該Quora 觀點：
我常在 Quora 上看到有人指控某國使用「人海戰術」(human wave attacks)，並藉此批評
對方「差、蠢、低劣」或其他負面評價。我覺得這種觀念有點像是一種遺留下來的「衝鋒陷
陣」的古老幻想，似乎覺得只要仗著人多就能壓倒敵人。在虛構作品中，這種場面也相當吸
睛，比如《星海爭霸》（StarCraft）裡的異蟲族（Zerg），《星艦戰將》（Starship Troo
pers）裡的蟲族，或是《兵臨城下》（Enemy at the Gates）中那段著名的場景。然而，事
實上這種想法相當不合邏輯。先讓我們看看「人海戰術」的定義：
「人海戰術是一種正面衝鋒的戰術，藉由高密度的步兵隊形，對敵方陣線發動攻擊，而不
使用任何掩護或隱蔽手段以掩飾攻擊者的行動。」
這是維基百科上的定義，我想大多數人都是根據這個定義來理解的。按照這個定義，只要部
隊在攻擊時使用了砲兵、煙霧、坦克、裝甲車、防彈背心，甚至火力掩護，都不算是「人海
戰術」，因為這些手段都是為了掩護或遮蔽進攻部隊的行動。而且某些人似乎沒有意識到，
根本不會有任何現代步兵戰術會要求部隊在攻擊時完全不使用上述任一種裝備或方法。唯一
曾經發生過這樣的情況，大概是在冷兵器時代——那時刺刀衝鋒還管用。所以，我們其實可
以就此打住了，但是我還是想針對 20 世紀中那些經常被拿來當作例子的所謂「人海戰術」
案例，進行一些說明。
1. 俄國內戰：不論是紅軍還是白軍都沒有使用所謂「人海戰術」。紅軍從原則上就反對這
種做法，他們更推崇機動戰，並且成為最早建立機械化步兵的軍隊之一。白軍也沒這樣打。
不過，曾有一些東正教狂熱分子的自殺式衝鋒被錯誤描述為人海戰術，但事實上這些衝鋒連
指揮官的命令都違背，更接近「自殺式攻擊」，而非什麼正規的「人海戰術」。
2. 二戰時期的日本：在極端情況下，日軍確實曾經發動過刺刀衝鋒，不過所有參戰國在必
要的時候也都會這樣做。這並非日軍的正式攻擊戰術，而只是當他們完全沒有彈藥、又無法
投降時才被迫使用的極端手段。
3. 二戰時期的蘇聯：蘇聯在各場戰役中使用的砲兵與坦克數量比例是所有參戰國中最高的
。認為蘇聯步兵在沒有砲兵或坦克支援的情況下衝鋒，根本就是好萊塢幻想出來的荒誕劇情
。
4. 中共軍隊（國共內戰以及韓戰期間）：中共在國共內戰與韓戰中所採用的是一種複雜且
巧妙的戰術，有時被法西斯宣傳稱作「人海戰術」。事實上，這種戰術在面對低技術水準的
軍隊時非常有效，一直等到夜視裝備的出現之後才失效。其作戰方式是在夜間攻擊防線的弱
點，一支隊伍悄悄逼近到能投擲手榴彈的距離後，先以炸彈轟擊，再由多支預備火力小組作
為後盾，盡快從這個弱點突破。如果成功，後備部隊就會大量湧入敵軍防線後方，接著透過
一連串從後方展開的突襲，讓敵方防線迅速瓦解。
這種戰術和人海戰術毫無共同之處，反而是相當有效率的作戰方式，最終也協助解放軍贏得
了國共內戰。有人因為它沒有使用機械化單位，就輕視這種聰明的戰術，實在太可惜了。
5. 越共（越戰期間的春節攻勢）：他們同樣沒有使用人海戰術，而是運用滲透手段，發動
一系列的突襲。滲透攻擊代表他們會掩蔽部隊行蹤，也就不符合「人海戰術」的定義。儘管
春節攻勢在軍事上對越共而言並不成功，但在戰略層面上卻動搖了美國的決心。至於戰場上
所發生的大量傷亡，有時被誇大成類似「人海戰術」的敘述，實際上並不符合事實。
結論：在美國對「人海戰術」的定義下，以上所有常被人貼上「人海戰術」標籤的對象，都
不符合那個定義。而且如果仔細看看這些被貼標籤的群體，就會發現他們全都是「東方」或
主要是亞洲人。我深深相信，之所以大家這麼喜歡拿「人海」的說法來指控他們，並且屢屢
得逞，其實有種微妙但持續存在的種族主義因素——認為「東方野蠻人」只會用人海戰術打
仗。很多人真的非常樂於相信，只要是在德國以東的地方，就只能靠人多來贏得戰鬥。畢竟
亞洲人口眾多，他們就把亞洲人的勝利簡化為「人多」罷了。我個人對亞洲歷史充滿興趣，
也覺得這種將「部落」或「部隊」都稱為「人海」的描述，很可惜地曲解了事實。以「蒙古
大軍」為例，他們常常其實兵力較少，卻高度紀律嚴明、訓練有素，技術先進，騎術高超且
能接受新事物，更具有當時來說非常強大的後勤能力。儘管如此，他們依舊被描述成笨拙的
「人海」，似乎全靠人數才壓倒敵軍。
在 20 世紀，我能想到唯一真正符合「人海戰術」定義的例子，其實是英國部隊在福克蘭戰
爭期間對阿根廷機槍陣地的一次刺刀衝鋒。他們當時沒有煙幕，也沒有砲兵支援，就這麼成
功地衝了上去。這大概才是真正的「人海」衝鋒案例：
「在那絕望的一刻，Dytor 下了一個大膽的決定。如果他們保持原地不動，就全都會死。
退卻也不是選項。於是，他從自己讀過的一則二戰故事中得到啟發，安上刺刀，邊大聲喊叫
、邊從腰際開火，一路衝上山去，直撲敵人槍口。沉重的機槍掃射在他身旁呼嘯……」
真是英勇！那麼，如果是蘇聯人為了保衛家園和家人免於納粹種族滅絕，冒死衝鋒會怎麼樣
呢？
「掌握真實狀況的軍官們因為害怕被清算而不敢跟史達林唱反調，就這麼把荒唐的指令照
單全收。最終造成看似一堆沒有武器的步兵被無能的將軍和政委驅趕著去進行人海攻擊。 [
2] 」
能接受新事物，更具有當時來說非常強大的後勤能力。儘管如此，他們依舊被描述成笨拙的
「人海」，似乎全靠人數才壓倒敵軍。
在 20 世紀，我能想到唯一真正符合「人海戰術」定義的例子，其實是英國部隊在福克蘭戰
爭期間對阿根廷機槍陣地的一次刺刀衝鋒。他們當時沒有煙幕，也沒有砲兵支援，就這麼成
功地衝了上去。這大概才是真正的「人海」衝鋒案例：
「在那絕望的一刻，Dytor 下了一個大膽的決定。如果他們保持原地不動，就全都會死。
退卻也不是選項。於是，他從自己讀過的一則二戰故事中得到啟發，安上刺刀，邊大聲喊叫
、邊從腰際開火，一路衝上山去，直撲敵人槍口。沉重的機槍掃射在他身旁呼嘯……」
真是英勇！那麼，如果是蘇聯人為了保衛家園和家人免於納粹種族滅絕，冒死衝鋒會怎麼樣
呢？
「掌握真實狀況的軍官們因為害怕被清算而不敢跟史達林唱反調，就這麼把荒唐的指令照
單全收。最終造成看似一堆沒有武器的步兵被無能的將軍和政委驅趕著去進行人海攻擊。 [
2] 」
能接受新事物，更具有當時來說非常強大的後勤能力。儘管如此，他們依舊被描述成笨拙的
「人海」，似乎全靠人數才壓倒敵軍。
在 20 世紀，我能想到唯一真正符合「人海戰術」定義的例子，其實是英國部隊在福克蘭戰
爭期間對阿根廷機槍陣地的一次刺刀衝鋒。他們當時沒有煙幕，也沒有砲兵支援，就這麼成
功地衝了上去。這大概才是真正的「人海」衝鋒案例：
「在那絕望的一刻，Dytor 下了一個大膽的決定。如果他們保持原地不動，就全都會死。
退卻也不是選項。於是，他從自己讀過的一則二戰故事中得到啟發，安上刺刀，邊大聲喊叫
、邊從腰際開火，一路衝上山去，直撲敵人槍口。沉重的機槍掃射在他身旁呼嘯……」
真是英勇！那麼，如果是蘇聯人為了保衛家園和家人免於納粹種族滅絕，冒死衝鋒會怎麼樣
呢？
「掌握真實狀況的軍官們因為害怕被清算而不敢跟史達林唱反調，就這麼把荒唐的指令照
單全收。最終造成看似一堆沒有武器的步兵被無能的將軍和政委驅趕著去進行人海攻擊。 [
2] 」
這兩段引文來自同一個網站，描述了相同的「衝鋒」。不只如此，第二段對那些為了保衛家
人免遭納粹迫害而陣亡的人，態度極其負面，而且內容還是錯的，因為蘇聯從未讓士兵沒拿
槍就上戰場。
結論就是，「人海戰術」通常被用來形容那些你認為「劣等」或「低下」的群體；在我看來
，它本質上帶有強烈的種族偏見，且對象在使用上極不一致。很多時候，「人海戰術」只是
一種貶低他人、否定他們軍事素養的手段罷了。
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