Talk:Human wave attack

/Archive 1

This article is terrible

The lack of citations makes it hard to be sure, but I've never heard the term "human wave" used otherwise than in connection with Chinese attacks in Korea, even then probably erroneously. If taken to mean an attack by unsupported infantry aiming to overwhelm technologically superior defenders by sheer weight of numbers, I would strongly dispute that the Somme was an example. The Somme was a battle fought over many months with massive artillery support using a variety of tactical deployments, but none of them a "human wave". I question the premise of the entire article. Cyclopaedic (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This article really is preposterous. Now we have supposed "human wave" tactics (used, per the article, largely by untrained armies with no artillery support) being used in Normandy beach landings (probably the best planned and supported operation in history) and by tanks in the Western Desert. There seems to be no coherent understanding of what is meant by "human wave tactics" or how and when they were used. The whole article adds nothing and should be deleted. Cyclopaedic (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No responses. OK, let me suggest what I think a human wave attack is, in the form of a new lead or stub article, and see if anyone disagrees:

A human wave attack is a pejorative term for an attack by massed infantry on a defended enemy position, intended to overwhelm the defenders by sheer weight of numbers and regardless of inevitable high casualties. The term implies both a lack of tactical subtlety by the attacker, and the defender's ability to inflict horrific casualties on the defender, usually through superior firepower, training or technology. It also suggests a callousness of the attacker towards its own troops, and therefore the term is likely to be used only by the defender or a later commentator; it is doubtful whether any attacker has ever used the term, or whether it has ever appeared in a tactical manual. Human wave tactics would normally only be used by an attacker who lacks firepower and the ability to manoeuvre, but whose main advantage is in numbers of men. His men may be poorly trained, though highly motivated: great physical courage and esprit de corps is required to advance unflinchingly into superior enemy fire.

The term is most often used to describe the mass tactics of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) in the Korean War. Although abandoned by the PLA by 1953, similar tactics were used by the Viet Minh in the early stages of the siege of Dien Bien Phu, and were re-adopted by the PLA in the Third Indochina War against Vietnam. The use of human wave tactics by the PLA is attributed to political teaching that will and enthusiasm were more important than firepower and military training. The PLA's political motivation of its troops emphasised the need to advance straight at the enemy. Human wave tactics were costly in lives and often failed to achieve their military objectives. Their use in the Third Indo-China War is a rare example of an army with superior firepower (the PLA) throwing away its advantage by the use of human wave tactics.

Although most massed attacks by infantry before the age of modern firepower could be (and sometimes are) described as human waves, the criticism implied by the term and the implied acceptance of high casualties from the defenders' superior firepower mean the term is unhelpful to describe earlier conflicts. Early examples of mass infantry charges against superior defensive firepower include Pickett's charge at the battle of Gettysburg and the Zulu attacks on British troops in the Zulu War.

Comments please. It follows that I still think the bulk of the existing article should be deleted. Cyclopaedic (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the bulk of the article being deleted, probably need a source to call it a pejorative term. Geoff B (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to call the article "terrible"; clearly a lot of people have put in a fair bit of work here ;) However, there is a very strong argument for stub-ifying the article and starting again without the rampant OR and with appropriate sources. My feeling is that this may never be more than an extended dicdef unless reliable secondary sources can be found that actually discuss "human wave attacks" in those terms and in detail. EyeSerene^talk 17:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice the Chinese term 人海戰術 have no constraint on attack or defense, it merely means the general tactics used in a war with more soldiers than the opponent. Defending with sheer size without any assault still suffice as this tactics as long as the men are not separated to multiple strategic grounds making the enemy able to get them one by one with less number. MythSearcher^talk 03:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Following above discussion, I have replaced the article text. Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese tactics in Korea was definitely NOT to attack straight at the enemy, the Chinese were very good at infantry manoeuvres. One of their specialties were infantry infiltration, followed by coordinated attacks from several directions, creating the impression that they were far superior in numbers, even on the occasions when they weren't. 78.69.248.35 (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the article makes pretty clear that the term "human wave attack" has its problems; it isn't really a useful term, and it's certainly a defender's POV term, but it is established enough by usage to merit an article. The source I used attributed human wave attacks to the early part of the Chinese intervention in Korea, after which more sophisticated and successful tactics were used. Any change would need to be suitably referenced. Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but I would oppose the entire replacement. My comment up there was pretty much not replied and there was no discussion on whether the article or only the lead should be replaced. There were 20 sources in the original version, and only 1 in this version. I find it unbelievable to be entirely removed especially at least 2 people up there got comments that were not answered before the replacement. I would suggest keeping the lead as the new version but also edit back the sections with sources. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 07:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There were two other supporting responses before the replacement was made, and none in opposition; I don't know which two people's comments you are referring to. The only comment above from you that I can see is a point about the meaning of a particular Chinese term, which I do not understand, but it certainly does not deal with the article as a whole. There were references in the deleted material, certainly, but the issue is relevance, not accuracy. None of those sources was devoted to Human Wave Tactics, and although I have not checked them individually, I very much doubt if they analysed the example in terms of Human Wave Tactics. To reinstate the examples, there would need to be citations supporting the view that the example is one of human wave tactics as discussed in the article. Cyclopaedic (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that my browser seems to have some problem and saved an old edition of my text. I should have removed that sentence before I save the page after I preview it. hmm... The Chinese term was mentioned as literally it is the same as human wave attack(and is often used in context refering to the PLA's preferred tactics. A few sources are very obvious to be relevant, like the Art of War source did not specifically used the term human wave attack but it is stating the use of soldiers in swarms without formation. Other sources should also have a certain degree of relevance, which I will see if I can address them later. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't understand what point you are making, nor what sentence you are now referring to. As discussed above, I don't think "human wave attack" is a particularly useful term, but the article exists to examine the concept as understood in English; to my mind it is a very limited one, derived largely from the UN defenders' perception of the PLA's tactics early in its intervention in Korea, and probably having very little to do with the actual PLA tactical doctrine. It doesn't help anyone's understanding to speculate about whether other historical tactics could be considered to be human wave tactics. Cyclopaedic (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

To make it clearer, I will show you the sources you have deleted that contains the exact term Human Wave Attack. this source (I do not know why did the original link was to the top page, so the link may not work on its own, but it is the 6th source and you can click on the link saying The War of Attrition) The 8th, 11th, 14th sources are also specific on the term. Other similar sources were used to explain why these sources used that term, and other sources, while some where not verified, is highly likely to have the term in it as well. Also, when the term is being explained, The Art of War is also an important source, for example, this source referred to it as well. The term is not only used by the UN defenders like you said, and it is very improbable to assume the sources are not related without actually checking them. Therefore I am against removing them like you did. Also, more sources could be given to cover my point in the terms 人海戰術 is indeed equivalent to Human Wave attack/tactics. You can check here and see that the terms are being used in translations. (search for human-wave and 人海战术, which is in simplified Chinese characters.) A Chinese dictionary from Chinese University of Hong Kong and a Korean dictionary also confirms this. It is not speculated, but well sourced that the original term used by the UN is actually a valid term and used in sources you have removed. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 15:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the article as it was was that it had become a huge POV list of situations that editors thought might be described as human waves, including tank battles, seaborne invasions and the entire Franco-Prussian War. I have no problem with properly-referenced material relating to the Iran-Iraq war being added to the article - the references you quote are all effectively the same source (Library of Congress studies) and i could not follow them through because there was no reference to the particular page or paragraph, except the one you detailed - I agree that is a source for saying there were human wave tactics used by the Iranians, although without more detail I'm not sure how much it adds to the article and I leave to you or others the question of whether a US military commentary on Iran from 1987 should be regarded as authoritative. I also don't mind the Sun Tsu quote being reinstated, by way of colourful background. I still don't understand what you are saying about Chinese or Korean terms, but articles should describe topics, not define words, and the fact that similar terms may exist in other languages doesn't really take us anywhere. Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about the Chinese term as the basis of the term Human Wave attack used to discribe the PLA tactics. Also, since the term Human Wave attack means attacking with swarms of soldiers, sourced sections that describe the use of swarms of soldiers should be kept, at least to a certain extend. It is not speculation but a direct relation between examples of swarms of soldiers being used. Can the term be used on tanks or other stuff, that is not my concern. I have no opbjection in removing the unsourced sections, but if the sections are sourced, we cannot make the assumption that they are not related. Actually, the source I have quoted up there are all linked to two pages, but they contain links that are the same with the name of the quote and that is how I verify if they contain this term.(using the find function.) I must admit that I have no knowledge in the Iran-Iraq war before hand. That is why I cannot really support the assumption of sources that were not read or at least looked at being unrelated. It is kinda assuming bad faith. Not that I think you are editing in bad faith, I believe your edits are of good faith and is really contributng to the article, but the action of not checking the sources before removing them seems to be assuming other editors are using sources that are false. You might not have that intention, but it is better to avoid that type of action. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to propose some edits? The crux of the issue may be that a human wave attack in English does not mean just "attacking with swarms of soldiers". It is pretty well defined in the lead of the article. It's a pejorative term for throwing men unsupported against defenders with superior firepower to overwhelm them with sheer numbers, regardless of casualties. As to sources, the fact that a statement may be sourced does not of itself make it relevant, or a good contribution to the article. What we really need here is sources about human wave attacks in general, not about specific examples. I'm certainly not assuming bad faith by anyone. I'm just trying to create a better article that treats the topic in an encyclopaedic fashion and does not go off at tangents or become just a list of examples. Cyclopaedic (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Cyclopaedic has nailed it by saying "the fact that a statement may be sourced does not of itself make it relevant". Particularly for these types of article, we need to be very careful to avoid coming to our own conclusions as editors about what the source is depicting. For example, a source might describe an action that to us is indeed a human-wave attack, but if the source doesn't explicitly characterise it that way, we shouldn't either. We couldn't even weasel-word it and say "X can be regarded as an example of a human-wave attack" unless we can show a source that does indeed regard it as such. The sources you mention are undoubtedly fine in themselves, but they need to support the edit in the context its being used. It doesn't take much knowledge of military history to come up with possible examples - both World Wars, Vientam, Korea, maybe even Agincourt - but (disregarding WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), this is really just stuffing the article in one area to make up for its deficiencies in others. As has been mentioned, what's ideally needed is a scholarly source that actually discusses the concept. EyeSerene^talk 12:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Still, the main point I am stating here is about the sources were assumed to be irrelevant, without checking. I am sure Cyclopaedic is trying to create a better article, but the assumption made on the sources that they are not related is to a certain extent assuming bad faith that they are not related. If they are verified to be not relevant, fine, remove them, but if they have never been verified, they should not be removed. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not the sources I am saying were irrelevant, but the vast bulk of the content of the former article. There may well have been some useful stuff in there, but it was buried in a mass of junk, whether referenced or not. As I said, if you think there is material that needs to be added, go ahead, either in the article or in draft here, and we can take a look at it.Cyclopaedic (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet union

Soviet union also used human wave tactics in the war , probably in one of the most massive scale. Human wave attacks were also used in iran-iraq war.