该Quora 观点： 我常在 Quora 上看到有人指控某国使用「人海战术」(human wave attacks)，并藉此批评 对方「差、蠢、低劣」或其他负面评价。我觉得这种观念有点像是一种遗留下来的「冲锋陷 阵」的古老幻想，似乎觉得只要仗着人多就能压倒敌人。在虚构作品中，这种场面也相当吸 睛，比如《星海争霸》（StarCraft）里的异虫族（Zerg），《星舰战将》（Starship Troo pers）里的虫族，或是《兵临城下》（Enemy at the Gates）中那段着名的场景。然而，事 实上这种想法相当不合逻辑。先让我们看看「人海战术」的定义： 「人海战术是一种正面冲锋的战术，藉由高密度的步兵队形，对敌方阵线发动攻击，而不 使用任何掩护或隐蔽手段以掩饰攻击者的行动。」 这是维基百科上的定义，我想大多数人都是根据这个定义来理解的。按照这个定义，只要部 队在攻击时使用了炮兵、烟雾、坦克、装甲车、防弹背心，甚至火力掩护，都不算是「人海 战术」，因为这些手段都是为了掩护或遮蔽进攻部队的行动。而且某些人似乎没有意识到， 根本不会有任何现代步兵战术会要求部队在攻击时完全不使用上述任一种装备或方法。唯一 曾经发生过这样的情况，大概是在冷兵器时代——那时刺刀冲锋还管用。所以，我们其实可 以就此打住了，但是我还是想针对 20 世纪中那些经常被拿来当作例子的所谓「人海战术」 案例，进行一些说明。 1. 俄国内战：不论是红军还是白军都没有使用所谓「人海战术」。红军从原则上就反对这 种做法，他们更推崇机动战，并且成为最早建立机械化步兵的军队之一。白军也没这样打。 不过，曾有一些东正教狂热分子的自杀式冲锋被错误描述为人海战术，但事实上这些冲锋连 指挥官的命令都违背，更接近「自杀式攻击」，而非什麽正规的「人海战术」。 2. 二战时期的日本：在极端情况下，日军确实曾经发动过刺刀冲锋，不过所有参战国在必 要的时候也都会这样做。这并非日军的正式攻击战术，而只是当他们完全没有弹药、又无法 投降时才被迫使用的极端手段。 3. 二战时期的苏联：苏联在各场战役中使用的炮兵与坦克数量比例是所有参战国中最高的 。认为苏联步兵在没有炮兵或坦克支援的情况下冲锋，根本就是好莱坞幻想出来的荒诞剧情 。 4. 中共军队（国共内战以及韩战期间）：中共在国共内战与韩战中所采用的是一种复杂且 巧妙的战术，有时被法西斯宣传称作「人海战术」。事实上，这种战术在面对低技术水准的 军队时非常有效，一直等到夜视装备的出现之後才失效。其作战方式是在夜间攻击防线的弱 点，一支队伍悄悄逼近到能投掷手榴弹的距离後，先以炸弹轰击，再由多支预备火力小组作 为後盾，尽快从这个弱点突破。如果成功，後备部队就会大量涌入敌军防线後方，接着透过 一连串从後方展开的突袭，让敌方防线迅速瓦解。 这种战术和人海战术毫无共同之处，反而是相当有效率的作战方式，最终也协助解放军赢得 了国共内战。有人因为它没有使用机械化单位，就轻视这种聪明的战术，实在太可惜了。 5. 越共（越战期间的春节攻势）：他们同样没有使用人海战术，而是运用渗透手段，发动 一系列的突袭。渗透攻击代表他们会掩蔽部队行踪，也就不符合「人海战术」的定义。尽管 春节攻势在军事上对越共而言并不成功，但在战略层面上却动摇了美国的决心。至於战场上 所发生的大量伤亡，有时被夸大成类似「人海战术」的叙述，实际上并不符合事实。 结论：在美国对「人海战术」的定义下，以上所有常被人贴上「人海战术」标签的对象，都 不符合那个定义。而且如果仔细看看这些被贴标签的群体，就会发现他们全都是「东方」或 主要是亚洲人。我深深相信，之所以大家这麽喜欢拿「人海」的说法来指控他们，并且屡屡 得逞，其实有种微妙但持续存在的种族主义因素——认为「东方野蛮人」只会用人海战术打 仗。很多人真的非常乐於相信，只要是在德国以东的地方，就只能靠人多来赢得战斗。毕竟 亚洲人口众多，他们就把亚洲人的胜利简化为「人多」罢了。我个人对亚洲历史充满兴趣， 也觉得这种将「部落」或「部队」都称为「人海」的描述，很可惜地曲解了事实。以「蒙古 大军」为例，他们常常其实兵力较少，却高度纪律严明、训练有素，技术先进，骑术高超且 能接受新事物，更具有当时来说非常强大的後勤能力。尽管如此，他们依旧被描述成笨拙的 「人海」，似乎全靠人数才压倒敌军。 在 20 世纪，我能想到唯一真正符合「人海战术」定义的例子，其实是英国部队在福克兰战 争期间对阿根廷机枪阵地的一次刺刀冲锋。他们当时没有烟幕，也没有炮兵支援，就这麽成 功地冲了上去。这大概才是真正的「人海」冲锋案例： 「在那绝望的一刻，Dytor 下了一个大胆的决定。如果他们保持原地不动，就全都会死。 退却也不是选项。於是，他从自己读过的一则二战故事中得到启发，安上刺刀，边大声喊叫 、边从腰际开火，一路冲上山去，直扑敌人枪口。沉重的机枪扫射在他身旁呼啸……」 真是英勇！那麽，如果是苏联人为了保卫家园和家人免於纳粹种族灭绝，冒死冲锋会怎麽样 呢？ 「掌握真实状况的军官们因为害怕被清算而不敢跟史达林唱反调，就这麽把荒唐的指令照 单全收。最终造成看似一堆没有武器的步兵被无能的将军和政委驱赶着去进行人海攻击。 [ 2] 」 能接受新事物，更具有当时来说非常强大的後勤能力。尽管如此，他们依旧被描述成笨拙的 「人海」，似乎全靠人数才压倒敌军。 在 20 世纪，我能想到唯一真正符合「人海战术」定义的例子，其实是英国部队在福克兰战 争期间对阿根廷机枪阵地的一次刺刀冲锋。他们当时没有烟幕，也没有炮兵支援，就这麽成 功地冲了上去。这大概才是真正的「人海」冲锋案例： 「在那绝望的一刻，Dytor 下了一个大胆的决定。如果他们保持原地不动，就全都会死。 退却也不是选项。於是，他从自己读过的一则二战故事中得到启发，安上刺刀，边大声喊叫 、边从腰际开火，一路冲上山去，直扑敌人枪口。沉重的机枪扫射在他身旁呼啸……」 真是英勇！那麽，如果是苏联人为了保卫家园和家人免於纳粹种族灭绝，冒死冲锋会怎麽样 呢？ 「掌握真实状况的军官们因为害怕被清算而不敢跟史达林唱反调，就这麽把荒唐的指令照 单全收。最终造成看似一堆没有武器的步兵被无能的将军和政委驱赶着去进行人海攻击。 [ 2] 」 能接受新事物，更具有当时来说非常强大的後勤能力。尽管如此，他们依旧被描述成笨拙的 「人海」，似乎全靠人数才压倒敌军。 在 20 世纪，我能想到唯一真正符合「人海战术」定义的例子，其实是英国部队在福克兰战 争期间对阿根廷机枪阵地的一次刺刀冲锋。他们当时没有烟幕，也没有炮兵支援，就这麽成 功地冲了上去。这大概才是真正的「人海」冲锋案例： 「在那绝望的一刻，Dytor 下了一个大胆的决定。如果他们保持原地不动，就全都会死。 退却也不是选项。於是，他从自己读过的一则二战故事中得到启发，安上刺刀，边大声喊叫 、边从腰际开火，一路冲上山去，直扑敌人枪口。沉重的机枪扫射在他身旁呼啸……」 真是英勇！那麽，如果是苏联人为了保卫家园和家人免於纳粹种族灭绝，冒死冲锋会怎麽样 呢？ 「掌握真实状况的军官们因为害怕被清算而不敢跟史达林唱反调，就这麽把荒唐的指令照 单全收。最终造成看似一堆没有武器的步兵被无能的将军和政委驱赶着去进行人海攻击。 [ 2] 」 这两段引文来自同一个网站，描述了相同的「冲锋」。不只如此，第二段对那些为了保卫家 人免遭纳粹迫害而阵亡的人，态度极其负面，而且内容还是错的，因为苏联从未让士兵没拿 枪就上战场。 结论就是，「人海战术」通常被用来形容那些你认为「劣等」或「低下」的群体；在我看来 ，它本质上带有强烈的种族偏见，且对象在使用上极不一致。很多时候，「人海战术」只是 一种贬低他人、否定他们军事素养的手段罢了。 I see often on Quora people accusing XYZ of carrying out human wave attacks, and that this makes them bad, stupid, inferior or some other negative thing. I thin k there is a certain dream, a left over of a forgotten age of charging into the enemy, overwhelming them with sheer numbers. It also looks awesome in fiction, a nd I think of things like Zerg in Starcraft, or the bugs in Starship troopers, o r the famous scene from Enemy at the Gates. However, it’s rather nonsensical. L et’s look at the definition of human wave attacks: 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 s actually worked. So basically, we could stop here, but let me address some of the often cited examples in the 20th century. 1.The Russian Civil War, human wave attacks were not a tactic used by either sid e the Red Army was a principally against it, and favored maneuver warfare and be came one of the first armies to have mechanized infantry. The White army also di dn’t follow do this, however some suicidal assaults by orthodox fanatics have i ncorrectly been described as human wave attacks, but if anything these are suici de charges against the commanders orders. 2.Japanese in WW2, deployed bayonet charges in absolute extreme situations, as d id everyone else. This was never the official Japanese assault tactic, but was v ery rarely used in the case of being completely out of ammo and no option for su rrender. 3.Soviets in WW2, Soviets deployed the highest ratio of artillery and tanks to i nfantry in all battles, the idea that Soviet infantry attacked without either is ludicrous and a figment of the Hollywood imagination. 4.Communist Chinese the Chinese civil war and in Korea, attacked using an elabor ate and clever tactic, sometimes called human sea attacks by fascist propaganda, this attack type was actually very effective against a low tech army, and conti nued to be effective until the introduction of night vision. It encompasses an a ttack on a weak point in a line, which during the night a group of soldiers will sneak up on, until they can throw grenades at it, following a storm of explosio ns, the team backed up by multiple reserve fire teams, attempts to break through the weak point in the line as fast as possible. If successful, a reserve rushes through the gap, and infiltrates the enemy line in great numbers, soon after th ey start collapsing the line by a series of surprise attacks from the rear. This was not only nothing like human wave attacks, this was a highly successful tactic that won the PLA the Chinese civil war, and people continue to belittle t his clever tactic because it doesn’t mechanized units. 5.Viet Cong during the Tet Offensive, did not deploy any human wave attacks, the y used infiltration to make a series of surprise attacks. Their infiltration tac tics means they masked their soldiers, and thus again is not covered by the defi nition of human wave. While this operation was a military failure on the part of the Viet Cong, it was strategically important because it hurt the US determinat ion, though it’s battlefield conditions resulted in many casualties, which may be exaggerated in order to give the illusion of a human wave attack. Conclusion ate and clever tactic, sometimes called human sea attacks by fascist propaganda, this attack type was actually very effective against a low tech army, and conti nued to be effective until the introduction of night vision. It encompasses an a ttack on a weak point in a line, which during the night a group of soldiers will sneak up on, until they can throw grenades at it, following a storm of explosio ns, the team backed up by multiple reserve fire teams, attempts to break through the weak point in the line as fast as possible. If successful, a reserve rushes through the gap, and infiltrates the enemy line in great numbers, soon after th ey start collapsing the line by a series of surprise attacks from the rear. This was not only nothing like human wave attacks, this was a highly successful tactic that won the PLA the Chinese civil war, and people continue to belittle t his clever tactic because it doesn’t mechanized units. 5.Viet Cong during the Tet Offensive, did not deploy any human wave attacks, the y used infiltration to make a series of surprise attacks. Their infiltration tac tics means they masked their soldiers, and thus again is not covered by the defi nition of human wave. While this operation was a military failure on the part of the Viet Cong, it was strategically important because it hurt the US determinat ion, though it’s battlefield conditions resulted in many casualties, which may be exaggerated in order to give the illusion of a human wave attack. Conclusion None of the usual suspects portrayed as being people who use human wave attacks actually did, according to the US definition of a human wave attack. And if we l ook at this list of people who have this slander, I hope you will notice that th ey are all ‘eastern’ and mostly Asian. I deeply believe that the reason people like this idea and get away with it so often, is a subtle but consistent racism , against “eastern hordes”. A lot of people really, really want to believe tha t if you’re east of Germany, you only ever won a battle because you had more pe ople. Asians have a lot of people and therefore that must be why they win battle s. Personally I find Asian history fascinating, and it’s a shame we refer to“ hordes” as many people, in reality the Mongolian horde was very often outnumber ed, they were highly disciplined, highly trained, technologically sophisticated, skilled horsemen and open minded, as well as having incredible logistics for th eir time. And yet they are like many other Asians portrayed as a dumb horde over whelming their enemy in numbers. A British unit used their bayonets to charge an Argentinian machine gun position , during the Falkland war, and they succeeded, with no smoke, or artillery cover . This is, as a matter of fact, the only example of a human wave i can think of in the 20th century which actually matches the definition of it. In that desperate moment, Dytor decided on an audacious plan. If they stayed sti ------------ 各位有什麽想法？本人认为很多时候，人海战术只是盲目的对敌人有向前推进时，的指控。 事实上还是得客观观察战术。没有任何绝对，有时也要欣赏苏联式战术的独特构想，而非一 面贴予其“人海战术”标签 -- --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 114.136.210.5 (台湾) ※ 文章网址: https://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/Military/M.1737718428.A.4D9.html ※ 编辑: washwall (111.249.138.41 台湾), 01/24/2025 20:46:37 ※ 编辑: washwall (111.249.138.41 台湾), 01/24/2025 20:49:24