Talk:Human wave attack

Red Army during WWII

There is an issue with this article around the vagueness of the term “human-wave attack” and its tendency to be applied only as a derogatory term against the opposing side in a war. This is most clearly demonstrated by the inclusion of the Red Army during the Second World War, a contention which is completely out of step with historical academia.

The exact nature of attacks during the Winter War is debatable, but it’s inclusion in this article is certainly warranted by the weight of scholarly evidence as evidenced by the strong sources in that section. The section on the Second World War itself, however, is supported by only a single source from the questionable website historynet.com written in 1999 by an American author whose primary qualifications seem to be his work as a consultant in Hollywood. The article discusses the battle at Seelow Heights exclusively, and the only instance of the phrase “human-wave attack” appearing is a completely unsourced statement that a supposed German officer named “Heinz Wilker” (I could find no evidence that such an officer even existed) had “personally held off 14 human-wave attacks… at Stalingrad”.

I personally find these claims doubtful in the extreme and additionally point out the impossibility in disproving a statement supposedly made only once and in passing more than 50 years before the article was published. The section on the Red Army in WWII will thus require a genuine and verifiable source which provides specific examples in order to avoid outright deletion.

I will also point out that the academic community has largely rejected accusations that the Red Army engaged in human-wave attacks against the German military on the Eastern Front, with many pointing to orders issued by the Stavka specifically forbidding such assaults (including one issued by Zhukov declaring that officers ordering frontal infantry assaults were committing criminal acts) and the fact that Nazi propaganda routinely portrayed defeats of their forces by Communist enemies as the result of enormous human waves overwhelming German positions in order to cover up German failures on the battlefield.

This article requires a lot of additional work and cleanup, most clearly evidenced by the claims made of the Red Army during WWII. Puma6374 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said and would be okay with removing and replacing the dubiously sourced text entirely. Carlp941 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I just want to point out that one of the sources given for the Stalingrad human wave attack claim is:

"Stalingrad Press Coverage". research.calvin.edu. Retrieved 2022-12-27.

This webpage appears to be a translation of German war propaganda. I have no reason to doubt that the University's translation of this is accurate. But Nazi German war propaganda can NOT be used as a source since it is both WP:FRINGE and a WP:Primary source. This is a good example of a bad citation.  selfworm^Talk) 19:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Selfworm: Absolutely. I've removed the claim about Stalingrad. Definitely requires further investigation as to whether Finnish-perspective accounts can be considered reliable for this. Kges1901 (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

"...the usual Soviet procedure for an initial attack across mine fields is to make no attempt to locate and remove mines but to send successive waves of infantry across the field until the other side is reached." (P. 157) TM 5-223A Soviet Mine Warfare Equipment, August 1951, Dept. of the Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:59C8:425:7E10:68DC:6A40:D1BE:9D96 (talk) 06:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

2022 russian invasion of Ukraine

Should we mention this tactic being used in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine by the Wagner Group?

References

86.130.93.91 (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The second citation should be disregarded, its from a heavily biased subreddit with an out of context picture of men of unknown identification moving across a field. AmaduesALPHADELTA (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wagner has been conducting mainly squad-sized frontal assaults, which, while highly attritive, are nothing like the picture in the article. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Wagner and the RAF have used barely trained, untrained, and poorly equipped convicts, mobilized, and volunteers to conduct multiple waves of essentially suicide attacks to tire out and deplete all the ammunition of Ukrainian troops with the objective of taking ground or softening up positions for assault by better troops. They have used barrier troops to enforce these wave assaults, arbitrarily executed their own who balk, and mistreated their own survivors of these actions. Because they’re not massed like in a particular picture of a nineteenth-century infantry assault, which may or may not represent a human wave attack, does not mean they’re not human wave attacks.  —Michael Z. 15:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

ISW, for example, mentions this tactic by this name in multiple articles.  —Michael Z. 15:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

If these are not human wave attacks, then there are no human wave attacks. GliderMaven (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The section as it stands now is clearly biased. One side 'claims' there are human wave attacks, then the author goes on to say that 'numerous sources' (who?) say they aren't HW attacks, and then lists two examples, one of them a YouTube video, the other an article that barely touches on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:464A:20B5:0:BD4B:7596:5028:9A42 (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

From what I've seen, there have been claims of both Russia and Ukraine using human wave tactics but no evidence. Also the media could confusing them with infiltration and shock tactics Salfanto (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

There's plenty of evidence indicating that Russia is using human wave attacks. What evidence is there suggesting that Ukraine is doing the same? Betelgeuse X (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Can we use the evidence as a source?

2. What is the source?

3. Again, is it being confused infiltration and shock tactics? Salfanto (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The evidence is in this article, see the sources listed. So again, what sources state that Ukraine is using human wave tactics? Betelgeuse X (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I think in regards to talking about supposed Human wave attacks from both the Russian and Ukrainian side, neutrality, not bias writing, and context is important. For example, the battles in which the claims of human wave attacks were made Salfanto (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Giving roughly equal WP:WEIGHT to Ukraine using human wave attacks as Russia whose tactics have been well published in WP:RS seems like a bizarre solution from a neutrality standpoint, if that's what you're actually concerned with. I don't even think that the sources you added mentioned the terms. TylerBurden (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The politico source mentioned "Syrskyi’s also known for leading forces into a meat grinder in Bakhmut, sending wave after wave of troops to face opposition fire." Here's the link to the source: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2024/02/08/zaluzhny-is-out-the-butcher-is-in-00140206 Salfanto (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources state that Russia is using human wave tactics. List the sources stating that Ukraine is doing the same. Betelgeuse X (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Politico: "Syrskyi’s also known for leading forces into a meat grinder in Bakhmut, sending wave after wave of troops to face opposition fire." https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2024/02/08/zaluzhny-is-out-the-butcher-is-in-00140206

2. Euromaidan Press "The surprising losses contributed to Ukraine pivoting to slowly rely primarily on dismounted infantry attacks on foot with light arms rather than risk additional vehicles." https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/12/07/why-ukraines-counteroffensive-failed-wp-analysis-in-7-minutes/

3. Euromaidan Press "After abandoning armored attacks after the first days of heavy losses in the 2023 counteroffensive, Ukraine switched to infantry assaults to dredge through Russian minefields under drone-filled skies. The subsequent meager advances near Robotyne came at a great price" and "He sent soldiers to pointless assaults that gave only slight tactical gains without artillery support, leading to senseless death." https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/02/10/syrskyi-in-zaluzhnyi-out-what-to-expect-from-ukraines-army-reshuffle/

4. David Axe from Forbes "Several Ukrainian vehicles took hits—and the assault collapsed. The surviving infantry bailed out of their MaxxPros. Some retreated north; others scurried south toward Novodarivka. Desperate to support the soldiers heading south, Ukrainian commanders ordered a second breach of the minefield. But the result was the same. “Two more Russian tanks emerged, moving at pace toward the column and firing.”

By now it was clear to the Ukrainians that a frontal assault was suicide. But with a platoon-size force—several dozen soldiers, all survivors of the initial two breaches—isolated on the northern edge of Novodarivka, commanders were confronted with an impossible choice: abandon the survivors, or risk a third assault.

They chose the latter—and got lucky. “One group in platoon strength worked its way along the breach, using the immobilized vehicles as cover, while fires suppressed the Russian positions,” Watling and Reynolds wrote. “Another platoon situated to the west noted that a fold of dead ground had become viable as the repositioning of Russian forces in the village removed it from view, while dense foliage prevented overhead observation by drones.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/09/06/disastrous-armored-assaults-taught-the-ukrainian-army-to-flank-russian-defenses-instead/?sh=3d571cb92fb1

5. TASS (note that TASS is state media) "The Russian forces repelled several attacks in Rabotino (Ukrainian:Robotyne). The attacks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces do not stop, it’s wave after wave.https://tass.com/defense/1757377

6. TASS "Kiev madly and recklessly sends more and more forces for 'meat assaults.' It is due to such frontal attacks that the enemy has heavy losses."https://tass.com/politics/1763299

RT also mentions Ukraine using "frontal assaults" and "waves" but wikipedia does not consider it to be a WP:RS source and it is on the Wikipedia:Deprecated sources list. https://www.rt.com/russia/592184-ukraine-commander-syrsky-unpopular/ Salfanto (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Russian sources don't exactly qualify as "reliable".

This page provides a definition of a human wave attack:

"According to U.S. Army analyst Edward C. O'Dowd, the technical definition of a human wave attack tactic is a frontal assault by densely concentrated infantry formations against an enemy line, without any attempts to shield or to mask the attacker's movement. The goal of a human wave attack is to maneuver as many people as possible into close range, hoping that the shock from a large mass of attackers engaged in melee combat would force the enemy to disintegrate or fall back."

An infantry assault alone doesn't qualify as a human wave attack. It's the use of mass, whose intent is to overwhelm defenders, coupled with a disregard for losses incurred, that defines a human wave attack. Such as what is described in this article, where the term "human wave" is specifically used to describe Russian tactics. Russia's use of blocking units further reinforces the fact that Russia is using human wave tactics.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/human-wave-tactics-are-demoralizing-the-russian-army-in-ukraine/ Betelgeuse X (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

What about the other sources that I provided? Salfanto (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources 1 and 3 are sensationalized editorials, and Source 2 simply mentioned infantry tactics (and is also an editorial). Source 4 is written by David Axe, who is notorious for dramatic language and inaccurate assessments. And the rest, of course, is Russian state-run propaganda. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The article has a Poltico source when talking about Russia using the tactic. Also if we use Ukrainian sources that simply claim that Russia is using the tactic why can't we use Russian sources that claim that Ukraine is using the tactic? That's what I ment above about being non-bias Salfanto (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Atlantic Council is not a Ukrainian source. Betelgeuse X (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I know. I put the word also in an attempt to distinguish it. What I am trying to say is, if we can use Ukrainian sources that are not on the Wikipedia:Deprecated sources list and claim that Russia is using the tactic, why can't we use Russian sources that are not on the Wikipedia:Deprecated sources and claim that Ukraine is using the tactic? Salfanto (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This guy did not replied to yours but replied to my comment about Russian allegation of human wave attacks recently knowing that he can't replies to yours, and undoing edits that Ukraine also "doing" such tactics, shows that this guy is pro Ukraine and disregard any edits that slightly negatively shows Ukraine as equally incompetent as the Russian. Despite according to the western sources that you have cited before that Ukrainian especially under syrsky command used the same infantry "meat grinder" tactics, the same they accused the Russian are doing, this guy refuse to accept the reality that Ukraine also allegedly doing it. Since there is evidence that both sides are conducting "human wave attacks" or its popular euphemism in the war "meat grinder" tactics by western media, and since Russo-Ukrainian War is also about Ukraine, it should have been included before as what your previous edit about Ukraine allegation of doing such tactics. Dauzlee (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

David Axe should have been ceased to be used as reliable source but still widely used by Wikipedia editor because "Russia bad high casualties" and this guy is perfect for it Dauzlee (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable source indicating that Ukraine is using human wave tactics. Infantry assaults alone don't qualify as such. Betelgeuse X (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The politico source specifically mentions "wave after wave", the Forbes source mentions a frontal assault during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, and Euromaidan Press mentions "dismounted infantry attacks". Per Wikipedia these are considered reliable sources Salfanto (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"A human wave attack, also known as a 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 and overwhelm the defenders by engaging in melee combat."

The "wave after wave" quote by itself doesn't equate to a human wave attack: there's no indication that Ukrainian soldiers are trying to overwhelm defenders. Otherwise, every war in history would consist of human wave attacks. Obviously infantry will need to face enemy fire at some point. You either don't understand what a human wave attack actually is or you're choosing to ignore what it is. The sources stating that Russia is using these tactics make it perfectly clear what's happening. From the Telegraph source:

"The Russian tactic of sending “human waves” of poorly trained and poorly armed fighters into the line of fire to overwhelm the opposition has become increasingly common, according to military observers."

This by definition is a human wave attack. Betelgeuse X (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

"there's no indication that Ukrainian soldiers are trying to overwhelm defenders." What the counteroffensives? Salfanto (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• What about the counteroffensives? For example, the one last year

Salfanto (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Betelgeuse X (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I gave muliple above. All other than the RT one (which I used as an example of an unreliable source) are considered reliable by Wikipedia Salfanto (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Didn't we already go over this though? None of those sources describe Russia engaging in human wave attacks, given the definition of what a human wave attack actually constitutes. Betelgeuse X (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The article already mentions Russia using Human wave tactics. I was debating if we should add reliable sources of Ukraine using human wave tactics Salfanto (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Then why did you earlier trying so hard to claim the Russian used human wave attacks? Dauzlee (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we can start a request for comment for additional opinions. Betelgeuse X (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. The politico source mentions Ukraine sending "wave after wave" which I'll link again.

Link:https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2024/02/08/zaluzhny-is-out-the-butcher-is-in-00140206 Salfanto (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This is the only source you have brought forward that even comes close to saying what you want to say, or is reliable. The relevant bit is "But Syrskyi’s also known for leading forces into a meat grinder in Bakhmut, sending wave after wave of troops to face opposition fire. In the end, Kremlin-backed Wagner Group mercenaries captured the city."

Even then, the term "human wave attack" is never used specifically to describe his tactics. What part about WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH is it that you don't understand? TylerBurden (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Then why should these "meat grinder" tactics only apply to the Russians Dauzlee (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This article is about human wave attacks. Multiple reliable sources state that Russia is using human wave attacks. Betelgeuse X (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

During the Korean War, US and UN forces claim that the Chinese used human wave attacks, which later disproven after the Korean war as misconception of Chinese infantry tactics. Iranian tactics during the Iran-Iraq War are also thought to be human wave attacks but later disputed by historian as also either Iraqi propaganda or misconception of Iranian infantry tactics. This also apply to current Russo-Ukrainian War, where ukrainian military and western media used the term as propaganda despite it is not what the Russian are doing. Western media is not 100% credible about the situation in the battlefield, considering their past fantastical claims of the war later proven false or nonsensical (for example Russian missile ran out as early as March 2022). Reputable western media such as New York Times once engaged in Yellow Journalism (according to Wikipedia itself: eye-catching headlines and sensationalized exaggerations for increased sales) back in 1898 during the Spanish American War, not impossible for the same media in the Ukraine war. Until there is credible analysis of Russian "human wave tactics" from reputable expert such as RUSI, all western media article about such claims should be regarded as ambiguous or unconfirmed such "claimed" or "reportedly" Dauzlee (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

A bunch of irrelevant whataboutism you've posted here. Betelgeuse X (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying whataboutism here, it's literally what happen in the war. No evidence of Russian human wave attacks other than ukrainian military claims Dauzlee (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You have explicitly said that "Infantry assaults alone don't qualify as such (human wave)" then why Russian infantry assault is called as human wave attacks, despite there is no hard evidence that they really used such tactics. Dauzlee (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

While these are from website that Wikipedia consider as reliable, it doesn't mean Russia used human wave tactics, and contrary with what many video evidence shows Russian army offensive. Atlantic council said that "battlefield footage" prove the Russian used "human wave attacks". Many of the Russian army used frontal attack and while suicidal it does not fit the very definition of human wave attacks like what this Wikipedia article of human wave attacks explicitly described. The Russian also used a lot of IFVs to dismount when assaulting Ukrainian position, sometime with high casualties but still in contrast of human wave attacks that described as unprotected infantry attacks. Western medias conflated high casualties with human wave attacks. Dauzlee (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources state that Russia is using human wave attacks. So yes, Russia is using human wave tactics. Betelgeuse X (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

List me some source so I can analyze what they said about the so called "human wave attacks" used by Russia Dauzlee (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/human-wave-tactics-are-demoralizing-the-russian-army-in-ukraine/ Betelgeuse X (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Not enough evidence to proof it was Russian human wave attacks. It cited other news who also "claimed" or citing Ukrainian military without a single image or video to proof Russia using human wave tactics. The article literally said "unconfirmed" while the mentioned vuhledar assault is using tanks and armored vehicle (opposite to human wave), bakhmut is "claimed casualties" while there is no evidence to proof the mentioned "extensive battlefield footage". Human wave attacks happen when an army using massive concentration of soldiers to overwhelm defense, the problem is this does not happen in the war for both sides because of constant surveillance makes such concentration impossible due to vulnerability to missiles and drones, what make it ridiculous is that most of the time the Russian send small formation of infantry instead of massive number of men and the Russian are actively trying to use cover such as camouflaging, or at night before assaulting Ukrainian position, very opposite to the human wave tactics that described here. Western media conflated infantry assaults and high casualties with human wave tactics. Are WW1 German stormtroopers using human wave tactics? Did US at Normandy, using infantry to assault German machine guns and bunkers, and without tanks (most modified amphibious Sherman tanks did not arrive at destination and sank into the sea) as human wave attacks? Come one man use common sense. For this kind of source it should be using "claimed" or "allegedly". Dauzlee (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

First the typical "not enough evidence" absurdity, despite there being numerous reliable sources indicating otherwise, followed by the typical whataboutism-filled rant. Betelgeuse X (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

And you still don't understand what the term "human wave attack" means. I've already gone over this with another user in this talk page. I'm not going to do so again. Betelgeuse X (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Lies. There a thousand of combat video clips all over the internet from UAV drones, from GoPro's, etc, and there's not a single video clip that I've seen so far (and I've seen hundreds if not thousands since 2022) that shows a so-called human wave tactic where it shows hundreds upon hundreds of soldiers assaulting an enemy position. Nenovn (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Great!! Who needs WP:RS when we have experts such as yourself? Betelgeuse X (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Human wave attack is not the same thing as frontal assault

Combat in the American Civil War and WWI is not defined as "human wave attack". It was conventional linear formation combat. The term "human wave" infers a less organized attack meant to swamp with overwhelming numbers , which was not the case in previous wars, and the very nature of the term implies that the tactics are being used in a modern battlefield in place of more conventional tactics. By the definition of this article every attack made through most of history was a "human wave attack". The American Civil War was one of the first where attacks were made WITHOUT the intent of using a bayonet charge as the ultimate confrontation.

Idumea47b (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Double standard of Russia-Ukraine War

"Human wave attacks" is more like propaganda statement than the military reality. Why russian infantry assault is described as meat waves or human wave but Ukraine, also allegedly using "meat waves" especially under syrsky command according to the mainstream media itself are not acceptable by wiki editor when the war itself involve both side? There is no evidence of Russia using human waves or meat waves (often synonymous with human waves), which by definition of the wiki itself: "attacker conducts an unprotected frontal assault with densely concentrated infantry formations against the enemy line, intended to overrun and overwhelm the defenders" or according to U.S. Army analyst Edward C. O'Dowd, also from this article: "the technical definition of a human wave attack tactic is a frontal assault by densely concentrated infantry formations against an enemy line, without any attempts to shield or to mask the attacker's movement" which does not happen in the war right now, especially Russian "densely concentrated infantry formations" that never reach more than a platoon. Forbes David Axe, that wikipedia article often used as source in russo Ukraine war despite someone here from other discussion topic saying he was sensationalist and shouldn't be used as source because David Axe also describing Ukrainian infantry assaults as "frontal suicidal attacks" (which is much a softer term than meat wave), even described russian dismounted infantry from IFVs (against the definition of human wave that being unprotected infantry assaults) as banzai attacks (Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/02/26/modern-banzai-russian-troops-pile-onto-vehicles-speed-toward-ukrainian-lines--and-die-but-the-tactic-is-helping-russia-advance/?sh=7ed0ef2cb5ef) Dauzlee (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

So you just provided another source that literally mentions Russia using human wave attacks, great, adding it to the article. You can rant about your own WP:OR all you want, but Wikipedia editors are not WP:RS. Wikipedia documents what reliable sources say, and in this case they say that Russia is using human wave tactics during the invasion of Ukraine. If you can't accept established reliable sources on the English Wikipedia, then you should either raise your case on the WP:VILLAGEPUMP, choose another language, or edit another website altogether that aligns more with your views.

Wikipedia is not a place for WP:FRINGE theories, such as Ukraine with their already inferior manpower using human wave attacks. My edit summary in my latest edit was directed towards you, not @Salfonto (apologies), this type of editing is exactly what I meant when I contacted you on your talk page, and it seems nothing is improving. You are not even an extended confirmed editor, so you should probably read up on policies rather than trying to insert your own WP:OR and fringe views into articles. TylerBurden (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Russia's 'meat wave attacks' is now more of a propaganda term. In the reality of this war, both sides suffer heavy attrition because of heavy drone coverage and artillery usage. Moreover, both sides do not have enough manpower to throw at each other in so called human wave tactics. You can not attack with a large amount of troops because drone operators are always monitoring the surrounding area and order instant strikes on the troop gathering. Both sides instead use small infiltration squads entering forest lines between the fields. This whole artical is a giant misunderstanding of realities of modern war, and definetly needs to get fact checked. I have only seen a single reddit link with a screenshot of a picture with 12 men running on the field, this is definetly not enough evidence to conclude the usage of meat wave tactics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F4akL1AS5w this is a good video covering this topic. 185.13.45.88 (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Well until WP:RS start repeating the same thing, it doesn't really matter what Reddit posts and YouTube videos you watch. This falls under WP:OR. TylerBurden (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

well that is exactly what i am saying, your articles do not contain enough proof of russian use of this tactics and based only on claims of the authors. And this articles do not even take into account all of the non-western sources, for example using sources from asian countries (https://defensepoliticsasia.com/ukraine/). The coverage of this war is very affected if most of the sources are taken from the media agencies supporting one side of the conflict and having a bias. 185.13.45.88 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

You clearly don't like what those articles are reporting, so you resort to accusations of being biased, as per usual. Betelgeuse X (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

There are no clear criteria for what constitutes a Human-Wave attack because a "Human-wave attack" is a pejorative and propagandistic term, not a battle tactic. The problem with the article is not that it errs in calling this or that thing a Human-wave attack its that it starts on the wrong foot by asserting that human-waves are actual identifiable tactics with clear criteria.

But its not worth the effort to try to fix a bad Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's rules are obtuse and unhelpful when it comes to removing bad information, especially about contentious topics, especially when an article is being guarded by people who are well versed inn the rules. At best, if you found a source to back up your points, you could maybe turn the article into the usual back and forth of : "This source says X but this source says Y but this other sources disagrees. And lets not forget this other source that says Z."

As for whether Russian attacks are human-wave attacks the answer is yes, if you want to call them that. Were attacks by the Red Army human wave attacks? Sure, if you want to call them that. Same goes for the Normandy landings. The term is a propaganda term with no clear criteria. 96.248.60.193 (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This is just the typical way with war. Claims of human-wave attacks are extremely common, actual human-wave attacks are extremely rare. This article takes far too unskeptical a view of its subject, and I wouldn't take anything in it very seriously. 96.248.60.193 (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2024

Thousands upon thousands of combat clips all over the internet are being uploaded on a daily basis of the war in Ukraine, and there's not a single video evidence of human wave tactics carried out by Russian forces. Not one. The only evidence this page uses is Western media outlets like The Telegraph, Washington Post, The CNN, etc. A known Western propaganda media outlets, the lot of them. Nenovn (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the rant, I guess it is not inline with your "request" but the article has now been updated with North Korean troops assisting Russia in Kursk also using the tactic. TylerBurden (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine war footage never shows any Russian attack with larger than squad of 5 to 10 people in this kind of environment, it's suicidal to use human wave tactics. People who claim Russia doing it never show us the actual evidence of it and such attack will also cause massive casualties that drone footage could easily record it, yet there isn't. Some of the "reliable source" even described failed mechanized attack with tanks and armored vehicles as "human wave" even though it is very opposite of human wave. Even if that's what "reliable source" says we should never take it at face value, especially when the author isn't military expert. As for "north Korean human wave" even RAND said it is wrong and obscured what the north Korean are actually learning from the war. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/02/the-myth-of-human-wave-attacks-obscures-what-north.html Dauzlee (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

not an edit request. Rainsage (talk)

Remove the Russo-Ukrainian war section

Anyone thst has been keeping up with the war with actual analytical sources knows those claims of "human wave attacks" are just propaganda and don't correspond to reality in the least heck even the so called sources presented here don't give a y evidence other than repeating Ukrainian claims 2A02:587:E839:52CB:1460:CB18:4758:4D49 (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

You're going to need to do better and actually cite something debunking the use of the tactic rather than label sources you don't approve of "propaganda". So far, you haven't cited a single source other than your own WP:OR, whereas the Russian invasion of Ukraine section contains numerous references. TylerBurden (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Source that does not describe human wave attacks

One of the sources in the Russo-Ukrainian war section describes a mechanized assault rather than a human wave attack. "The Russian army’s 70th Motor-Rifle Regiment deployed the tactic in Robotyne, in southern Ukraine, on Saturday. At least two BMP-3 tracked IFVs barreled into the devastated settlement—the southernmost Ukrainian position in Zaporizhzhia Oblast—and, firing as they moved, dropped off infantry who then sheltered in collapsed buildings. The BMP-3s retreated, leaving the infantry to fight alone against the Ukrainian 65th Mechanized Brigade and its explosive drones. It seems there were few Russian survivors. So the Russians tried again the next day, this time rolling three BTR-82 wheeled IFVs toward Robotyne. A Ukrainian mine popped one of the BTRs. A Ukrainian soldier reportedly from the 118th Mechanized Brigade hit a second BTR with a rocket-propelled grenade, at least temporarily halting the assault. The banzai attacks are extremely costly for the Russians, and help to explain why the Russians are losing around 800 troops a day, according to the Ukrainian defense ministry"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/02/26/modern-banzai-russian-troops-pile-onto-vehicles-speed-toward-ukrainian-lines--and-die-but-the-tactic-is-helping-russia-advance/ 173.243.131.235 (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

See this is why the section of Russia Ukraine war should entirely removed, people conflate or confuse failed attacks with human wave tactics. Even if we agree Russian military doesn't care the live of its soldier, doing human wave attacks isn't one of them.

Last time there is also a section for Ukrainian military but removed because "the lack of reliable source" even there is already included and it is the same vague description of "meat wave", "meat grinder tactics" the media said about Russia but applied to ukraine, somehow it is unacceptable because of "source didn't say it was" and wiki editor have the time to analyze the source when Ukraine was accused of doing it yet they don't bother doing the same for media that said about Russia doing it. Dauzlee (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be more busy reading up on WP:RUSUKR which you continue to violate as a non EC-editor despite claiming to have understood the sanction than spending your time ranting here over your evidently WP:TENDENTIOUS views. TylerBurden (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I've read the Forbes article from the link that was above and it seems to be a case where the author (David Axe) wrote a title saying one thing but then went on to describe something completely different in the article itself. As for if the entire Russo-Ukrainian war section should be removed, I am not entirely certain. However, I feel like a few key points about it need to be discussed:

-The quality and reliability of the sources present

-If what the sources are describing actually correlate to the article's topic

-Any potential biases that may be present

-It's necessity to the article as a whole Lazarbeem (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Page protection

Please remove the page protection here, there is no reason to have it because there hasn’t been any disruptive editing to this page in recent times. 107.127.60.53 (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The disruptive editing stopped when page protection was added. Betelgeuse X (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

ECP minor edit request

In the lede of the section Use, remove "the" preceding "World War II". I think that one is uncontroversial (obvious grammatical error). I would also suggest changing some punctuation to make it more obvious how different conflicts are grouped, like so:

Human wave attacks have been used by several armed forces around the world, including European and American armies during the American Civil War and World War I; the Boxers during the Boxer Rebellion; the Spanish Republican Army during the Spanish Civil War; the Red Army, the Imperial Japanese Army and the National Revolutionary Army during the World War II; the People's Volunteer Army and the Korean People's Army Ground Force during the Korean War; the People's Army of Vietnam and the People's Liberation Army during the Vietnam War and Sino-Vietnamese War; the Iranian Basij during the Iran–Iraq War; and the Russian Ground Forces and its allies in the Russo-Ukrainian War.

Thank you.

EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete the last 2 unsourced paragraphs on Imperial Japanese Army.

The Japanese outnumbered Russians at Port Arthur and most of the Japanese human wave attacks failed and Japan lost more dead . There's already a separate section for Russo-Japanese war that's sourced on that page and says the Japanese got massacred when doing this

""The charge was used successfully in the Russo-Japanese War and the Second Sino-Japanese War, where the highly disciplined Japanese soldiers were fighting against enemies with comparatively lower discipline and without many automatic weapons such as machine guns, oftentimes outnumbering them as well. In such instances, a determined charge could break into the enemy lines and win the day. The effectiveness of such strategies in China made them a standard tactic for the Imperial Japanese Army" This paragraph has zero sources at all, the japanese were known to fail in hand to hand combat with chinese soldiers and just resort to blanketing the battlefield with lewisite agents. 80-90% of Chinese casualties in the entire war were caused by japanese artillery bombardments. in no way does this show that Japanese bayonet charges were a "standardized tactic" in china Krips15 (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Requesting removal of the sensationalist media myth in "Russian invasion of Ukraine"

Literally all of it. Russian attacks were and are either normal attacks of any size (be it mechanised or infantry) or they very slowly infiltrate in extremely small groups, nowadays most commonly 2 to 3 men, or just going alone (they can consolidate into somewhat larger groups after traversing deep into or even beyond the kill zone).

The confusion comes from the term "meat" (мясо) meaning in both Russian and Ukrainian just the same as the English term "cannon fodder" (you can just check the title of the Russian Wikipedia version of this article), and nothing more or less, and it's been used like that for generations. It's been somehow mistranslated as "human wave" by dilletante journalists. There were never any human waves in the entire war.

Including by Wagner, who instead used teams or squad sized groups using stealth and guided by drones (innovation then now commonly used by Ukrainian kill zone raiders on the infiltrator hideous, or by Russians in infiltrator attacks). This CNN report at the time described the reality of Wagner tactics well (except mistranslating the RPO rocket flamethrower as "rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs)"): https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/23/europe/russia-wagner-tactics-report-ukraine-intl It's about an actual Ukrainian military report, not any journalistic nonsense.

North Koreans also used normal infantry tactics, before adapting to modern warfare (drone warfare).

Ironically, what has been almost sole way of advancing by Russia in over 2 years - extremely slow infiltration by individual troops - has no mention at all in the article infiltration tactics. But over here so much about completely made up stuff. ~2026-45482-86 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Everything is supported by reliable sources, sounds like you should go and complain at infiltration tactics instead. TylerBurden (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

These are unreliable sources - dilletante journalist not understanding what a "human wave" actually means. And as I already mention, anything "meat" in both Russian and Ukrainian in military context means just "cannon fodder" in English, this is the literal translation. --~2026-45482-86 (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Not by Wikipedia standards, you're providing your own original research (WP:OR). Even policies aside, claiming that North Koreans used "normal infantry tactics" with the infamous videos of them charging over open fields and getting destroyed puts your own alleged expertise in question.

Either way, you should read WP:DUE to learn how Wikipedia works, because it isn't based on your own uncited rebuttals, no matter how good you think they are. TylerBurden (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

So I went and checked the first ref - a now deleted WP article (redirects to the main page). Okay the second one: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/human-wave-tactics-are-demoralizing-the-russian-army-in-ukraine/ - "apparent reliance on human wave tactics" with the link that now-deleted WP article. Shows very well his this idiotic legend was created and spred. The article than continues to dwell on this nonsense of such "apparent" Wagner tactics. Garbage. Literally unreliable.

Once again - read the actual Ukrainian military report on the real Wagner tactics: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/23/europe/russia-wagner-tactics-report-ukraine-intl (you can also read elsewhere about this report and on the subject generally). Let me quote: "The Ukrainian report says that Wagner deploys its forces in mobile groups of about a dozen or fewer" - and then let me add that the most typical "human wave" was a squad around 8 men, slowly creeping between and beyond Ukrainian positions (as mentioned in the article, guided by drones) and supported by heavy weapons also guided by these drones (also mentioned). They typically each carried an RPO (the article's "RPGs") they would fire before assaulting (normal assaults with firearms and exolosives, never melee). And these were just the cannon fodder (meat) convict troops of the "first wave" - "More experienced fighters, with thermal imagery and night-vision equipment, follow." - --~2026-45482-86 (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

And this is why the article is protected, you still don't understand WP:DUE. TylerBurden (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Some foreign dilletante journalist in a deleted article, and others just repeating his nonsense, more "due" than the actual official Ukrainian military intelligence report? Really?

Here you can see the leading "Ukrainian journalist and military analyst Yuriy Butusov, who travels to the fronts to make videos" (citing Le Monde description of him at Bakhmut: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/06/02/scenes-from-infernal-bakhmut-the-longest-battle-of-the-war-in-ukraine_6028798_4.html) Butusov show and comment on the real Wagner tactics on the example of a typical attack in footage recorded by an Ukrainian drone, so you can actually see it, instead of being just described: https://youtube.com/watch?v=k3ZxY2xNKU8

I also see others up anove trying to explain to you how this is something that never happened but to no avail. Did you never wonder why you never saw any videos of these "human wave attacks" in the war where drones and other cameras have recorded almost everything? No, there were no "infamous videos of [North Koreans] charging over open fields and getting destroyed". You may be mistaking them in the videos in the style of "a platoon sized element walking normally (legacy warfare) in a loose single file column and coming under artillery fire", from the first weeks before they adjusted to modern warfare (drone warfare). (And also before Rubicon suppressed Ukrainian artillery.)

Also, here's from the BBC based on Wagner's own leaked documents and military exoerts (not some foreign dilletante journalist in a deleted aerticle): https://bbcrussian.substack.com/p/how-wagner-lost-17000-fighters-in-bakhmut

>Wagner’s tactics in the city were wave-like attacks by small groups. Prisoners were in the vanguard, as Prigozhin had promised. Each group was composed of eight to a dozen men.

>“The prisoners would be sent first onto the Ukrainian positions, and that would force the Ukrainians to reveal themselves and engage with their close support weapons, their heavy machine guns and possible with artillery in some cases. That would give the Russians an opportunity to locate those systems, those strong points, those positions and engage them,” says British military expert Samuel Cranny-Evans from Royal United Services Institute, a think-tank.

Let me remind you of an English Wikipedia description of a human wave attack :

>A human wave attack, also known as a 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 and overwhelm the defenders by engaging in melee combat. The name refers to the concept of a coordinated mass of soldiers falling upon an enemy force and sweeping them away with sheer weight and momentum, like an ocean wave breaking on a beach.

Which never happened in this war, and there is really no reason for this completely obvious falsification of history.

Oh, and heres also an American military report (instead of some "due" dilletante journalist from a deleted article, and the following game of telephone among other dilletante jourbalists): https://oe.t2com.army.mil/product/the-composition-and-tactics-of-wagner-assault-detachments/ It is based on the same Ukrainian report.

And Butusov again on the Wagner tactics in the article form: https://censor.net/ua/resonance/3382797/taktyka_vagnera_yak_dosyagayut_rezultativ_zeky_z_trytyjnevoyu_pidgotovkoyu_ta_yak_yih_byut (translation: https://wavellroom.com/2022/12/15/the-battle-for-bakhmut/)

Some other Ukrainian experts: https://prismua.org/en/wagner/ ("There is a lot of noise, myths and legends surrounding the “Wagner” mercenaries" indeed.)

>Each group follows its own designated attack route, with specific positions assigned to each individual. A group leader oversees the direction of the assault and the activities of subordinates. Tablets with topographic maps are used to assess the ground situation.

>The assault teams seek to approach Ukrainian positions covertly, often accompanied by unmanned aerial vehicles that provide battlefield surveillance. Quite often, artillery backs the attackers by initially targeting Ukrainian positions. Once the artillery has targeted the positions, the mercenaries proceed to engage identified firing points using small arms, mortars, and automatic grenade launchers. This is followed by a direct assault on defensive structures or buildings, led by the assault group commanders (leaders). If unsuccessful, the assault may be repeated several times. The use of drones to monitor the situation and artillery support enhances the organisation and coordination of the offensive.

>Upon successfully capturing a position, the Wagnerites try to fortify it by constructing defensive structures and trenches. They may receive artillery support to deter Ukrainian forces from reclaiming the position. According to reports from the Ukrainian military, mercenary units can launch “countless” assaults on Ukrainian positions, disregarding casualties, in order to achieve their objectives at any cost. Armoured vehicles are seldom employed in close combat, primarily being used for long-range shelling of Ukrainian positions, and mercenary-controlled artillery is dispersed to avoid Ukrainian counter-battery fire.

>The infrequent use of armoured vehicles is also attributed to the Wagnerites’ pursuit of maximum surprise in their assault operations. Additionally, mercenaries often opt for night-time attacks on Ukrainian positions. Night battles typically involve assault groups comprising 10 to 20 militants. In urban areas, the mercenaries engage in combat in small groups, primarily consisting of four smaller subgroups. Two of these subgroups are “light” and the other two are armed with heavy weapons, such as grenade launchers, anti-tank guns, and various types of machine guns. The assault team commander typically accompanies one of the heavily armed subgroups, while the “light” subgroups assume the role of detection and initial contact with the enemy.

There were never any instances "an unprotected frontal assault with densely concentrated infantry formations against the enemy line, intended to overrun and overwhelm the defenders by engaging in melee combat" from the definition.

These were small assault groups, using stealth and firearms, and heavily supported by both drones (early modern warfare novelty, including first Russian FPVs) and the traditional support/heavy weapons of various kinds.

Oh, and here's an example of a correct translation of "meat" (cannon fodder): https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20241210-ukraine-struggles-against-russian-meat-grinder-tactics

>"We're losing ground to cannon fodder," Goth said bitterly, with a puff of blueish smoke. He said Russian forces were sending waves of small groups of men one after another, eventually overpowering outnumbered and exhausted Ukrainian troops. (...) "We're up against an army with four times more people," Kurt said. "Fifty percent is just cannon fodder, former prisoners, people from lower classes that Russia deems disposable," he said. (...) This slip-up could provide an insight into the extent of Russian casualties, which are fuelled by the "meat grinder" tactic. The expression became widespread during the battle for Bakhmut in which Russia deployed tens of thousands -- including convicts recruited from prisons by Yevgeny Prigozhin's Wagner Group -- to storm and overrun Ukrainian positions.

As I said, all mentions of "meat" should go to cannon fodder (see the Russian Wikipedia version of this article for the title and also the content, the use of "meat" in Ukraine is there). Everything else - deleted.

And if you really want, you can even make a cannon fodder split article titled perhaps Cannon fodder tactics in Ukraine or maybe Meat grinder tactics about such (not human wave) attacks, and defenses for that matter (because "meat" is not just for attacks).

--~2026-45482-86 (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm going also to remind (or inform) you that melee combat of ANY sort is something that is just not happening in this war. There has been only 1 recorded instance of any melee combat (riots not included) in 12 years since 2014, which was a knife fight between 2 men (survivors of their respective small groups, where Russians were defending a house and everyone else have been killee by gunshots and explosions before this unique one melee fight).

So if you think "human wave" means anything else than what can be described as "A human wave attack, also known as a 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 and overwhelm the defenders by engaging in melee combat. The name refers to the concept of a coordinated mass of soldiers falling upon an enemy force and sweeping them away with sheer weight and momentum, like an ocean wave breaking on a beach." it also should be deleted, because you mean something else than the English Wikipedia definition of this term.

The term" human wave" doesn't even naturally exist in Slavic language, btw. This is why this article here doesn't have version in Slavic languages that aren't direct and mechanical translations of the English Wikipedia article (with the Czech version even starting with " Útok lidských vln (anglicky human wave attack) ") because it's an entirely transplanted concept that is not in an actual use. As I've already mentioned, every and each instance of a "translation to English" by some dilletante journalist from either Ukrainian or Russian is a mistranslation of meat (мясо, м'ясо' - myaso) - that was to mean cannon fodder (the literal meaning) in Russian and Ukrainian, and also Polish (https://wiktionary.org/wiki/mięso_armatnie) etc. If you think that is important, you can write about it at cannon fodder, as I've also already mentioned.

There are countless articles in Russians and Ukrainian languages using "meat" (and anything "meat", like "meat assault" - just put this phrase in Google in Russian and Ukrainian and your search results should return you the definition of cannon fodder in English, even with link to English Wikipedia article "cannon fodder" - you can also read what Gemini says about it) in the proper context. Here is for example a Radio Free Europe article in Russians about Russians "perfecting" (quote) their "meat assault tactics" (that is, cannon fodder assault tactics) "as a result of which the Russian military was able to occupy Avdiivka in the Donetsk region in February 2024 (for this Mordvichev was personally praised by Putin, later signing a decree awarding the general the star of "Hero of Russia"), as well as the successes of the Russian army in the Pokrovsk direction": https://www.svoboda.org/a/taktik-myasnyh-shturmov-chto-govoryat-o-generale-mordvicheve/33415872.html as "meat tactics" (cannon fodder tactics) now is also the very same thing as the infiltration tactics. And any other tactics (including defense) for that matter, just keep reading about the war in the original Ukrainian and Russian and you'll see.

--~2026-45482-86 (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I provided many "cited rebuttals" as requested and explained in detail how this stupid legend was created by an unreliable source (one now-deleted article and the subsequent game of telephone) but was ignored by the single editor who just stopped replying. @AmaduesALPHADELTA: @RadioactiveBoulevardier: @Carlp941: @Salfanto: @Michael Z.: @Betelgeuse X: @Just-a-can-of-beans: @Dauzlee: @Nenovn: @Idumea47b: @Lazarbeem: (notifying everyone) please read the entire thing and decide should it be deleted. --~2026-45482-86 (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Why was I pinged here? Lazarbeem (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

From reading the article where the "Banzai Charge" comparison is made, it seems to be just a title made for clicks as the article itself doesn't make a comparison to an actual Banzai charge Lazarbeem (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

The titles alone from two of the sources from the very first paragraph of the Russian Invasion section are self-explanatory. Bloomberg and the Atlantic Council most definitely are reliable sources.

"Russia's 'Human Wave Attacks' Are Another Step Into Hell"

"Human wave tactics are demoralizing the Russian army in Ukraine"

Post after post of your silly original research isn't going to change anything. Now stop spamming this page. Betelgeuse X (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Lazarbeem: the only one editor who replied then just ignored everything I write, believing his evidently undue and unreliable sources (I checked the sample 2 first references used here: turned out to be a now-deleted article followed by another repeating after the same article and directly citing it while using phrases like "apparent") were more due and reliable than even an actual Ukrainian military intelligence report. So I just notified everyone from earlier discussions.

You wrote:

> As for if the entire Russo-Ukrainian war section should be removed, I am not entirely certain. However, I feel like a few key points about it need to be discussed: -The quality and reliability of the sources present -If what the sources are describing actually correlate to the article's topic -Any potential biases that may be present -It's necessity to the article as a whole

I obviously want to just delete all of that here (as its nothing but complete nonsense and misinformation) but if course it can be discussed. I put my arguments above but all of it can be elaborated further, with the evidence.

I'll also repeat how much of it can be reused at cannon fodder regarding the evidently prominent Slavic-languages use of "meat" instead of "fodder". --~2026-45482-86 (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I said that they need to be discussed and I am willing to discuss them. However note that I can't always immediately reply. If there's a point where we should start then please name it and we can start fresh from there Lazarbeem (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

The entire thing, you can take your time.

I'll also answer allegations of supposee North Korean human waves.

TylerBurden: "Even policies aside, claiming that North Koreans used "normal infantry tactics" with the infamous videos of them charging over open fields and getting destroyed puts your own alleged expertise in question."

There are no such videos, infamous or famous or any other. It was just simply legacy warfare normal infantry tactics of platoon size, by extremely well trained troops with absolute morale (like Japanese in banzai attacks, but nothing like bazaii attacks besides not caring about living or dying). It was just made impossible drones - before they adapted.

Dauzlee already posted https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/02/the-myth-of-human-wave-attacks-obscures-what-north.html

I'll add there was 0 instances in any circumstances of any sort of "melee conbat" involving North Koreans at all (besides killing themselves with knives, barbed wire, and once even own teeth, as to not be taken prisoner). To the contrary, they greatly impressed Ukrainian with their skill with shooting firearms, which was widely reported worldwide. For example:

'Arms ablaze, they still charged': Ukrainian forces stunned by North Korea's 'meat assaults' - what's behind such headline? No mention of "human wave" anything, but mentions of both "cannon fodder" and "meat" (which, as I've explained, means just the same). And also:

>But Kim chose to absorb the casualties and draw lessons instead. It did not take long for North Korean troops to master shooting down drones on sight, which is called a "hard kill." (...) "Because North Korean soldiers' marksmanship was so accurate, reconnaissance drones and artillery spotting drones — which flew low on other front lines — had to fly at significantly higher altitudes on the Kursk front," one source explained.

Because of course they were in fact shooting - extremely well. Here's an example of their actual performance, instead of "infamous videos" of "human waves" that doesn't exist: https://www.npr.org/2025/06/16/g-s1-71531/north-korea-soldiers-russia-ukraine-war-drones (it does talk in English about "cannon fodder", too, and of course no "human wave" nonsense at all)

Before they adjusted to modern warfare (drone warfare):

>He noticed that despite the group's size — "20, 30 soldiers" — the troops moved together, even in open fields, where they could be spotted by drones. Vlad said the soldiers appeared fit, fast and quick to maneuver. "So it is a much more disciplined way of fighting that we observed from Russians," Vlad said. Moving in such groups in open fields, however, left these soldiers exposed and easily spotted by drones. Vlad also noticed that the North Koreans risked their lives to retrieve the bodies of their colleagues from those fields. "I've never seen the Russians do that," Vlad said. (...) Ukraine has pioneered the use of FPV drones to track and attack Russian and North Korean soldiers. Because the North Koreans moved in big groups at first, Andriy said they were easy targets for artillery, "and if some of them survived, it was easier for FPV drones to find them."

After they quickly did adapt - as I the article title, "North Koreans fighting for Russia against Ukraine have grown skilled in drone warfare":

>Maksym, a Ukrainian drone operator, said the North Koreans seemed to take such instructions to heart. He noticed how they calmly stood in fields and shot at drones with rifles "very precisely." "They shot down my drones multiple times," Maksym said.

And so on. Actual reliable sources are plentiful and very easy to find. Another sample example: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/31/europe/ukraine-russia-kursk-north-korean-troops-intl

>A commander with the 6th Special Operations Forces regiment, who did not want to give his name for security reasons, told CNN that while the North Korean soldiers are “all young, trained, hardy fighters,” they would have not previously faced drones in combat. “They are prepared for the realities of war in 1980 at best,” he said. Another battalion serviceman told CNN the North Koreans had shown good marksmanship when shooting down drones from about a 100-meter distance, suggesting a high level of training in North Korea. However, Russia appears to be using the troops as foot soldiers, using them to carry out mass ground assaults despite major losses in Kursk.

It's not a problem at all. Again, that's not "human wave" anything, including not as defined as Wikipedia. It was just pre-drone tactics. Nothing more, nothing else.

Oh, and this (kinda sensationalist itself) "arms ablaze but still charging" thing - this was actually without shooting, but not anything "human wave" of course. Just the literally absolute morale that I talked about (and which included one killing himself by biting his veins after having been captured unconcious):

>"It must have been early in the fighting," Svyatoslav said. "One of the North Korean soldiers was already severely wounded in the head and wrapped in bandages. "He had no weapon, so he made a Molotov cocktail and ran toward our position," Svyatoslav said. "He dropped it twice while running, and the fire caught his hand and set his entire arm ablaze. He kept charging to the end."

Normal (legacy) infantry tactics, but also totally hard core. Soon they adapted to drones too.

And the official Ukrainian military intelligence evaluation, again (I talked much about their report about Wagner above): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/18/suicides-new-tactics-and-propaganda-ipads-details-from-captured-north-koreans-expose-new-foe-in-ukraine

>Meanwhile, North Korean troops are gaining valuable experience of 21st century war. Maj Gen Vadym Skybytskyi, the HUR’s deputy chief, said they were learning from their mistakes. “To begin with they advanced in large groups across snowy fields. The next lot won’t do that. They are learning new tactics and how to fight in a drone environment.” Those who survive will return home as military trainers, he said. Speaking to the Observer, Skybytskyi said the North Koreans were keen and ideologically driven. Casualties – 300 dead, 2,700 injured, according to Seoul – have not dented morale. Soldiers have blown themselves up to avoid capture.

A field commander's explanation from the same article - and him comparing their merely platoon sized movements with Russians going by only 2-3 men, which this article calls "human waves" too somehow:

>The unit’s commander Vadym Riddik said the North Koreans were taking brutal losses. “We kill them with our drones,” he said. “They move in groups of 30 or 40. The Russians are more careful and go around in twos or threes.” To prove his point, Riddik showed off videos from kamikaze drones. First one and then another fell on a large party of North Koreans as they walked on open ground. They toppled over, dead or injured. In Riddik’s view, warfare had changed completely – something Pyongyang now understands better, albeit at a bloody cost.

Legacy warfare tactics, from before the drone warfare era, are still being taught around the world, including Europe or America, of course. These are also not "human wave" tactics.

--~2026-45482-86 (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I stopped responding because you refuse to understand the point, which is that this is your own analysis, whereas WP:RS exists that do support the content.

Posting nonending WP:WALLOFTEXT is not going to change that fact, the only source you have provided that even comes close to supporting your argument is https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/02/the-myth-of-human-wave-attacks-obscures-what-north.html, which per WP:DUE, still doesn't justify removal of content here. TylerBurden (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

These are not my "own analysis", I can assure you I don't actually work in Ukrainian military intelligence for example (believe me). I dint post "wall of text" before you started demanding "cited rebuttals" about your anecdotes of some unspecified "infamous videos". So I provided a plenty, including citing text descriptions what the Kursk videos of the North Koreans platoons actually show (that is pre-drone warfare, specifically described as such). --~2026-45482-86 (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

No one thinks you do, you just still apparently do not understand how this works. Unless you are able to produce more sources that actually supports your arguments (no, your claims about "Ukrainian military intelligence" do not dispute that North Korea used human wave tactics, regardless of Skybytskyi's assessment of its FUTURE tactics), which so far with all with these walls of text, you have provided a single one, you should stop WP:BLUDGEONING this talk page, which is under WP:CCT restrictions (you are not an extended-confirmed user). TylerBurden (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Not any "future", they have adapted to drone warfare very quickly. They did so by the time these articles have been written, as he himself said when he "said they were learning from their mistakes". I already wrote about how they adapted in more of the posted "cited rebuttals" above (they learned not just to disperse but also how to shoot down drones, using their amazing firearm training, but that's not all - they also started using drones themselves for example), do you want me to start posting even more about how quickly they adapted and how well they did so?

Here specifically about the myth of the "human waves" nonsense in general (post-Bakhmut with illustration of Prigozhin): https://taskandpurpose.com/news/us-military-war-of-attrition-massive-attacks/

>While Wagner mercenaries continue to carry out these frontal assaults as cannon fodder, the private military company is using this tactic much less in recent months, said Karolina Hird, a Russia Analyst at the Institute for the Study of War think tank in Washington, D.C. (...) Nonetheless, Russia’s use of mercenaries as cannon fodder raises the question of how well the U.S. military would perform against an adversary that fought to win by attrition.

Note the repeated use of "cannon fodder". It's "meat" (myaso) directly translated to English. It's the direct translation. It doesn't translate as "human wave". Once again, use any translators and also check the Slavic versions of the articles cannon fodder and human wave attack.

>But it is unlikely that Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran would launch such attacks against U.S. forces in a future conflict, said Matthew Cancian, a former Marine Corps captain and artillery officer. “I believe that ‘human wave attacks’ of hundreds of soldiers advancing without attention to cover have been mostly a myth since the early stages of World War I,” Cancian told Task & Purpose. “Even a squad of U.S. soldiers supported by air and artillery could defeat an attack like that. Furthermore, most countries do not field a fraction of the manpower that they did when these ‘human wave attacks’ were alleged to occur.”

Why did I bold out "even a squad"? Because it's positioned opposite to "hundreds of soldiers" needed for a human wave. And Wagner operated in the "even" squads - not in "hundreds", but in small groups, most often 8-12. And Russians for years after Bakhmut (when the Western legend of "human waves" was born) have been normally operating not even in squads, and not even in classic teams - but just moving almost only by 2-3 men, or even only 1.

It can't be possibly more different than the idea of "human wave" even if to disregard the English Wikipedia definition of the necessity of them having to rush to "engage in melee combat" (ANY documented melee combat occured only once in the entire war and it was 1 on 1 - so rare that both participants officially became national heroes: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/01/17/7494079/).

Oh and, hilariously, that Wikipedia definition in this article here uses melee combat that links to medieval tournaments. What should be properly used is Hand-to-hand combat. --~2026-45482-86 (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

So what you are arguing is that any inclusion of a human wave for a country in this article should match the definition of a human wave attack? Lazarbeem (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@Lazarbeem: : There are no native Slavic definitions of "human wave attack". This phrase is a foreign transplant that is simply not being used by neither Ukrainians not Russians.

The word that is often mistranslated, including here in this article, "meat" (myaso), means cannon fodder. It was originally cannon meat but then became just meat in their languages (it's still cannon meat with "cannon" in it in other Slavic languages, like Polish mięso armatnie that is 'cannon meat', not just mięso). When the Ru or Ua say "meat" they don't mean "human wave attack", nor even an attack at all (a meat can be just a cannon fodder defense). It's shared by both sides, alike their common use of pidar[y] (a slur) to mean the enemy.

You can ask anyone there, and you can check yourself using any computer translator, and by just checking the Wikipedia articles in these (and other) Slavic languages.

@Betelgeuse X:: maybe you should read more than "titles alone". I'll address your two supposedly perfect sources of your own choice:

1. "Russia's 'Human Wave Attacks' Are Another Step Into Hell" (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-02-14/russia-s-human-wave-tactics-in-ukraine-reflect-vladimir-putin-s-values)

This is just an opinion article (you can see the word "opinion" in the link) by a random civilian. Now,

>As the war approaches its first anniversary, increasing numbers of Russians in Ukraine — both regular soldiers and Wagner mercenaries — are being treated by their superiors as “cannon fodder.”

Again, confusion regarding cannon fodder (meat).

>Another name for this approach is “human-wave attacks.”

No, it's not. This why English Wikipedia has separate articles for both of these terms.

Most of the article then is spent talking about Chinese in Korea and other randomness, doesn't explain why this random civilian thought "human wave attacks" is somehow somehow "another name" for cannon fodder. You can read the Bloomberg article to see how completely useless it is for Ukraine (it's hardly useful for any other war, you have experts for that).

1. "Human wave tactics are demoralizing the Russian army in Ukraine" (https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/human-wave-tactics-are-demoralizing-the-russian-army-in-ukraine/)

This one is based on the deleted WP article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/russias-human-wave-attacks-are-another-stepinto-hell/2023/02/14/574e7202-ac27-11ed-b0ba-9f4244c6e5da_story.html - it redirects to main page). Why was it deleted? It's not normal to delete articles, is it?

>Crucially, an apparent reliance on human wave tactics during Russia’s recent winter offensive has led to catastrophic losses which threaten to undermine morale within the ranks of Putin’s invading army.

The writer's idea of these "apparent" human wave tactics is so based on the deleted WP article so much that the phrase "human wave tactics" in this paragraph is the link to the deleted WP article - the game of telephone has began. It's not based about anything else and doesn't say anything about this "apparent" phenomenon there, besides only the following:

>While unconfirmed, these figures are supported by extensive battlefield footage, much of which appears to show Russian troops engaged in reckless frontal assaults on entrenched defensive positions.

This is absolutely NOT the English Wikipedia definition of human wave attack. This is, however, completely in accordance to the English Wikipedia definition of cannon fodder.

Always read beyond just headlines. Also, be civil. --~2026-45482-86 (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, I have read the articles themselves.

"The human wave tactics on display in eastern Ukraine reflect Russia’s narrowing military options following a year of embarrassing battlefield setbacks."

Again, your attempt to discredit articles that state point-blank the use of human wave tactics by Russia is laughable. Repeatedly posting your own original research and demanding that a Wikipedia article be modified because it doesn't conform to your own personal opinion will indeed annoy people. Betelgeuse X (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I think that he's trying to say is if what's being mentioned in the news sources matches Wikipedia's definition of a human wave attack Lazarbeem (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Looks like they match.

Wikipedia:

"According to U.S. Army analyst Edward C. O'Dowd, the technical definition of a human wave attack tactic is a frontal assault by densely concentrated infantry formations against an enemy line, without any attempts to shield or to mask the attacker's movement."

Atlantic Council article:

"Human wave tactics are not new and typically involve soldiers conducting direct attacks in large numbers with the objective of overwhelming an opposing force."

"In the present war against Ukraine, the Kremlin may see human wave tactics as an effective way of overcoming determined Ukrainian resistance. It allows Russia to wear down Ukraine’s numerically fewer but battle-hardened troops, and can be implemented using a combination of easily replaced forces including recently mobilized soldiers and former convicts serving in the Wagner private military company."

"Although grisly, Russia’s human wave tactics are producing results. However, any advances during the past three months in Bakhmut and at other points along the 600-mile front line have been modest in scale and have come at a high cost. In an interview with Current Time on the front lines of Bakhmut, one Ukrainian soldier described the horrors of Russia’s frontal assaults. “The Russian soldiers face certain death in these attacks, but they are not retreating,” he commented. “You can shoot his head off, but his comrade will keep coming. Their own commanders will kill them if they don’t attack.”" Betelgeuse X (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok if they match they it can be kept. The only thing I suggest removing is the comparison to Banzai charges as that comparison was only made by David Axe (in this article -> https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/02/26/modern-banzai-russian-troops-pile-onto-vehicles-speed-toward-ukrainian-lines--and-die-but-the-tactic-is-helping-russia-advance/?sh=7ed0ef2cb5ef) and doesn't match Wikipedia's definition of a Banzai charge. Also looking back on other messages on the talk page I'm not the only one who thinks that the Banazi charge comparison should be removed Lazarbeem (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

And you are an editor with a history of making WP:NPOV violations, if you have problems with reliable sources, you are making a very flawed argument given your own editing history. TylerBurden (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I gave my own view on this situation after I was pinged and came to the conclusion that if what is described in the sources matches what is described in Wikipedia's definition of a Human wave attack is, then the section should be kept. However with that in mind, I said that the comparison to Banzai charges should be removed because the only source that makes that comparison is an article by David Axe and his explanation of doesn't match Wikipedia's definition of a Banzai charge.Furthermore I am not the only editor who thinks this judging from past talk page comments. Also please do not resort to personal attacks. Lazarbeem (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

No one is personally attacking you, on the contrary your complete failure of understanding WP:DUE is being pointed out. TylerBurden (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Banzai charge comparison be WP:UNDUE because only David Axe made that comparison? Lazarbeem (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

David Axe writing for Forbes, in other words established RS with editorial oversight, no matter how disliked he is in pro-Russian circles. How "Wikipedia defines a human wave attack" doesn't matter, since Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. TylerBurden (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I was pointing out how only David Axe made that comparison and how his example of what he describes as a Banzai charge doesn't match what a Banzai charge actually is Lazarbeem (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Well unfortunately for you Forbes is considered a more reliable source than you. TylerBurden (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm talking about the reliability of David Axe. Per WP:UNDUE: "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "See also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." Since David Axe is the only person to make the comparison to Banzai charges and the example that he uses doesn't match what a Banzai charge actually is, it should not be included per WP:UNDUE Lazarbeem (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines a banzai charge as "a determined often reckless act".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/banzai%20charge

I don't see how this conflicts with David Axe's article. Betelgeuse X (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

"Banzai charge or Banzai attack (Japanese: バンザイ突撃 or 万歳突撃, banzai totsugeki) is the term that was used by the Allied forces of World War II to refer to Japanese human wave attacks and swarming staged by infantry units."

Banzai Cliff was the Site of Hundreds of Suicides at the Battle of Saipan

One final push

David Axe's example: Noting the Ukrainians’ desperate shortage of artillery ammo, the Russians are betting that back-to-back-to-back waves of troops, riding in or on infantry fighting vehicles, can deplete Ukrainian firepower faster than the Ukrainians can deplete Russian manpower.

Modern Banzai Charge: Russian Troops Pile Onto Vehicles, Speed Toward Ukrainian Lines ... And Die. But The Tactic Is Helping Russia Advance.

The difference is that David Axe's example specifically mentions the use IFVs while a Banzai charge is a purely infantry attack Lazarbeem (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's definition doesn't discern between infantry or non-infantry. Betelgeuse X (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

He did, and it was published in WP:RS, which is why it is included. If after almost two years of consistently violating the very policy you are speaking of you are suddenly concerned about WP:DUE, then you should provide an equally reliable published source challenging his comparison, so far you have only made your own comments and tried to use Wikipedia as a source. TylerBurden (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

FYI, the "Washington Post" article actually seems to be a Bloomberg article:

"Russia's 'Human Wave Attacks' Are Another Step Into Hell"

Same author. Perhaps the WP temporarily carried it too.

Comment. It would be far better if the article used military expert sources rather than journalists for Russia use of "human wave attacks" in Ukraine. (The "Institute for the Study of War" article does this). (Hohum ^@) 22:16, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

My final post here

Always rely on official military sources, reports from the war zone, and commentary by actual military experts. Here is a sample example from today's (18 September 2026) official Ukrainian military sources about how Russian infantry actually fights in drone warfare conditions (after drones made legacy warfare impossible): https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-ato/4165360-rosiani-namagautsa-pronikati-na-slobozansinu-nadmalimi-pihotnimi-grupami-tregubov.html (my own trans. to English from Ukrainian, summary at https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2026/09/18/8054052/

>In the South Slobozhansk and North Slobozhansk directions, Russian military is trying to find gaps in Ukrainian defense with the help of small and very small infantry groups, sometimes operating alone. This was announced on TV by the spokesman for the Joint Forces Group, Viktor Tregubov, an Ukrinform correspondent reports. (...) According to him, Russians are gradually reducing the numbers in such groups. While previously it was about half of squad [detachment, відділення - I'm using the NATO terminology equivalent "squad"/section, see the article Відділення (військова справа) at the Ukrainian Wikipedia], over the past year they have mainly used groups of two or three soldiers, and now there are cases of even one-man infiltration, he added. "The fewer people, the more chances to go unnoticed. The fewer people, the smaller the footprint they leave, the less noticeable they are," the spokesman explained.

Then then elaborates while comparing with with legacy warfare, which as I cited above in Kursk initially involved the platoon sized (stated at 20-30 in one quote here above, 30-40 in another) movement of North Koreans in, yes, completely normal (pre-drone) tactics, but who would be easily spotted by drones and attacked by artillery and FPVs (as the Ukrainian troops and commanders told in the sample quotes provided above), before they very quickly (just few weeks) fully adapted to the drone warfare. He also says why vehicles are very rarely used and Russian infantry is almost always used at footsoldiers (also due to drones, of course) - and no, infantry simply operating without vehicles is not "human waves", too, in case it anyone here has such an idea (and "waves of attack" is also completely unrelated, as to cover every doubt). As I explained, in detail and using actually reliable sources, the Russians pioneered the use of small groups in Wagner, and then Russian military abandoned battalion tactical groups in favour of the small groups, smaller and smaller, until going just alone now (and also gradually abandoned mechanised warfare, also due to drones). The small groups can't be possibly any smaller than 1, and obviously 1 man can't be any further from the concept of "human waves", too. But it's still cannon fodder, that is "meat", due to the infiltrators aka stormtroopers aka assault troops (there was a time when there are was some confusion with them being incorrectly conflated with the different concept of the sabotage-reconessaince groups, it's no longer a problem now) being disposable.

>Tregubov informed that Russian military is trying to pass unnoticed through a certain area where enemy drones are operating and reach a place where they can hide or find cover. "One person will sneak where 20 people will be very visible, where even three people will be more visible than one. That is why техніка [lit. 'machinery', meaning mechanised transportation] is not used on a large scale, because техніка is visible. One person can perform truly covert actions," he said.

He then elaborates further, but I'm not going "textwall", you can read yourself. Such articles (reliable, valuable) are just countless. Literally thousands, multiple every single day, in Ukrainian, in English, in other languages. There are more just today, too, like every day.

Here is another (English language) sample example from just today, about how Ukrainian positions that Russians are attacking look like, and how are they being attacked by the "meat" storm troops (no "melee [hand-to-hand] combat", as ever, of course): https://texty.org.ua/articles/118316/underground-cities-how-ukrainian-infantry-survive-under-fire/

>Lieutenant Colonel Roman Kovalov, commander of the motorized infantry battalion of the 43rd Separate Mechanized Brigade, explains how these "underground positions" are organized and defended. (...) "The enemy tries to get as close as possible because every one of their assault troops carries half an AT mine on his back," Roman Kovalov explains. "First, they force our troops underground with drone drops and FPV drones. Then, while the infantry are still recovering from the explosions, they run up to the entrance, throw the mine inside, and quickly retreat. An explosion that powerful will usually either bury the soldiers completely under the rubble or destroy the position from the inside".

You need to rely on such plentiful, authoritative, often first-hand, always first-rate sources. They were easily available thought almost the entire war (except the chaos and confusion of February 22). Absolutely instead the supposedly "due" uninformed, sensationalist, worthless garbage of "opinion" articles by some foreign civilians (random civilians - not actual military experts) looking at unspecified videos on the internet while not knowing much if anything about warfare and real military terminology, and also the Ukrainian/Russian language and slang (as with 'meat' being mistranslated as 'human wave'[*]), and writing stupid nonsense, or just them mindlessly repeating after each other. (And not only in this article here, in all articles.)

I'm going to leave it to @Lazarbeem: as I think he understands the issue well (he did point out problems correctly in his list).

[*]Which unfortunately I even once saw in a Kyiv Independent reportage from Chasiv Yar, where the phrase "meat tactics" (м'ясна тактика) as spoken by a soldier being interviewed in Ukrainian magically became "human waves" in English subtitles. Ukrainians do often internalise Western errors in military terminology, such them absolutely commonly saying/writing "shrapnel" incorrectly in English to mean fragments/shards, even as it's fragments/shards (уламки, осколки) in Ukrainian and they never wrongly call it "шрапнел" in Ukrainian, or in Russian for that matter (unless some began now after the continuous exposure to the rampant English language misuse, but it's still not at all in the Ukrainian language media at least).

So anyway here's what Google Gemini (Chrome AI mode) says when given the phrase м'ясна тактика (meat tactics) in an English translation via Google Translate (left unchanged here besides my comments in brackets, the "modern context" here separately):

>"Meat tactics" (or "meat assaults") [orig. «М'ясна тактика» (або «м'ясні штурми»)] is a derogatory term for a military strategy involving a massive, continuous infantry offensive against enemy positions—conducted without adequate fire support, armored vehicles, or proper soldier training. [1, 2] The primary goal of such tactics is to exhaust the enemy's defenses, force the expenditure of ammunition, expose firing points, or break through the front line—solely at the cost of massive personnel casualties. [1, 2] Key characteristics and operational mechanisms: "Meat" infiltration: Command deliberately sends dozens or hundreds of soldiers "wave after wave" so that at least one or a few fighters might advance and secure a new position. [1] Disregard for life: Military leadership treats soldiers as expendable resources ("cannon fodder") [orig. гарматного м'яса, "cannon meat" - I talked about it many times, about being "meat" mistranslated as "human waves" while really meaning "cannon fodder", just as translates it here by Google Translate]. Such assaults often involve poorly trained conscripts, prisoners, or troops used as "disposable infantry." [1, 2, 3] Exposing firing positions: The initial waves of assault troops are virtually guaranteed to perish; however, their deaths force the defenders to open fire, allowing the attackers' artillery or drones to pinpoint and subsequently strike those defensive positions. [1] Relentless pressure: Assaults occur continuously, denying defenders the opportunity to rest, rotate troops, or replenish ammunition supplies.

>Modern Context (Russo-Ukrainian War) This term came into widespread use during the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Russian army actively employed this tactic during the assaults on Bakhmut (particularly involving the Wagner PMC) and Avdiivka, as well as on the Pokrovsk and other fronts. [1, 2, 3] Russian forces often shift to "micro-group" tactics [orig. тактики «мікрогруп»] —advancing in small infantry units of 2–4 personnel under the cover of guided aerial bombs (KABs) and FPV drones. However, the essence remains the same: achieving territorial gains at the cost of massive human losses, which are replenished through continuous forced or contract-based mobilization. [1, 2, 3]

Sources of the Gemini definition:

• https://www.ukr.net/news/details/russianaggression/119444825.html
• https://glavcom.ua/columns/vandrusiv/mjasna-stratehija-peremohi-putina-1004326.html
• https://v-variant.com.ua/na-pokrovskomu-napriamku-vorogh-zastosovuie-miasnu-taktiku-shturmiv-i-pratsiuie-pikhota-odnodienki/
• https://www.unian.ua/war/konveyer-smerti-analitiki-rozpovili-pro-cikavu-taktiku-rosiyan-na-fronti-12574596.html
• https://war.telegraf.com.ua/ukr/war-in-ukraine/2024-03-15/5840370-eto-myasnaya-taktika-no-kak-okkupanty-dobivayutsya-uspekha-v-boyakh

Bete:

>In an interview with Current Time on the front lines of Bakhmut, one Ukrainian soldier described the horrors of Russia’s frontal assaults. “The Russian soldiers face certain death in these attacks, but they are not retreating,” he commented. “You can shoot his head off, but his comrade will keep coming. Their own commanders will kill them if they don’t attack.”"

This is also by the very definition just cannon fodder - once again. There's nothing there about any "human waves", which is a very specific concept (a densely concentrated great mass of people running ahead), and all about the м'ясна тактика. I'm going to once again remind you of the actual English Wikipedia definition of human wave attack:

>A human wave attack, also known as a human sea attack, 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 and overwhelm the defenders by engaging in melee combat. The name refers to the concept of a coordinated mass of soldiers falling upon an enemy force and sweeping them away with sheer weight and momentum, like an ocean wave breaking on a beach.

(And yes, this definition still links to melee combat, a form of mock combat at medieval tournaments, instead of the proper hand-to-hand combat. Even after I pointed it out more than once.)

Oh, and also @Salfanto: and @Dauzlee: (and everyone else): No, Ukrainians also NEVER engaged in any human wave attacks in this conflict. And no, it's not merely "dismounted infantry attacks on foot with light arms" (just absolutely normal light infantry tactics), nor "a meat grinder in Bakhmut, sending wave after wave of troops to face opposition fire" or "pointless assaults that gave only slight tactical gains without artillery support, leading to senseless death" (again cannon fodder, by it's very definition), nor anything else that is in fact human wave attacks. A very specific concept.

I'll give you sample examples of other definitions. A short one:

• Human Wave: An infantry technique used to attack and overwhelm an enemy defensive position. Successive waves of armed troops are lined up parallel to one another at regular intervals. As the attack begins, the lines of troops surge forward. The first few waves are usually cut down by enemy fire and the lines of soldiers behind them fill in the gaps, pick up dropped weapons, and press on with the attack. This attack method tends to overwhelm the defensive position, since there is never a break or lull in the fighting; sooner or later the attacking force arrives at and breaches the defensive position. If the defending troops don't run out of ammunition first, their weapons overheat from constant firing and eventually freeze up. Despite the blood and carnage, human waves have been used by battling military forces throughout history, including the Napoleonic Wars, the American Civil War, World Wars I and II, and the Vietnam War. https://books.google.com/books?id=wrYuEQAAQBAJ&pg=PA310

A long one:

• Human wave attack 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. According to U.S. Army analyst Edward C. O'Dowd, the technical definition of a human wave attack tactic is a frontal assault by densely concentrated infantry formations against an enemy line, without any attempts to shield or to mask the attacker's movement. The goal of a human wave attack is to maneuver as many men as possible into close range, hoping that the shock from a large mass of attackers engaged in melee combat would force the enemy to disintegrate or fall back. The human wave attack's reliance on melee combat usually makes the skills of individual soldiers irrelevant, but it requires either great physical courage, coercion, or esprit de corps for the attackers to advance into enemy fire. However, when matched against modern weaponry such as automatic firearms, artillery and aircraft, a human wave attack is an extremely dangerous and costly tactic in the face of devastating firepower. Thus, for the human wave attack to succeed on the modern battlefield, it is imperative for the attackers to charge into the enemy line in the shortest time and in the greatest numbers possible, so that a sufficient mass can be preserved when the attackers reach melee range. However, this solution usually means that the attackers must sacrifice concealment and cover for numbers and speed. Because of this trade-off, human wave attacks are normally used by an attacker with a lack of tactical training, or one who lacks firepower and the ability to maneuver, but whose main advantage is motivating and controlling their men. The term "human wave attack" has been used to describe the infantry assault tactics used by several armed forces around the world. These included European armies during World War I, Imperial Japanese Army and Soviet Red Army during World War II, Chinese People's Liberation Army during the Korean War, Vietnamese insurgents during the Indochina Wars, and Iranian Basij during the Iran-Iraq War. https://books.google.com/books?id=l_6pCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA159

The unrelated concept of Russian cannon fodder (meat) tactics/strategy, from the first links from the Gemini list above (skipping the second, "Meat: Putin's victory strategy", which is written by a civilian):

• Kostyantyn Melnikov, press officer of the 24th separate mechanized brigade named after King Danylo, told about this on the air of Army TV. "In the 24th Brigade's line of responsibility, we are not particularly aware of the change in tactics. This continues to be a tactic, so to speak, of meat infiltration, when in order for at least one occupier to advance somewhere in some, conditionally, further areas, their command is ready to invest dozens of its personnel", — said Kostyantyn Melnikov.

• The enemy's tactics are now "meat". Maksym Bakulin, press officer of the 14th brigade of the National Guard of Ukraine "Chervona Kalyna", said this on the air of "Apostrophe TV" on July 12, reports Suspilne (https://suspilne.media/donbas/1065143-ihni-sili-na-pokrovskomu-napramku-perevazaut-sili-moei-brigadi-u-dekilka-raziv-recnik-14-brigadi-ngu/). "The Russian troops have so many forces that they do not have time to train the infantry. Their specialists are well trained and work, and the infantry are 'one-day'. Their forces outnumber us, precisely in the area of responsibility of my brigade, several times", says the press officer. The situation in the area did not change for several weeks: "Currently, the weather conditions and the 'green' [i.e. vegetation, used for concealment in stealth movement] contribute to offensive actions, because it is difficult to detect the enemy, a large number of reconnaissance and attack drones are needed. The enemy's tactics are now 'meat', they take their replenishments, divide them into categories, someone is better equipped, who can lead more offensive actions, and others who can't, those are sent to 'meat' as bait to lure out our firepower and FPV attack drones, and while we destroy this group, the one more equipped and trained has reached our position. It's all under fire from artillery and a lot of drones. Any tactic that brings success to the enemy, they scale it. I'm talking about scooters, they tried, they succeeded and now we see that there are a very large number of them. The terrain is smashed so that it is almost impossible to drive there with equipment, so the enemy takes a scooter, where you can drive, the enemy goes, where it is not possible to drive — takes a scooter on his back and walks."

As I mentioned, such articles are countless and many are posted daily.

--~2026-45482-86 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Updated North Korea section

Just wanted to make it clear that the update to the North Korea subsection has nothing to do with... whatever is going on above me on this page. I just saw that it was still largely based on the early reporting. By now there have been several analyses that concluded that NK forces adapted (these have been provided as new citations). Also, updated with more recent casualty estimates. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I was supposed to quit already, but I just saw this so let me add regarding the North Koreans precisely: They only used only perfectly normal tactics of legacy warfare (pre-drone warfare, now suddenly completely outdated) for elite shock troops light infantry. What they adapted to was drone warfare (aka modern warfare).

Here is Ukraine's official United24 English state information service, citing American media, in turn based on Ukrainian military sources (a sort of circular reporting): "North Korea Is Quickly Evolving Tactics While Fighting Alongside Russian Forces Against Ukraine" (https://united24media.com/latest-news/north-korea-is-quickly-evolving-tactics-while-fighting-alongside-russian-forces-against-ukraine-7466)

>North Korea adapted their fighting tactics after their first clashed with Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region, The Wall Street Journal reported in an article published on April 8. (https://www.wsj.com/world/north-korea-russia-ukraine-combat-experience-3e043838 - it goes in a much greater detail of course, but I'll use the U24 summary) The pivotal battles in the Kursk region, from which Ukraine’s army has largely withdrawn, highlight how North Korean forces swiftly adapted their previously outdated tactics. (...) [WSJ] notes that the initial engagements on the battlefield in December were conducted in large groups, without support from artillery, drones, or armored vehicles, making them easy targets for Ukrainian defenders. By February, their large numbers, physical endurance, and determination to advance under fire were paired with enhanced tactical awareness, such as moving in smaller groups. (...) [WSJ] brings out one example of rapid adaptation, which is North Korea’s response to drones. When drones were first deployed, the North Koreans simply observed them, not recognizing the threat. But they quickly adapted, learning tactics to avoid or destroy the drones. To minimize losses from Ukrainian drone attacks, the North Koreans learned to flank, with one group engaging in the attack while another struck from the rear, according to documents.

No mention of any "human waves", of course. Just "outdated tactics", including moving in (relatively) large groups due to initially limited "tactical awareness" as they were only learning drone warfare (which they learnt very fast and very well, but that's even beyond the point - the point being their initial tactics, completely normal tactics). Their initial painful setbacks were due to the drones, detecting them and striking them (or directing accurate artillery fire on them, an unmentioned above but very big issue) while without the drones changing warfare completely they could not be even seen by the enemy. That was their problem with "tactical awareness" - the enemy being always aware of them, due to observation drones (being hit by strike drones is only an addition to that). "Smaller groups" (smaller than their initial platoons usually, very occasionally companies) helped avoid the detection and also to limit losses from drone strikes (the article also mentions the latter aspect elsewhere).

Here is an example of a Western military expert source ("Michael  Aldeman is a US Marine Corps Reserve Captain [that] serves as an innovator for the Marine Innovation Unit, which helps the US Marine Corps leverage dual-use technologies for military application"): https://www.38north.org/2026/04/drones-and-operational-shift-north-koreas-adaptation-to-a-changing-warfare-environment/

>In the initial phases of this deployment, North Korean troops were frequently labeled as inexperienced fighters—with many referring to them as “cannon fodder” resulting in high-casualty operations. However, recent assessments suggest a different picture and may indicate adaptation in real time, where North Korean troops appear to have identified gaps in their own counter-UAS capabilities. (...) They also appear to have adopted advanced camouflaging methods and rapid redeployment strategies consistent with Ukrainian drone operations.

"Cannon fodder", as I explained repeatedly and in detail, is the very same term as the Ukrainian word "meat", it doesn't translate as "human wave" and it doesn't mean "human wave". On the North Korean (brief) usage of what is apply termed as simply "traditional formations" (of light infantry in legacy warfare), and the subsequent adaptation to drone warfare (modern warfare) by moving away from the platoon-based system:

>Another significant observable adjustment appears to be the North Korean units’ shift toward small, more agile formations, as opposed to larger, traditional formations. This evolution suggests the ability of DPRK forces to adapt to modern ISR capabilities that come as a result of advanced drone warfighting

From the already quoted NPR article, "North Koreans fighting for Russia against Ukraine have grown skilled in drone warfare" (https://www.npr.org/2025/06/16/g-s1-71531/north-korea-soldiers-russia-ukraine-war-drones), specifically about how it was about their sudden and instant leap to drone warfare:

>"They went from using World War II tactics to managing on the battlefield with drones," Capt. Oleh Shyriaiev, commander of the 225th Separate Assault Brigade, told NPR. "And they learned very quickly."

"WWII" is a hyperbole, of course (another Ukrainian commander cited in the article talked of "1980", as I quoted him earlier, which is also a hyperbole). In any case they went through a crash course from whatever era (doesn't matter, all legacy warfare is just that) to exactly 2024 and indeed they did so "very quickly".

And so on, plentiful even just in English (many Ukrainian, Korean, and other sources too). Like this new BBC article from just this week: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgl7zrnxxy6o

>"They're still there", said Dr Yang Uk, research fellow at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, Center for Foreign Policy and National Security in Seoul. (...) Yang continued, "North Korean soldiers are very brave I mean, especially those of Storm Corps. They are willing to die for their country. But the problem is that passion doesn't mean efficient combat skills... [They suffered] a lot of bloodshed in the early stage of the Kursk campaign, but they learned the lessons of modern drone warfare."

It's these developments that should be talked about in cannon fodder and/or drone warfare (maybe they are in the latter, actually I didn't check), besides the articles about the North Korean intervention or North Korean forces generally. Not here, as there were no "human wave attacks", there was just legacy warfare on one side. For a short while, until it wasn't. Because now they know modern warfare much more than the South Koreans do.

Which is actually very important, unlike silly legends of "human wave attacks". From the U24 article:

>Dorothy Camille Shea, the Deputy US Ambassador to the UN, has previously warned that North Korea’s involvement in the war against Ukraine provides its forces with valuable combat experience.

Or from once again the same NPR article, citing it once more:

>That also worries South Korea. If the Ukraine war continues and North Korea commits more troops, their battleground knowledge could pose a threat to South Korea, says Cha Du Hyeogn, a former intelligence adviser to the South Korean government who is vice president of the Asan Institute for Policy Studies in Seoul. "The more North Korean soldiers are trained in drone warfare, the more the risk rises that they could use these war skills in Korea," he says.

And many other such statements that you can easily find. Because this is the actually important issue. Besides being an actually real one.

Leaving for real! --~2026-45482-86 (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah no. There is video footage of North Korean infantry running across open fields en masse while under fire when they were initially deployed.

You have been repeatedly warned about violating Wikipedia policies on bludgeoning and this is another instance of it. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)