I like your history content it cool

The thing is frosty one both of the German, werchmat , and German empire, never use shotguns in war, because it was a direct violation of the war rules, and even protest against shotguns

Please continue this series, it's not only funny but also very informative

The biggest inaccuracy is censoring the swastika. Like come on dude it's apart of history, and don't give me the "youtube will take it down crap" it's in a historical context so it's allowed. Even if it does get demonetized i'm sure you'll be fine money wise. I love your videos but you need to stand up for yourself/the historical community. Like you said, if you're going to censor it at least be consistent

AND THE PSSH IN D DAY DUDE

And before that cod WaW did miles better than both games but ig we are talking about golden era treyarch

vanguard was very Woke so it was bad anyway

**6 years later** *This game (Vanguard) might not be very historically accurate but it does WAAAAY better job at portraying World War 2 than (insert new CoD WW2 game) did*

@@sooryan_1018 I stopped playing further modern CoD because of WWII and Vanguard.

Fuck any Game set in WW2 depicts the war better than vanguard.

Love the part when the Wehrmacht stopped for cluckin bell on the way to poland

US Sargeant Massive S. Moke One of the best soldiers in the war A true hero And a homie

"Don,t be a busta, private!"

Its called "historical accuracy" not "ehh...close enough"

Train go Boom!

Their you mean🤓

They could've hired a history consultant for these with the money they got from the loot boxes.

They were using Microsoft edge

@@_MaZTeR_ I dont think CoD are supposed to be historically accurate in the first place.

They are​@@Garother

I mean don't blame the Germans blame the creators for being absolutely stupid while making them

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Just emagine what it sounded like on d-day

@@animegeek-qz1rmnow I feel EVEN worse for the soldiers

It is funny because generally video game are buffing guns stats not smurfing them😂

U ruined it for me

Ball Turret gunner is a B-17 no matter what tho

@@alixon5009Luftwaffe did capture a few B-17s during the war.

@@josephhelgersonjoseph6115 yeah the Germans pretty much captured anything they could. Still worth pointing it out though.

​@@josephhelgersonjoseph6115they were ballin, but at what cost?

Oh cool, they did the bare minimum of what I'd expect them to do.

Yeah. Homie has a real "sticking to the TO&E" problem and making absolute statements based on that. Were they common? No. But not improbable. You'd be amazed how many service members uhhh.. "tactically acquire" equipment that isn't issued or issued in small numbers.

@@heroinboblivesagain5478yeah, I like these videos but this guy doesn’t give the context of “suspending your belief to have a fun time” I liked WW2, it had a good campaign and a decent multiplayer. Vanguard is ass so that doesn’t count, but for others who cares if there’s a few inaccuracies that doesn’t take away from the war itself?

Volkssturngewehrs and Revolver shotguns in Japan? Absolutely whack. Seeing weapons like the T-34/85, Tiger II, Owen SMG and other small arms early in the war while predating their existence? Also whack. People using equipment from other countries they should not have, like the M2 flamethrower in German hands in Stalingrad? Whack af. The existence of the AS-44 (which iteration I can't recall, most of the early models for the prototype only weapon had a bipod so guessing later version) is already whack but seeing it at Stalingrad 2-3 years before it's development, much less the development of the 7.62x39mm round used for the SKS and eventually 1945 RPD is cool for multiplayer but I excusable in campaign. Stuff like that, I agree with frosty 100%. But the "there was just 100 Falschirmjaeger at Stalingrad, why are there FG-42s?" Can kind of be explained and if you see COD as a movie you experience, the idea of "oh we've got T-34s out here" but they're using the 85 variants is silly, but kind of understandable in some of the games as the 85 was iconic, sexier, and is more easily identifiable. So it makes sense why the game devs would choose it and save time on getting the right versions out, they're trying to communicate "they had T-34s attacking." The TIGER-II in Stalingrad was dumb for WaW since the Panzer IV would have been more iconic and actually used, but a lot of the decisions can be explained by the prioritization of cinematic value over historical precision. I disagree with that philosophy, especially since they grab more interesting and compelling FACTUAL stories and replace it with Hollywood garbage is dumb. Like I know the ideas are "go with what's cool" and "are we really going to delay game launch to make certain that we're using the correct variant of this vehicle? Will anyone notice?" has likely been said a good amount by the devs, especially considering the fan base for a long time were casual players who cared more about "which gun is best/looks coolest/fits the national load out I'm going for?" In multiplayer. But I feel like we could have very EASILY wrote better stories while being total plebs or, in my and many others cases, went to Uni and took classes covering the war and even have discussions about how their equipment changed overtime as armies modernized. Soviets using more semi-auto rifles as they were trying to do since the mid-1930s with a lull between July 1941 early in Barbarossa where Mosins and PPSh-41s were cheaper and the AVS-36 was entirely phased out after the winter war. There are ways to introduce weapons into the game, like if we had been the first Australian units being given the Owen SMG in a warzone at the start of a mission and everyone is like "the fuck is this?" or playing Soviet units retreating into the Soviet Union, grabbing weapons from caches and finding the phased out AVS-36 in a stockpile. There are ways we could see weapons introduced to our units, having some missions being purely defensive like Kursk where we have enemy tanks firing at us with MGs without being able to hit back and forced to pull back. We're always advancing in COD when defensive missions with scripted moments to pull back would be accurate and make sense. Having weapons introduced to units and even having NPCs commenting on them like "oh, you got an M1?" "I think that's the M2." "What's the difference?" "That one can fire full auto and semi-auto, it's supposed to be for paratroopers. Must have been mixed in by mistake? We've got .30 carbine ammo so it should work fine." Or if they explained "this is an alt-history version of the war, that's why we're seeing these unique weapons. Lore-wise the AVS-36 did well but the recoil made it less effective so the Stavka commissioned for a similar type of weapon using an intermediary round." Something g like that would be interesting and justify the existence of these proto-type weapons, it wouldn't be what we wanted but it COULD work if there were historic campaigns with alt-history ones akin to Red Alert where COD is like "so this is what it was like for real, kind of. But right next to it is the story we WANT to tell with the cool stuff we never saw in the war." There would be room for creative freedom and the ability to showcase stuff for multiplayer. But as COD is, they either make generic garbage for a campaign while white washing history, or they feel like it's a waste of time and resources to give us an authentic experience. And while it's entertaining to watch Frosty dissecting everything wrong, mostly being right a out their choices are either silly to bother over or know they have a deadline from Activision. We shouldn't worry about drum mags when we should be saying "he Enfield had 10 rounds, it would be neat to press reload to get that full 10 while keeping the 5 optional" or "be accurate about the stories you tell while stepping away from the Western front for once. Maybe have Chinese campaigns for Chinese and Czech weapons for multiplayer, having an alt history campaign that unlocks prototype weapons like the AS-44 or even the modified aircraft browning HMG by marines in the Pacific to offset the disadvantages of. The standard issue hardware with very slow firerstes. Have flamethrowers in multiplayer that clear places out while risking instadeath from an enemy hitting your flamethrower

There’s a photo of the First Ranger Battalion soldier with an M1928 Thompson with a drum mag and I’m pretty sure the photo is dated to either 1943 or 1944 in Italy.

@@ThisIsBoogieJar “suspending your belief to have a fun time” Yeah sure that's great. But did you read the title of this video? I think you're missing the point here. No one ever said you're not allowed to have fun

This comment made me laugh 🤣

+ everything is accurate😂

I am literally shidding and also farding in my pant rn. Fr fr on God on gang on Gucci fr fr 💯 💯 💯

That's on God. Namean? Ya hurd? Fr fr fr 💯

@@Toy1err/Ihadastroke Oh wait, reddits dead, oh well. *YOU HAD A MASSIVE FRICKING STROKE*

GUN IS GUN

Unlikely though, The Army still had the M1928 alongside the M1A1 in Europe and in the Pacific

​@@CrossOfBayonneif something is entirely possible then it's not an inaccuracy

@@calebbarnhouse496 The nazis could have liked anime

@@calebbarnhouse496 Just bc I could have happened doesn’t mean it is accurate JFK COULD have been a nazi

@@WhatsUp-fe8jc the nazis as a group couldn't have liked anime as K-on wasn't released yet.

Yeah that's such a bad point. Is the campaign supposed to take months to complete? That would be awesome but it's ridiculously unfeasible.

Play Arma III, you will see how that can be done

@@lollikabosso.w.n7153 Arma 3 is a simulation game.

@@Samm815Just ignore him, people like that will demand realism even in a Mario game

Looks like I found the only enclave of people who did not support one of the inaccuracies.

I mean if you watch his WAW video, this game and it are around as historically accurate as the other. WAW had some huge flaws that no one ever talked about while the COD of late is lambasted over things WAW got wrong too.

@@ramblingsofadash5159 the difference is we have a bit higher standards now, along with newer games trying so hard to market based on historical accuracy. Kinda leaves a bad taste

@@Tman2bard If you have higher standards for a series which is now a mostly multiplayer that now uses the singleplayer as a place to copy over multiplayer assets for quicker dev time I don't know what to tell you. My standards for call of duty have dropped to understanding that it isn't a Historically accurate gaming series but a power fantasy FPS. If you believe the marketing, you are being swindled. Stop believing marketing. Never believe marketing. Call of duty is what it is now because they found out like EA that brand equals money. That people will pre order and buy their games day 1. Why fix bugs when you can fix it after release. People will complain but they still bought the game and most likely will keep the game and buy the next game. I personally don't understand how you would have higher standards when call of duty is a cash grab because people who yell, scream, and bitch the most are the ones who spend the most on their games. TLDR: if you go to little caesars, don't expect to get real italian sauce.

@@ramblingsofadash5159 I can agree to that. Truly. WaW doesn't feel off with it's inaccuracies as WW2 and the others does. Idk if we just have a stick up our asses or there is something more egregious with the recent releases.

@@Tman2bard To me WW2 doesn't feel off. Everything in it is in the realm of possibility tho at times very exagerated. The PPSH caused so much bitching and moaning when WW2 came out to then find out that it was in fact historically accurate. Exagerated but accurate. The concentration camp was bitched about because it didn't go far enough. Which to me shows that Mainstream AAA Gamers just want to complain. Their standards are too high and to me should just be ignored for what they are asking of TODAY's AAA industry. An industry they create by not speaking with their wallets but with their keyboard. Vanguard on the other hand is a perfect game to look towards as a standard for bad historical accuracy. It is not of this reality or the reality of world war 2. A 4th reigh is possible. There are Stgs in japan years before they even existed. Fake characters to be awarded the achievements of real people. (Don't get me started on the disrespectful quotes when you die). It is a game that without knowledge of WW2 looks fine but with just a bit of knowledge the whole thing falls apart. It is so far out below my standard which is low for COD. YET its fun. When you turn your brain off and just focus on the gunplay and gameplay its fun. It shows how much they focus on the gameplay because they sell the game by its multiplayer.

The mission took place a couple weeks after D-Day.

​@@alixon5009I think you've missed the point dude...

@@CrispyPratt What exactly? He's saying on D-Day, not after.

There were aircraft in Normandy (or nearby), but the only ones to fly over the beaches on D-Day were FW-190s

I believe this mission takes place during Operation Cobra but idk if more aircraft were moved to Normandy during this time

I don’t own a Garand so maybe you can confirm but I have heard that soldiers would hold the bolt back with the edge of their palm while inserting a fresh clip specifically to prevent it from slamming forward and giving them “Garand thumb” which would then require them to manually drive the bolt forward

​@AustrianPainter420_waste of oxygen

@AustrianPainter420_ yeah we know you finished yourself, no need to tell

@@pizzaeater56 💀

Is this comment a joke? I don’t get it.

Eh not really. He criticizes a lot of things that were done for gameplay. Like the fire rate of the MG. If it actually had a realistic fire rate then it wouldn't be balanced.

and to be fair, waw does the same thing as well

@@gabeanddave7904yeah but WaW’s M1 had reasonably smaller iron sights.

i could bet that there was this one house in normandy full of houseplants and they saw this as a trivia and decided to outfit entire unit with woodland camo

​@@ryszakowyWoodland camo?I highly doubt

"If I don't move, ze American von't see me"

At least its not vanguard💀

I mean, its cod. They care more about the gameplay and realistic details then the accuracy most of the time

@@anomalousmemer5524 no its just sledge hammer xD

Cause Sledgehammer is devoid of historical integrity and attention to detail. I’ve been saying they should be demoted strictly to a support studio.

​@@anomalousmemer5524Dude World at War which was made in like 2007. had less inaccuracies then WWll

Shout out the pph in world at war, that was a monster

@@ThisShitIsDumbAndYouKnow my favorite gun in that game.

It's completely for balancing reasons because people would complain heavily about the guns being too good otherwise. Common thing in triple A games and usually the devs cave

@@thedarkspawnshooter3717 i know lol. Basically guns too op in real life that they nerf them hard. Shotguns say hello.

@@mayteexxis rip to shotguns. My favorite weapons lol

Things like this that are obviously decided for gameplay reasons make sense, from a developer's point of view. But when lumped into the steaming pile of crap they tried to pass off as "historically accurate", you've got to wonder if things like this were decided for gameplay reasons, or because they didn't know better.

Fun fact, the reason the rear sight is small, as well as on many other guns even today, is to limit the amount of light getting through the sight, allowing for the user to see it's target better in bright, high contrast environments

@@Maria_Erias There is no wondering. For years, CoD and other FPS games alter sights to make then actually usable for gameplay reasons.

Fr. One time I shot a 9mm carbine and the irons were borderline unusable because where you lined it up your target was BARELY visible. If it was on screen it would be about 3 visible pixels💀

@@jthablaiddgit gud

M1928 actually

@@CrossOfBayonne also some 1921 ones also saw action in the war

Shit on the east front they were using bare hands. And slingshots at some points lmao. Wish they taught more about the Eastern front. Really would put war into perspective a bit more than the romanticized western front.

That is true, but I doubt there would be *that many* veteran soldiers still using those helmets by that point.

It's a unertl scope and it was also used in Korea

It was also used on m2 machine guns post war 👌🏼

I'm to much of a wuss to play it on veteran

I played Veteran and it was hard… I went through a lot of rage episodes.

I have a love hate relationship with this campaign. On one hand, it’s pretty inaccurate and has a lot of weird quirks - Red being fixated on the Rhine River from June 6th 1944 to the point of obsession, Red’s unit getting permission to comb POW camp after POW camp for one random private (even going as far as to frame the objective of capturing the Bridge at Remagen as getting across the Rhine for access to more POW camps to find Zussman), or the fact they were too scared to show a concentration camp and ended up trying to equate western front POW camps to the death camps. All that said - it is the last best mainstream WW2 campaign we ever got. BFV and Vanguard were garbage. I also do like a lot of the missions and characters, and the overall story does work for me. I have good memories of this game overall, and I especially view it far less harshly in more recent years, looking at what followed it. We didn’t know how good we had it in 2017 I guess…

I love it too But Pierson should've FUCKING DIED-

​@@zainhussain1420I bet liberation was the easiest

There's hardly any on the older games

@@declangaming24 Same could be thought with World At War, but even It has inaccuracies. Didn't stop it from being a success and creating both the Black Ops timeline and original Zombies timeline, though. CoD 1, 2, 2: Big Red One, and 3 do deserve the equally strict assessment that 5: WaW, WWII, and Vanguard got.

@@martinmethod427 the old ones had unique battles the one where your in French africa fighting Vichy France troops I think you fight Italians as you invade Italy in lots of missions you also fight Germans call of duty 3 had the polish exiled tank squad, playing as a Canadian soldier, a British SAS soldier call of duty 1 had a mission where you and one of captain prices grandads Are on the German ship but he dies at the end in call of duty 2 it's his dad that's my theory. Basically his grandad is in the 1st game his father /dad fights in north africa and in Europe in call of duty 2 the captain price we don't know when was born I would say around 1950 making him about 61 years old by the time of call of duty 4 modern warfare og 2009 MW2 he's 66 years old and MW3 he's 67 but the game goes up to 2027 he's 77 at the end of the game.

Except for Zussman. He's a new guy and his uniform already looks worn out even on the dday landing. Everyone else is fresh out of the dryer.

Thanks! Will do!

​@@TheFrosty_1do rdr 2 next 😊

@@TheFrosty_1 Are you going to make one on call of duty 2. It's my favourite and I think it has the best campaign after mw 1 and mw 2.

They switched a lot of fire rates for the sake of "Balance". A worse example is the fire rate of the Breda mod 30 or the GPMG in the game, it literally have the fire rate of a MG42 when it shouldn't

And the mg 34 and 42

Modern Warfare

I've learnt a lot thanks to the COD games, just not from the games themselves unfortunately😅

Yeah Frosty is a legend! Also recommend History Legends, he debunked some of Battlefield, and some political agendas...

Report this Austrian Painter bot's comments and flag the video it links to.

One thing that kind of pissed me off is the sin where he says “it took minutes in game to take Omaha beach instead of the hours it took in reality” like so? You really want the first part of the game to be 12 hours long?

@@ThisIsBoogieJar I still appreciate the history lesson. I wouldn't want a 12 hour D-Day mission but it's interesting knowing the fact that an operation such as that one can take a long time. I personally thought it had lasted longer.

I think WaW had small sights for some weapons like the Garand, though, and that was fine.

​@@ThisIsBoogieJarPerhaps one could make effective use of time skips here, cutting to key moments in the event and thus showing the player a more condensed form of the landings. Show the first minutes of the first landing wave, show another wave moving up to clear the wire, then skip ahead to breaching the bunkers. Shows all the interesting parts of the battle, but spaced out and giving the player some breathing room.

@@ThisIsBoogieJaryk I had an idea for a video game that would be like that (and just super ambitious with how narrative is presented in WW2 games) but I just couldn’t think of how it would actually work. Like I’d want the game to take forever to complete to elicit that same feeling that soldiers probably had all the time. I just feel like something that really captures the intensity and depth of a war like that would be fun. I think it would also be interesting that if your player character died then you’d get moved to a different character and that other one would be dead for good.

I never noticed that till now. But that's funny as hell

Flung to the moon 😭

At that time it would've been referred to as The World War or Great War. Although the term WW1 was actually in use and then WW2

I will indeed!

Agreed, I will also point out that he said “vast majority of landing craft drivers were British” that implies there are some that are controlled by Americans (which is the one daniels is on)

@@assassinproject5586yeah this person did a major problem that a lot of people have, where they assume a general principle is wrong based on their own personal experience.

Does kids these days not understand what “vast majority” implies? That it isn’t the same as “all”?

I mean, it’s not ‘semi true’ it’s just true, your grandad was just not part of the ‘vast majority’

Ok? The point is still true, the vast majority were british

I still love the train crash scene

🚂 💥

It was first dlc rifle added in the winter siege update, it’s super op and arguably the best rifle in game if you can consistently hit the 550 rpm cap (obviously exaggerated from the real G43)

Full auto volksturmgewehr... WHAT THE FUC..

They can survive a few rounds to the head from an mg42 😭😭😭

Especially 30-06 to THE FACE at POINT GODAMN BLANK, like CMON GAME?!!!?? Jeez

My highest of thanks lad

Yeah he only shot 6 bullets, not 7, you can even reload without shooting 7 bullets by pressing the reload button.

Thanks! Will do!

Having automatic and experimental weapons for both side sure is historical don't you think. but when cod does it everyone loses their minds over it

Battlefield 1 didn't even try

@@bingolos9063 there's a difference between BF1 having few experimental guns that never saw combat and COD going complete batshit crazy with impossible modifcations and bullshit events

​@@1upproductions423Tbh never say that amount of stupidity again, you can easily suspend your desbelief if you are having fun with the game. Battlefield 1 might not have everything accurate, but the cordex and briephings about the history is all there to add to actual historical knowledge of the time period. Making it look like an actual historical game despite having its flaws. You don't need to depict everything as it gets, you need to depict it as how it feels to be in it and the stories that were told to us from that time. So yeah, they did tried.

@@aveteranplayer6403 it was like 4 am when i made that reply and i remember reading a comment about how battlefield respects and has their games always "100% historically correct". And he said "Cod ww2 didn't even try" so i tried mocking him by saying the same thing. I have no idea how this reply got here all i could say is that i replied too the wrong comment. Also yeah no Triple A game actually trys to be 100% historically correct. Its impossible if your trying to appeal to the masses. Also i like bf1.

Yeah, only one bomber and a jet one at that

@@fajagaming5969 could have been a good boss battle. 😂

Why the hell was he so tanky anyway? In every other Call of Duty game, NPCs (including friendlies sadly) die from a single headshot.

He missed the first shot

Not really, like at all lmao

Like evety other ww2 game from the early 2000s, except those games were actually good.

You mean, it started with D-day.... anything else?

It was perfectly timed too

@@MondoCLAPS facts

honestly when first call of duty has you switch mosin nagant for scoped version and not only they do not share ammo but entire clip goes in the gun at once i can accept it ONYL THERE but when a AAA multi billion dollar franchise does that shit it's unacceptable

​@@ryszakowyTbf blame person who didn't know license of gun because similar to MW2 rebooted, Gun wasn't correctly function or even realistic

No, it had only 6 rounds including the chamber, so you're wrong now

That's more with magazines, tubes have a built in shell limit to not destroy the internals

@@cringelord2875 lmao modificators existed at WW2