什么是TG的“人海战术”？

那些吐槽TG人海战术的 智商都是高达250的

人海战术技术上的弱势 。。。。需要人数去弥补。。。。

至于国外  那是吃不到葡萄鲜葡萄酸

你看看吐槽的都是些什么人吧

他们吐他们的！我们做我门的！

人海战术是美国人的战略贬低，中国导演帮忙做了佐证。

他们想象中的人海战术...就是十三叉里面排队挨枪子那样的吧...根本无视老毛的战术精髓...

Dream_Angel 发表于 2011-12-30 23:58
人海战术技术上的弱势 。。。。需要人数去弥补。。。。

至于国外  那是吃不到葡萄鲜葡萄酸
同意，08奥运外国媒体吐槽老谋子的策划，称之为“人海战术”。
老谋子的回应和你一样，“吃不到葡萄说葡萄酸”，言外之意老外人多也会搞的。

第一，集中优势兵力是战争常识，不知道这一点的没资格谈论军事问题

第二，恰恰是兔子的敌人往往更喜欢喜欢人海

第一，集中优势兵力是战争常识，不知道这一点的没资格谈论军事问题

第二，恰恰是兔子的敌人往往更喜欢喜欢人海

TG没咋用过人海战术吧，TG什么时候拉开一个团以上部队死命冲锋的？倒是KMT从抗战到内战，一直人海来着，塔山之战更是直接展开几个师波次冲锋...

cardo 发表于 2011-12-31 00:07
TG没咋用过人海战术吧，TG什么时候拉开一个团以上部队死命冲锋的？倒是KMT从抗战到内战，一直人海来着，塔山 ...
所以人海战术上我打了引号。还加了所谓二字

不管是啥意义上的人海，兔子都没用过。电影里除外

人再多有子弹多？

TG的人海战术的最佳解释就是淮海战役。60万对80万。但是在每一处战场上兵力都两三倍于伟大的国军。人海战术的真相就是在一个大战场上让大部分敌人跟空气作战，小部分敌人却面对我两三倍兵力的围攻。

冰冰冷有点苦 发表于 2011-12-31 00:16
TG的人海战术的最佳解释就是淮海战役。60万对80万。但是在每一处战场上兵力都两三倍于伟大的国军。人海战术 ...
确实，其实根本就不是人海，大多是在整体劣势中保证优势兵力。
不过淮海战役我们有“天军”帮助。

一战索姆河迎着机枪冲锋的英军、南北战争的皮克特冲锋才是所谓的人海战术，真正做到了拿人对子弹、拿尸体量阵地

一战索姆河迎着机枪冲锋的英军、南北战争的皮克特冲锋才是所谓的人海战术，真正做到了拿人对子弹、拿尸体量阵地

集中优势兵力

美国空军最喜欢用“人海战术”了。

你总要给美军一个解释朝鲜战争的说辞吧，最先进的武器，二战的精兵，面对装备极差的志愿军却打成这样，国内不好解释了，只能在数量上坐文章。人多就会赢？那五万日本兵能占领十几万守军的南京，这说明什么情况。

老美军人对TG的战术很清楚，下面是摘来的，翻译了部分。

Human wave attack, also known as human sea attack,[1] is an offensive infantry tactic, in which an attacker conducts an unprotected frontal assault with densely concentrated infantry formations against the enemy line, intended to overrun the defenders by engaging in melee combat.
The term "human wave attack" was often misused[11] to describe the Chinese short attack — a combination of infiltration and the shock tactics employed by the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) during the Korean War.[12]

所谓的人海战术经常被错误的用来描述解放军的短暂进攻战术-一种在朝鲜战争中为解放军所用的渗透与打击相结合的战术。

A typical Chinese short attack was carried out at night by small fireteams on a narrow front against the weakest point in enemy defenses.[12] The Chinese assault team would crawl undetected within grenade range, then launch surprise attacks against the defenders in order to breach the defenses by relying on maximum shock and confusion.[12]

If the initial shock failed to breach the defenses, additional fireteams would press on behind them and attack the same point until a breach was created.[12] Once a penetration was achieved, the bulk of the Chinese forces would move into the enemy rear and attack from behind.[13] During the attacks, the Chinese assault teams would disperse while masking themselves using the terrain, and this made it difficult for UN defenders to target large number of Chinese troops.[7] The attacks by the successive Chinese fireteams were also carefully timed to minimize casualties.[14] Due to the primitive communication systems and the tight political controls within the Chinese army, short attacks were often repeated indefinitely until either the defenses were penetrated or the attacker's ammunition supply were exhausted, regardless of the chances of success or the human cost.[12]

This persistent attack pattern left a strong impression on UN forces that fought in Korea, thus the description of "human wave" was born.[8]
这种持续坚韧的进攻方式给在朝鲜的联合国军深刻的印象，因此“人海”描述一词随之而生。


US Army historian Roy Edgar Appleman observed that the term "human wave" was later used by journalists and military officials to convey the image that the American soldiers were assaulted by overwhelming numbers of Chinese on a broad front, which is inaccurate when compared with the normal Chinese practice of sending successive series of five men teams against a single narrow portion of the line.[1]
美军历史学家，Roy Edgar Appleman ， 注意到“人海”一词被记者、军官用来传递这样一种印象，那就是美军士兵在漫长的战线上被无数的中国人进攻，这其实是不准确的，相比之下，真实的情形是，通常的中国人的做法是连续不断的派五人小组来对付防线的单一小段。

S.L.A. Marshall also commented that the word "mass" was indiscriminately used by the media to describe Chinese infantry tactics, and it is rare for the Chinese to actually use densely concentrated infantry formations to absorb enemy firepower.[15]
S.L.A. Marshall也对媒体不加区别描述中国步兵战术作出评论，他说，实际上那种中国人集结步兵群来消耗敌军 炮火的做法是及其少见的。

In response to the media's coining of the term, a joke circulated among the US servicemen was "How many hordes are there in a Chinese platoon?"[8][12][16]
针对媒体的这种说辞，一个笑话在美军中传开，“一个中国步兵排到底有多少群人啊？”



老美军人对TG的战术很清楚，下面是摘来的，翻译了部分。

Human wave attack, also known as human sea attack,[1] is an offensive infantry tactic, in which an attacker conducts an unprotected frontal assault with densely concentrated infantry formations against the enemy line, intended to overrun the defenders by engaging in melee combat.
The term "human wave attack" was often misused[11] to describe the Chinese short attack — a combination of infiltration and the shock tactics employed by the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) during the Korean War.[12]

所谓的人海战术经常被错误的用来描述解放军的短暂进攻战术-一种在朝鲜战争中为解放军所用的渗透与打击相结合的战术。

A typical Chinese short attack was carried out at night by small fireteams on a narrow front against the weakest point in enemy defenses.[12] The Chinese assault team would crawl undetected within grenade range, then launch surprise attacks against the defenders in order to breach the defenses by relying on maximum shock and confusion.[12]

If the initial shock failed to breach the defenses, additional fireteams would press on behind them and attack the same point until a breach was created.[12] Once a penetration was achieved, the bulk of the Chinese forces would move into the enemy rear and attack from behind.[13] During the attacks, the Chinese assault teams would disperse while masking themselves using the terrain, and this made it difficult for UN defenders to target large number of Chinese troops.[7] The attacks by the successive Chinese fireteams were also carefully timed to minimize casualties.[14] Due to the primitive communication systems and the tight political controls within the Chinese army, short attacks were often repeated indefinitely until either the defenses were penetrated or the attacker's ammunition supply were exhausted, regardless of the chances of success or the human cost.[12]

This persistent attack pattern left a strong impression on UN forces that fought in Korea, thus the description of "human wave" was born.[8]
这种持续坚韧的进攻方式给在朝鲜的联合国军深刻的印象，因此“人海”描述一词随之而生。


US Army historian Roy Edgar Appleman observed that the term "human wave" was later used by journalists and military officials to convey the image that the American soldiers were assaulted by overwhelming numbers of Chinese on a broad front, which is inaccurate when compared with the normal Chinese practice of sending successive series of five men teams against a single narrow portion of the line.[1]
美军历史学家，Roy Edgar Appleman ， 注意到“人海”一词被记者、军官用来传递这样一种印象，那就是美军士兵在漫长的战线上被无数的中国人进攻，这其实是不准确的，相比之下，真实的情形是，通常的中国人的做法是连续不断的派五人小组来对付防线的单一小段。

S.L.A. Marshall also commented that the word "mass" was indiscriminately used by the media to describe Chinese infantry tactics, and it is rare for the Chinese to actually use densely concentrated infantry formations to absorb enemy firepower.[15]
S.L.A. Marshall也对媒体不加区别描述中国步兵战术作出评论，他说，实际上那种中国人集结步兵群来消耗敌军 炮火的做法是及其少见的。

In response to the media's coining of the term, a joke circulated among the US servicemen was "How many hordes are there in a Chinese platoon?"[8][12][16]
针对媒体的这种说辞，一个笑话在美军中传开，“一个中国步兵排到底有多少群人啊？”

pershine 发表于 2011-12-31 00:41
你总要给美军一个解释朝鲜战争的说辞吧，最先进的武器，二战的精兵，面对装备极差的志愿军却打成这样，国内 ...
你后面说的不是我讨论的内容呀，不过我认为就算给他们全换成美械，也守不住。
PS：我的观点就是集中优势兵力是我们的必然选择，并且我们做的足够好。

CD00001 发表于 2011-12-31 00:46
老美军人对TG的战术很清楚，下面是摘来的，翻译了部分。

Human wave attack, also known as human sea a ...
谢谢，但从翻译里看，理解中国战术的外国明白人很少。

求楼上资料的出处、我想收集下打脸用

人海战术还不如翻译成人浪战术呢。一波接一波，无孔不入·······

集中优势兵力攻击敌人弱势兵力，这是几千年前老祖宗就懂的战术。
人海战术，纯属扯淡。

thy2 发表于 2011-12-31 00:56
谢谢，但从翻译里看，理解中国战术的外国明白人很少。
美军自己是很清楚的，他们面对美国媒体、美国媒体的说法又是另一回事情。

我们自己清楚就好了。当然我们的媒体也和其他地方的媒体一样，要吸引眼球，要吸金。

集中优势兵力、火力，是个不变的道理。毛泽东的利害之处是看到了，事物的运动、变化（空间、时间），可以在局部建立兵力、火力优势，并且把局部胜利积累、扩展，发展。

集中兵力，并不等同于人海。在局部建立优势兵力后，在进攻中采取小群、持续进攻敌军薄弱，不能不说，志愿军是非常坚韧的。

重装攻城师 发表于 2011-12-31 01:01
求楼上资料的出处、我想收集下打脸用
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_wave_attack

虽说是 wiki，还是比较客观的。里面的数字，可以对应原始资料文献。
Notes

    1^ a b Appleman 1990, p. 362.
    2^ a b c d e O'Dowd 2007, p. 145.
    3^ O'Dowd 2007, pp. 145–146.
    4^ O'Dowd 2007, p. 144.
    5^ O'Dowd 2007, p. 143.
    6^ Davis 2001, p. 408.
    7^ a b Marshall 1988, pp. 5–6
    8^ a b c Appleman 1989, p. 353.
    9^ a b O'Dowd 2007, p. 149.
    10^ Anderson, Jon Lee (2009-06-19), Understanding The Basij, New York, NY: The New Yorker, retrieved 2010-11-22
    11^ Appleman 1990, p. 363.
    12^ a b c d e f Roe 2000, p. 435.
    13^ Alexander 1986, p. 311.
    14^ Mahoney 2001, p. 73.
    15^ Marshall 1988, p. 5.
    16^ George 1967, pp. 4–5.
    17^ O'Dowd 2007, p. 148.
    18^ O'Dowd 2007, pp. 150, 165.
    19^ O'Dowd 2007, pp. 144, 164.

References/文献

    Alexander, Bevin R. (1986), Korea: The First War We Lost, New York, NY: Hippocrene Books, Inc, ISBN 9780870521355
    Appleman, Roy (1989), Disaster in Korea: The Chinese Confront MacArthur, College Station, TX: Texas A and M University Military History Series, 11, ISBN 9781603441285
    Appleman, Roy (1990), Escaping the Trap: The US Army X Corps in Northeast Korea, 1950, College Station, TX: Texas A and M University Military History Series, 14, ISBN 0-89096-395-9
    Davis, Paul K. (2001), 100 Decisive Battles: From Ancient Times to the Present, New York, NY: Oxford University Press USA, ISBN 9780195143669
    George, Alexander L. (1967), The Chinese Communist Army in Action: The War and its Aftermath, New York, NY: Columbia University Press, OCLC 284111
    Mahoney, Kevin (2001), Formidable Enemies: The North Korean and Chinese Soldier in the Korean War, Novato, CA: Presidio Press, ISBN 9780891417385
    Marshall, S.L.A. (1988), Infantry Operations and Weapon Usage in Korea, London, UK: Greenhill Books, ISBN 0947898883
    O'Dowd, Edward C. (2007), Chinese Military Strategy in the Third Indochina War, New York, NY: Routledge, ISBN 9780415414272
    Roe, Patrick C. (2000), The Dragon Strikes, Novato, CA: Presidio, ISBN 0891417036

cardo 发表于 2011-12-31 00:07
TG没咋用过人海战术吧，TG什么时候拉开一个团以上部队死命冲锋的？倒是KMT从抗战到内战，一直人海来着，塔山 ...
塔山之战的马其顿方阵式冲锋实是近代战争一景啊。

TG明明人数比各时期的主要敌人少的多，什么“人海战术”的话，早就让各种敌人突突完了。。。“人海战术”这种小学智商水平的贬低是怎么冒出来的？就因为TG喜欢“集中优势兵力”结果就被扣了个“人海战术”的帽子？其实国军才真是人海战术，垃圾的一塌糊涂

粟裕在苏中七战七捷，3万打败李默庵12万大军，太祖爷第三次反围剿，3万人大败常校长30万大军，都是靠的“人海战术”？
倒是那些嘲笑TG人海的国民党，MD，可有过几次这样的在劣势装备下以少胜多的？

阿卡迪奥 发表于 2011-12-31 00:32
一战索姆河迎着机枪冲锋的英军、南北战争的皮克特冲锋才是所谓的人海战术，真正做到了拿人对子弹、拿尸体量 ...
不要忘了奥马哈滩头

CD00001 发表于 2011-12-31 00:46
老美军人对TG的战术很清楚，下面是摘来的，翻译了部分。

Human wave attack, also known as human sea a ...
还有一种说法是当年志愿军进攻时用小号哨子等器联络，因为是从四面八方打过来，对美国人有一种心理震慑，感觉是四面八方都扑过来巨浪一般。因为在黑天无法确定敌人人数，所以就称之为人海战术

人海战术的精髓是不能说的，老外懂就懂了，不懂他们瞎猜就是了。

TG 真正称得上大规模采用“人海战术”的只有一次邸平里，而且是失败的。
从这里可见，所谓的“人海战术”恰恰是TG军队所不擅长的。
邸平里暴露出的支援火力不足、不同建制不协调等弱点就不说了。关键就是临场最高指挥员对美军认识不足，急于求成，完全违背了自身军队的一贯传统和作战方式，大量散兵无掩护、少战术地持续冲击敌方坚固设防阵地，这才造成严重人员伤亡。
除此之外，哪里还见过TG的军队有大规模的散兵冲锋例子？影视剧除外。

长津湖谁科普一下？

人海战术本质上是背靠人民群众——都别想歪了，绝对不是敲锣打鼓愣是对着敌人枪炮上，直到把敌人吓晕了。
“让敌人陷入人民战争的汪洋大海中”，这才是人海战术
要背靠人民群众，民心是第一位的。

人海战术本质上是背靠人民群众——都别想歪了，绝对不是敲锣打鼓愣是对着敌人枪炮上，直到把敌人吓晕了。
“让敌人陷入人民战争的汪洋大海中”，这才是人海战术
要背靠人民群众，民心是第一位的。

greatnmq 发表于 2011-12-31 03:05
长津湖谁科普一下？
长津湖是完美的“集中优势兵力、大范围穿插”的范例，可惜的是火力严重不足，又缺乏空中力量，造成不能吃掉被围集团。
这一战役期间并没有大规模“人海战术”冲锋的现象。TG的伤亡，非战斗减员比战斗减员还要多得多。
集中优势兵力包围住敌集群，不能算作“人海战术”吧？
古今、中外所有军事家、军事著作都在强调集中优势兵力，兵书有云：十则围之。能造成局部兵力优势的指挥都是高明的指挥。如果这都被叫做“人海战术”。那么所有人类军队都是在不懈地追求“人海战术”了。

那些喷土鳖人海战术的其实是玩不好人海战术的

我还是相信兔子是开着无敌套着盾墙挂着嗜血去人海战术冲锋的~

其实是敌人风声鹤唳草木皆兵。