Using WW1 Tactics in a WW2 Setting in Steel Division 2 

Damn he right.

They used trucks to transport soldiers to the frontlines... (Was in the later part of the war)

So 2?

im not sure if this is a joke about his audience's age or the fact that 99% of comments on youtube recently have been made by day-old bots

The 305mm hunfarian mortar is actually from ww1 austria hungary

they did some real good rp

That's peak experience for somme guy... Aight I'll see myself out...

Goddamnit

I saw this as it happened in the video have a nice day

Affix bayonets for the emperor

yeah that would be cool

Clearly they're simulating the early Eastern Front here, with the masses of unwashed russians and hungarians repeatedly slamming against each other in big columns over the open fields.

interesting i'll take a look

Really? Hmm, I have seen this attitude before, so it should hardly surprise me by now. So let me let you in on a few little facts you are almost certainly not aware of. The German Bewegungskrieg Tactics of WWII? Bewegungskrieg by the way is what the German's actually called what is commonly (and erroneously) referred to as 'Blitzkrieg'. Those tactics were very heavily based upon the Stosstruppen Tactics of late 1917 and early 1918, which were in turn based on prior German reliance on Vernichtungsschlacht. The Germans simply added vehicles to tried and true tactics and adjusted them to take into account the extra mobility and increased requirement for communications because of that increased mobility. There was nothing NEW about the Doctrine however. In other words German WWII military Doctrine was literally BUILT on German WWI Doctrine, with the changes you would expect of a non mechanised force moving to mechanised and armoured warfare. It was not a case of Bewegungskrieg being revolutionary, more a clear and logical development of what was already THERE. Contrary to popular belief most of the Generals tried to avoid their troops dying en masse in attacks. That degrades manpower, and also contrary to popular belief most WWI Generals were not in fact Sociopaths or Psychopathic monsters incapable of empathy. If you actually bothered to look at how tactics evolved and changed over WWI I guarantee you that you would be shocked at how much they did. WWI is literally the birth place of Modern Combined Arms Warfare. The Mud and the Blood of the Trenches is where the principles of Combined Arms Warfare in the modern context were developed. It was a form of warfare that literally DID NOT EXIST before 1914, no matter what many claim. Those Generals had to learn those principles the hard way, and then they had to learn how to apply them. None of them succeeded until 1918 when a mixture of technological progress and the refinement of tactics and doctrines had progressed to a point to allow the new method of warfare to be fully unleashed. And it was, but not in the German Spring Offensives, it was unleashed in what British Historians call the 100 days, from July 1918 - November 1918.... Generally I find those people who go on about lack of tactics or tactical innovation from 1914 - 1918 can write their knowledge of the subject on a postage stamp in crayon. In other words, they are clueless.

@@alganhar1 Man you really snapped about a fucking meme comment. Get outside, stop falling for the same Sargon bullshit you've been falling for your entire life, and just touch some fucking grass.

“But the last thing they would expect is for us to do it twice” the British before the second battle of the Somme

@@dionjaywoollaston1349 Tactics used on the first day of the Battle of the Somme were totally different to those used on the last, FOUR MONTHS LATER. That battle is about more than just the first day you know. And there was no second Battle of the Somme, just as the British never used the tactics used on the first day again, which if you have ever really studied WWI tactics and how those tactics evolved (as I have), you would know. But easier to just fucking stereotype everything than actually LEARN right? Learning is hard, Stereotyping everything is nice and easy, even if it is so much bullshit....

@@alganhar1 i'm sensing this might be personal and i did look up the dates for the battle but i guess i misread them, also buddy i was just making a joke based on a stereotype so i'm genuinely sorry it offended you

@@alganhar1 bro chill will ya no need for anger not every one will feel genuine curiosity about ww1 and ww2 some people would rather just focus on the future then the past

@@alganhar1 bro chill

But atleast women are no more.

Rookie Numbers

Imperium of Man moment

Nice

I think you will find that is utter bullshit, in 1940 the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) was the only fully mechanised/motorised army in the world. Period. Even leg infantry had truck transport. And this is not truck transport attached to the infantry, this is truck transport that was organic to the infantry. You do not fully mechanise an army like that if you are only expecting Trench Warfare. The British concept was actually one of rapid counterattacks to force enemy attacks onto the defensive or break their momentum, NOT on Trench Warfare. Did they get all their doctrine right, nope, they did not, but they were better prepared than the French were, and not even the Germans got everything right. Their own Doctrines were to reveal significant and catastrophic weaknesses later in the war. You would do well to actually learn something about the Tactical Doctrines of a Nations Army during a particular time period before making stupid comments upon said doctrine from a position of ignorance. The Defensive stance of the BEF in France and Belgium was actually forced upon them by the FRENCH whose plan was to fight a defensive war in Belgium. This was made worse by the French High Commands refusal to use Radio communications, preferring telephones or even runners, and their generally less than forward attempts at communicating to their supposed Allies just what they intended or what they wanted the BEF to do. The end result was that the BEF was essentially left in the lurch by French High Command and more or less left to their own devices beyond what relationships they could build up with the local French Commanders in their immediate AO.

@@alganhar1 It was a joke, no need to take it seriously. I am aware that France and their obsessive fixation with the Maginot Line is what led to Manstein's breakthrough. However, I should note Britain did believe the next war would be based around trench warfare with only a handful of commanders fully being able to recognize the importance of tanks and motorization outside of infantry support or logistics.

@@alganhar1 Dropping paragraphs everytime you get upset over a joke must be going good in life

Boomer alert

*nervously sweating as the thicc berta rolls up*

I mean for a single battle yes, but just a day or week of combat that's pretty close

@@kontanaizumi considering that Stalingrad caused 2 mio military casualties within 8 months, if you calculate the death toll of this day's battle up to Stalingrads time span you'd get to over 8 million. So this battle alone would be the most devastating of WW2 or one of the most devastating battles.

the british and commonwealth troops alone lost almost 60000 men at the first day of the battle of the somme. (Though not all of them killed)

@@johgekpoint6299 To be fair thats one of the battles most well known for its casualties

@@andresvalverde5182 Not every battle is Stalingrad Not every battle is Verdun Some are Castle Itter Some are just another Battle in a wider war I'd say the average battle of either ww1 wouldn't be closer to a thousand (rounding up) And the majority of major battles actually had less then 50,000 casualties We're just culturally OBSESSED with major battles that cost over 100,000 lives Like The battle of the Bulge, or Kursk

Our shells will black out the sun.

imagine using a king tiger in this game smh

Thus how I play 'gainst my friends every time, I live off their suffering

Tigers always die to artillery shells, alive or not

Being rushed by french sherman swarms or slowly shelled to death by artillery. The duality of man

What game

@@AceOfBlackjack steel division 2, the same game just different game mode

@@simwish6921 HOW DO I ACTIVATE IT

@@AceOfBlackjack I DON'T KNOW IT'S PROBABLY UNDER THE GAME MODE DROP DOWN THO BRO

​@@umad42TELL ME WHY

Nah. There's a reason they played Axis vs Soviets. This pretty much exactly what the Eastern front was like.

Did škoda produce mortars too??? man this company is wild

@@MartinCech-jb3eh 12” bore mortars at that. Skoda was a major armaments works until really recently, and I think they still produce vehicles for the Czech army.

True you can visit the skoda gun in the Heeresgeschichtlichen Museum in Vienna.

Wrong! Bayonet rules the battlefield!

"All warfare is based" -Sun Tzu

Sounds like a German thing to say

@@lolasdm6959 both

The 🐐 is back

oh god

I second this idea

More like ww1 tactics in Warno. Though, game might be a little too scuffed for that to workbe right now

So... Wonsan Harbour?

Red Dragon has so much potential for comedy rounds, be it a million T-34-85s versus Chaffees, or STRV-103s dug in at a river crossing shooting a wall of BMPs while facing overwhelming artillery.

I will

Spel da houg incowrongly

Hague is where Haig will end up to stand trial for sending all of Lithuania and Latvia to die in one battle

Ratio

Yup

More or less, the thing is proto-WW1 had already happened with the Russo-Japanese War. That war was one of the first "modern" wars where the world got to see and learn what happens when modern armies fight each other. But, some military leaders didn't want to learn. If you're a cavalry commander, you don't want to be told that your arm of the military has become obselete and only serves to die on the battlefield. Which is why many division leaders said the lessons of the war were "unrepresentative"

^

^

THOUSANDS OF FEET MARCH TO THE BEAT