History ZergRush / RealLife

5th Dec '17 10:06:44 AM Darkmage7280
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Russia made very poor use of this tactic in their invasion of Finland, where guerrilla tactics inflicted severe damage on the Red Army. In particular, their tanks subscribed heavily to this tactic, but in doing so, they were often exposed to unconventional weapons, like Molotov cocktails. Then the distinguished but incompetent in modern warfare Civil War Era generals were dismissed and replaced by the younger, more relevant leaders, the tactics were adjusted, and in two months the Red Army rolled Finns flat.[[note]]The war then ended with a negotiated settlement instead of the planned conquest of Finland, because of the threat of Britain and France joining the war on Finland's side. Which they actually were strongly considering.[[/note]] But this came at enormous cost; while Finland suffered 26,000 men killed in the war, the Soviets lost 127,000. One Red Army general is reputed to have said, "We have won just about enough ground to bury our dead."

to:

** Russia made very poor use of this tactic in their invasion of Finland, where guerrilla tactics inflicted severe damage on the Red Army. In particular, their tanks subscribed heavily to this tactic, but in doing so, they were often exposed to unconventional weapons, like Molotov cocktails. Then the distinguished but incompetent in modern warfare Civil War Era generals were dismissed and replaced by the younger, more relevant leaders, the tactics were adjusted, and in two months the Red Army rolled Finns flat.[[note]]The war then ended with a negotiated settlement instead of the planned conquest of Finland, because of the threat of Britain and France joining the war on Finland's side. Which they actually were strongly considering. Also, the spring thaw was approaching, which would've stranded the Red Army on a handful of roads leading into Finland. Further, Stalin was already eager to end a humiliating war on a relatively high note.[[/note]] But this came at enormous cost; while Finland suffered 26,000 men killed in the war, the Soviets lost 127,000. One Red Army general is reputed to have said, "We have won just about enough ground to bury our dead."
13th Sep '17 2:37:14 AM EvilKid
Is there an issue? Send a Message
13th Sep '17 2:34:56 AM EvilKid
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* There was once a military manoeuvre/unit known as the Forlorn Hope. These were the first men into a breached wall in a siege situation, so called because of their chances of surviving (also possibly a corruption of the Dutch for "Lost Company", Verloren Hoop). Anyone who ''did'' survive was automatically made an officer.
** Among the French. While a British officer who survived the Forlorn Hope was promoted, for the men it was just the glory of having taken part and making it through.
** A lieutenant became a captain and sergeants were promoted to ensigns. If anyone were to survive it'd be them...but it didn't happen very often...
** And you had to lead it. Just being in it didn't guarantee promotion, one had to lead it from the front, and that person also carried the flag of his nation, showing everyone who to kill. See the Sharpe series for more info, as Bernard Cornwell gets it right.



* There was once a military manoeuvre/unit known as the Forlorn Hope. These were the first men into a breached wall in a siege situation, so called because of their chances of surviving (also possibly a corruption of the Dutch for "Lost Company", Verloren Hoop). Anyone who ''did'' survive was automatically made an officer.
** Among the French. While a British officer who survived the Forlorn Hope was promoted, for the men it was just the glory of having taken part and making it through.
** A lieutenant became a captain and sergeants were promoted to ensigns. If anyone were to survive it'd be them...but it didn't happen very often...
** And you had to lead it. Just being in it didn't guarantee promotion, one had to lead it from the front, and that person also carried the flag of his nation, showing everyone who to kill. See the Sharpe series for more info, as Bernard Cornwell gets it right.
13th Sep '17 2:31:39 AM EvilKid
Is there an issue? Send a Message


!!! Military - General



* As a general rule the Zerg Rush does not work against a well-fortified position and concentrated fire. See Zulu Wars; Pickett's Charge; WW I...
** Though in the case of the Zulu, the Rush (in a slightly more complex form) was in fact a fairly new and effective tactic by which the Zulu had come to dominate the region, the work of a military genius who was unfortunately dead by the time the Zulu met the British. Had someone like him been around at the time, the Zulu might've fared better, as shown on one occasion when they did manage to get hold of some artillery.
!!! Military - Specifics



*** That would be Lanchester's Square Law in action. ''Tank'' numbers were never going to be a decisive factor - infantry anti-tank weapons, anti-tank and regular artillery, and air-support account for the vast majority of AFV kills throughout the war (and the Allied-German fronts were no exception). From the moment the Sherman-series first faced off against the Panther-series (later 1944), The Allies+Soviets had The Germans outnumbered by more than 5:1 in troops and 3:1 in AFVs... and these numbers only increased in the not-Germans' favour.

to:

*** That would be Lanchester's Square Law in action. ''Tank'' numbers were never going to be a decisive factor - infantry anti-tank weapons, anti-tank and regular artillery, and air-support account for the vast majority of AFV kills throughout the war (and the Allied-German fronts were no exception). From the moment the Sherman-series first faced off against the Panther-series (later 1944), The Allies+Soviets had The Germans outnumbered by more than 5:1 in troops and 3:1 in AFVs...AFV-s... and these numbers only increased in the not-Germans' favour.



* Reportedly used by the passengers on United 93 to defeat the hijackers.
* As a general rule the Zerg Rush does not work against a well-fortified position and concentrated fire. See Zulu Wars; Pickett's Charge; WW I...
** Though in the case of the Zulu, the Rush (in a slightly more complex form) was in fact a fairly new and effective tactic by which the Zulu had come to dominate the region, the work of a military genius who was unfortunately dead by the time the Zulu met the British. Had someone like him been around at the time, the Zulu might've fared better, as shown on one occasion when they did manage to get hold of some artillery.
* In HumansVersusZombies, this is the only reliable way to take down a good player. Against guys who have real world combat experiencea, anything less than six or so zombies, is not going to do them in.



** The typical cluster size in FAT32 is 4K. You can make it even smaller, but then the cluster table becomes over-large.

to:

** The typical cluster size in FAT32 [=FAT32=] is 4K. You can make it even smaller, but then the cluster table becomes over-large.


Added DiffLines:

* In [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_vs._Zombies Humans Versus Zombies]], this is the only reliable way to take down a good player. Against guys who have real world combat experiences, anything less than six or so zombies, is not going to do them in.
* Reportedly used by the passengers on United 93 to defeat the hijackers.
13th Sep '17 2:17:27 AM EvilKid
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* 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?"

to:

* The Korean War had many examples of the Zerg Rush. North Korean forces (or sometimes, Chinese Volunteer 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?"



* In the fallout after Iran's 2009 presidential elections, this strategy was on the protesters' side. [[http://www.dailymotion.com/user/mightier-than/video/x9ndxl_battle-w-police-tehran-iran-june-20_news These]] riot police don't seem too confident. Any sizable riot going up against riot police is essentially this trope.
** To what degree, if any, the police sympathize with rioters is a crucial element when considering a ZergRush against the government. The Iranian populace and the government have a "tense" relationship, and the economic sanctions levied against Iran for selling arms and developing a nuclear programme shattered the economy. The Internet, global news, and evolving international norms make it difficult for a government to order the slaughter of unarmed civilians without facing sanctions or complete isolation. Governments considered "illegitimate" by the majority of their people tend to become paranoid, but how long those regimes can hold power (both domestically and internationally) before such they slaughter or fall to a ZergRush is the open question. Since the mass murder of civilians usually prompts outcry and ''another'' ZergRush, a sufficiently large protest tends to have the advantage.[[note]]Unless the nation's government is so ruthless it will slaughter civilians ''and'' the world community has no real power. China is Iran's foil in this respect: the Chinese economy is, well, "too big to fail," so the international community's hands are tied, unless a land war in Asia sounds like a good idea to you.[[/note]]
* During many of the Communist collapses of the late 80's (Romania is particularly notable for this effect), the regime collapsed precisely because the military ultimately refused to slaughter the rebelling populace (largely because they no longer believed in the regime). Some say the 1989 Tiananmen (Gate of Heavenly Peace) Square and related protests were heading this way, when troops from the local (Zhili) military district were brought in to get people to disperse. However, as they spoke the same dialect/language and came from the same area, very few were willing to use force to get the striking workers and student protestors to go back to work or to their studies, respectively. The Party had to get the local forces to stand down and then bring in divisions from another military district, briefing them that the city had descended into foreign-orchestrated riots and anarchy, before ordering them to disperse them by force. [[DeadlyEuphemism Maximum force,]] in some cases, though the numbers are disputed and there is really no way to be sure without access to the CCP's archives. Something similar happened in the USSR too, but there (unlike Romania, which was led by a real [[AxCrazy autocrat]]) even the leadership itself was reluctant to use force, and calling for the army was more of a kneejerk reaction rather that the real intent, so everything just kinda petered out.
** The same business occurred in the [[UsefulNotes/MiddleEastUprising2011 Arab Revolutions of 2011]]; the governments of UsefulNotes/{{Tunisia}} and [[UsefulNotes/ModernEgypt Egypt]] fell more or less because their militaries refused to fire on protesters, and other techniques were useless because of the sheer number of protesters. Libya turned into a CivilWar and Syria and Bahrain turned into bloodbaths because the government forces were willing to fire on the people; however, we should note that because the Libyan and Syrian militaries/security forces had similar demographics to the general public, defections to the protesting side kept the situation protracted, while the fact that the Bahraini forces (and the [[SummonBiggerFish Saudi and Emirati forces they called in to help]]) were primarily Sunni and the protesters primarily Shia made defections less of an issue, and the uprising was crushed as a result. On the other hand, Morocco explicitly ordered its security forces not to fire on protesters no matter what they did, which is why the protests there never got that big and why the regime was able to get away with moderate reforms.
** The [[WhyWeAreBummedCommunismFell USSR is an odd case]] of a nation collapsing peacefully, something that hasn't happened since the advent of the nation-state system. The most westward of the [=SSRs=][[note]]Soviet Socialist Republics[[/note]] -- Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania ("The Baltics") -- were already under the doctrine of "Baltic exceptionalism," so when protests began, an armed response was off the table. (The Baltics have historically been considered part of Europe, which was why the Soviet government opted against crushing the rebellion; the odds that the conflict would escalate and turn into a proxy war were far higher. Gorbachev was also in the middle of instituting a number of reforms and caught up in an intra-party war for power, and it's unlikely his worldview would have allowed for armed response (i.e., massive civilian causalities), so the Baltics were the first out.)
** The Soviet government was the victim of a ZergRush itself, led by ''the president of Soviet Russia'' -- BorisYeltsin, who stood atop a tank in Red Square demanding sovereignty for all Soviet nations. It could be argued that the government in Russia only changes ''by'' ZergRush -- it was a major tactic of the Bolsheviks, of the pro-democracy movements that ended Soviet rule, and, as of TheNewTens, it's the new ''fear''. UsefulNotes/VladimirPutin faced protests after his third election to the presidency, the major slogan of which was "Russia without Putin," so the state issued a cap on the number of protestors allowed. It's impossible to know what the effect would have been had protestors not been scared away, but [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement they were the largest protests seen since 1991]].



* In the [=FAT32=] filesystem, each file occupies a minimum of 16KB of disk space, even if its size in bytes is less than that. Thus, tons of tiny files can waste much more disk space than a few big files.
** The typical cluster size in FAT32 is 4K. You can make it even smaller, but then the cluster table becomes over-large.
** This actually depends on how the filesystem was setup. File systems addresses space in terms of clusters, in the case of [=FAT32=], 2^32-1 clusters. However, you can set cluster sizes to ''64KB'', meaning, at the minimum, all files will take up 64KB.
** Similarly, Google Chrome. Unlike other browsers, each tab is its own process (basically, each tab is run as its own program). While this has benefits such as a small number of tabs running better and crash resistance (one tab crapping out won't cause others to), it also means that having a large number of tabs can end up taking up a disproportionately large amount of memory, even if all those tabs are simply blank pages.
*** Which is [[WikiWalk not good]] for this very wiki.



* Soldiers of the Japanese 3rd Army in the battle and siege of Port Arthur during the Russo-Japanese War. Japanese soldiers hurled themselves against stout fortress defenses, dying by the thousand.
** Averted. Those charges did absolutely nothing, with thousands of men dying for no ground gained... until the commanders of the infantry and artillery finally agreed to ''work together'', extremely closely, with the artillery deigning to give the infantry prelimary bombardments for their attacks and fire-support on-demand once they were underway. The reality of Japanese victory at Port Arthur was nowhere near as cool or interesting as the ZergRush thing, though, so guess which story everybody (including the Japanese themselves) heard about courtesy of the war-correspondents there to witness the fighting?
* Famously subverted at the Battle of Thermopylae, which funneled the massive zerg rushing Persian army into a narrow corridor straight into Greek spears. Numbers counted for nothing. [[BigBookOfWar Sun Tzu]] ''especially'' warns of attacking "a pass so narrow a single man can defend it".
!!! Non-military examples



* Soldiers of the Japanese 3rd Army in the battle and siege of Port Arthur during the Russo-Japanese War. Japanese soldiers hurled themselves against stout fortress defenses, dying by the thousand.
** Averted. Those charges did absolutely nothing, with thousands of men dying for no ground gained... until the commanders of the infantry and artillery finally agreed to ''work together'', extremely closely, with the artillery deigning to give the infantry prelimary bombardments for their attacks and fire-support on-demand once they were underway. The reality of Japanese victory at Port Arthur was nowhere near as cool or interesting as the ZergRush thing, though, so guess which story everybody (including the Japanese themselves) heard about courtesy of the war-correspondents there to witness the fighting?
* Famously subverted at the Battle of Thermopylae, which funneled the massive zerg rushing Persian army into a narrow corridor straight into Greek spears. Numbers counted for nothing. [[BigBookOfWar Sun Tzu]] ''especially'' warns of attacking "a pass so narrow a single man can defend it".


Added DiffLines:

* In the fallout after Iran's 2009 presidential elections, this strategy was on the protesters' side. [[http://www.dailymotion.com/user/mightier-than/video/x9ndxl_battle-w-police-tehran-iran-june-20_news These]] riot police don't seem too confident. Any sizable riot going up against riot police is essentially this trope.
** To what degree, if any, the police sympathize with rioters is a crucial element when considering a ZergRush against the government. The Iranian populace and the government have a "tense" relationship, and the economic sanctions levied against Iran for selling arms and developing a nuclear programme shattered the economy. The Internet, global news, and evolving international norms make it difficult for a government to order the slaughter of unarmed civilians without facing sanctions or complete isolation. Governments considered "illegitimate" by the majority of their people tend to become paranoid, but how long those regimes can hold power (both domestically and internationally) before such they slaughter or fall to a ZergRush is the open question. Since the mass murder of civilians usually prompts outcry and ''another'' ZergRush, a sufficiently large protest tends to have the advantage.[[note]]Unless the nation's government is so ruthless it will slaughter civilians ''and'' the world community has no real power. China is Iran's foil in this respect: the Chinese economy is, well, "too big to fail," so the international community's hands are tied, unless a land war in Asia sounds like a good idea to you.[[/note]]
* During many of the Communist collapses of the late 80's (Romania is particularly notable for this effect), the regime collapsed precisely because the military ultimately refused to slaughter the rebelling populace (largely because they no longer believed in the regime). Some say the 1989 Tiananmen (Gate of Heavenly Peace) Square and related protests were heading this way, when troops from the local (Zhili) military district were brought in to get people to disperse. However, as they spoke the same dialect/language and came from the same area, very few were willing to use force to get the striking workers and student protestors to go back to work or to their studies, respectively. The Party had to get the local forces to stand down and then bring in divisions from another military district, briefing them that the city had descended into foreign-orchestrated riots and anarchy, before ordering them to disperse them by force. [[DeadlyEuphemism Maximum force,]] in some cases, though the numbers are disputed and there is really no way to be sure without access to the CCP's archives. Something similar happened in the USSR too, but there (unlike Romania, which was led by a real [[AxCrazy autocrat]]) even the leadership itself was reluctant to use force, and calling for the army was more of a kneejerk reaction rather that the real intent, so everything just kinda petered out.
** The same business occurred in the [[UsefulNotes/MiddleEastUprising2011 Arab Revolutions of 2011]]; the governments of UsefulNotes/{{Tunisia}} and [[UsefulNotes/ModernEgypt Egypt]] fell more or less because their militaries refused to fire on protesters, and other techniques were useless because of the sheer number of protesters. Libya turned into a CivilWar and Syria and Bahrain turned into bloodbaths because the government forces were willing to fire on the people; however, we should note that because the Libyan and Syrian militaries/security forces had similar demographics to the general public, defections to the protesting side kept the situation protracted, while the fact that the Bahraini forces (and the [[SummonBiggerFish Saudi and Emirati forces they called in to help]]) were primarily Sunni and the protesters primarily Shia made defections less of an issue, and the uprising was crushed as a result. On the other hand, Morocco explicitly ordered its security forces not to fire on protesters no matter what they did, which is why the protests there never got that big and why the regime was able to get away with moderate reforms.
** The [[WhyWeAreBummedCommunismFell USSR is an odd case]] of a nation collapsing peacefully, something that hasn't happened since the advent of the nation-state system. The most westward of the [=SSRs=][[note]]Soviet Socialist Republics[[/note]] -- Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania ("The Baltics") -- were already under the doctrine of "Baltic exceptionalism," so when protests began, an armed response was off the table. (The Baltics have historically been considered part of Europe, which was why the Soviet government opted against crushing the rebellion; the odds that the conflict would escalate and turn into a proxy war were far higher. Gorbachev was also in the middle of instituting a number of reforms and caught up in an intra-party war for power, and it's unlikely his worldview would have allowed for armed response (i.e., massive civilian causalities), so the Baltics were the first out.)
** The Soviet government was the victim of a ZergRush itself, led by ''the president of Soviet Russia'' -- BorisYeltsin, who stood atop a tank in Red Square demanding sovereignty for all Soviet nations. It could be argued that the government in Russia only changes ''by'' ZergRush -- it was a major tactic of the Bolsheviks, of the pro-democracy movements that ended Soviet rule, and, as of TheNewTens, it's the new ''fear''. UsefulNotes/VladimirPutin faced protests after his third election to the presidency, the major slogan of which was "Russia without Putin," so the state issued a cap on the number of protestors allowed. It's impossible to know what the effect would have been had protestors not been scared away, but [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement they were the largest protests seen since 1991]].
* In the [=FAT32=] filesystem, each file occupies a minimum of 16KB of disk space, even if its size in bytes is less than that. Thus, tons of tiny files can waste much more disk space than a few big files.
** The typical cluster size in FAT32 is 4K. You can make it even smaller, but then the cluster table becomes over-large.
** This actually depends on how the filesystem was setup. File systems addresses space in terms of clusters, in the case of [=FAT32=], 2^32-1 clusters. However, you can set cluster sizes to ''64KB'', meaning, at the minimum, all files will take up 64KB.
** Similarly, Google Chrome. Unlike other browsers, each tab is its own process (basically, each tab is run as its own program). While this has benefits such as a small number of tabs running better and crash resistance (one tab crapping out won't cause others to), it also means that having a large number of tabs can end up taking up a disproportionately large amount of memory, even if all those tabs are simply blank pages.
*** Which is [[WikiWalk not good]] for this very wiki.
6th Sep '17 9:23:34 PM TheWildWestPyro
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The Japanese used Banzai charges to great effect in China during the Second Sino-Japanese war, even against fully-alerted, unbroken infantry. But then, the majority of Chinese troops were poorly trained and poorly supplied. Often, Chinese soldiers were expected to hold off Japanese attacks with bolt-action rifles and stick grenades, while Japanese troops were frequently supported by artillery, tanks, poison gas and airplanes. Banzai charges could be stopped easily by machine guns, but most Chinese platoons only had one light machine gun on average, with every battalion only getting a single heavy machine gun. This lead to many cases where Japanese soldiers, well-trained in bayonet fighting, would charge through Chinese rifle fire and inflict heavy casualties on the defenders. Most Chinese troops (from [[UsefulNotes/NoMoreEmperors the Guomindang, Guominjun, Guangxi Clique, Communist China and Yunnan]]) seldom had any artillery (using mortars instead) or even barbed wire; they had no air support either. Most warlord soldiers (with the exception of the Guangxi Clique) were even worse-equipped; in the early border clashes with Japan and its puppet states, they could even [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_the_Great_Wall count themselves lucky]] if they had bolt-action rifles and a literal handful of ammunition. [[note]]A Chinese folk song praises the virtues of fighting a rich enemy; its first verse begins, "No guns, no cannons, but only what the enemy provides us." By the late stages of the war, a lot of Chinese equipment was captured from the Japanese -- not just rifles, artillery, and ammunition, but helmets, combat webbing, and even shoes. This led to friendly-fire incidents, but even that was better than trying to fight barefoot with bamboo spears or Dadao swords. [[/note]] But the US was as well-equipped relative to Japan as the Japanese were relative to China; at the Battle of the Coral Sea, the US would have more surface ships than the Japanese had aircraft, and infantry were equipped to match. (US infantry also carried a semi-automatic rifle, the M1 Garand; both China and Japan still used bolt-action rifles with five-round magazines.) So, while US troops feared banzai charges as demoralizing and unsettling, they weren't particularly vulnerable to them; the failed charge at Henderson Field was [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzai_charge the first of many]]. A decisive factor was that the Americans had plenty of automatic weapons to back up their infantry, while the Japanese were in short supply of automatics. But Japanese commanders falsely claimed that the tactic still worked, [[AttackAttackAttack meaning that it stuck around until 1944]].

to:

* The Japanese used Banzai charges to great effect in China during the Second Sino-Japanese war, UsefulNotes/SecondSinoJapaneseWar, even against fully-alerted, unbroken infantry. But then, the majority of Chinese troops were poorly trained and poorly supplied. Often, Chinese soldiers were expected to hold off Japanese attacks with bolt-action rifles and stick grenades, while Japanese troops were frequently supported by artillery, tanks, poison gas and airplanes. Banzai charges could be stopped easily by machine guns, but most Chinese platoons only had one light machine gun on average, with every battalion only getting a single heavy machine gun. This lead to many cases where Japanese soldiers, well-trained in bayonet fighting, would charge through Chinese rifle fire and inflict heavy casualties on the defenders. Most Chinese troops (from [[UsefulNotes/NoMoreEmperors the Guomindang, Guominjun, Guangxi Clique, Communist China and Yunnan]]) seldom had any artillery (using mortars instead) or even barbed wire; they had no air support either. Most warlord soldiers (with the exception of the Guangxi Clique) were even worse-equipped; in the early border clashes with Japan and its puppet states, they could even [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_the_Great_Wall count themselves lucky]] if they had bolt-action rifles and a literal handful of ammunition. [[note]]A Chinese folk song praises the virtues of fighting a rich enemy; its first verse begins, "No guns, no cannons, but only what the enemy provides us." By the late stages of the war, a lot of Chinese equipment was captured from the Japanese -- not just rifles, artillery, and ammunition, but helmets, combat webbing, and even shoes. This led to friendly-fire incidents, but even that was better than trying to fight barefoot with bamboo spears or Dadao swords. [[/note]] But the US was as well-equipped relative to Japan as the Japanese were relative to China; at the Battle of the Coral Sea, the US would have more surface ships than the Japanese had aircraft, and infantry were equipped to match. (US infantry also carried a semi-automatic rifle, the M1 Garand; both China and Japan still used bolt-action rifles with five-round magazines.) So, while US troops feared banzai charges as demoralizing and unsettling, they weren't particularly vulnerable to them; the failed charge at Henderson Field was [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzai_charge the first of many]]. A decisive factor was that the Americans had plenty of automatic weapons to back up their infantry, while the Japanese were in short supply of automatics. But Japanese commanders falsely claimed that the tactic still worked, [[AttackAttackAttack meaning that it stuck around until 1944]].
6th Sep '17 9:22:50 PM TheWildWestPyro
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Zig-zagged with the Chinese military during the UsefulNotes/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 Korean War supposedly quipped, "how many squads of Chinese make up a human wave?"
*** There are indications that Human wave attacks, especially as applied by Asian forces, seem to have been more akin to infiltration tactics than the western WW1-vintage human wave attack. Chinese forces seem to have infiltrated very close to the American perimeter and than attacked the last meters in a massive wave overwhelming the defenders.

to:

*** Zig-zagged with the Chinese military [[UsefulNotes/ChineseWithChopperSupport People's Volunteer Army]] during the UsefulNotes/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 Korean War supposedly quipped, "how many squads of Chinese make up a human wave?"
*** There are indications that Human wave attacks, especially as applied by Asian forces, seem to have been more akin to infiltration tactics than the western WW1-vintage human wave attack. Chinese forces seem to have infiltrated very close to the American perimeter and than attacked the last meters in a massive wave overwhelming the defenders.defenders, but primitive communications systems lead to multiple Chinese fireteams attacking the UN lines repeatedly.



* The Japanese used Banzai charges to great effect in China during the Second Sino-Japanese war, even against fully-alerted, unbroken infantry. But then, the majority of Chinese troops were poorly trained and poorly supplied. Often, Chinese soldiers were expected to hold off Japanese attacks with bolt-action rifles and stick grenades, while Japanese troops were frequently supported by artillery and airplanes. Banzai charges could be stopped easily by machine guns, but most Chinese platoons only had one light machine gun on average, with every battalion only getting a single heavy machine gun. This lead to many cases where Japanese soldiers, well-trained in bayonet fighting, would charge through Chinese rifle fire and inflict heavy casualties on the defenders. Most Chinese troops (from [[UsefulNotes/NoMoreEmperors the Guomindang, Guominjun, Guangxi Clique, Communist China and Yunnan]]) seldom had any artillery (using mortars instead) or even barbed wire; they had no air support either. Most warlord soldiers (with the exception of the Guangxi Clique) were even worse-equipped; in the early border clashes with Japan and its puppet states, they could even [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_the_Great_Wall count themselves lucky]] if they had bolt-action rifles and a literal handful of ammunition. [[note]]A Chinese folk song praises the virtues of fighting a rich enemy; its first verse begins, "No guns, no cannons, but only what the enemy provides us." By the late stages of the war, a lot of Chinese equipment was captured from the Japanese -- not just rifles, artillery, and ammunition, but helmets, combat webbing, and even shoes. This led to friendly-fire incidents, but even that was better than trying to fight barefoot with bamboo spears or Dadao swords. [[/note]] But the US was as well-equipped relative to Japan as the Japanese were relative to China; at the Battle of the Coral Sea, the US would have more surface ships than the Japanese had aircraft, and infantry were equipped to match. (US infantry also carried a semi-automatic rifle, the M1 Garand; both China and Japan still used bolt-action rifles with five-round magazines.) So, while US troops feared banzai charges as demoralizing and unsettling, they weren't particularly vulnerable to them; the failed charge at Henderson Field was [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzai_charge the first of many]]. A decisive factor was that the Americans had plenty of automatic weapons to back up their infantry, while the Japanese were in short supply of automatics. But Japanese commanders falsely claimed that the tactic still worked, [[AttackAttackAttack meaning that it stuck around until 1944]].

to:

* The Japanese used Banzai charges to great effect in China during the Second Sino-Japanese war, even against fully-alerted, unbroken infantry. But then, the majority of Chinese troops were poorly trained and poorly supplied. Often, Chinese soldiers were expected to hold off Japanese attacks with bolt-action rifles and stick grenades, while Japanese troops were frequently supported by artillery artillery, tanks, poison gas and airplanes. Banzai charges could be stopped easily by machine guns, but most Chinese platoons only had one light machine gun on average, with every battalion only getting a single heavy machine gun. This lead to many cases where Japanese soldiers, well-trained in bayonet fighting, would charge through Chinese rifle fire and inflict heavy casualties on the defenders. Most Chinese troops (from [[UsefulNotes/NoMoreEmperors the Guomindang, Guominjun, Guangxi Clique, Communist China and Yunnan]]) seldom had any artillery (using mortars instead) or even barbed wire; they had no air support either. Most warlord soldiers (with the exception of the Guangxi Clique) were even worse-equipped; in the early border clashes with Japan and its puppet states, they could even [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_the_Great_Wall count themselves lucky]] if they had bolt-action rifles and a literal handful of ammunition. [[note]]A Chinese folk song praises the virtues of fighting a rich enemy; its first verse begins, "No guns, no cannons, but only what the enemy provides us." By the late stages of the war, a lot of Chinese equipment was captured from the Japanese -- not just rifles, artillery, and ammunition, but helmets, combat webbing, and even shoes. This led to friendly-fire incidents, but even that was better than trying to fight barefoot with bamboo spears or Dadao swords. [[/note]] But the US was as well-equipped relative to Japan as the Japanese were relative to China; at the Battle of the Coral Sea, the US would have more surface ships than the Japanese had aircraft, and infantry were equipped to match. (US infantry also carried a semi-automatic rifle, the M1 Garand; both China and Japan still used bolt-action rifles with five-round magazines.) So, while US troops feared banzai charges as demoralizing and unsettling, they weren't particularly vulnerable to them; the failed charge at Henderson Field was [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzai_charge the first of many]]. A decisive factor was that the Americans had plenty of automatic weapons to back up their infantry, while the Japanese were in short supply of automatics. But Japanese commanders falsely claimed that the tactic still worked, [[AttackAttackAttack meaning that it stuck around until 1944]].
29th Aug '17 6:56:11 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Lampshaded in AHardDaysNight.

to:

** Lampshaded in AHardDaysNight.''Film/AHardDaysNight''.
24th Aug '17 5:06:47 AM sffreak
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** There's a Hungarian saying along the lines of "...as many as the Russians". Hungary lost both the revolutionary war in 1849 and the anti-Soviet rebellion in 1956 due to the enemy calling in Russian reinforcements, who employed this tactic.

to:

** There's a Hungarian saying along the lines of "...as many as the Russians".Russians" (neighbouring Slovenia has the saying as well). Hungary lost both the revolutionary war in 1849 and the anti-Soviet rebellion in 1956 due to the enemy calling in Russian reinforcements, who employed this tactic.
23rd Jul '17 10:08:42 AM TheWildWestPyro
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The Japanese used Banzai charges to great effect in China during the Second Sino-Japanese war, even against fully-alerted, unbroken infantry. But then, the majority of Chinese troops were poorly trained and poorly supplied. Often, Chinese soldiers were expected to hold off Japanese attacks with bolt-action rifles and stick grenades, while Japanese troops were frequently supported by artillery and airplanes. Banzai charges could be stopped easily by machine guns, but most Chinese platoons only had one light machine gun on average, with every battalion only getting a single heavy machine gun. This lead to many cases where Japanese soldiers, well-trained in bayonet fighting, would charge through Chinese rifle fire and inflict heavy casualties on the defenders. Most Chinese troops (from [[UsefulNotes/NoMoreEmperors the Guomindang, Guominjun, Guangxi Clique, Communist China and Yunnan]]) seldom had any artillery, a few or no mortars at all, or even barbed wire; they had no air support either. Most warlord soldiers were even worse-equipped; in the early border clashes with Japan and its puppet states, they could even [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_the_Great_Wall count themselves lucky]] if they had bolt-action rifles and a literal handful of ammunition. [[note]]A Chinese folk song praises the virtues of fighting a rich enemy; its first verse begins, "No guns, no cannons, but only what the enemy provides us." By the late stages of the war, a lot of Chinese equipment was captured from the Japanese -- not just rifles, artillery, and ammunition, but helmets, combat webbing, and even shoes. This led to friendly-fire incidents, but even that was better than trying to fight barefoot with bamboo spears or Dadao swords. [[/note]] But the US was as well-equipped relative to Japan as the Japanese were relative to China; at the Battle of the Coral Sea, the US would have more surface ships than the Japanese had aircraft, and infantry were equipped to match. (US infantry also carried a semi-automatic rifle, the M1 Garand; both China and Japan still used bolt-action rifles with five-round magazines.) So, while US troops feared banzai charges as demoralizing and unsettling, they weren't particularly vulnerable to them; the failed charge at Henderson Field was [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzai_charge the first of many]]. A decisive factor was that the Americans had plenty of automatic weapons to back up their infantry, while the Japanese were in short supply of automatics. But Japanese commanders falsely claimed that the tactic still worked, [[AttackAttackAttack meaning that it stuck around until 1944]].

to:

* The Japanese used Banzai charges to great effect in China during the Second Sino-Japanese war, even against fully-alerted, unbroken infantry. But then, the majority of Chinese troops were poorly trained and poorly supplied. Often, Chinese soldiers were expected to hold off Japanese attacks with bolt-action rifles and stick grenades, while Japanese troops were frequently supported by artillery and airplanes. Banzai charges could be stopped easily by machine guns, but most Chinese platoons only had one light machine gun on average, with every battalion only getting a single heavy machine gun. This lead to many cases where Japanese soldiers, well-trained in bayonet fighting, would charge through Chinese rifle fire and inflict heavy casualties on the defenders. Most Chinese troops (from [[UsefulNotes/NoMoreEmperors the Guomindang, Guominjun, Guangxi Clique, Communist China and Yunnan]]) seldom had any artillery, a few or no artillery (using mortars at all, instead) or even barbed wire; they had no air support either. Most warlord soldiers (with the exception of the Guangxi Clique) were even worse-equipped; in the early border clashes with Japan and its puppet states, they could even [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_the_Great_Wall count themselves lucky]] if they had bolt-action rifles and a literal handful of ammunition. [[note]]A Chinese folk song praises the virtues of fighting a rich enemy; its first verse begins, "No guns, no cannons, but only what the enemy provides us." By the late stages of the war, a lot of Chinese equipment was captured from the Japanese -- not just rifles, artillery, and ammunition, but helmets, combat webbing, and even shoes. This led to friendly-fire incidents, but even that was better than trying to fight barefoot with bamboo spears or Dadao swords. [[/note]] But the US was as well-equipped relative to Japan as the Japanese were relative to China; at the Battle of the Coral Sea, the US would have more surface ships than the Japanese had aircraft, and infantry were equipped to match. (US infantry also carried a semi-automatic rifle, the M1 Garand; both China and Japan still used bolt-action rifles with five-round magazines.) So, while US troops feared banzai charges as demoralizing and unsettling, they weren't particularly vulnerable to them; the failed charge at Henderson Field was [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzai_charge the first of many]]. A decisive factor was that the Americans had plenty of automatic weapons to back up their infantry, while the Japanese were in short supply of automatics. But Japanese commanders falsely claimed that the tactic still worked, [[AttackAttackAttack meaning that it stuck around until 1944]].
This list shows the last 10 events of 215. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=ZergRush.RealLife