The Japanese used it plenty during the Second Sino Japanese War and in the Pacific War against the Allies as well. To some degree of success in China, mainly because the Chinese were lacking in firepower to stop the Banzai charges (machineguns were not THAT common, especially early KMT) and so their positions were overrun. In the Pacific however it was much different, there are countless of Banzai charges that met the .30 cal machineguns and the BARs of the Marines that ended there, short of accomplishing anything worth of note. A few of them were "somewhat successful" in the sense that they managed to overrun a company or two or put a battalion under the brink of being shattered, like it happened with the 4000 men strong Banzai charge (even severely wounded soldiers joined the human wave) at the closing stages of the Battle of Saipan.
But was it used due to it's tactical significance, as allegedly perceived by Japanese officers? maybe not, some of them strictly forbade any senseless banzai charges like Tadamichi Kuribayashi did during the Battle of Iwo Jima, others maybe saw it as a way to "die in a blaze of glory" or some cringe shit like that. Kuribayashi himself allegedly died during one last charge on US positions, but instead of being just mindless charge, it was well executed.
I think there were other instances were troops launched human wave assaults, but maybe it's something that happens "in that moment" and not a viable tactic discussed by the military of said nation. I think it will still happen in some sort, but you'd prefer something else.
Eh depends on the assault tactic. Like charging a trench in WW1 was just as suicidal, but not exactly a human wave in the sense that most made it to the trench, but died in hand to hand combat. If the attack itself is meant to likely fail but cause casualties, that is different from a delaying action or a charge.
Or maybe the difference is "was it intentional", like the charge of the light brigade was a human and horse wave attack but it was VERY much not intended to be one
Good answer. It wasn't the tactic of a given army, and sure wasn't something favored by anyone ahead of time. If something akin to a human wave attack happens it is desperation, or very specifically intended to cause psychological distress on the enemy.
Take Gettysburg, Pickett's charge? human wave attack arguably, the bayonet charge like a door swinging the 20th Maine did? proper charge not a continued assault to their deaths.
The Japanese used it plenty during the Second Sino Japanese War and in the Pacific War against the Allies as well. To some degree of success in China, mainly because the Chinese were lacking in firepower to stop the Banzai charges (machineguns were not THAT common, especially early KMT) and so their positions were overrun. In the Pacific however it was much different, there are countless of Banzai charges that met the .30 cal machineguns and the BARs of the Marines that ended there, short of accomplishing anything worth of note. A few of them were "somewhat successful" in the sense that they managed to overrun a company or two or put a battalion under the brink of being shattered, like it happened with the 4000 men strong Banzai charge (even severely wounded soldiers joined the human wave) at the closing stages of the Battle of Saipan.
But was it used due to it's tactical significance, as allegedly perceived by Japanese officers? maybe not, some of them strictly forbade any senseless banzai charges like Tadamichi Kuribayashi did during the Battle of Iwo Jima, others maybe saw it as a way to "die in a blaze of glory" or some cringe shit like that. Kuribayashi himself allegedly died during one last charge on US positions, but instead of being just mindless charge, it was well executed.
I think there were other instances were troops launched human wave assaults, but maybe it's something that happens "in that moment" and not a viable tactic discussed by the military of said nation. I think it will still happen in some sort, but you'd prefer something else.
this begs the question of what the difference really is between assault/infiltration tactics and 'human wave'
The only difference is "Do I have a positive opinion of its user?"
Eh depends on the assault tactic. Like charging a trench in WW1 was just as suicidal, but not exactly a human wave in the sense that most made it to the trench, but died in hand to hand combat. If the attack itself is meant to likely fail but cause casualties, that is different from a delaying action or a charge.
Or maybe the difference is "was it intentional", like the charge of the light brigade was a human and horse wave attack but it was VERY much not intended to be one
Good answer. It wasn't the tactic of a given army, and sure wasn't something favored by anyone ahead of time. If something akin to a human wave attack happens it is desperation, or very specifically intended to cause psychological distress on the enemy.
Take Gettysburg, Pickett's charge? human wave attack arguably, the bayonet charge like a door swinging the 20th Maine did? proper charge not a continued assault to their deaths.