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)

More Thoughts on "Traditional " Soviet Infantry Tactics

"...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.[1]  —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)

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)

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)