The Korean war

pla101prc said:

look, i serve in the friggin army, and if there is one thing i have learned it is that you dont gain advantage by throwing additional men into battle, you gain advantage by throwing additional firepower.

Click to expand...

what if you don't have additional fire?

and if i know that, the Chinese prolly knew that. so this is what a sane officer should know, you dont drive your men into enemy fire. if you can concentrate your firepower, and overwhelm the defenders at one point,

Click to expand...

There is a lot of meaning in those two letters

which means you have an opening, you can throw your ppl in human wave style, you can even gaggle f*ck a lil if that speed things up, i already said that if you read what i wrote. i have never heard of one instance where you just charge at the enemy position with like a million ppl and somehow took that position. i think if we had an officer that actually ordered that kind of stuff on us he'd get a really good beat, but of course being the most professional army in the world we will never do that.

Click to expand...

I never said like a million people, even in WWI you would not have that many people going over the top. A good officer will use what he has to do the mission, if all he has are bodies and small arms thats what he will use.

I've posted a link to massed bodies, almost stacked on one another, the proof you said you wanted. Now suddenly your trying to change your argument.

more photos

Eyewitness accounts from non-US sources (South Korean Veterans interviewed by a Canadian)

Veteran Kim Hyung-san, 76, remembers killing dozens of human-wave attackers in a single day. "They were so close to us, only 20 or 30 metres away, that we didn't have to throw our grenades. We only had to pull the pin and roll the grenade toward them. After the battle, we pushed their dead bodies into bomb craters, perhaps 500 or 600 corpses in a single grave."

The Chinese treated their soldiers as bullets, not as humans," said Park Joon-kyu, a 73-year-old former South Korean army captain. "There were so many of the Chinese, constantly attacking us, like ants.

They were like a tide, ceaselessly crashing on the shore, one after another," said Ju Sung-ro, a 73-year-old South Korean veteran, recalling a Chinese attack in 1951

how can you get additional firepower by getting more men from other places to help, if you cant do that you shouldnt be attacking in the first place.
change my argument? y dont you try to stick with discrediting me with arguments rather than trying to get a few cheap shots here and there lol. you can go look for the things i said before, about Lin Biao's doctrine, and the fact that human wave tactic was used in omaha beach because thats the only way to get the troops out of the boat and out of the water.
eyewitness accounts mean nothing to me. no disrespect to those who fought the war but,i can get an eyewitness account from anywhere
the photos you have are out of context. it could be anything, assuming that the bodies werent moved at all before the photo was taken, there could be so many things that caused that. remember what i said about Lin Biao's doctrine? once you have an opening you wanna get troops through it quickly before the enemy closes it up. what happened in this one Chinese offensive is that the UN forces used a AA gun to pin down the Chinese (Chinese has no air support anyways), the Chinese managed to take out the gunner, so that was the opening, and then they were trying to get the troops go through the rift, that was when another dude took the AA gun and started firing again. now that is different from mindlessly driving your troops into enemy fire, which is beyond stupidity. this is basic knowledge even a lil private like me know in the army.

pla101prc said:

how can you get additional firepower by getting more men from other places to help, if you cant do that you shouldnt be attacking in the first place.

Click to expand...

So says the great military commander PLA101PRC. Did you know almost no world class military system agrees with you.

change my argument? y dont you try to stick with discrediting me with arguments rather than trying to get a few cheap shots here and there lol.

Click to expand...

You said you wanted photo proof, it was provided along with eyewitness accounts along with 2 different people providing reasons why human waves would be used and yet you refuse to be swayed by the evidence. That is called belief perseverance.

you can go look for the things i said before, about Lin Biao's doctrine,

Click to expand...

In 1949 the US doctrine was to simply nuke the snot out of the godless commies, didn't quite work that way in 1950. As a result a horribly unprepared army had to go to Korea to fight a war the old fashioned way- with bullets. Doctrine only goes so far, in the end the realities on the ground dictate what a commander does.

eyewitness accounts mean nothing to me. no disrespect to those who fought the war but,i can get an eyewitness account from anywhere

Click to expand...

That is disrespect, for example: Source A- The Chinese used HW tactics against us in 51; Source B- The Chinese didn't use HW tactics agaisnt us in 51.

The two statements seem to disagree, but do they? Unless A and B served in the same unit at the same time they could both be 100% correct. Thus an eyewitness account that seems to be at odds with another account may not be at odds at all. Your refusing to accept their testimony because it does not fit the ideal you want to be true. In other words their service to their nation and their having been there- done that does not matter because its not the truth you want to hear.

the photos you have are out of context. it could be anything, assuming that the bodies werent moved at all before the photo was taken, there could be so many things that caused that. remember what i said about Lin Biao's doctrine? once you have an opening you wanna get troops through it quickly before the enemy closes it up. what happened in this one Chinese offensive is that the UN forces used a AA gun to pin down the Chinese (Chinese has no air support anyways), the Chinese managed to take out the gunner, so that was the opening, and then they were trying to get the troops go through the rift, that was when another dude took the AA gun and started firing again. now that is different from mindlessly driving your troops into enemy fire, which is beyond stupidity. this is basic knowledge even a lil private like me know in the army.

Click to expand...

Yes they could, but they could also be evidence of HW tactics. Since we don't a war reporters 8mm tape showing the actual attack we have to look at the rest of the evidence in total. The evidence in total (taken together as a whole) says the PVA did in fact use human tactics on multiple occasions.

LOL what can i say about this photo...well if this was in a court that's called circumstantial evidence. if i can justcome off with a different scenario right off the top of my head then its simply not enough.

you are right about doctrines, most of the times its different on the ground, i myself have experienced that and those were only exercises. Lin Biao however didnt event this stuff out of thin air, but out of experience...now "nuke the hell out of the godless commies", maybe mac or patton were insane enough to do that, but thank GOD washington was governed by cool heads.

pla101prc said:

LOL what can i say about this photo...well if this was in a court that's called circumstantial evidence. if i can justcome off with a different scenario right off the top of my head then its simply not enough.

Click to expand...

But combine those photos with eyewitness accounts, not 1 eyewitness but thousands and its enough to convict.

you are right about doctrines, most of the times its different on the ground, i myself have experienced that and those were only exercises. Lin Biao however didnt event this stuff out of thin air, but out of experience...

Click to expand...

And the best doctrine by the most experienced commander will still fail if the situation is not one the doctrine can deal with. Infiltration is great if your dealing with someone who is not used to countering it, you have the time to do it and have soldiers trained to do it. Take away any one of those and you end up feeding units in piece meal to be chewed up.

Infiltration is likewise not a good defensive tactic in most situations. If your enemy is punching through the first order of business is to break their momentum so you can assemble reserves. The most logical way to do this is for local units to launch the heaviest local counter attacks they can. The goal being to siphon off troops from the attacker who has to build up his shoulder and slow down his forward progress.

If all you have locally is a lot of men and some mortars, that is all you have. haivng them firing from behind cover doesn't seriously threaten the enemy, and if the enemy has more fire via real artillery and air power then it invites disaster. You have to get close, what the Soviets called "hugging", if you can you lose. Getting close in a hurry is going to cost you men, there is no way around it, the goal is to get enough men into and through the swept fire zone so that your attack has the weight to be taken seriously. Even if none of those men live, if not one makes its across the swept fire zone, but the threat they represent draws off troops and supporting assets from the assault force you still do it.

Likewise if the enemy reaches a particular piece of ground that it is vital that he be ejected from NOW not later you use what you have. If all you have is men and mortars, again that is all you have. Or perhaps the enemy unit is encirlced but a releif force is slowly but steadily grinding its way forward and providing the pocket with long range artillery and air support. A slow siege approach to reducing the pocket might not work, if time is the critical factor you use what you have, not what you want.

now "nuke the hell out of the godless commies", maybe mac or patton were insane enough to do that, but thank GOD washington was governed by cool heads.

Click to expand...

You can say Truman is a cool head, but the US Military in 49 was set up to wage a nuclear not conventional war- that was its doctrine. In 49 it was also about the only doctrine that made sense for a US military establishment that had gone from the worlds 2nd most powerful army and undisputedly most powerful navy and air force to a ghost of its former self.

thousands eyewitness accounts? that's too naive LOL. i think fried rice and i have both explained pretty well how those ppl could have been fooled.

you cant just take the western way of doing things and then says that's how the Chinese should do it, that's like saying China should democratize. and again you are just throwing random scenarios at me and telling me what the americans would have done. you tell me that world class military doctrines dont agree with me and then you tell me that doctrines gets changed around on the battlefield. this is simply not enough to convince me man. try harder

lol what can i say about the US military, i guess nuclear deterrent werent as well accepted as they are now.

pla101prc you cannot continue to use abbrevations such as ppl, y, lil & ur. This is a violation of forun rules. Use you best English.

Do not use slang or any other intentional misspelling of normal English grammar.
(This from directly DF rules: )[Its hrd 2 reed whn peple tipe poorly, its also trashy! This will make posts much nicer, neat and easy to read for fellow participants. This isn't done on most forums, its time you get use to it here.

Click to expand...

bd popeye super moderator

no need for that man, i am out of this discussion, zraver doesnt seem to get it

pla101prc said:

no need for that man, i am out of this discussion, zraver doesnt seem to get it

Click to expand...

No , there is a need..because you have been admonished three times publicly and privately about using abbreviations. Heed the instruction.

bd popeye super moderator

Human wave tactics were used by the PVA during the Korean War. But that was far from their standard mode of operation. Like I have said, the most successful PVA offensives occurred in mountainous terrain while UN forces were either spread or strung out. Lacking firepower, but also without the burden of a heavy logistics train, the PVA favored a war of maneuver. However, the final year of the war was marked by trench warfare not unlike that of WWI. UN forces simply dug in across the entire peninsula, and made it impossible for the PVA to get around them. By this time, the PVA were starting acquire more and more artillery too, which they utilized to the best they could. In the mountainous terrain of the region, both the PVA and UN forces had to rely primarily on infantry assaults. Pretty much the war revolved around digging in and fortifying a line of hills and ridges, sniping, and hitting the other side with as much artillery as you could. During this time, both sides used primarily infantry assaults to take and retake ground, backed by heavy artillery support, for the terrain was unfavorable to armor. Most UN armor were used as artillery or dug in as pillboxxes. A classic example of a Chinese-style human-wave attack would be the Chinese operations to take Outpost Harry.