So can we settle this once and for all: Did the red army make use of human wave attacks during WW2? Posted on April 28, 2023 by PrepHole Contributor So can we settle this once and for all: Did the red army make use of human wave attacks during WW2?
Before Vuhledar I wouldn't have believed it
Infantry aren't going to set off mines. Rzhev was kinda human wavey, but every major Soviet offensive used massed tank formations to achieve breakthroughs, same as the Germans.
>Infantry aren't going to set off mines
He's talking about AT mines.
Is he? The fact that infantry doesn't set off AT mines is so obvious that I doesn't warrant a mention at all, does it? Especially when talking to other generals...
Can you even source this quote for me?
"Russia: The People and the Power" - Page 207 - by Robert G. Kaiser - History - 1976
He's attempting a retreat after realizing he was wrong.
Human wave was defined in Korea I believe, so technically no. They used Deep Battle, which has some similarities.
Unrelated question, but wasn't there a joint operation in WW1 with Russian and Anglo troops (I think US + British or maybe just British) where the Russian commanders sent like 20k soldiers to their deaths in a couple of days, and then said something along the lines of they were "honored to make such a sacrifice" while the Anglo commanders looked at them completely fucking bewildered at their disregard for casualties?
I find that hard to believe since the same Anglo commanders would casually expend 50k of their own men by ordering them to walk into machine gun fire in the previous war
To the anglos, it was a shocking tradgedy that they learned from; for puccia it was "tuesday"
its unbelievable because it wasnt true
it didnt occur because they were told to just walk into machine guns, they simply believed that the artillery barrage was more effective than it actually was because they had pummeled the german lines for several days straight
they learned from this very quickly and had the heavier french guns support their advances for the rest of the battle
and in later battles they had refined artillery practice to allow creeping barrages so that when the artillery fire ended they would fire at a further point behind to prevent german counter-attacks
Cool so you learned everything you know about WW1 from reddit? Tell us about the shotguns next lol
sort comments starting from newest
Britain won WW1 and the battle of the Somme though.
Not true, the bong commander pretty much fainted over taking 7k casualties on the first day of the marne. They were used to low attrition colonial wars, with the occasional large defeat such as in South African campaigns, but nothing like what they experienced when they were facing a proper european land army.
It’s remembered to this day since the bongs were horrified that their leadership would let that happen. Same as the charge of the light brigade, Gallipoli and the defeat against the Zulu, these setbacks were hammered into the British psyche as a way to grow from the failures they took and ensure it never happened again. Russia sees shit like the failure in Finland and Barbarossa as something to shrug off and cope as simply circumstantial bad leadership instead of problems in their culture that needs to be addressed, even a victory like Kursk would have ended with the British public appalled that despite knowing an attack would take place that the leadership allowed hundreds of thousands of young men to sit in vulnarable positions because they wanted the krauts to take the bait so they could flank them with the self evidently numerous times more important tanks inplace of human lives
Read a book on ww1, no one gave a shit about any grunts. You were sent to die no matter the side.
>no one gave a shit about any grunts
lots of officers died too
You fucking baboon, if you'd actually taken your own advice you'd know that it was no more or less true for that war than it is for any other in human history.
In the Winter War of 1939–1940 the Soviet Red Army used human wave charges repeatedly against fortified Finnish positions, allowing the enemy machine gunners to mow them down, a tactic described as "incomprehensible fatalism" by the Finnish commander Mannerheim. This led to massive losses on the Soviet side and contributed to why the clearly weaker Finnish forces (both in manpower and armament) were able to resist the Soviet attacks.
>30mil dead soviets vs 500k dead germans
Yeah turns out when one of your objectives if exterminating every person in the country you're invading, and even have special squads given that task, you'll kill more people
This is why PrepHole isn't a good source of info.
Yes, there were penal battalions for mine clearing (or just wasting MG ammo) and recruitment also covered population transfer/ethnic cleansing policies. Only the revolutionary vanguard and state apparatus matters under Marxist-Leninism, "The state employees will not go hungry." (in reply to "what about nuclear war?") These were never normal people, and their dregs still walk among us.
The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?
>Only the revolutionary vanguard and state apparatus matters under Marxist-Leninism
.. didn't everyone part of the first group get murdered by the secret police?
Of course not comrade, don't be ridiculous
A network of traitors and reactionaries was successfully liquidated by the state security apparatus, the revolutionary vanguard remains in the Kremlin where he belongs
Slavs aren't human. Can't have human wave attacks without humans.
When I came to this thread, this is what I was thinking, and this is what I intended to post.
You need to define what a "human wave" is, because D day was basically walking people into machine gun fire one by one until they ran out of ammo. And dont even get me started on the pacific.
>, because D day was basically walking people into machine gun fire one by one until they ran out of amm
>hasnt read actual D-day events
the initial wave didnt charge at german machine guns, they rushed to the shingle bank and stayed there because they knew they would get slaughtered if they pushed
they waited until they were reinforced with the second wave, which brought with it additional tanks, and didnt start climbing towards german defenses until they had adequate naval gunnery support
the whole fight upwards from omaha beach was a slow, methodical, artillery battle as the landing force made their way up to take enemy positions with the help of accurate naval gunnery
an important vessel was a US destroyer who they managed to contact with their radios who sailed up to the shore nearly touching the sand and fired her 5in guns in direct fire
by the end of the day they were supported by about 60 tanks and guns from DDs all the way up to BBs, and with significant air support
at no point did they try to rush up to german guns with just infantry
You just described what the Soviets and Japanese did, everything had a reason and a methodical application. Yet their attacks were considered 'human wave'.
Care to post casualty counts Mr. Ivan?
>5 germans facing 4 soviets
>kill 4 soviets
>same 5 germans facing 6 soviets
>kill 3 soviets before being slaugtered
>hurr k:d is 7:5 the soviets did a zerg
Care to explain why casualty counts mean anything?
they are a pretty reliable indicator of how capable your military is
Actually theyre an indicator of how well your politicians do their job.
Casualties were higher at the start of Barbarossa when the army was in disarray and hundreds of thousands of russians got encircled. Towards end casualties were closer to a 2:1 ratio so what's normal for an attacking army
They made multiple unsupported bayonet charges throughout the war
So did the allies, even in afghanistan there were bayonet charges.
post sikh raping habibis with a tripod, screaming until his throat rips.
The Red Army did not use human wave attacks during WW2. And the soldiers that died in them were proud to do so for the Motherland. And what IS a human wave attack anyway? What about America's human wave attacks?
>And what IS a human wave attack anyway?
usually considered to be an attack wherein infantry rush to close the distance with little or no support in order to saturate the defensive capabilities of the target with more bodies than they can engage
while its rarely, if ever, done intentionally and part of no doctrine it can occur accidentally such as when infiltrator units are detected so when they enter the assault phase its indifferentiable from an intentional human wave attack
>What about America's human wave attacks?
never occured in WW2 or beyond, due to the US supremacy in artillery and armor allowing them to spend weeks or months shaping the battlefield through prodigious expenditure of ammunition
key word: unsupported and multiple
allies rarely, if ever, relied solely on infantry and would engage the enemy with artillery and armor
bayonet charges were rare and usually done under machine gun and artillery cover
literally done once against an enemy force of smaller size
typical engagement not involving IEDs would involve fire and maneuver tactics rather than headlong charges
Are you done moving the goalposts?
japanese performed multiple unsupported bayonet charges against allied lines with intent to try and overwhelm the machine guns in close combat
allied forces rarely, if ever, did the same thing
and when faced with heavy defenses would not assault enemy positions but try and defeat them with artillery before moving slowly
no goalposts were moved, allies still do not perform any kind of human wave tactic on purpose or accidentally
Sometimes with penal battalions. No one beats the Japs on human wave though.
when you have the population of all of eastern europe with 250 million in total you can honestly afford to lose a few million in assaults
yeah but.. could you have achieved same or better results with less expenditure?
i fucking hate russians for attempting to defend shit like human waves
Yes but it's been exaggerated.
human wave tactics haven't worked anywhere since the invention of the machine gun. nobody has been using it except WW1 and Korea. USSR used it in the very beginning of Barbarossa.
Red Army and Iran (Iran Iraq War) would use cannon fodder for direct engagements as a diversion and use professional units to hit flanks. So of course surviving Iraqis and Germans would talk about human wave tactics because they were dealing with the distraction and survived that. So there is survivors bias. The problem is the larger mass got rolled up dealing with the flanking attacks they weren't prepared for.
Another element to this was Deep Battle Doctrine called for hitting the front on many locations to determine break through points where tank formations could be concentrated.
>detail explicitly two ways human wave attacks were used
>no comrade we don't use it
Western propaganda to make Russia look bad.
You don't even need propaganda to look like a Russian
The idea here was that they had run the math and figured out that they lost more people trying to slowly pick their way through a minefield and getting cut to bits by German defenders than they would by just going "Fuck it we ball" and charging through.
The amount of tankie cope it takes to get the Red army down to a 1:4 kd ratio against the Germans is abysmal especially given the fact they routed the germans in 1944 imagine the kd ratio agaist russia if Germany won the war
Not as a matter of doctrine.
There are probably examples of it occurring now and then, but for the most part, infantry was supported by armor and artillery, with the artillery being used to soften enemy positions and the armor being used to break through said positions, leaving the infantry to dismount after the breakthrough and clear out any remaining positions before fortifying and preparing to attack once more.
This is actually how we got the modern BTG doctrine the soviets used and Russians continue to use when they actually have the equipment to do so.
TL;DR, soviet doctrine for the war was:
>Infantry scouts area for positions
>Arty softens positions
>Tanks crush positions with infantry mounted
>Infantry dismounts to clear remaining positions
>Infantry driven with well-proven death threats into extreme danger, we know where the enemy is based on the ones who don't come back
>Fire some shells in that general direction
>Tanks go in and wander around getting shot up like crazy
>wash rinse repeat for years until germany finally runs out of resources
Yep, and that's why they still had a shitload of casualties.
what was his name again?
do you mean storming enemy positions?
Undoubtedly, just judging from the combat history of any Soviet rifle division, which all read like:
>The 409th Rifle Division was formed in February 1939 and assigned to the Bialystock Military District. On July 2nd, 1941 it was encircled and destroyed in two days of fighting during Operation Barbarossa. The 947th Workers and Peasants Red Banner Division was raised in the suburbs of Moscow in September 1941, primarily from all the school teachers in the city, and renamed the 409th Rifle Division. The division entrenched outside Tulya on October 7th, 1941 and was committed to a counterattack on October 9th in which 80% of the division were made casualties, stalling the Germans an additional day. In 1942 the division was reformed again outside Stalingrad and committed to the Spring Offensive in which it took 95% casualties after 4 days of fighting near....
In the absence of sufficient artillery support, armor, air cover, NCOs, training, of tactical doctrine, Russian generals committed whole divisions to ruinously costly attacks. As materiel accumulated, a more advanced doctrine was implemented, but the disregard for human life continued. Interestingly it got worse on the German side as their materiel dried up. Both sides began to substitute lives as a solution for problems that would otherwise be solved by artillery, armor, and air strikes in a well supplied army.
>So can we settle this once and for all: Did the red army make use of human wave attacks
No this is Western propaganda. Also what about the US in Afghanistan?
I love that this gay ass war has reignited the russiaball edits
Thats not Russiaball
Only far-left leaning people and tankies react allergic to mentions of soviet human wave attacks because that doesn't fit their almost pathological need to retroactively paint Nazi Germany as pathetic incompetent losers.
>uhhh actually the soviets didn't use human waves against the nazis they used LE DEEP BATTLE
Their reluctance to call human waves human waves shows that they inherently recognize how barbaric and retarded (in the time sense) human waves are. All in in a reactionary reflex against wehraboos.
tankies etc have no real reason to exist anymore since their system has proven to be a failure.this is why they prop themselves up as premier force against fascism like some video game hard counter.take this away and they have no leg to stand on.this akin to telling people that their god isnt real.
yes, 2022 proved all the bad shit we heard about red army.
i now believe in stories abour german machinegunners running out of ammo and going insane.
Yes, according to Gunter K Kaschorrek in his memoirs titled 'Blood Red Snow'. He goes on at great length how the russians repeatedly charged his position in huge groups over open ground, allowing him and his unit to kill them in the hundreds. The russians did have a lot of tanks, but they didnt have enough to be everywhere, so large infantry formations where used to charge the germans en mass, usually (but not always) after an artillery barrage.
>Did the red army make use of human wave attacks during WW2?
They did at Stalingrad at least
t: talked to a vet that survived the battle
this quote is fucking gay because there are actual letters from Zhukov telling his commanders to stop using suicidal human wave attacks. this whole thing is a psyop
In WW1 everyone used human waves, in WW2 most nations used human waves in certain battles but not at scale.
>In WW1 everyone used human waves
WW1 was largely fought with artillery
no one just went over the top with the intent to bayonet the enemy, but rather they simply overestimated the damage their artillery barrages caused
this would decrease over the course of the war and by the end of it they were able to overcome enemy defensive networks without massive casualties
>in WW2 most nations used human waves in certain battles
you would be hard-pressed to find intentional human wave attacks outside of the japanese
So D-Day wasn't a human wave attack?
Its explained above, they actually didnt move up from the shingle bank until they had additional tanks and naval gunnery
They did not attempt to rush into close combat with enemy defenders but instead methodically reduced them
And the only beach that had heavy casualties at all was at omaha beach
The opening barrage at utah beach was so effective that they practically walked out the beach
No. Omaha Beach was a gigantic fuckup. The other landings progressed more-or-less without incident.
and it wasnt a human wave either, seeing as how the troops mostly took cover the whole time and allowed tanks and naval gunnery to support them the whole way
Russians aren’t human so no.
to be fair the quote isnt as bad as it seems, a statistical study conducted by the russians indicated that the took the same or slightly less casualties attacking across minefields as the would by avoiding the minefields and letting the germans funnel them into prepared defenses.
They did and they didn't.
Deep battle is a concept which includes a massa assault along the entire line of contact with relatively "expendable" or lower value units and then using you reserves to punch through perceived weak points with masses armour assaults.
Theoretically, the assault would force the enemy to overcomit on the front and thus leave it's backline voulnerable to deep penetrations.
Napoleon used similar tactics, but obviously at a much smaller scale.
If you want real human wave assaults then look at what the Japs and chinks did in the arian theatre.
Basically this. "Human waves" are more often than not just an excuse for the losers to explain away their tactical and operational failures, on that they were simply inelegantly overwhelmed with brute force. More often than not, perceived "human waves" are just, in truth, the ground-level experience of the other side having not only gained the initiative, but being free to actively move and concentrate their forces, while the defenders are bound or short and have as such failed to react in kind.
The attacker engaging in a decisive charge, intentionally rotating units according to a plan to maintain the momentum, does not mean they're careless or uncaring of losses. On the contrary, it means the defenders are perceived as being weak and on an unsound footing, that there's an opening to break them.
It's basic infantry tactics. A determined assault should be initiated when the opportunity to finish off a weakened enemy shows itself. Simply because some armies have integrated this basic rule up on the operational level doesn't mean they were simply "expending men". Not even when they're putting pressure on non-objectives to keep enemy forces from being relocated to more important areas.