This channel feels like it should have more like 500,000 subs rather then 400...

@BattleOrder

5 жыл бұрын

We'll get there someday 👍

@TheBobwatermellon

5 жыл бұрын

​@@BattleOrder When you get to 1mil+ the first 1000 deserve challenge coins!

@BattleOrder

5 жыл бұрын

@@TheBobwatermellon Good idea

@TasteOfIrony

3 жыл бұрын

45k subs as of Jan '21

@bigmoniesponge

3 жыл бұрын

@@BattleOrder Sadly I wasnt the first 1k to subscribe.

So weird to think of a military so well known for its mechanized elements still using horses and carts.

@BattleOrder

5 жыл бұрын

Even its supposedly mechanized forces (Panzergrenadiers) were barely mechanized. Most were in trucks

@annoyedzebra6362

5 жыл бұрын

@@BattleOrder "You have horses! What were you thinking!?"

@erwin669

4 жыл бұрын

Throughout the entire war the Germans had issues with providing enough transport for their military. Before Barbarossa the German government issued an order that allowed the military to confiscate civilian trucks from Germans and they still were short on transport.

@68RatVette

4 жыл бұрын

@@erwin669 All the vehicles in the world won't help if there is no fuel. The Germans did not have domestic oil but they could make some fuel from coal. Oil fields in Russia and Rumania were overrun. Barely enough fuel for the weak forces that they had, even in good times. Fuel shortages for the KM and the LW too! Who won WW2? Simple answer: Those who had domestic oil or those who could get it. Hmmmm, USA, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union!

@rickwestom5804

4 жыл бұрын

Hay is cheaper then gas still thousand s of pack animals in 1940s ,by then just assualt vehicle s got gas no ,parts for repair

Finally, this channel can explain the military structures complete with issued weapons which I can understand it. Keep it up bro👏

@BattleOrder

5 жыл бұрын

Will do!

Your content could match or even rival prominent military history channels! Here's to hoping you become one of the elite!

@BattleOrder

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you for the praise!

Just found this underrated channel, quality > quantity.

Great overview of the later VG platoon! I use the VG Org for my 28mm Heer platoons. Ideal for Hürtgen Forest, West Wall, Ardennes, etc. Good "Nuts and Bolts" book on the subject is "272nd Volksgrenadier Division, Victory Was Beyond Their Grasp" by Nash.

@BattleOrder

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you! And yep, Nash's book was one of my sources. The video was originally ~6 min longer but decided to cut a lot out to get to the point

@mitchlovesgames7281

5 ай бұрын

@@BattleOrder The Battle of Kesternich depicted in that book is quite harrowing

As always a great video. Can't wait for the next one.

@BattleOrder

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you! It will most likely be on the US Army rifle platoon during World War I

Great intel thank You for sharing and your research 👍

New sub your channel is so underrated

I like this videos they are very concise.

@BattleOrder

5 жыл бұрын

Glad you like them!

I just found this channel. Really good information and great research. A few points about your pronunciation. St makes a "Sht" sound in German, so it's more like "Shturm", z is pronounced much harder more like 'tz' and u (in zug) is more like oo so zug sounds like tzoog" and v is pronounced like 'f', Volksgrenadier sounds like "Folksgrenadier". Keep the videos coming!

Excellent@

@BattleOrder

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you!

K.St.N. 131V roman 5 - Kriegsstärkenachweis - war personal and material table for Platoon, Company, Bataillon

1:56 are those captured American M1, M1 carbines and Thompson SMGs???

@filipeamaral216

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, those were captured during the German counter-attack at Anzio in February 1944. Those men a Jägers from the Hermann Göring Parachute Panzer Division, more especifically, the recon battalion of said division, the Fallschirm-Panzer-Aufklärungs-Abteilung, commanded by Hauptmann Rebholz.

@CrossOfBayonne

Жыл бұрын

I don't see Carbines in that pic but German troops did occasionally capture them from convoys that were ambushed

Dude I swear a month ago you had like 4K subs now you have 10k...

1:38 photo of a guy feeling pretty cool.

aaaah that MoH european assault soundtrack hits my heart and soul

for a WW2 platoon that's a hell of a lot of firepower concentrated in 1 unit.

@robertclark1669

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah man that's what I like about Volksgrenadiers

@jacqueline6475

2 жыл бұрын

It's pretty comparable to the US Rifle Platoon, especially since German troops would use the STG in semi-auto in most scenarios.

@robertclark1669

2 жыл бұрын

@@jacqueline6475 Nice comment

@jacqueline6475

2 жыл бұрын

@@robertclark1669lol wdym?

@robertclark1669

2 жыл бұрын

@@jacqueline6475 It's just a nice comment

I do have a question about platoons in general (not just WWII). Were they entitled to their own utility vehicles or did they depend on the company-level trucks for motorization?

@BattleOrder

3 жыл бұрын

Unless it was a Panzergrenadier unit, horse trains, but moreso the Mark 1 foot is about what the average German soldier could expect. The horse wagon allotted to platoon HQs was mostly for carrying equipment and the platoon leader. It they were put in trucks for like an administrative move, which I'm not sure how often that happened if it did, they would probably be trucks from something much higher up. For example, when a US Army infantry division had to be moved they were usually moved in corps-level trucks

@dudejo

3 жыл бұрын

@@BattleOrder So we could almost say that units were moved around one at a time?

@williamzk9083

2 ай бұрын

@@BattleOrderMy Grandfather was the MG34 gunner. I believe the squad had a wagon to carry its supplies. Apart from the driver one man was allowed to ride with driver for I believe 15 minutes at a time. Everyone else was on foot.

Any chance of seeing info on German Penal Units?

Great video! But I would have liked to see the amount of ammo carried on said carts and by the machinegun teams. I bet it was a lot lol. Since the MG42 had a large appetite for 7,92mm 😂 same with the rifle grenades? How many were carried? Did you find any info on that? Military history visualized has a great video on these grenades btw :) thx for the nice visual support btw!

Great video, but it's a bit weird for me to hear the German words pronounced in English (and I am not even German, but the correct pronunciation is sort of cultural knowledge here in Czechia). Just briefly: "Z" in German makes the /ts/ sound "St" -> /scht/ "e" as in "gewehr" is just /e/ as in "leg" or "pet".

This is great information. I've really struggled to determine just how the Sturmgewehr 44 was issued to units. I'm glad to see info that says whole units were built around it, but units outside the Volksgrenadiers received the Sturmgewehr 44 as well, correct? Does anyone have any info how other units, like the Waffen SS, got these guns?

@BattleOrder

3 жыл бұрын

A shortwhile later (like a couple months) after the Volksgrenadiers were formed Panzergrenadiers were authorized Stg44s at a rate of 1 to 2 platoons per company depending on the organization. Bicycle mobile companies only had 2 platoons, so they only got 1 platoon of Sturmgewehrs. However, there were alternative company organizations that had no Sturmgewehrs (which was most likely what was the prevalent case). Generally even if units did receive them, it was usually only a handful. You'd have to look at surviving weapons inventories of specific units to figure it out probably. The Skijager also got a large quantity of them in early 1944. They also seemed to have had a higher concentration of Gewehr 43s. The 3rd Fallschirmjaeger Divisions also allegedly got a large amount prior to the Battle of the Bulge. By the very end of the war, it seems the SS Regiment Charlemagne also got a lot STG44s by the Battle of Berlin (enough to issue them to all of their rifle squads). Here is a picture of what I assume is bicycle mobile Panzergrenadiers (or possibly Fusiliers) with Stg44s: oi922.photobucket.com/albums/ad61/Mehlsack_2010/FGM/deutsche-soldaten-an-der-oderfront-1945_02250746_p_zpsfevkssx1.jpg~original

@broomhandle3700

3 жыл бұрын

@@BattleOrder Fantastic, thank you very much for this!

@user-lg4mm3mf8i

3 жыл бұрын

From what I have seen in photo's or read in books, StG44's were rather uncommon in regular infantry, panzer or panzergrenadier divisions before december 1944. They appear more often from december 1944 up to may 1945. Although only for units around Germany, Hungary, western Poland. They were probably still uncommon in for example the Netherlands, the Courland pocket or Norway. In pictures soldiers seem to be often armed with a variety of StG's, Kar98k's, MG42's and MP-40's. I have the impression that regular units tried to upgun some of the guys with Kar98k's in the infantry squad with StG44's. But they seem to keep the MG42's and MP40's. The soldiers that are left with Kar98k's often carry extra ammo boxes for the MG or a Panzerfaust. The German and SS squads appear to try to get as much automatic firepower as possible in this late stage of the war. Although even then some guys are still left with Kar98k's. But this is just my opinion based on photo's etc. EDIT: On 1 November 1944 the organization of a Panzergrenadier company was changed. The first platoon become a Sturmzug with 30 StG44's + other weapons. So this was the official organisation for Panzergrenadier units. source Panzer Divisons 1944-1945 Pier Paolo Battistelli.

@Flamechr

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-lg4mm3mf8i yes on the vesteren front but alot of them was given on the easteren front in the summer 1944 to the 78 sturm division the ski jæger and 28 jæger division

@magni5648

Жыл бұрын

Afaik it was first issued as a replacement to the MP40, essentially like 1-2 to a squad as avaiable. There was a few units that received larger amounts of them experimentally. The Sturmzug in late 1944 was the first formalized unit to get large amounts of them and first attempt to really form tactics around the weapon. Production lagged behind constantly so you ended up with uneven distribution and perhaps 1 or 2 Sturmzug's per division on average.

while machine guns used as main weapon for typical German infantry platoons, these units equipping with assault rifles tactically more like American infantry.

@CrossOfBayonne

Жыл бұрын

We had the M1 Carbine which was somewhat equivalent to the German AR but the thing is the STG-44 was meant for use mainly against the Soviets on the Eastern Front hence why the AK-47 was later born, The GIs fighting in the Bulge were not as experienced as the German troops who showed up there hence why they were overrun at first and eventually pushed them back at heavy losses

Invents the assault rifle, still needs a horse drawn wagon to haul their shit around lol

@tiagocosta3542

Жыл бұрын

And so what didn't change that they defeated Britain, France, Belgium, Norway and the Natherlnads in 1940 and then reached Moscow in 1941 and needed 6 years to get beaten literally nothing you say to make fun of them or try to make them look bad will change these facts

@Leonardo_33

9 ай бұрын

bruuuh they did not defeated Britain bozo, please stop being a wehraboo, it's so cringe

hello, i am doing a project and need help. im doing one on the Canadian highlanders (primarily the 2nd division Black Watch). Im trying to figure out squad layout and organization

@robertclark1669

3 жыл бұрын

I don't know that much about the Canadian Squad organization but I can kind of point you in the right direction. They probably had 8 - 12 men in a squad, An NCO With a Sten gun or Rifle, A Bren Gun with assistance, Maybe another Soldier with a Submachine gun, But for the most part it's a squad made up of rifleman (It can be assumed they would all carry a certain amount of ammunition for the Bren gun.

Is that the Medal of Honor Vanguard theme?

@BattleOrder

5 жыл бұрын

Allied Assault but I think they reused it for Vanguard

Can you imagine the kind of carnage units equipped and organised like these would have caused it they had been composed of high quality troops? Even the advantage the M1 Garand gave US units would have been negated, and as for British and Soviet units with their bolt action rifles... Don't misunderstand, I realise that a single infantry weapon wasn't going to alter the eventual outcome, but if they'd had the STG a couple of years sooner, the casualty rates for Allied troops would have been horrific on a whole new level.

@fanta4897

3 жыл бұрын

MkB42 was essentially that (issued in 1942 in Kholm pocket if I remember correctly), but since it was a prototype it was issued in small numbers. But I bet it made a big difference for those people who had one issued to them.

@messageinthebottle1673

3 жыл бұрын

That's why many countries during ww2 fully understood that weapons with better fire power (such LMG and submachine) will eventually become a dominate factor for having a superior army. That's why during the war soviet had very large amounts of submachine gun than any other countries, while America 🇺🇸 arm had the M1 Garand (semiautomatic rifle) as its standard issue weapons. Germany sadly 😔 was very reliant on its LMG and understood that despite its call (light machine gun) its too heavy to be carry for a single person so they try to produce their own semiautomatic G-43 rifle, but luckily they eventually created the STG-44 world first assualt rifle. 🤠

@fanta4897

3 жыл бұрын

@Thirsty Sexpert I find what you say hard to believe due to the fact that StG44 magazines cannot be loaded with stripper clips (you can put its' ammo in stripper clips, but that's about it, it's true that soldiers sometimes carried StG ammunition in K98 pouches and probably in stripper clips, but that was due to lack of pouches and/or magazines, even in this desperate state soldiers had at least one mag pouch with magazines for StG44). When it comes to weight, it was just sightly heavier than Thompson SMG or M1 Garand (with Garand having heavier ammo, mind you) so critique in that area also doesn't make much sense from the point of US. M1 carabine might've been evaluated better, but only for the engagements for which it was made, so shorter range than StG. It's true that it was hard to produce and its' reliability could also be an issue but that doesn't mean that StG wasn't a successful proof of concept. Also it was adopted in several countries after the war so I guess it wasn't that shit. And when it comes to your last example, yeah, no shit that elite units trained even to take on machine gun nests on their own achieved better results with inferior weaponry than a unit which was made up of underperforming personnel. That's not a problem of the gun though, that's a problem of the one behind the gun.

@fanta4897

3 жыл бұрын

@Thirsty Sexpert No, it's you who can't tell the difference between ''carry ammo'' and ''reload''. StG44 magazine is not made to be reloaded with stripper clip, and the gun doesn't have stripper clip guide, it's literally impossible to do it in field (you'd be better off reloading one by one at that point). StG has effective range of 600 meters on semi-auto and 300 on full-auto, M1 carabine has 300 range in semi-auto and it has significant bullet drop. When it comes to magazines produced, your claim is just ridiculous. If that would be the case, why would soldiers even carry pouches for StG magazines if they'd have just one magazine already in the weapon? It doesn't make sense even from the production perspective, it's arguably the easiest thing to produce on that weapon and production of those magazines was conducted from 1942 (from MkB42) onwards so it didn't even start at the point at which there was lack of materials/time for production. I'll simply say that your last claim is bullshit and won't believe it until you find some source to cite.

@fanta4897

3 жыл бұрын

@Thirsty Sexpert Fair enough, didn't know about that, so StG44 mag could be loaded with stripper clip. However it still doesn't prove that they had just one StG mag. As far as bullet drop goes, I'd imagine it would be worse at those 600 meters, yes.

The STG-44 was actually used in large numbers here but the main infantry rifle for most German units at that time even late WW2 was the bolt action Mauser Kar98 carbine, Despite the use of submachine guns and semi auto rifles most of the German soldiers were still primarily armed with that weapon.

You didn’t mention rounds each firearm used

Our armed forces,specifically the marines,styled our platoon and fire teams from the German units.Very effective and maneuverable.

@BattleOrder

3 жыл бұрын

jeb stuart they did not. There is a more direct lineage from Chinese squads, as one of the Raider commanders was doing duty in China in the 30s and noticed the communist Chinese uses squads with 3 “cells” of 3 men. This was for political purposes but was later applied to the Paramarines and Raiders in 1941. The Germans never had a fireteam system like that, nor did the Marines copy putting a belt fed machine gun in the squad

@TrangleC

3 жыл бұрын

@@BattleOrder Now that they are switching to 6.8 mm caliber in order to defeat modern body armor, it might have made sense to instead do something similar to what the Germans did with their regular infantry squads. The 6.8 has a lot of recoil and negates many of the advantages the 5.56 brought when it comes to controlled shooting on the move and general marksmanship, all for the questionable advantage of defeating body armor. I say it is questionable because in a near-peer war between two proper armies, infantry would probably have to go back to more shooting from a prone position and from fox holes and unless they start wearing body armor that covers the face and upper body, I doubt that it will have much impact and be worth introducing a new, bigger standard round with its disadvantages. When you look at those statistics that say that they fired something like 200 000 to 250 000 rounds for every killed Taliban in Afghanistan, it seems pretty clear that it is all about suppression fire now and it doesn't really matter whether a single hit would instantly kill an enemy or not. The bolt action rifles the Germans used in WW2 weren't very good, compared to their British and US counterparts, but that didn't matter because the MG basically did 90% of the fighting and the killing. It wasn't a big deal that the riflemen had sub-par rifles, because they were basically only there to support and protect the MG team anyways. Maybe it would make sense nowadays to put one weapon into a squad that can easily defeat body armor and has a lot of range and volume of fire and let the rifle men keep their 5.56 weapons, which are good enough for self defense and for suppression fire. What I mean is, maybe it would make sense to give up on the concept that every single rifle man has to be a one-man army, equipped for all eventualities.

@magni5648

Жыл бұрын

@@tasjan9190 ...dude? The Springfield is literally the same action as the Mauser. Ugly as sin? It virtually looks the same, beyond minor differences in the upper foreguard and slightly different angle on the bolt handle. And the 1903 fires a *MORE* powerful bullet. British .303 meanwhile is also less than 10% below 7.92 Mauser in terms of energy. And all three rifles were accurate enough that good examples were used as sniper rifles.

These sturmzugs were only used by volksgrenadier and panzergrenadier units then? I thought regular grenader units used them as well

@stephenwood6663

5 ай бұрын

According to the TO&Es of the time, Grenadier platoons were still using the same 3 rifle squad setup that they had at the beginning of the war (albeit with fewer men and an extra smg per squad). I wasn't able to find a TO&E for panzergrenadiers, but it seems that they weren't issued assault rifles like Volksgrenadiers, but used a higher allocation of lmgs (2 per squad according to some sources) to deliver high levels of firepower to where it was needed.

At about 1:30 it looks like that guy is snorting a giant line up his nose.

U brought horses!!!!! Look at u!!!!!

What about SS Rife companys

Why weren't these given to veteran or elite companies? It seems like a stupid waste of precious assault rifles, imagine what a platoon of panzer grenadiers could accomplish with some STG-44s

Germany did not have the oil to fully mechanise they were dependent on horses and hay from beginning of the war till the end of it.

I hsve always heard the term Sturmgrenadier for this type of unit. I believe this was the official name. Sturmzug... Late war slang?

@BattleOrder

3 жыл бұрын

No, Sturmzug is the official name (literally assault platoon). These troops were in the Volksgrenadiers (a different variation were in the Panzergrenadiers). Sturmgrenadier sounds like a generic name (Grenadiers, which in the late war were all infantry, in assault units). Googling it basically all the returns for Sturmgrenadier are from tabletop games or video games. This video uses official terminology

@colinmcdonald2499

3 жыл бұрын

@@BattleOrder thanks for the reply. I went back and looked at this. Clearly Sturmzug is connected with Volksgrenadier units as you nicely chart out in the video. It seems that Sturmgrenadier is a separate unit distinction: members of of Sturmkompanies My exposure to this term did not come first from video games. My obsession with WWII happened from having a Norman Boucage veteran Grandfather and doing analog 1/72 scale model wargaming in the late 80's, which led me to read books :-). Alas, my hard copies of military history books are on a shelf in a different hemisphere. They would be more helpful than google. By a long shot. I recall the Sturmgrenadiers being units going back to 1942. I think the distinction was somewhat different than the upgunned Volksgrenadier Sturmzug you present so nicely. As I recollect the Sturm grenadier units also were issued and trained in things like satchel charges ( Well this is more US military lingo.. The german assault equivalents deployable HE charges for hard points/ bunkers etc.) I believe Sturmgrenadiers also were issued greater numbers of anti-armor weapons as they first came available. In 1942, I think they deployed with german magnetic anti tank charges ( I believe the German obsession with Zimmerit coating on their tanks came from these magnet mines... Which most others didn't adopt ironically). Later the Sturmgrenadier units were among the first to get Panzerfausts before they became vastly deployed ( starting with early Panzerfaust30) Maybe these units were associated with the SS or Wermacht Panzergrenadiers? Sorry, all going from recollections from 15 or years back. I do remember an encyclopedia *Weapons of World War II* that ended up needing rebinding as I would read it in bed .. Haha!

Saying a German squad became useless if its lost its MG is really stretching it. A lot of fights were won by German infantry without the MG playing the most critical role, such as in close house to house fighting, where the MP40 was arguably the best suited weapon of all in the west.

@choiettech

2 жыл бұрын

By the end of the war the average German squad had barely enough men to form an assualt or manoeuvre team, so relying on the MG was probably their only hope.

@magni5648

Жыл бұрын

What, the single MP40 the average squad had? And frankly, it wasn't anything special in room-to-room fighting compared to a Thompson, Greasegun or, hell, even a Sten. The machinegun was the center of the german infantry squad, and provided somewhere around 80-90% of the squads effective firepower.

@4ndroidG

6 ай бұрын

Not useless as infantry. However, if a German squad lost their MG, those soldiers that were left were absorbed into others with an MG. All because of their doctrine. There are other videos here on KZread explaining this bigger picture.

Why were the stick grenades so prevalent with German forces? I've heard they were easier to throw, but were less effective......

@BattleOrder

3 жыл бұрын

The effectiveness is not derived from them being a stick grenade, they're just a different type of grenade from what the Americans used. American grenades could be characterized as defensive grenades that produce a lot of fragmentation/shrapnel. The German stick grenade was an offensive grenade, which didn't produce a lot of shrapnel and used the concussion effect to stun or kill enemies. These were safer for assaults as you'd have less chance of fragging your friendlies who may also be assaulting a trench or a building or something with you, whereas if you're holding a defensive position your friendlies are probably stationary and in cover. Offensive grenades *generally* have more explosive filler but thinner cases (so they don't produce the shrapnelling of the defensive fragmentation grenades).

@dereinepeterpan5637

3 жыл бұрын

Germany also used "normal" grenades, google "Eihandgranate 39" for pictures and more information. They also seem to be the most produced German grenade of the war.

@paxundpeace9970

3 жыл бұрын

@@dereinepeterpan5637 might were cheaper to built.

@andrewmartinez7559

Жыл бұрын

@@dereinepeterpan5637 well you’re wrong. The stielhandgrende was the most common one retard

@dereinepeterpan5637

Жыл бұрын

@@andrewmartinez7559 No.

The feedback, static sounds from 0:15 - 0:27 are rather horrible on the ears with headphones. The video is good, but that was awful.

@freppie_

3 жыл бұрын

Hope you liked it

@TomTom-yc5zc

3 жыл бұрын

Only for you mate

Zug is pronounced similar to "TSOOG"

@BattleOrder

3 жыл бұрын

Fair, I am very unGerman

@paxundpeace9970

3 жыл бұрын

@@BattleOrder Zug

størmzucc

Bruh ak 44

I could only imagine if Germany started the War with Sturmgewehrs. If they did so during the rearming period of the 1930s, this would likely be enough to change the course of history. Given that a Sturmgewehr has similar volume of fire to LMGs and several time of a bolt action rifle, this would allow them to deal with overwhelming numbers, thus, the invasion of the USSR might have gone differently.

@user-YuHaoHuang

3 жыл бұрын

not entirely sure, but facing hundreds of assault rifles per battalion sounds terrible to someone armed with bolt actions and smgs

@primuspilusfellatus6501

3 жыл бұрын

Only a small minority of the casualties in WW2 are caused by small arms. Surely, if the german army was using a sturmgewehr early that number would have changed but it wouldnt be very impactfull and it wouldnt solve germanies problems like a lack of oil and food. Overall, i think that aside from more allied casualties and maybe a slightly prolonged war, not much would change in this alternate history.

@primuspilusfellatus6501

3 жыл бұрын

@Chicken Stealer uhmmm sorry facts are facts, the majority of casualties *WHERE* caused by things other than small arms. And i never said they are unneeded, after all its the infantry which does the pushing and holding. I was just refering to the fact that early STGs prob wouldnt make a difference

@primuspilusfellatus6501

3 жыл бұрын

@Chicken Stealer I know all of that, you seem to think i dont know anything about WW2. Me making a statement about small arms being less important in the bigger picture than other weapons, doesnt mean i know nothing about infantry. I dont have a problem with you sharing knowledge, but it seems you are schooling me on things i already have intensivly studied.

@primuspilusfellatus6501

3 жыл бұрын

@Chicken Stealer once again, i know that too. I think you get me wrong, or i didnt make my point clear, so please allow me to clarify. Small arms arent unimportant, never said that, they are just one of the thousand cogs in the massive warmachines of WW2. My original comment was trying to point out that only having better small arms probaly wouldnt be enough to change the tide of war in favor for the germans.

Why do u think more assault rifles would not have made a difference,it would have.

@BattleOrder

3 жыл бұрын

bryan hurd Germany did not lose the war because it had insufficient small arms capability. It lost the war because it was being bombed by the worlds largest and 3rd largest economies in the west (taking up the vast majority of its air power), it was stretched out, outnumbered 2.5 to 1 and on the defense in the east, it had pitiful motorization, and it was running on fumes with regards to natural resources like oil. Whatever small arm you give to the German Army, they are going to lose badly. Would have individual platoons in some cases maybe have been able to lose fewer people in specific engagements? Maybe. That would not have changed anything in the grand scheme

@bryanhurd9955

3 жыл бұрын

@@BattleOrder Agree.

@theluckyegg3613

3 жыл бұрын

@@BattleOrder The greatest enemy of Germany was guess who? Hitler!

The German infantry was too late even though with this innovative concept thus limited to defense. The US Army was ahead of the game by making the M1 semi-auto rifle as standard issue to their infantry. A base rifle squad had double the volume of accurate fire that of the typical AXIS rifle squad armed with bolt action rifles along with mobile machineguns. The weapons used by the Allied Forces made it superior in terms of firepower that was not the case. What make weapons more effective is employment using more independent command as in fire teams to maneuver and close in or withdraw in order, or flank. Bottom line was tactics. In the infantry its all the basics. Move, shoot, and communicate. Forwards or backwards preserving and economizing your fighting strength is key to flexibility on the battlefield. Combat is team work. Remember the enemy employs the same method when engaging you as well as defense. Murphy's Laws applies.

@doriancanarelli8997

3 жыл бұрын

The soviets won the war not the americans, i think you miss understouds the german tactics it was not the individuals soldiers that was supposed to provide the main sources of fire it was the Mg gunner (Mg-34 but generally it was the Mg-42) that was task with this function. Even with the M1 Garand it havent stop the americans from sustaining defeats & huge casualties,a good exemple of this is the battle of the bulge in the early/midlle stage of the offensive the german managed to gain many victories (KG Peiper managing to capture a sanatorium at stoumont during hand to hand combats the americans loose 4 tanks & half the men of company B & C) another exemple is the ambush of poteau were the 14th cavalry group was completly annhilated by KG Hansen the 16th of décember.

@reddevilparatrooper

3 жыл бұрын

@@doriancanarelli8997 I do agree with you. Tactics alone can't win battles. As Confederate General Bedford Forrest once said "The fastest and the mostest" was his maxim. Meaning if you can move fast striking the enemy thus keeping him off balance, you will defeat your enemy. The German offensive of Belgium was based on this concept. The Americans were on a defensive posture at this time. Mainly infantry divisions digging in and putting up hasty obstacles not permanent ones. Which makes sense for the Americans because it takes time to build those things and that unit has to be ready to advance. You don't want to build obstacles so good in front of you that you will have a hard time if you have to make a tactical retreat or feint to reposition forces to your advantage. For example the Sigfried Line. Patton's Army have breached points to invade Germany in the South until the Germans launched their offensive. Patton had stay behind units pull back from the line and occupy it and watch it. Patton then took 3/4 of his fighting units with him to redeploy into Belgium to fight the Bulge Offensive. In war the enemy has its job to out think you. It's always a two way affair of moves and countermoves like chess. The Germans were very good with reconnaissance and intelligence. Every soldier on both sides contributed to the fight. One unit of men might be decisive in holding the enemy and routing them in the end. Others may find a weakness and exploit that weakness for their side to win. Tactics and weapons no matter if they are superior. The soldier employing those weapons makes or breaks on how their junior leaders and soldiers employ them in combat.

@doriancanarelli8997

3 жыл бұрын

@@reddevilparatrooper i totally agree with you, for instance did you ever heard of the german pocket of Dunkerque (also know as "Festung" Dunkerque) that last to july 1944 up until May 9th 1945 i recomand you to see Mark-Felton video on it.

@reddevilparatrooper

3 жыл бұрын

@@doriancanarelli8997 Yep! I saw that. From my personal experience going back to December 19th 1989 I was still a young Airborne Infantryman in the 1/508th PIR. This was the eve of the Panama Invasion. I was loaded down with an M-60 GPMG with a full rucksack with 1200 rounds of 7.62mm ammo, 5 quarts of water, 6 MREs, poncho, spare trousers, 3 socks, E-Tool, short machete, bungee cords, snap link with a 12 foot rope, PVS4 night scope and mount for the M-60, spare batteries, and PVS-7 early generation personal night vision with head harness, Air Items for jumping in via parachute, and 2 quart canteen. Plus PASGT Body Armor and helmet, with LBE loaded with 4, M67 hand fragmentation grenades, 1 MRE, 100 more 7.62mm, M-9 pistol and 2 magazines and another 50 round box of 9mm ammo. My body was being crushed from the weight and the pain as I landed on the ground via helicopters during the Air Assault. Paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne and a Ranger Battalion jumped into Tocumen International Airport had to jump into combat and take the place down with heavier equipment on their bodies with main parachutes and reserve. A combat jump like this has not been done since 1944 in Holland just only for the 82nd Airborne, and Grenada for the Rangers in 1983. My tour of Iraq from 2006 till 2008 as an infantry squad leader/Platoon Sergeant. We carried more ammo plus food, water, batteries, and night vision because of the lessons of the Ranger companies and Delta Force that fought in Somalia. During pre-deployment training we all watched it at least 10 times. Those lessons were learned Army infantry wide for Iraq and Afghanistan for infantrymen deploying there. Have more than equipment just in case you get cut off from your unit. Have more ammo to fight with, have more batteries for your communication really important, water and food for at least 72 hours with stripped down MREs, Chem lights for marking. Think on your feet as an infantryman just to survive. I hate to admit but you might die in combat to save your squad or platoon so that they will survive. As a squad leader in a platoon, you will have the same fate in combat if you are cut off from all help and support. You as a squad leader have the responsibility to give orders and fight along with your squad and platoon in order to survive. In training you will sweat in gallons and know your drills will save more lives in combat which will cost more in blood and dead bodies of your own side. Like I said, "The enemy will always try to out think you no matter what to achieve victory. Either to kill all of you or set you up.". There are no clear intentions of what the enemy is up to but to only keep you guessing. A guerilla war or insurgency is not designed for a victor to gain ground but the enemy to make you think that they are winning against you just to make more casualties through attrition so that your own public will gain against you. Very classic since the late 1950s to the present time. Many Communist guerilla movements have been present till this day in Asia, South America, and the Middle East etc. The only way to exterminate this is to have the population and the county behind you back you up. Otherwise it's futile because people as human beings seem to sympathize to movements even turning a blind eye to atrocities committed against their own people for being personal enemies. I have seen this in Iraq because of tribal or family loyalties. Thus divide and conquer becomes and effective tool for insurgents.

@doriancanarelli8997

3 жыл бұрын

@@reddevilparatrooper intresting,thanks for sharing you're personal experiences.

Can you please at least pretend to try to pronounce names correctly? It is like 3 words, not so hard. This ripped my ears.

Hard to listen to. Please learn how to pronounce German. Thanks.