History ZergRush / RealLife

19th Jan '16 4:30:53 PM BDNeon
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Minor grammatical correction
* The Korean War had many examples of the Zerg Rush. North Korean forces would sometimes attack in massive waves usually with inadequate armament. One example being a human wave of people carrying nothing but baskets of grenades. Another being human waves of men armed only with submachine guns, charging over clear terrain from far outside their weapons effective range, against Americans armed with long-range rifles. These moments were still tense for the Americans, but they also found that the closer the Koreans and Chinese got, the more effective their rifles got, as their bullets would start going through their attackers, and continue on to hit another person in the wave. Important to note is that the Chinese military doctrine of a "short attack" was actually a combination of infiltration and shock tactics where fireteams would come as close to the enemy positions under any cover (typically night) and concentrate all their forces on specific breakthrough points where successive fireteams would be sent in to create a breach in the enemy positions and then the bulk of Chinese forces would move in the widen the breach. The attacks would be carefully timed to minimise casualties, however due to primitive communications [[WeHaveReserves fireteams would be sent in until either the Chinese ran out of ammunition a breach was finally opened up]]. This created a strong impression on the UN forces and resulted in the popular joke "How many hordes are there in a Chinese platoon?"
to:
* The Korean War had many examples of the Zerg Rush. North Korean forces would sometimes attack in massive waves usually with inadequate armament. One example being a human wave of people carrying nothing but baskets of grenades. Another being human waves of men armed only with submachine guns, charging over clear terrain from far outside their weapons effective range, against Americans armed with long-range rifles. These moments were still tense for the Americans, but they also found that the closer the Koreans and Chinese got, the more effective their rifles got, as their bullets would start going through their attackers, and continue on to hit another person in the wave. Important to note is that the Chinese military doctrine of a "short attack" was actually a combination of infiltration and shock tactics where fireteams would come as close to the enemy positions under any cover (typically night) and concentrate all their forces on specific breakthrough points where successive fireteams would be sent in to create a breach in the enemy positions and then the bulk of Chinese forces would move in the widen the breach. The attacks would be carefully timed to minimise casualties, however due to primitive communications [[WeHaveReserves fireteams would be sent in until either the Chinese ran out of ammunition or a breach was finally opened up]]. This created a strong impression on the UN forces and resulted in the popular joke "How many hordes are there in a Chinese platoon?"
23rd Dec '15 8:12:31 PM VutherA
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
*** The Russians ''did'' continue to fight the Germans while significantly outnumbering them later as the war went on, but by this point this usually wasn't a product of them simply tossing more men into a fight than the other side can, but rather pre-battle misdirections and deceptions which tricked the Germans into spreading out their troops for Russians forces overwhelm in piecemeal.
11th Dec '15 2:02:35 PM Hewhoarisesinmight
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Generals fought this way in the 18th century because it was the most efficient way of winning. The bright uniforms and tight lines keep soldiers from being able to run away, and give them a decisive advantage when the time comes to press home with the bayonet if their enemy isn't also formed up in close order. Regardless, 18th century warfare remained very focused on scientifically conducted sieges, which offered outcomes without the bloodshed of a battle in the field.
* European warfare in the 18th century, after the devastation of 16th and 17th century total wars, had become a sort of song and dance with opposing generals actually meeting each other to mutually minimize their casualties, and to avoid destroying the actual resource they were fighting over. This style of warfare is actually ''exactly'' the method which Sun Tzu's "At of War" sees as the most efficient - to win the enemy by manouevre, and attacking his plans and alliances instead of his forces. The rule of warfare was to wear brightly colored uniforms so that everyone knew just who was on whose side, and to use thin files so one row at a time could fire, then get out of the way while they reloaded. This was not a very effective way to win (or rather kill), but was (relatively) predictable, respectable (in context), and (relatively) civilized; it was generally agreed to because highly disciplined, professional soldiers in this form of warfare were expensive to train, keep, and equip. In a case of victory, it also usually provided better [[{{Plunder}} outcomes of war]] than outright carnage and devastation. This system ended with UsefulNotes/TheFrenchRevolution; suddenly you have a French army five times its pre-Revolution size, much less trained as a whole, aggressive as a hornet's nest and directed by a government more encroaching on the general populace than the kings could ever manage and under attack by most of its neighbors (and then going on for the counter-attack), with generals who had none of these dainty sensibilities and qualms about where replacements for killed soldiers were going to come from or what the upper crust in snooty aristocratically-run nations would think...
to:
* European warfare in the 18th century, after the devastation of 16th and 17th century total wars, had become a sort of song and dance with opposing generals actually meeting each other to mutually minimize their casualties, and to avoid destroying the actual resource they were fighting over. This style of warfare is actually ''exactly'' the method which Sun Tzu's "At of War" sees as the most efficient - to win the enemy by manouevre, and attacking his plans and alliances instead of his forces. The rule of warfare was to wear brightly colored uniforms so that everyone knew just who was on whose side, and to use thin files so one row at a time could fire, then get out of the way while they reloaded. This was not a very effective way to win (or rather kill), but was (relatively) predictable, respectable (in context), and (relatively) civilized; it was generally agreed to because highly disciplined, professional soldiers in this form of warfare were expensive to train, keep, and equip. equip, sieges became the dominant form of warfare in the Early Modern Period. Once the attackers had dug in and prepared entrenched field guns, most defenders took the opportunity to surrender, keep their weapons, and retire to friendly territory. In a case of victory, it this system also usually provided better [[{{Plunder}} outcomes of war]] than outright carnage and devastation. This system ended with UsefulNotes/TheFrenchRevolution; suddenly you have a French army five times its pre-Revolution size, much less trained as a whole, aggressive as a hornet's nest and directed by a government more encroaching on the general populace than the kings could ever manage and under attack by most of its neighbors (and then going on for the counter-attack), with generals who had none of these dainty sensibilities and qualms about where replacements for killed soldiers were going to come from or what the upper crust in snooty aristocratically-run nations would think...
27th Sep '15 5:23:35 PM Getheren
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
*** Which is one of the strengths of [[TheHive eusocial superorganisms]]. One bee is no bee; for them, the hive is the basic unit of life. This means that massive defensive responses begin to make evolutionary sense; the colony survives so long as enough individuals survive to keep the brood safe.

Added DiffLines:
* Arguably, the human immune system, when working at peak efficiency, destroys invading pathogens by zerg-rushing them with antibodies.
24th Aug '15 5:14:12 PM phoenix
Is there an issue? Send a Message
** Zerging is a [[GoshHornet beehive's]] [[DisproportionateRetribution response]] [[GoddamnBats to pretty much]] [[WeHaveReserves everything, really...]]
to:
** Zerging is a [[GoshHornet [[BeeAfraid beehive's]] [[DisproportionateRetribution response]] [[GoddamnBats to pretty much]] [[WeHaveReserves everything, really...]]
23rd Jun '15 4:29:53 PM h27kim
Is there an issue? Send a Message
*** Even in tank to tank battles, the trope was actually played straight, although not necessarily the way people think. The standard practice for US tankers from D-Day onward was to not attack German panzers unless assured of at least 5-to-1 advantage (not necessarily loss of 5 Shermans for every Panther, which is a misreporting of this rule of thumb). Even on the German side, however, panzermen felt that at least 3 to 1 local advantage was necessary for even allegedly superior German Panthers to successfully attack defending T-34s or Shermans, so great was the defensive power of the tanks in general. Every instance in 1943 or later where German panzers attacked Allied tanks without at least 2.5 to 1 local advantage was beaten back.
to:
*** Even in tank to tank battles, the trope was actually played straight, straight quite often, although not necessarily the way people think. The standard practice for US tankers from D-Day onward was to not attack German panzers unless assured of at least 5-to-1 numerical advantage (not necessarily the oft-quoted loss of 5 Shermans for every Panther, which is a misreporting of this rule of thumb). Even on the German side, however, panzermen felt that at least 3 to 1 local advantage in numbers was necessary for even allegedly superior German Panthers to successfully attack defending T-34s or Shermans, so great was the defensive power of the tanks in general. Every Almost every instance in 1943 or later where German panzers attacked Allied tanks without at least 2.5 to 1 local advantage was beaten back.
23rd Jun '15 1:55:46 PM h27kim
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
*** Even in tank to tank battles, the trope was actually played straight, although not necessarily the way people think. The standard practice for US tankers from D-Day onward was to not attack German panzers unless assured of at least 5-to-1 advantage (not necessarily loss of 5 Shermans for every Panther, which is a misreporting of this rule of thumb). Even on the German side, however, panzermen felt that at least 3 to 1 local advantage was necessary for even allegedly superior German Panthers to successfully attack defending T-34s or Shermans, so great was the defensive power of the tanks in general. Every instance in 1943 or later where German panzers attacked Allied tanks without at least 2.5 to 1 local advantage was beaten back.
23rd Jun '15 9:13:03 AM h27kim
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
*** Zig-zagged with the Chinese military during the KoreanWar, and indeed, with many armed forces supposedly using "human wave" tactics. They may be given to WeHaveReserves mentality due to relative scarcity of high tech equipment and large numerical advantage, but trained manpower is not easily replaceable and even low-tech, high-manpower forces tend to rely on skills and tactics except under most dire conditions. A US marine during the KoreanWar supposedly quipped, "how many squads of Chinese make up a human wave?"
26th Apr '15 4:34:53 PM TalonsofIceandFire
Is there an issue? Send a Message
* Russia is infamous for doing doing this throughout many of the wars it fought.
to:
* Russia is especially infamous for doing doing this throughout many of the wars it fought. fought.
26th Apr '15 4:34:23 PM TalonsofIceandFire
Is there an issue? Send a Message
* The reason why Russia managed to win several battles against armies more organized than their own.
to:
* The reason why Russia managed to win several battles against armies more organized than their own.is infamous for doing doing this throughout many of the wars it fought.
This list shows the last 10 events of 174. Show all.