War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it, according to some Dutch humanist in the middle ages. The same idea applies even to the modern world, especially now that war has been fetishized and made more euphemistic in the eyes of the masses through video games and movies. The Call of Duty franchise is no stranger to this, and while they are entertaining, they are a far cry from the real thing.

RELATED: 14 Games That Ripped Off Call Of Duty (And 15 That Do It Better)

Obviously, the futuristic Call of Duty games are too far-fetched and have no historical accuracy to them whatsoever (apart from Kit Harrington's or Kevin Spacey's face). That leaves us with World War II and the Modern Warfare titles as points of comparison against actual military history and warfare. Here are five Call of Duty ideas which give you a small glimpse of what war was like and five others which prove they're just inaccurate simulations of the real thing.

10 Accurate: Locations

This is mostly limited to the World War II titles of the Call of Duty games. Most of the Western Front locations presented in the first two Call of Duty games and the more recent Call of Duty: WWII are quite accurate, especially France. The names of the towns, villages, and even the operations are well-researched (as they should be) and even recreated with decent attention to detail.

You'd be delighted to know that even the multiplayer and singleplayer maps in the games are based off real places and were digitally recreated with commendable precision. From the war-torn streets of Carentan, the trenches of Brecourt meadows, even some of the subways of the Modern Warfare titles are spot-on.

9 Inaccurate: D-Day Defenses

The World War II games of Call of Duty always take every opportunity to portray the brutality of D-Day. After all, it's one of the most well-documented and cinematic moments in war history. Out of all the games which incorporated D-Day landings, however, there seems to be a glaring oversight or design choice which ought to annoy some D-Day purists: the pathetic German defense line.

RELATED: 20 Crazy Things That Are Forbidden In Pro Call Of Duty (And 10 Restrictions They Needs To Follow)

There were no barbed wires that impeded movement, no mines, and there's a big opening for players to rush into which in real life military tactics, would have been a death trap. Such a measly portrayal of German defenses has quite a significant effect on immersion; there seems to be a lack of bangalores, tanks, demolition squads, and snipers all scrambling to aid the grunts. It makes the battlefield less populated or less busy, meaning less believable.

8 Accurate: Dates

There's no mistaking the dates of major or even minor events in World War II. We have seven decades of data to double check those and for that reason, there really shouldn't be an oversight on the developers' part when it comes to portraying the dates of certain events. Thankfully (or for the most part), the dates all check out and add up with the textbook knowledge we have.

Of course, some liberties were still taken for the sake of simple gameplay, such as D-Day landings happening over the course of a few minutes or the wrong date of the Soviet flag hoist on Reichstag. Most battles and encounters lasted many hours, even several days and can be exhausting or boring if you're just viewing it from a screen. So there.

7 Inaccurate: Explosions

This goes for all Call of Duty games: explosions are supposed to be a death sentence. That means grenades, artillery shelling, mines, even nukes. In the games, if you see a grenade indicator, you can simply walk a few feet away from the digital blast radius and you'll be unscathed. This is not the case in real life. The shrapnel and shockwave of a grenade explosion (back in World War II) have an effective casualty radius of 15 meters, however, the shrapnel can disperse as far away as 230 meters.

RELATED: 25 Things Most Call Of Duty: Black Ops 4 Players Don't Realize They're Doing Wrong

That's just for grenades. Bigger boom-booms score bigger casualties on the battlefield; having an explosion happen near you would not only stagger and impede your hearing for a few seconds-- it might render you deaf if not outright kill you with internal bleeding. Apart from that, the effects of the shockwave are just poorly simulated.

6 Accurate: Weapon Designs

It shouldn't be hard to find existing replicas of the exact same weapons used back in World War II. Even now, some of them are still functioning. For that matter, it's even easier to get a hold of modern guns. That means there really shouldn't be a problem in digitally rendering the Call of Duty guns with the exact mechanisms and details as their real-world counterparts.

Most of the time, the games' guns were modeled off the real thing and even their sounds in some of the games were recorded directly from live ammunition fire. Is it similar to firing the actual thing? Well... we'll talk about that later. Just know that the guns in Call of Duty's World War II and Modern Warfare titles exist in real-life (perhaps with minor details and modifications, but the base model is there).

5 Inaccurate: Full-Auto Firing

It's not just you in Call of Duty games who has a habit of spraying bullets to any hostile pixel you see on-screen, the A.I. also does this. If done in a real-life situation, everyone would have run out of ammunition and would probably have to resort to knife-fights instead. In warfare, ammunition is sacred and firing in full-automatic mode is only reserved for support men carrying machine guns and even then, the chances of them killing competent combatants are quite slim.

RELATED: 25 Things Wrong With Call Of Duty We All Choose To Ignore

The regular purpose of firing in full-automatic mode is to lay down suppression fire and pin back the enemy. This gives a chance for other squad members to surround them. Not to mention magazines full of bullets add up to the total weight a person is carrying and the usual rifleman tends to carry only a few of them instead of the usual walking ammo dispensers we see in Call of Duty.

4 Accurate: Military Lingo

Callsigns and other military jargons are of utmost importance for communication in the battlefield and thankfully, the Call of Duty games spared no expense on this department. They are crucial to keeping the immersion and creating a military atmosphere as well as introducing who's who in the chain of command. Such accurate use of military lingo is prevalent throughout most Call of Duty games, save for the sci-fi titles perhaps.

In fact, veterans and special ops units have even chimed in on the authenticity and accuracy of Call of Duty's military jargon and they were quite satisfied with it. Even some of the military culture phrases they commonly hear were there. So if you ever want to ease yourself into using military lingo for your own reasons, then Call of Duty might help you in that regard.

3 Inaccurate: Weapon Feel

While we did mention earlier that the weapon appearances were more or less spot-on, but it stops there and it's all just for show. If you've never held or fired a gun before, the feeling of firing a gun in Call of Duty games might be satisfying. However, they really have been dumbed down in several categories, most notably physics and mechanisms.

RELATED: CoD Mobile's Battle Royale Mode Will Include Famous Maps From The Franchise's Past

The recoil is nearly nonexistent, aiming down is instant and effortless, and some of the locking and loading parts on the guns are off and modified. Also, certain guns' fire rates have been increased, perhaps to make them feel more powerful or modern. Make no mistake, firing a gun in video games is not a substitutable experience to actual firearm training. Furthermore, the Call of Duty games are among the most unrealistic firearm simulators in gaming.

2 Accurate: Red Army Women

There's no doubt that women served alongside men back in World War II, the most notable example is in the Soviet Red Army where around 800,000+ Soviet women have been employed in the fight against the Nazi invasion. Thousands of them were also selected for combat roles to fight in the streets. Call of Duty 2 portrays this well in the Battle for Stalingrad where you can hear women shouting and fighting alongside men.

Some of them even won the Soviet equivalent of the Medal of Honor, called the Hero of the Soviet Union. In fact, out of 11,000 awardees of the said medal, around 100 were female soldiers. So yes, women saw ground combat in World War II, at least in the Soviet Union. Other Western participants of the great war were not as open to the idea or they simply deemed it unnecessary based on their circumstances.

1 Inaccurate: Red Army Incompetence

For some reason, the first Call of Duty game has a penchant for misrepresenting the Red Army. The very first mission of the Soviet chapters in the first Call of Duty portrays the Red Army officers as ruthless idiots who let conscripts charge without weapons and then shoot them down for retreating in what appears to be a blatant imitation of the film Enemy at the Gates-- a horrifically inaccurate film about the Red Army.

The controversial portrayal is mostly fabricated. The Red Army, for the most part, is actually well-equipped and there were only a few very rare instances where some of them had no weapons (specifically at the beginning of the surprise invasion of Germany through operation Barbarossa). Moreover, they did not send unarmed soldiers to try to overwhelm armed enemies like cavemen. Hence, when it comes to portraying the Eastern front of World War II, getting your history lessons from Call of Duty is ill-advised.

NEXT: Leak: Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare Is The Official Name, Releases In October