Originally posted by Travellar
The only morale victory I see from a human wave attack comes from instilling the proper level of terror in your enemies. If I may delve into fiction
for a moment, consider the marines in the movie "Aliens". They had every firepower advantage imaginable, but were stuck in super dense terrain,
against an enemy with unknown but vast numbers, that would loose any amount of them just to close into close combat.
Excellent point. Yeah, and in the director's cut of Aliens, they actually have sentry guns (like the big heavy gun that the gunners carry in that
movie) which mow down scores and scores of Aliens. but eventually, like every gun, they run dry.
If you're facing these waves of humans, you'll need more bullets than you ever imagined. You've got to keep those bullets moving from boxes to the
front lines. You've got to ensure those bullets don't run out. Also, if one of your guns goes down, and there's a chink in the line, you are at
risk of losing the center.
Good topic Shadow, grim though it is to contemplate. I think it's great to discuss the worst elements of war. Teaches us a lot about why we should
work to avoid it.
So here's a question: Would you rather have A: twenty .50 caliber gunners, with flimsy ammo supply lines, or B: twenty thousand human missiles to
have run at those gunners?
If I am running toward a target, and I am struck with a rifle bullet, there must also be five more (accurate) bullets to hit the five guys behind me,
and who are harder to aim at. Probably, I must fall down, for you to aim at the five guys behind me. Probably, this will allow them to sprint 50
feet closer to you. The next guy will get fifty feet closer, and so on.
Of course, if it's a controlled battlefield like a valley or a no-mans-land circa WWI, then the strategy is probably already won by whomever has
chosen the battlefield. If I had twenty thousand men to send in waves, I'd choose a suitable battlefield if possible. Like the mention of
Mogadishu, where the weaponless enemy still has got you running around in his own neighborhood.
But if I were on the side of the cannons, the one tactic I think could seal it for me, is if my cannoneers were allowed to be mobile. I'd want my
50-cals mounted on hummers or something, just like the militias in Africa. I'd want not just superior firepower, but the ability to move the line
backward, if needed, to deal with strong surges in the people-waves coming at me. I'd probably also want all the other items at my disposal like
cluster bombs, laser-shooting Spooky gunships, sound devices (as mentioned), flamethrowers, napalm, etc.
But in spite of all that, twenty thousand weaponless soldiers could penetrate ANY line, if they were focused and dispersed at the precisely correct
times, and if they had good recon from effective scouts. Eventually, the ammo of the enemy would experience some kind of interruption, and the gun's
would stop or slow down. Anyway most of the ammo fired will be wasted (misses) so I'd teach my men not to worry about bullets. I'd mentally
prepare my troops and make them feel like they were invincible. I'd give them hope because ultimately some gunner would screw up their reload. I'd
train my scouts to watch the reload/jamming process and flag my guys to charge those sections of the line at the proper moments.
Even just a hundred sprinting humans can swarm and take out some impressive machinery. I am also thinking of that Steve McQueen movie (Hell is for
Heroes?) where at the end, he has to toss a satchel charge into the german bunker. Take out one big gun, and you can move a whole army through.
[This is all armchair talk from a 'civvie'. I give respect to all persons who have faced combat or placed themselves in that position. I don't
mean to speak lightly about it, although it may sound that way.
[edit on 8-4-2006 by smallpeeps]