empire and America one on one America would lose the pacific war
Hello World also ussr joined in too
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.
the m1919 was not a standard squad weapon but a platoon weapon. so it makes sense it did not appear in the video
yeah it wasnt standard issue for an american squad
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.
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!
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
@@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 :)
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.
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
@@TheArmchairHistorian I would definitely be interested in the way this simulator works.
@@TheArmchairHistorian Would it be possible if the code was open sourced? I am curious to see what it looks like.
bruh rimmy really pulling up he said its an opinion at the start it was just a simulation they did not a scientific report.
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.
"...he throws away his cigarette...", "...the squad leaders matches are wet..." -- You guys did a damn good job!
Yeah a damn good job in doing some Hollywood version of a Fighting situation
"The squad leaders maches are wet" That one cracked me up pretty good
I’d like to see a French vs Germans in 1940 or a Japanese vs Americans in 1941-45
Full Tilt Boogie well yes but actually yes
Full Tilt Boogie they had a good reason to surrender.
@Full Tilt Boogie America never fought a 100 year war you clown
I think German troops easily Win against French and Japan probably loses against us troops because of equipment
@@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.
“And the squad leaders matches were wet, which made the predicament far worse.
~Griffin Johnsen 14:25
The wet matches increases the predicament 10 fold
@@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"
2:14 this guy casually shoots backwards over his head
Pretty gangster
What does the US infantry have in common with the US mafia...…? lol
That was a funny comparison.
That's Random Bullet McGee from Chicago's Southside. The guy was a maverick at cold meat making.
AOT refference?
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.
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.
@@crumpetcommandos779 true.
I like the Carbine however from experience of those I've spoke to they hated it because the weapon was sometimes ineffective and crap
@@crumpetcommandos779 The M2 Carbines glory days were in the Korean War. Some of my friends carried it
@@Voucher765 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
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
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?
That's my favorite game. We used the editor to get screenshot references for our artists.
@@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.
@@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.
@@bridgehater5101 you really gonna complain free content ? Wtf bro
I would love to see US Vs USSR squads in period of Cuba missile crisis
i want 1962 cuba and 1985 heartland america
Yes
Us relied on air support and helies. Soviets were still using more numerous men
amani
Just call in Air Support and bomb most of the Soviets into oblivion and then take out the rest.
Sasongko Productions precisely
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.
Stay out of this Frenchie
i was expectating that the germans use grenades, just like the americans.
But it seems like they were short in supplies.
@@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.
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.
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.
Company of Heroes
Germans with kar98:
keeps distance while firing.
Germans upgraded with mp40:
BANZAI!!!
Volksgrenadiers*
@@nahyeahwhatsahandle he didn’t mention coh2
imagine how amazing would a strategy game made by these guys, especially with that art style
The MS game Close Combat would be your best bet. Give it a shot!
I had an uncle who served in the British 6th Airborne (Gliders) and was made a POW during the Ardennes Offensive, a.k.a. “The battle of the Bulge”. He related the incident to me and it transpired that his unit was attacked by a unit from the Waffen SS. He said they were the most professional soldiers he had ever seen. He did not like them but acknowledged their efficiency. The last he saw of his jeep in that incident was it being dismantled by a 20mm flak cannon. He also said that the only thing that truly scared him was the Mg42 and saw his friend torn apart by one. There is little question that the German soldier was a formidable foe and it was only the strength in numbers and the unavoidable attrition that eventually beat them.
The way he is standing at 1:15 makes it look like a character select screen
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.
IM HIT IN THE HEAD
IM HIT IN THE STOMACH
MY MATCHES ARE WET
Should've brought some extras..*GODDAMMIT!*
Mom's spaghetti
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.
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.
Is that inline with german doctrine at the time? And is there any modern doctrine that would support this idea?
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.
The rifle is capable the average infantry man is not. In which environment do you have a bell tower?
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
Omg....you actually demonstrate understanding of the difference between clips and magazines. Nice.
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.
Whoever wrote this must have been playing csgo with an ak
Wouldn't it be something like "Draufhalten (und Beten)"?
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.
@@danilovega2029 If you are talking about suppressive fire than it would be Unterstützungsfeuer
@@def3ndr887 you are probably a silver noob
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.
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.
@@Voucher765 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
@@ringwraithdestroyer Pretty sure only the Waffen SS divisions used them kinda wide spread.
@@kimjongun1348 Volksgrenadier squads also used STG44s, but on an infantry level they were a mixed bag.
@@IHateRUclipsHandlesVeryMuch Gotcha.
"German superior training"
Meanwhile 1944 German squad irl: child soldier NCO, cause all experienced NCOs died at Barbarossa.
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.
WOAHH BRO he still had to keep most of his troops in the east
@@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.
@@woahhbro2906 and so what.... allied air superiority wipes them out ;)
@@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".
One of the best history channels I have stumbled upon recently, the style of it, the showcase of weapons is all favorable and unique. Keep doing what you do.
A squad of Emus vs a squad of the Australian army 😂
Someone knows his history here 😁
The emus would win. No competition.
Emu is too OP
The Aussies have never being able to live that one down.
I won't sleep until I get to see this!
What about the Soviets? Next video idea?
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.
@@kuratr This is incorrect. Soviets had tricky and efficient tactics.
@@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)
@@kuratr You'd think that, but Russia is by far superior in winter offensive.
@@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.
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
In Normandy, a lot of the German units weren't even German.
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.
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
@@silentecho92able Correct, and even in this case the Africa Corps were hardly comparable to the full armies of Barbarossa
What about the Battle of the Bulge?
When you eliminate the outside advantages the allies squads had you ignore the realities of ground warfare as it was.
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.
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.
Grenades arent typically used when your defending a spot. Which the germans were in all scenarios
@@plugmanjohnson7456 The Stielhandgranate was both an offensive and defensive hand grenade though.
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)
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.
you guys know, that the germans also hat little things called grenades? xD
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.
@@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
didn’t the krauts have Gewehr 43 and STG 44’s as well?
@@Munibahmad241 Not commonly.
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
The quality of this production is absolutely impeccable
It keeps getting better and better
Murphy’s Law : If your advance is to good to be true, chances are you are walking into an ambush...
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"
The direct translation of "spray and pray" sounds a bit cringey in German, though.
“And the squad’s commanders matches were wet making the situation even more dire”
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
Your assertions seem overly broad, simplistic, and dubious concerning a conflict as complex and sprawling as WWII.
@@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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
Germans were formidable, but they had the advantage primarily of defending in the later stages, but still lost the war.
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.
@@thecosmoreaper4336 the difference in effectiveness was there attacking and defending. Pls re read the quote. So your point being?
@@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.
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".
German Panzer units against British tank units [no infantry]
map: Africa
Ded
Yeah, i think the answer is quite obvious) Our British tanks were utter crap.
@@wellardme The Desert Queen though
@@wellardme They made some pretty solid ones towards the end of the war, The MkVII Churchill for example or the Comet/Firefly, in fact it is thought that the firefly was one of the few tanks capable of penetrating the frontal armour of the king tiger (citing the curator of the tank museum) but there were some more questionable ones towards the beginning of the war for sure. The main reason for such high casualties in Africa was due to a lack of coordination with the infantry.
Tacticalsquad 5 early during the war British tanks were on a par with the vast majority of German armour and superior in many ways, it was just the British doctrine which was flawed. The majority of German tanks used in the Battle of France were Panzer I and II which even at the time were considered obsolete. It was testament to Blitzkrieg tactics that the German offensive was so successful despite the poor quality of their armoured force.
These polygons look like maps from men of war assault squad 2.
They are! :)
@@TheArmchairHistorian The whole episode was taken off of Deadliest Warrior
@@TheArmchairHistorian someone said MoWAS2
@@theShermanator Wow
@@theShermanator I love your CoH plays
8:54 Ah a classic manouvre; one that brothers in arms players will remember fondly. The three F's folks. Find, fix, flank
people rememer ^_^
Das MG42:"...und setzt den willen unseres Führers auch auf distanzen von bis zu 1100 metern durch."
The BAR:"...sorry krauts, but our boys won't be visiting GI Jesus today!"
Die MP40:"...im zweifelsfall, truppführer, sprühen und beten!"
The Thompson:"...good old chicago typewriter..."
The scriptwriters for the weapon instruction videos are legends 🤣🤣🤣
“I’d like to talk about our sponsor...” >>>>>>>>>>>
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.
Just give them the money
ssshhhhh that's a secret we all know and exploit but we can't let the marketing departments figure that out.
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 RUclips premium for a smoother experience
😆😆
A German Wehrmacht soldier vs a brave American GI. Today we will settle.
WHO
WAS
THE
DEADLIEST WARRIOR!
I miss that show.
Same
A person of culture I see, miss that show
ye the Americans came when all the expierienced german soliders died in the east
@marco conti The Americans were also kids, and for a matter of fact D-DAY consisted of of eastern front veterans.
While the info about the M1A1 Thompson is correct, the one illustrated is actually an M1928A1.
Griffin I would love it if you did a remastered version of this video
So the germans didnt have any handgrenades?
Yes they even didn't have a semi automatic rifle too
not a lot. becouse limited resource.but nazy technology is number 1
@@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
balance: removed the grenades of german army, to make this vedio more balance
nope they don't they were issued stones instead and still didn't use in this simulator i guess.
Its nice to see an army comparison that doesn't involve a Russian sock puppet.
Binkov’s Battlegrounds?
Lmao
German soldier:no! you cant just shoot me while I cycling my 98k
US soldier:haha my garand go bang bang semi-automatically
PING!
interesting to see the influence of the MG42 being very common in just about all forms of WW2 media, the visual of german soldiers in a defensive position using MG42s is iconic
British vs German (Either world wars) seem like an interesting matchup. I'd be surprised if this channel did neither in this new series.
boomgoesblitzhound I think it’s more about who had more of an advantage than how frequently it happened in history
Simple History did a similar video about Germans vs Brits although it’s about gear and only 1939, ruclips.net/video/dwoKTe19etI/видео.html
@boomgoesblitzhound yes and there were many engagements between the Americans and Germans in WW2, but here we are.
boomgoesblitzhound obviously that happened a lot but the British are often over shadowed by the Americans in late ww2 and id’e love to see one comparing the two
@boomgoesblitzhound don't insult another one just because he/she asked for something you don't find interesting
Everyone Knows that you should NEVER put all your eggs in 1 basket
Germany: **Let's focus solely on the MG-42**
Well, it worked at the beginning of the war.
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.
ahhh but what if they had TWO MG-42's per squad
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.
James R Or imagine a squad with 1 MG42 and the rest are armed with StG 44’s
I would argue that the Americans had a disadvantage seeing as the Germans were usually on the defence.
True
And when the German did try to push they lost
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.
All good points
@@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.
3:23 to skip ad
wrong!
American squads would called artillery strikes and remove that town from the map.
*FACT*
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."
This is why the simulation called for NO outside interference. Pay attention.
And then bypass it i think
@@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
Grenades dont make a giant plume of smoke/dust large enough to conceal an entire section...
I think it was a smoke grenade
@@dorrion4x237 before that armchair historian said an actual grenade made a huge plume of smoke, which they dont.
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
@@dorrion4x237 yeah but the plume disappears soon after, a smoke grenade creates a plum of smoke that would actually conceal movement
@@dorrion4x237 AN ENTIRE SECTION. Obviously they kick up dirt. It's an explosion.
Really liked this style of animation! Well done! Liked your background in the office too 😂😂
M-1 Garand rifle, "The greatest battle implement ever devised." quoted by Gen. Patton.
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.
Couldn't agree more ...
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.
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
Agreed But add to "Hitler's Ego" "Oil Crisis"
Yes. Conventional war in the end comes down to numbers.
Damn man, I just got to see the end but was blown away but the effort and quality put in!
"won't be visiting GI Jesus today" idk why but that had me dying😂
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 🙂
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
Damn... the quality on this video is stunning! The animations, the new “studio” and camera quality! I’ve been with you since the very beginning and it’s amazing to see how much has the channel grown and professionalized :) congrats and keep it up!
“Our boys won’t be seeing G.I. Jesus today”
STORMIU , Hah 🤣
I’m already loving this new series!
Don't forget - Hans with Flamethrower
Germans had also Handgranades
Germans was not always sitting down and waiting for enemy's attack...
And...many of German soldiers at this time was 5 years in action - battle experience is more important then training. 🤷♂️
This is also the reason of kill ratio. Check the numbers.
@@KarsonNow Mate, that was 9 months ago, I get people are pissed due to some inconsistencies but we should just let go fo it.
This formet throw me in thos days where I watched "Deadliest Warriors", thet TV show was popular in my country, the memories.
Man I used to get so pumped to watch that after school was I was 16-17,good memories
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?'.
Well, looks like the channel name checks out
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.
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.
ruclips.net/video/2VLHW19BIfs/видео.html
@@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 :)
@Jack Freeman a 1.15:1 casualty ratio is pretty awful ratio when you're on the defensive...
@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.
@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.