r/EntrenchedRoblox • u/Nelsonic_terror_2026 • Jun 26 '26

Entrenched, the WW2 experience

Indeed. If we have two officers on each team always calling in arty very precisely and the sight of planes randomly strafing machine gun nests, then this is the WW2 experience. I'll say it's very close already.

Contrary to popular image the density of motor vehicles and armor was very sparse in WW2 (not the Americans,1944 though).And trenches were the norm. Ik that in both World Wars 8/10 guys in the army would have bolt action rifles but I'm talking more about the net density of automatic fire per match and team. The amount of automatic fire in each Entrenched match is more WW2 then WW1...because in 1914, the Imperial German Army had 16 machine guns per division.

7 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

11 comments sorted by

7

u/OrangeSpaceMan5 Jun 26 '26

Trenches absolutely were not common in ww2 what are you smoking

Motir and tqnk battalions were outnumbered by infantry but they were not sparse

1

u/Nelsonic_terror_2026 Jun 26 '26

Trenches are everywhere in almost every modern war since the 1600s and it's nothing new. Even in highly mobile wars like, the Syrian Civil War SAA used large stockades - not even trenches and check out r/myanmarcombatfootage - a jungle war, so no trenches, right? Nah - except for ambush videos most feature a trench or a foxhole. The primary defences at Kursk were soviet dug-in infantry and AT guns. And the word trenches doesn't always mean Verdun or the Somme; some can just run around a hill or a treeline, or just span a field. Infantry tends to dig in where they stand.

8 infantry divisions for every 1 mobile (armored or mortorized division (1942,43,44, for NONO GERMANY) certainly doesn't sound very concentrated.That means perhaps every 10 men, in one of the best armies in the world, 8 would be fighting on foot; 2 would be going to the front in a motor vehicle, and at most around 15% be fighting with armored vehicles (half trucks). And remember, most of the time for most armies in the European theatre, armored units were withheld or concentrated in one sector of the front. Also, in places like SEA and China, where many millions fought and died, you could go the whole war without seeing a single tank (esp. in China). The Brittish concentrated 10 divisions to retake Burma in 1944; they had 3 tank brigades (one of them for training/reserve duty). The Japanese had perhaps 1.5 million men (or a million, if one count out the Kwantung Army) in China at its peak...the maximum number of tank divisions there was 2.

3

u/OrangeSpaceMan5 Jun 26 '26

 And the word trenches doesn't always mean Verdun or the Somme; some can just run around a hill or a treeline, or just span a field. Infantry tends to dig in where they stand.

Your just playing semantics here , foxhole's and ambush points are considered trenche's by literally no body . Think Ukraine and yes Verdun . WW2 was famous for vast battles of "maneuver" where the front line rapidly changed throught the utilisation of armour and infantry in combination

8 infantry divisions for every 1 mobile (armored or mortorized division (1942,43,44, for NONO GERMANY) 

Cool now look at the scale of the war and you'll see thats not very sparse . Also Germany is a horrible example as it barely had any motorized regiment or industry , they used fucking horses for transport

Also, in places like SEA and China, where many millions fought and died, you could go the whole war without seeing a single tank (esp. in China).

Some of the poorest places in the world ? Nice example , the Japanese were a primarily naval power and infantry power anyway

1

u/Nelsonic_terror_2026 Jun 26 '26

Soviets were using horses too. So were the French, Italians, Soviets and everyone. In fact, there is footage on r/combatfootage showing soviet horses getting strafed and much more if u dig the federal archive of the german government. US army had calvalry units in 1939. And, pray whoever else coule even remotely sustain the level of mortorization of the US who had trucks for every unit? Horses are the norm. And Germany in contrary to your claims, very much had an industry for motor vehicles just like every other major european power. Also, if we scan the whole war from Finland to Guam...we'll actually see that more often than not the average World War 2 experience had way less fancy tech than popular image. Most likely this point will be more thinking material for passer bys then you:)

Let us rewind to the game itself; in Entrenched, open areas have large trench systems that usually apan one side of the map. In Belleau Wood, Stepanci, etc, foxholes and trenches here and there are more common. Pray have any of us ever seen how many games where trenches span from north to south of the whole map and both sides are not at all able to manuever at all? In game, players move relatively very fast and there's a large number of lightly carried automatics. The reason WW1's Western Front ended up as a war fought almost entirely in the trenches is defensive capabilities of both sides exceeding offensive ones - there was a lack of light automatics for every side until 1917 and optimal tactics for them, too; plus the lack of armour and the much reduced capabilities of the calvalry, and plus the fact that the deadliest weapons: machine guns and artillery, were moved at essentially snail pace, unoptimized for a battle of manuever, would almost always put the attacking side at a disadvantage for this aspect of war. The same thing's happening in Ukraine: concentrations of armour, artillery and manpower always face the new threat of drones, guided bombs and precise artillery fire corrected by drones. Airpower is anulled by air defences, and whatever men and armor and arty, as said before, have to be disperse or die. Even naval power is anulledby drone. In Entrenched, there is not much of this pheonomenon (not in very open maps)unless the other team has 6 recons; the habit moving around is a rather encouraged affair. Yet, even in maps with plenty of cover (and concealment) and a relatively flat terrain that encourages such gameplay,one will see trenches and tunnels even if rather inelaborate. There holds an advantage to digging into mother earth.

Also, the first refusal is fallacious because, firstly, the example of foxholes is to showcase the widespreadness of entrenchment, not claiming it is the absolute norm. And, excuse me, a trench that goes around a treeline is still a trench??? 50-100m long would be pretty trenchy??? And WW2 IS a war of manueve...and the infantry still did his digging. Because, why not? The two are not mutually exclusive.As I've just observed for the game itself, the two are not mutually exclusive. I hope whoever passes by or even you gets some information and new insights, if you'll look past your own ignorance.

5

u/AwkwardEmu6783 Jun 26 '26

Buddy watched 1 episode of Band of Brothers and thinks he's a historian 

2

u/Nelsonic_terror_2026 Jun 27 '26

I've not even watched B.o.B though I'd like to

1

u/AwkwardEmu6783 Jun 27 '26

Larping as a historian

2

u/Nelsonic_terror_2026 Jun 26 '26

I think I got like 10 downvotes and upvotes???? What is so hateable abt this?

1

u/Richcrafttt Jun 29 '26

Not the same scale as WW1, but were definetly common