Talk:Human wave attack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military science task force

Many of the examples listed here as human wave attacks are actually examples of deception. In Korea for example while the PLA had a numerical advantagetage it wasnt overwhelming. Due to rapid movement and attacks from behind the lines the Chinese gave USA forces the impression of a human wave attack. The same is true for other examples.--Gary123 00:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The article should mention that the term is somewhat disparaging. In reality, 'human wave' is a term usually used by losers of the battle to explain their defeat due to (supposed) enemy superiority and disregard of human life. Actual examples of "human wave" tactics are often merely showcases of concentration of force and speed and surprise of the attacker. Almost any infantry assault looks like a "human wave" to unfamiliar or spooked observator. --Mikoyan21 12:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a bit puzzling why such a large part of the article is about the Korean war - especially when the authors claim that no human wave attacks are being conducted in that war... Unless the authors are wrong, that makes it a bit off topic right? I am also not truly convinced that the authors are completely unbiased. Their only quoted source being the Chinese Military Forum does not bode to well for credibility... bjarkehingrumme 22:15, 22 september 2006 (GMT)

I hope I've done the right thing. I lifted part of the "How Wars Are Won by Bevin Alexander" citation from the Korean war article, on the principle that not everyone will go to that article and find it.It does belong here, but am I wasting bandwidth by repeating something already covered by another article?KTo288 06:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

1 Battle droid
2 Relevance of 'Franco-Prussian War' material
3 Did the British Army adopt the highland charge?
4 bum rush

[edit] Battle droid

Mzajac, I linked Battle droid from "see also" and you removed it say the connection is tenuous. Battle droids use a dumb "wave attack", so despite not being human I think there is enough of a connection for "see also". —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-29 20:24Z

And what about the ants in Starship Troopers then? ;) Perhaps it's better to keep the fictional references out of the article as to not compromise the seriousness of the subject matter. 130.232.146.149 07:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of 'Franco-Prussian War' material

While I found the material on the Franco-Prussian War interesting and informative, it does not seem to explicitly discuss the attack strategies used in the war, human wave or otherwise, by the two sides. Maybe someone with knowledge of the subject could add to the section and tie the information back to the human wave attack? Twistor 18:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I was wondering if I was going off track a bit but I put it in because its the seed tactically (as much as it was politically) for the human wave attacks of the First World War. The Prussian experience led to the massed "clockwork" armies trying to batter each other into oblivion, as well as the concept that as long as you destroyed more of the enemies fighting ability then your own i.e, attrition you could prevail. Without the Prussian experience, the First World war might have been fought with much smaller armies, dancing around each other trying to find an opening for a killer blow, a war between stilletos rather than clubs.Koonan the almost civilised 10:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Have to say it's a simply delightful analysis and I can't bear the thought of it being outright deleted, but its relevance in this particular article seems tenuous. On the other hand, I'm inclined to mention Zergs, so who am I to say? User:Cratylus3

[edit] Did the British Army adopt the highland charge?

I saw a documentary which argued that because they had been the victims of the highland charge far too often, the British Army (particularly the highland regiments) adapted the highland charge and combined it with a single volley, as be part of the standard British Army tactics when attacking an enemy in the field. But as I have no written source for this I am mentioning it here on the talk page so that if anyone has a written source they can add it to the article and I can then cite it :-)

For example, if the British Army use it as part of their standard infantry tactics, then it puts a whole different prespective on Wellingtons general advance at the end of the Battle of Waterloo. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bum rush

"This tactic is colloquially known as a "bum rush.""

The above seems dubious and is unreferenced. I have known the expression "bum's rush" for a while and never ever heard it used in this meaning. Is there a reference? Or should this be removed? User:Pedant (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)