Human Wave/Peasant Army attack discussion (Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Against the Traditional Zulu Dawn Style Human wave Assault yes, Rapid Fire high Ammunition Capacity emplacements. Even at stalingrad where the Russians issued one Rifle per every three men with the other two getting a spare magazine, but the main contention is the Korean war. The technique employed there was not a traditional massed attack like those seen in World War 1.
the Technique employed in Korea was Probe the line Break the line force in and then flank.

Now can a Human wave attack work against a modern force? yes if that force is small is cut off and low on ammo. in The battle of Mogadishu we saw a case in point American Delta Operators Shughart and Gordon were isolated and forced to fight of a massed formation. Eventually they fell That may be a Small Scale but still a valid example.
 

Lezt

Junior Member
Is that something entirely accurate though? After all infiltration in depth proved there's a limit to how well those weapons work when the main advantage of range is negated once a certain distance is reached, the idea that shotguns and submachine guns can also negate the sudden change in battlefield conditions also works both ways and complements the human wave/short attack concept very well, as most Russian and Russian inspired tactics are based very much on submachine gun centric weapons like tank gun barrels and Assault Rifle barrels with heavier bullets or less accurate rifling meaning more effective at close distance.

Well it is not as simple as SMG works both ways, it does. But a stationary person shoots more accruatly on average and a man advancing is a bigger target to a man entrenched. Also, you have your hmg... Motars and defensive minefields.. The advantage is still heavily skewed for the defenders.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
a combination of Mines, artillery, properly employed MG's particularly belt feed, Snipers and Air Support are the best answers to massed formations. That's the lesson Of World war 1.
For the US Forces that had pushed into what is today North Korea. The Critical problem was there own Success. US Generals got a little Greedy, They had The North Koreans on the Run and just kept Chasing. failing to setup supply points and cashes and get there supply lines reinforced so when they hit The PLA Coming South. They suddenly had there pants down. Ironically it's the same mistake the North Koreans made. And It's the same mistake the Chinese did not follow. As after there first contact The Chinese forces remained in place for a number of weeks to allow there supplies to catch up.
 

Doombreed

Junior Member
The problem with dispelling the human wave concept is that China doesn't fight wars.

The more you rationalise, the more you explain, the more it sounds like revisionist excuses. People that isn't into military history and tactics are not going to read through all the explainations you provided. And the minority that are interested in military history and tactics probably already knows.

Let's see where this human wave concept comes from.

WWII. Japanese bonzai charges. The classic human wave attack. It sets in the minds of the western audience how the Asians fight. Not because Japan didn't use infantry minor tactics like their western counter parts. It's because western armys don't use human wave tactics due to their experiences in WWI. The Japanese used it, and that sticks out.

Korea. Chinese infiltration assualt. We all know the nuance and strategy behind that. But let's be honest. There's a healthy dose of the classical human wave tactic in there in the final phase of the short attack. It's also not hard for the western audience to transfer their preconception of the Japanese to the Chinese. All asians right? It's also heavily encourage by the media to dehumanise the Chinese. Faceless hordes and all that. See the book "Starship Troopers".

India. Local Chinese numerical superiority. Sure the war was won on logistics and again, infiltration assault. But the world got another image of the Chinese horde pouring over the mountains.

Vietnam. Battle of attrition. Again, Chinese resorted back to numerical superiority. Throwing masses of B grade troops at Vietnam for geo strategic considerations. No fancy pincer movement, no great encirclement, no behind the line landing. Straight up the guts, into the meat grinder. Doesn't help with preceptions there.

And that's it. All the major wars China fought. And you wonder where the human wave conception comes from.

Now, that is not a dig at China. The fact that China don't fight major foreign wars every decade is to be commended.

But unless China does something fancy, a la desert storm. People's conceptions won't change. And the more you feel the need to educate people to change that conception, the more it looks like desperation.

The west is not ashamed that they lined up at the Somme and ran into machine gun fires. They don't need to explain that towards the end of the war, the Germans had a very modern concept of infantry assualt. They demonstrated that they have moved on from human wave tactics in the subsquent wars they fought.

China needs to do the same to change the preconception.
 
Last edited:

Player 0

Junior Member
Doombreed,

Reality is ultimately irrelevant if we're talking the perceptions of the public in terms of stereotyping, most of this comes from the news media, entertainment media and the history channel as media venues that basically self-cannibalize each other in terms of perpetuating stereotypes, the only thing that can get through that is historical facts that is the only weapon and defense people like ourselves have against such ignorance.

On top of which, stereotypes have barely any connection to reality as is e.g. Russians are popularly perceived as undisciplined, blustering barbarians who commit atrocities wherever they go, but anyone who knows anything about the Russian occupation of Paris after the defeat of Napoleon knows that the opposite is true. The French are popularly perceived to be massive cowards among English speaking cultures solely based on WWII, when in reality the French have as many wars and won them and have more than their fair share of heroes or brave soldiers as any other major military power in human history, but that is conveniently ignored in favor of stereotyping and dehumanization.
 

fatfreddy

New Member
Registered Member
I have read some Chinese accounts of the Korean War and I see some light on what happened during that war. The more generous account in Western accounts indicate that the Chinese troops focussed on breaking through the South Korean and weaker UN nations lines and then outflanking the US troops. Considering the mountainous regions and extremely limited roads in and out, this must have worked to the Chinese tactics.

In the Chinese accounts, they did in fact focus on the weaker points and the proceed to overrun that post with all the troops lined up to exploit that breakthrough, ignoring the strong points on each side. The US accounts have indicated that they were firing on the wave of Chinese troops breaking through and the Chinese just ignored them and proceeded to penetrate deep into the rear.

In addition, these were not raw conscripts but battle hardened troops fresh from the Communist/Kuomintang/Japanese wars. In fact a substantial part of these troops were absorbed from Chiang Kai Shek's army. That was why quite a few of them when captured was quite happy to cooperate and later on refused to be repatriated.

The Chinese Army was obviously short of light arms as well as heavy arms. Most soldiers do not have rifles but they do have a lot of grenades and hence they would charge a position with a many grenades. Most probably production of grenades were much simpler. In addition they have very poor supply chain and medical facilities. That limited their range and ability to completely annihilate retreating and surrounded UN troops.

Only later in the war when it was stalemate, was more conscripts exposed as the cream of the Chinese Army was decimated. So in conclusion the success of the Chinese was due to a very high understanding of battlefield tactics and high motivation (much to the surprise of observers).
 

Geographer

Junior Member
The west is not ashamed that they lined up at the Somme and ran into machine gun fires. They don't need to explain that towards the end of the war, the Germans had a very modern concept of infantry assualt.
I can't speak for "the West" but many authors, film-makers, and professors were ashamed of the way World War I was fought. Popular anti-war books include All Quiet on the Western Front and A Farewell to Arms, and the films "Gallipoli" and "Paths of Glory". They films in particular show the misery and futility of human wave attacks during the war. My history teachers described in horrifying detail the conditions of trench warfare.

Remember that massed waves of infantry were the norm in human warfare for thousands of years. World War I showed how outdated those tactics were in the industrial era. With the exception of D-Day, human wave attacks largely disappeared among American and Western European armies after World War I. Iran used human wave attacks during the Iran-Iraq War and took heavy casualties with only minor battlefield successes.
 

delft

Brigadier
I can't speak for "the West" but many authors, film-makers, and professors were ashamed of the way World War I was fought. Popular anti-war books include All Quiet on the Western Front and A Farewell to Arms, and the films "Gallipoli" and "Paths of Glory". They films in particular show the misery and futility of human wave attacks during the war. My history teachers described in horrifying detail the conditions of trench warfare.

Remember that massed waves of infantry were the norm in human warfare for thousands of years. World War I showed how outdated those tactics were in the industrial era. With the exception of D-Day, human wave attacks largely disappeared among American and Western European armies after World War I. Iran used human wave attacks during the Iran-Iraq War and took heavy casualties with only minor battlefield successes.
I wonder whether Iran indeed used human waves attacks. It has long been a description of the tactics of opponents in order to increase disdain for them. What is the source of this description of Iranian tactics?
 

wtlh

Junior Member
I have read some Chinese accounts of the Korean War and I see some light on what happened during that war. The more generous account in Western accounts indicate that the Chinese troops focussed on breaking through the South Korean and weaker UN nations lines and then outflanking the US troops. Considering the mountainous regions and extremely limited roads in and out, this must have worked to the Chinese tactics.

In the Chinese accounts, they did in fact focus on the weaker points and the proceed to overrun that post with all the troops lined up to exploit that breakthrough, ignoring the strong points on each side. The US accounts have indicated that they were firing on the wave of Chinese troops breaking through and the Chinese just ignored them and proceeded to penetrate deep into the rear.

This is correct. Traditional Chinese tactics emphasised avoiding the enemy fist unless absolutely necessary and hit enemy underbelly. Most famous battles in Chinese history were won through hitting enemy supply lines and decimating their logistic elements---Battle of Guan-Du a typical example. They would only meet the enemy fist face on during defensive and holding operations.

The PLA kept up with the tradition well.

In addition, these were not raw conscripts but battle hardened troops fresh from the Communist/Kuomintang/Japanese wars. In fact a substantial part of these troops were absorbed from Chiang Kai Shek's army. That was why quite a few of them when captured was quite happy to cooperate and later on refused to be repatriated.

Largely correct, except the last part. Quite a few of the POWs did not want to be repatriated, not because they were originally KMT troops, but because many feared to be regarded as traitors back home.

First of all, according to Far Eastern psychology, surrendering is already a demoralising and shameful act, an act of cowardliness. Secondly, there had been an extensive political campaign to turn those POWs for both military man-power and political propaganda gains to Taipei; agents were sent infiltrating into the POW camps; many of the POWs were told that the stories of them defecting are already told to PRC, and anti-CCP slogans etc where forcefully tattooed to POWs who still wanted to go back; and most loyal political officers and ones regarded to have significant "negative" influence mysteriously and conveniently died.

The Chinese Army was obviously short of light arms as well as heavy arms. Most soldiers do not have rifles but they do have a lot of grenades and hence they would charge a position with a many grenades. Most probably production of grenades were much simpler. In addition they have very poor supply chain and medical facilities. That limited their range and ability to completely annihilate retreating and surrounded UN troops.

They did not lack rifles. They lacked heavy weaponry. The failure to completely annihilate the retreating and surrounding UN troops was caused by many reasons, two of the most important reasons I think are

1. There was an underestimation of the strength of US forces. They worked on the assumption that a US infantry division is organisationally similar to that of a US trained and equipped KMT division, just even better trained and equipped. In the actual fact, they realised a US division is more than twice the expected size, and had far more firepower than imagined.

2. Severe winter cold, difficult terrain and supply lines. China entered the war rather hastily, in fact, without much preparation time. A lot of PVA units were units preparing for the invasion of Taiwan, ordered to go north. They had insufficient winter provisions, and insufficient experiences in handling severe winter conditions. PVA lost more troops to the elements than to actual battles. And this says it all.

Both of which, ultimately are planning errors.

Only later in the war when it was stalemate, was more conscripts exposed as the cream of the Chinese Army was decimated.

The PVA's plan relied quite heavily on the initial shock and movement. They realised early on the importance of annihilating the bulk of the US fighting force at the initial stages, when they are still close to the Chinese boarder and thus PVA supply lines shot. Latter stages when the war developed into a stalemate, and trench warfare, advantages of firepower became more apparent.

The Chinese army did loose many of its most experienced and motivated troops. But the cream certainly was not decimated. The PLA strength at the end of Chinese civil war was over 5 million. And units operating in Korea gets rotated in and out.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Largely correct, except the last part. Quite a few of the POWs did not want to be repatriated, not because they were originally KMT troops, but because many feared to be regarded as traitors back home.

First of all, according to Far Eastern psychology, surrendering is already a demoralising and shameful act, an act of cowardliness. Secondly, there had been an extensive political campaign to turn those POWs for both military man-power and political propaganda gains to Taipei; agents were sent infiltrating into the POW camps; many of the POWs were told that the stories of them defecting are already told to PRC, and anti-CCP slogans etc where forcefully tattooed to POWs who still wanted to go back; and most loyal political officers and ones regarded to have significant "negative" influence mysteriously and conveniently died.

There is also the documented fact that massive anti-communism indoctrination was being carried out in those POW camps. Any POW who expressed support for communism were beaten mercilessly, and all were subjected to endless anti-communism propaganda.

There is also evidence that going to Taiwan instead of returning to the Mainland was far from the free choice the US side portrayed it to be. The vast majority of those troops had family back home, and it boggles the mind that so many of them would choose to abandon their family for a strange land.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top