Human wave attacks?

[altus]

I have a question for military tactics experts here. What exactly is a human wave attack? Could you please provide your clear-cut definition of a human wave attack? When an attack can be considered of human-wave type, and when it isn't?

[Boonierat]

Let's start with wikipedia, they have a relatively good article on the subject:

Human wave attack is a military term describing the use of infantry in a shock assault of an enemy, in which soldiers attack in successive line formations, often in dense groups, generally without the support of other arms nor with any sophistication in the tactics used. The tactic is usually found in poorly trained conscript armies, which have little tactical flexibility

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_wave_attack

[altus]

Originally Posted by Boonierat

Let's start with wikipedia,

I do know of this definition, and I consider it not clear-cut enough. It is one of the reasons I started this thread.

For example, what "successive line formations" mean? If the lines are formed in the same direction as attack direction, then is it no longer a human wave? If the infantry formations are more scattered, to the point where it would no longer be appropriate to consider them "dense", is it still a human wave? What degree of "sophistication" would be determinant? If the attack was preceded by an aerial raid with guided weapons involved, would it stop to be a human wave regardless of other factors?

[Boonierat]

For me the human wave attack is trying to overwhelm the enemy defensive line with sheer mass, trying to close in as quick as possible, ignoring losses. Definition of human wave attack changes with the period I suppose, Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg could be considered as such nowadays.
I think I know what you have in mind, you want to question if the numerous the cases when PAVN or PLAF units hurled themselves at strongly defended allied postions like firebases were human waves or not.

[DeltaOne]

If you think of an actual wave, it hits the beach and then is followed by another and another and so on, each converging on the same point, from the same direction, over and over.
NVA used these tactics when trying to overrun our smaller bases. In hopes of taking the base with sheer numbers, and just like those actual waves, as the first one was hitting the wire, the second was moving behind it, followed by a third and so on.
This is why you hear so many of us talk about wave after wave of cannon fodder. They kept coming, we kept blasting away. Their goal was to overtake our lines, gain access to the base.
It is NOT a cost (lives) effective way to do battle.

[altus]

Let's not speculate about my motivations just yet. Let's focus on a clear-cut definition first

Def. 0.0 Wikipedia. Not clear-cut enough.

Def. 0.1

For me the human wave attack is trying to overwhelm the enemy defensive line with sheer mass, trying to close in as quick as possible, ignoring losses. Definition of human wave attack changes with the period I suppose

Def. 0.2

Originally Posted by DeltaOne

If you think of an actual wave, it hits the beach and then is followed by another and another and so on, each converging on the same point, from the same direction, over and over.

If we adopt either of these two definitions, then I believe most pre-WWII infantry attacks could be considered human wave. So, lets focus on the WWII period. Do you two consider D-Day and Battle for Monte Casino human wave attacks? If not, what factor(s) of those two operations made them unfit for your definitions?

Def. 0.2 poses another problem. If instead of several consecutive waves, we have one big, decisive wave, then is it still a human wave attack? If the "waves" are formed rather along the attack direction instead of in the one perpendicular to that direction, do you still call it a human wave attack?

[DeltaOne]

What are you fishing for here Altus? It's not a hard concept to conceive. Yes, many a battle in WW1 were human wave assaults. So are actions such as D-Day. In some cases, it is the only means of attack. However, it is not a great way to cut down on loss of life in combat. In fact, in any other situation other than forming a beach head, I disagree with their use. In my mind, the occasions they were used in Vietnam were nothing but an extreme use and waste of, human life.

[Boonierat]

Originally Posted by altus

Do you two consider D-Day and Battle for Monte Casino human wave attacks? If not, what factor(s) of those two operations made them unfit for your definitions?

No, they were deliberate attacks. The wiki article specifies that human wave attack are executed with little or no support from other arms. If you think WW2 think japanese 'banzai' charges.

Originally Posted by altus

Def. 0.2 poses another problem. If instead of several consecutive waves, we have one big, decisive wave, then is it still a human wave attack?

Yes

Originally Posted by altus

If the "waves" are formed rather along the attack direction instead of in the one perpendicular to that direction, do you still call it a human wave attack?

I admit I can't really see what you mean here mate, could you illustrate with a basic drawing?

[altus]

What I mean is a well formulated definition of the concept, so we can, objectively and as unambiguously as possible, assess that a situation X is a HWA, whereas a situation Y is not.

My experience is that it's usually easy to subjectively conceive things, but it's harder to provide a sound definition for everybody to apply objectively.

Originally Posted by Boonierat

The wiki article specifies that human wave attack are executed with little or no support from other arms.

So, does this mean if the attack was preceded by a massive precise bombardment using guided weapons, then your infantry afterwards could walk straight into machine gun fire in waves and it won't be a human wave attack?

And, according to this definition, the bayonet charge lead by Moore toward the end of the "We Were Soldiers..." movie is a perfect example of a HMA.

I admit I can't really see what you mean here mate, could you illustrate with a basic drawing?

Well, imagine you are attacking northward. Your soldiers will form several columns facing north and will be moving forward, one behind another. This is not exactly a "wave" as used in the Napoleonic War period, where soldiers are placed aside each another, forming lines perpendicular to the attack direction.

[Boonierat]

Originally Posted by altus

What I mean is a well formulated definition of the concept, so we can, objectively and as unambiguously as possible, assess that a situation X is a HWA, whereas a situation Y is not.

I don't think you can give an exact definition of a human wave attack, as it varies according to the period. Closely packed formations of the Napoleonic Wars or the ACW became obslete with the invention of the machinegun for example.

Originally Posted by altus

My experience is that it's usually easy to subjectively conceive things, but it's harder to provide a sound definition for everybody to apply objectively.

Once again, I know what you have in mind, so please show your cards

Originally Posted by altus

So, does this mean if the attack was preceded by a massive precise bombardment using guided weapons, then your infantry afterwards could walk straight into machine gun fire in waves and it won't be a human wave attack?.

No, because the human wave attack is more of a rudimentary form of war, an army using such advanced weapons as guided missiles for example would posses other means to destroy the enemy.

Originally Posted by altus

And, according to this definition, the bayonet charge lead by Moore toward the end of the "We Were Soldiers..." movie is a perfect example of a HMA.

No, its a perfect example of how Holywood is incapable of portraying war accurately (most of the times anyway )

Originally Posted by altus

Well, imagine you are attacking northward. Your soldiers will form several columns facing north and will be moving forward, one behind another. This is not exactly a "wave" as used in the Napoleonic War period, where soldiers are placed aside each another, forming lines perpendicular to the attack direction.

I see what you mean, but for me the human wave attack can't be reduced to an exact pattern, it can have many forms, the basic idea being to close in with the enemy as fast as possible, with the hope that, presenting a lot of targets to the enemy defenders, some will get through the hail of fire and engage in close quarter combat.

[Boonierat]

Talking about We Were Soldiers, was the film showed in Vietnam? and if yes how was it received? it's perhaps the first Nam movie were the 'enemy' is portrayed as more than just faceless shadows in the jungle, especially Duong Don playing Lt. Col. Nguyen Huu An.

[altus]

Originally Posted by Boonierat

Talking about We Were Soldiers, was the film showed in Vietnam?

What do you mean "show"? In theaters? We don't play profanities to our Invincible, Hundred-Battles-Hundred-Victories, Armed Forces in theaters. Not to mention it wouldn't be an economically wise idea. Instead go to a DVD stall at the nearest corner and get yourself a $.50 Chinese professionally pressed copy with Dolby Digital 6.1 sound.

and if yes how was it received? it's perhaps the first Nam movie were the 'enemy' is portrayed as more than just faceless shadows in the jungle, especially Duong Don playing Lt. Col. Nguyen Huu An.

The answer is No, but the reception was not very favorable,
especially toward scenes such as shooting French wounded, PAVN walking straight and distinctively toward American fire, meaningless bayonet charge at Moore instead of just kneeling, aiming, and pulling the trigger, and Col. An placing an American flag on the battlefield.

As for Đơn Dương, AFAIK, he took the hit for his role in "Green Dragon" where he played a boat people character, and his episode with WWS was just a convenient supplement. WWS had been in circulation in Vietnam without any persecution for well more than a year before the issue with "Green Dragon" came up.

[altus]

Originally Posted by Boonierat

Once again, I know what you have in mind, so please show your cards

I'm trying to see to what degree the term was an useful, "military science" concept, which I hope it is, and to what degree it was a subjective, common sense, vague pejorative term used for propaganda purpose, which it surely was.

I have no problem with it being both. I just like to assess it as fairly as possible.

For the sake of discussion, we may limit to the WWII and post-WWII period.

So I understand that D-Day can be considered HWA? What do you think of Monte Casino?

[Boonierat]

Originally Posted by altus

I'm trying to see to what degree the term was an useful, "military science" concept, which I hope it is, and to what degree it was a subjective, common sense, vague pejorative term used for propaganda purpose, which it surely was.

I have no problem with it being both. I just like to assess it as fairly as possible.

For the sake of discussion, we may limit to the WWII and post-WWII period.

So I understand that D-Day can be considered HWA? What do you think of Monte Casino?

Thats not what I said, see the link to the Tactic 101 article about the deliberate attack. As for Monte Casino, I don't know enough of the battle to pass a definitive judgement. AFAIK, the battle lasted for several months and saw numerous attempts by allied troops from a lot of nationalities (brits, poles, kiwis, french, americans) to take both the village and the monastery plus the surrounding hills. I know some attacks on the village of Casino itself were pretty savage but I can't say for certain if they can be labelled as HWA. I'm gonna try to ask Rick Baillergeon if he can pop in here and give us his definition.

[trailboss49]

I witnessed a 'human wave' once.

We were out in the boonies setting up a radio intercept station. We were surrounded by armor, tanks, ACPs, etc.

At 0200 on a full moon night the NVA attacked us, they were wearing WHITE uniforms. They were cut easily cut down. The next morning I interrogated a couple of wounded that survived. I asked why they attacked tanks and mounted machine guns. They replied their communist commisars had told them they were only cardboard cutouts. I then asked why they wore white when it was night and a full moon. They answered that their communist commisars had told them they would look like 'moonbeams' and that we wouldn't see them.

Nothing like your leaders looking out for you. No wonder so many NVA/VC defected.