| From: | Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Second Hand |
| Date: | Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:20:31 +0100 |
<dhinkley@***.org> writes
>The key to victory with human wave attacks is to have more people then he
>has ammunition. Or to put another way if he has anyone still standing when
>you gun goes click, you loose.
Depends - he needs enough to get through the obstacles and FPFs in front
of my position, overwhelm me and my men in hand-to-hand combat, and
then somehow he needs to hold the position against the counterattack or
CPEN force.
The _big_ problem with human waves is that it's harder to move men than
ammunition. You want to move a thousand men, you need fifty trucks.
One Bedford of rifle ammo will pretty much immunise the defenders
against running out of ammunition. You end up telegraphing your
punches.
The even bigger problem is vulnerability. How long do you spend exposed
to SFMG, artillery and mortar fire? How long do human-wave attackers
spend fighting through the barbed wire in front of your position, how
many die in the minefields... et cetera et cetera.
If all else fails... how many of those human wavers have NBC suits? Call in
airburst GB on your own position and get your people in NBC Black.
>And then there is the minimum range problem with grenade launchers.
Twenty metres or so, IIRC.
>At
>one poinit the Military Police branch was considering M19 armed Humvees
>for convoy protection, they thought it would be great weapon to break up an
>ambush with. That was until it was pointed out that most "near" ambushes
>happened inside the arming distance.
That _is_ for urban terrain.
>Sheer numbers when used to make human wave attacks while being
>effective undercertain conditions on the battle field, are a big downer on the
>Home Front. Remember Chinese soldiers have mothers too. Absent a
>positive feeling for religous martyrdom like that present in Iran during the Iran-
>Iraq War or a heroic defense of the motherland, high causulty rates cause
>real long term problems on the home front.
Note that Iranian human wave attacks failed to decisively defeat Iran.
>Now if you mean, a major numrical superiority, with a close to tech parity
>and reasonable supply levels, I am not sure that I would use the words "aren't
>that bad." My preference is major military advantage.
Yep, but "human wave attack" usually means throwing a howling horde
over the top at the enemy, with the participants having - if they're lucky -
an AK or cheap SMG and a couple of spare mags.
Once you've trained a man to be a skilled infantryman, to know his NBC
drills, to be a decent shot... once you've issued him a rifle, enough ammo
to be useful, chemical warfare gear, perhaps even an APC for him and his
squad to ride in... he becomes a valuable resource and not to be casually
wasted. Expended when necessary yes, wasted no.
--
Paul J. Adam
