Conscripts idea "Human Wave Tactics"

Why always come back to this issue with stereotypes everytime, when proposing changes to the soviets? Why not just suggest something neutral and useful, but not OP?
P.S. Six years passed, but people still discussing how shitty soviet campaign is. Some things never changes...

The Soviet Union, the army that stormed Berlin, was "not prepared"? This is the army that outnumbered all Western forces combined 2-1. Churchill and Patton expressed interest in a war with them, but such an action was deemed reckless and unfeasible. So tell me how exactly the army that crushed Nazi Germany and intimidated the Western Allies was "not prepared".

Read history.

Here in short form.

Russia was still lagging behind in economical wise to provide their armies with enough supplements. Went through times of difficulty and lost of balance and control "Great Terror" , "Soviet famine". Read and you will understand.

1941 they were barely surviving against the Germans. Thanks to the fact that Nazi Germany had a 2 front War. Fortunately for the Russians, they had also the aid of their allies to help boost.

As I stated, SU was barely surviving. They received aid "Lend-Lease". Without help. They would have surely lost, rest-assured. They were still under-prepared. Here is evidence. READ!.

Germany having useless allies, Italy being back in time, and Japan having thier own interests caused the gradual fall of the axis. This served allies favour. Luck factor.

2 Front War for Germany meant a split of the Army in West and East. Guess how difficult that would be for a country to multitask and having half of its entire force on either side. This helped contribute Soviet Union. Many underlying factors that served in SU favour, not because of T34 and Conscripts, because they had help and could not do it alone.

There was a possibility that the Japanese would engage war with Russia undermining their security. Feared of a potential 2 front war also. That caused also a fear factor.

I am not going to go any further as you can read it for yourself.

Plz read before even judging. Hope this helps!

Russia was still lagging behind in economical wise to provide their armies with enough supplements. Went through times of difficulty and lost of balance and control "Great Terror" , "Soviet famine". Read and you will understand.

Don't right. All armies that were on 22 June 1941 on border was fully equip. They were also well equiped with automatic weapons like svt-40 and AVS (there is plan to make svt-40 main weapon of infantry, but with start of war you need more cheap and simpler weapon). Germans captured that stuff in big amounts.
Also don't forget that Western Part of SU was it's main factory and food territory and when these territory were occupied SU lost many factories and food. You momentally remembered how SU tranlsate remain factories on Ural (very uniq and specific operation in case when war already going, you can read about this https://warspot.ru/4492-velikaya-otechestvennaya-problemy-tankovyh-zavodov ).

1941 they were barely surviving against the Germans. Thanks to the fact that Nazi Germany had a 2 front War. Fortunately for the Russians, they had also the aid of their allies to help boost.

As I stated, SU was barely surviving. They received aid "Lend-Lease". Without help. They would have surely lost, rest-assured. They were still under-prepared. Here is evidence. READ!.

Yes, casualties were big, but don't forget about "one small tiny detail" all germans plans also went out from graphic. All goals that were initially planned were achieved with late. Blietzkrieg failed. Here is source https://warspot.ru/515-nemetskoe-porazhenie-1941-goda (or you can read this book Stahel D. Operation Barbarossa and Germany’s Defeat in the East. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2009. – 483 p.). War never will be win if your plans failed, you can ask Hannibal about that (he defeated romanian legions, died almost 20% of all mans who can carry weapon in Roma empire, but war was failed and Karfagen was destroyed). The same sitauations with Germans.

Lend Lease - in 1941 it was almost null, it reach full strength in 1943 (in millions dollars). Pay attention how increased Non-war equip from 1943.
Year Military equip Non-war equip
1941 29,5 0
1942 723,7 639,6
1943 1291,1 1674,8
1944 1060,4 2368,7
1945 732,9 639,1

Germany having useless allies, Italy being back in time, and Japan having thier own interests caused the gradual fall of the axis. This served allies favour. Luck factor.

2 Front War for Germany meant a split of the Army in West and East. Guess how difficult that would be for a country to multitask and having half of its entire force on either side. This helped contribute Soviet Union. Many underlying factors that served in SU favour, not because of T34 and Conscripts, because they had help and could not do it alone.

Not right, too. What you call useless allies? All allies division if not showed so excellent battle score as germans, but they free the same amount of germans divisions from work about to control captured territory, keep flangs on secondary fronts e.t.c. Or you think you don't need all of that? And also there is old quotaion "There are no bad soldiers, there are only bad commanders". If germans couldn't use them as effective as yours - it's only them fault. I read memories one german artillery officer in Stalingrad, that pointed on very high discriminitaion to ally soldiers from germans (say hi to german race theory and propaganda, all slavic nations are second-sort even if they your allies), they also got outdated weapons and bad supplies as result very low combat effectivness. But as one old books say "Better have one bread than don't have two" or "Better is enemy to good".

There was a possibility that the Japanese would engage war with Russia undermining their security. Feared of a potential 2 front war also. That caused also a fear factor.

I am not going to go any further as you can read it for yourself.

Plz read before even judging. Hope this helps!

Also wrong, after Halhin-Ghol Japanese didn't want fight against SU. Than started war with USA and all hypothetic plans about Japanese invasion were wiped out. From where in december 1941 arrived in Moscow fresh Siberian divisions in your opinion? It was part of forces that helded to prevent hypothetic Japanese invasion.
Please, when you in next time wanted point out on "historic books" or "historic moments in movies" show you sources and also read some more. As one german general said (and i very love this quotation): "If you only know war from your side - you know only half part of truth".

It is not a myth. It is a historical fact.

Stop learning history from wall scribblings on public toilets and nazi propaganda leaflets.

Who said that we have learnt it from "Enemy At the Gates". It is in history books. So annoying when people do not know even half of the story!

Until you provide reputable sources to your absurd argument I (amongst most people already posted here) will have to say it is you that don't even know had the story.

Oy vey, my favorite topic on the internet: Who won the war, and why Russia sucked so mucht at the beginning.

Please do some research on that stupid american film "Enemy at the gates". It is considered absolutely un-historical by almost every professional history researcher.

But because it is given to vievers as some sort of "SEKRIT DOKYMENTS", also grim, dark and looks like somewhat really happend at that time. Usual folks often confuse cynical lies for true events, because they look cooler.

I've already seen that someone sent BadComedian video here. Allthrough it is really sometimes overflowed with patriotic vibes and propaganda, it is still reliable. You guys should watch his videos about Mikhalkov's film "Burnt by the Sun", it is literally on the same level as "Enemy at the gates", but even better in it's stupidity, make me chuckle couple of times, while cringing.

However, the Day of Victory in my country is not about remembering the truly honorous and glorious deeds of our ancestors, but more about "saber rattling", "let's do it again", filled to the brim with war propaganda.


And about topic - pls no. Until there is no HtH combat in coh, there must be no unarmed squad members. Also, 7-man cons proved to be TOO EFFECTIVE beating lmg-grens while rushing them, so they getting nerfed now.

2 Front War for Germany meant a split of the Army in West and East. Guess how difficult that would be for a country to multitask and having half of its entire force on either side. This helped contribute Soviet Union. Many underlying factors that served in SU favour, not because of T34 and Conscripts, because they had help and could not do it alone.

Right, if Germany had an evenly split 2-front war, then explain why 81% of all german casualties in WW2 were on the eastern front. While it seemed like SU was on the brink of collapse (and the german high command thought this), it was far from it, the Blitzkrieg was doomed from the start since Germany had no way of supporting their armies even halfway to Moscow, which brings me to my next point. SU wouldn't have surrendered even if the germans had taken Moscow, just ask Napoleon!

I remain firmly convinced that Germany couldn't have even won a hypothetical 1v1 war vs the SU becaause of the factors outlined above. And the germans weren't even that superior. At the outbreak of Barbarossa it was the germans who outnumbered the soviets 2 to 1, and by the end of the war the "K/D ratio" for germans to soviets was only 1.2! Combine that with eventual soviet technical superiority once they learned better welding techniques and the germans would've lost their technological edge if the war had dragged on.

I must applaud your extensive studies of anti-soviet propaganda though.

That's actually a myth. They would use their horses only for transportation, dismount and use anti tank rifles quite efficiently.

It is a myth created by uninformed civilians and uplifted by German Propaganda. By World War II the Polish Cavalry was used for recon or as infantry (dismounting before battle), and armed with rifles and pistols like everyone else.

[...]

Do I really have to explicitly say that I am sarcastic when I post something in the internet nowadays?
Although, I agree in modern internet society it may be hard to tell if a person is an ignorant idiot or just pretends to be such.

Do I really have to explicitly say that I am sarcastic when I post something in the internet nowadays?
Although, I agree in modern internet society it may be hard to tell if a person is an ignorant idiot or just pretends to be such.

Yes.
Because smart differently people will believe it and spread it.
Just look at balanced.

Do I really have to explicitly say that I am sarcastic when I post something in the internet nowadays?
Although, I agree in modern internet society it may be hard to tell if a person is an ignorant idiot or just pretends to be such.

Considering sarcasm is primarily conveyed through tone and this is a text-based medium, yes.

Right, if Germany had an evenly split 2-front war, then explain why 81% of all german casualties in WW2 were on the eastern front. While it seemed like SU was on the brink of collapse (and the german high command thought this), it was far from it, the Blitzkrieg was doomed from the start since Germany had no way of supporting their armies even halfway to Moscow, which brings me to my next point. SU wouldn't have surrendered even if the germans had taken Moscow, just ask Napoleon!

I remain firmly convinced that Germany couldn't have even won a hypothetical 1v1 war vs the SU becaause of the factors outlined above. And the germans weren't even that superior. At the outbreak of Barbarossa it was the germans who outnumbered the soviets 2 to 1, and by the end of the war the "K/D ratio" for germans to soviets was only 1.2! Combine that with eventual soviet technical superiority once they learned better welding techniques and the germans would've lost their technological edge if the war had dragged on.

I must applaud your extensive studies of anti-soviet propaganda though.

I appreciate that.

The reason why most of the Forces were allocated to the Eastern Front is due to Hitlers ambitious "Lebensraum" foreign policy. Hitlers radical ambitions to fulfill the goal created heavy expectations, to have quick and successive victories. That is why much of the forces was deployed there. Even then, Britain did not have the strength to fight the German forces on their territory. So Britain's only strategy was going all defensive until 1944.

The idea was dumb simply because they could have continued finishing off Britain even after their attempted failure due to Goring. Decided to open up a second front, the eastern front. Imagine having to redeploy, to mobilise suddenly all your forces to the east. Still having to worry about an opponent that has not yet been dealt with.

Funny thing is, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact which was a Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union was meant to keep Russia out of the war. Germany's intentions were to defeat the enemy on one side first then focus on the other to lift the burden. Why, is because of the feared they had since the First World War. A 2 front War.

Instead it led to increasing the weight of the burden because of the unrealistic, egoistic ambitions. Making Germany overall more vulnerable.

If Germany had defeated Britain, they would have allocated even more resources to the Eastern Front. There would have been a higher possibility that Nazi Germany might have been able to defeat them. This is just based on theory since Germany even before the war was focused on "War economy" while Britain and France were not. Russia was still trying to expand more agriculturally and industrially, while still focusing as well on "War Economy" since Stalin was aware of the threat.


Remember this is in short form. Bound to have some information that may be left out. I am not writing an essay here, cmon guys, give me a break.

I do enjoy history so anything to give you an idea/summary is fun for me too.

Don't right. All armies that were on 22 June 1941 on border was fully equip. They were also well equiped with automatic weapons like svt-40 and AVS (there is plan to make svt-40 main weapon of infantry, but with start of war you need more cheap and simpler weapon). Germans captured that stuff in big amounts.
Also don't forget that Western Part of SU was it's main factory and food territory and when these territory were occupied SU lost many factories and food. You momentally remembered how SU tranlsate remain factories on Ural (very uniq and specific operation in case when war already going, you can read about this https://warspot.ru/4492-velikaya-otechestvennaya-problemy-tankovyh-zavodov ).

They werent agriculturaly prepared in that sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

What I meant "economically" was in terms of agriculturally, enough , self sufficient, nourished country which Russia was not yet. Industrially, well they were Industrialized because of the "Five Year Plan".

Weapons yes, self sufficient. Food, not really.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union
Look to end of the 2nd Paragraph!

Yes, casualties were big, but don't forget about "one small tiny detail" all germans plans also went out from graphic. All goals that were initially planned were achieved with late. Blietzkrieg failed. Here is source https://warspot.ru/515-nemetskoe-porazhenie-1941-goda (or you can read this book Stahel D. Operation Barbarossa and Germany’s Defeat in the East. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2009. – 483 p.). War never will be win if your plans failed, you can ask Hannibal about that (he defeated romanian legions, died almost 20% of all mans who can carry weapon in Roma empire, but war was failed and Karfagen was destroyed). The same sitauations with Germans.

Jump back to quoted post13 May 2019, 21:49 PMMaret

Lend Lease - in 1941 it was almost null, it reach full strength in 1943 (in millions dollars). Pay attention how increased Non-war equip from 1943.
Year Military equip Non-war equip
1941 29,5 0
1942 723,7 639,6
1943 1291,1 1674,8
1944 1060,4 2368,7
1945 732,9 639,1

I did not say this treaty alone helped Soviet Union. I said they were economically behind. Not Industrially behind. There had been occurences of famine and mass Starvation in Soviet Union before the war that contributed to their War effects. They won not because they were industrialized only, but because Stalin for one was aware of a future conflict with German and two he knew he had to make Soviet Union industrialised also to do so. Unfortunately he could not also pursue economic goals, so he forced Ukraines to give them all their food, "Collectivization" policy to provide Soviet Union with enough food. Although that was short term.

Blitzkreig was not a failure, but the Operation Barbarossa was. Blitzkreig was a very efficient tactic, but that does not always guarantee a win, does it?

Opening a second front was stupid of Germany because of Hitlers ambitious goal "Lebensraum" foreign policy. Said this on the comment before, so check it if you are interested as to how it lead the weakening of Germany, in short form.

Not right, too. What you call useless allies? All allies division if not showed so excellent battle score as germans, but they free the same amount of germans divisions from work about to control captured territory, keep flangs on secondary fronts e.t.c. Or you think you don't need all of that? And also there is old quotaion "There are no bad soldiers, there are only bad commanders". If germans couldn't use them as effective as yours - it's only them fault. I read memories one german artillery officer in Stalingrad, that pointed on very high discriminitaion to ally soldiers from germans (say hi to german race theory and propaganda, all slavic nations are second-sort even if they your allies), they also got outdated weapons and bad supplies as result very low combat effectivness. But as one old books say "Better have one bread than don't have two" or "Better is enemy to good".

Italy was entirely lagging behind. Fought too many wars before WW2 exhausting their resources. Had a huge budget deficit. Still had WW1 equipment and tanks that were pretty bad.

Japan had the infantry but not the vehicles. Reasons why they were successful around Asia is because the other neighbouring countries were ill prepared and taken by surprise. Taken by surprise meaning, just declare war without declaration.

Both Italy and Japan had their own ambitions leaving Germany kind of doing all the heavy lifting work. They were allies, but no cooperative ones. They all had their own ambitions, which resulted in parting away. The only supporter Germany had really during the War was Italy. Although Italy was militaristically poor. Invasion of Africa, they could not do it without Germans help. Some more elements be spilled but I would rather if you could take the time to check some things.

Simply their ambitions, egos, fascist ideology lead to all their downfall! That is true indeed.

Also wrong, after Halhin-Ghol Japanese didn't want fight against SU. Than started war with USA and all hypothetic plans about Japanese invasion were wiped out. From where in december 1941 arrived in Moscow fresh Siberian divisions in your opinion? It was part of forces that helded to prevent hypothetic Japanese invasion.
Please, when you in next time wanted point out on "historic books" or "historic moments in movies" show you sources and also read some more. As one german general said (and i very love this quotation): "If you only know war from your side - you know only half part of truth".

I did leave some things out. The only reason why is because I only told half of the story. You can not exactly expect all details within this small 1 page summary can you?

Of course I could give more, but why should I?

Clarify Japanese thing. I did leave out the fact the Japanese made a so called "secret non-aggression pact" with the SU. Reasons why Japan did so, it to continue their Conquest in Manchuria China. Their cult of being the so called so Masters of Asia. Wanted to fulfill their dreams similarly to the way both Italy and Germany did. The Fear factor (because of the worry having to spread out its forces and were required to sustain against the strong German forces) was true until the non-aggression pact was signed by the Japanese with Russia. It is called the "The Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact" 1941 April.

I can continue but I would like to take breaks every now and then too.


I do recommend this Movie "Bitter Harvest" and it is definitely way better than Enemy at the Gates. You will enjoy it, that is for sure. It is more historically accurate and I think it was based also on a true story. There is no better movies than it being based on true story.
https://www.basedonatruestorypodcast.com/57-behind-the-true-story-of-bitter-harvest/
Watch this trailer and you will recieve an interesting insight on both Ukraine and Russia during the 1930s.

1 Book example I have read "Causes and Effects of 20th Century Wars" amongst others. If you want more examples, I can give you. They are books, I assure you. Wikipedia also but books are better.

I do applaud however on the things you have mentioned and the details. No hard feelings. I may get some details left out which is natural for anyone writing this long.

I appreciate also for you share of history knowledge and interest

Considering sarcasm is primarily conveyed through tone and this is a text-based medium, yes.

Emojis, use of "" and italics helps to convey it.

Do I really have to explicitly say that I am sarcastic when I post something in the internet nowadays?
Although, I agree in modern internet society it may be hard to tell if a person is an ignorant idiot or just pretends to be such.

Which do you think is a more realistic approach? Everyone is a genius unless proved otherwise or everyone is an idiot unless proved otherwise ?

Sorry everybody, but I must insist that if any of you wish to continue this historical discussion, please make a thread over in The Library rather than chatting about this in the COH2 Gameplay forum.

They werent agriculturaly prepared in that sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

What I meant "economically" was in terms of agriculturally, enough , self sufficient, nourished country which Russia was not yet. Industrially, well they were Industrialized because of the "Five Year Plan".

I can't tell you everything about how economy and war connects, but do you think someone in this planet history could keep big army without food? You remember the most valuable discovery that was made right behind WW1? Railroads and trains, that make possibly to supply big amount of soldiers with food and ammo. You think SU forces did eat holy air or they were plants that eating only sun rays and water? Main rule that work for all: you can keep so big army, that your economy could hold. Just fun fact: right before the war quantity SU divisions increased more that 2 times, you think it possible without effective food base?

I did not say this treaty alone helped Soviet Union. I said they were economically behind. Not Industrially behind. There had been occurences of famine and mass Starvation in Soviet Union before the war that contributed to their War effects. They won not because they were industrialized only, but because Stalin for one was aware of a future conflict with German and two he knew he had to make Soviet Union industrialised also to do so. Unfortunately he could not also pursue economic goals, so he forced Ukraines to give them all their food, "Collectivization" policy to provide Soviet Union with enough food. Although that was short term.

Could you remind me when was Great Famine in Ukraina and when the war started?
Show Spoiler

Blitzkreig was not a failure, but the Operation Barbarossa was. Blitzkreig was a very efficient tactic, but that does not always guarantee a win, does it?

Now about blietzkrieg – blietzkrieg it’s not a tactic, it’s conception of battle actions. Tactic – it’s how you forces acts in battle under different situations (tactic human waves, tactic walking artillery fire, tactic bating artillery gun, e.t.c). Barbarossa was plan with blietzkrieg as foundation. It means, that war will be fast, not long sitting in trenches like in WW1 and you don’t need mobilize all your human forces and industrial power (in fact blietzkrieg was create to achieve these goal, germans don’t want fight on long time and with huge economical tension like in WW1). The similar conception was create in SU in 1930 years called “deep operation or Soviet Deep Battle (in western sources)”, but it was not implemented in start of war. It was use in Vistula–Oder Offensive (1945) and August Storm (Soviet-Japanese War 1945) as examples.

Italy was entirely lagging behind. Fought too many wars before WW2 exhausting their resources. Had a huge budget deficit. Still had WW1 equipment and tanks that were pretty bad.

Japan had the infantry but not the vehicles. Reasons why they were successful around Asia is because the other neighbouring countries were ill prepared and taken by surprise. Taken by surprise meaning, just declare war without declaration.

Both Italy and Japan had their own ambitions leaving Germany kind of doing all the heavy lifting work. They were allies, but no cooperative ones. They all had their own ambitions, which resulted in parting away. The only supporter Germany had really during the War was Italy. Although Italy was militaristically poor. Invasion of Africa, they could not do it without Germans help. Some more elements be spilled but I would rather if you could take the time to check some things.

Why talking about German allies on EF you remember only Italy and Japan? If you called Italy and Japan as main allies of German on EF, you are deeply wrong.
Total casualties of German allies on EF
https://military.wikireading.ru/4759



Pay attention that Hungary fought until the end of war. Also in that tables don’t include “Blue Division” (18 693 soldier, from start of war from it gone almost 47k mans, casualties were IRC 5k killed and captured and 9k wounded) and volunteers of SS (Dutches, Danes, Norwegians and e.t.c) IRC their amounts was 45k.
Quantity of German allies forces at start of Barbarossa
https://rg.ru/2016/06/16/rodina-sssr-germaniya.html


German total forces at start of Barbarossa:


At start of Barbarossa quantities of allies forces are almost 20% from quantities German first line divisions (division that take actions on battle, remain parts were used as reserve and to encirclement of SU forces) or if use other words “each 5-th soldier that fought on EF against SU was soldier of German ally, each 4-th plane, each 10-th tank and each 7-th artillery”. These forces you called "useless allies".

Clarify Japanese thing. I did leave out the fact the Japanese made a so called "secret non-aggression pact" with the SU. Reasons why Japan did so, it to continue their Conquest in Manchuria China. Their cult of being the so called so Masters of Asia. It is called the "The Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact" 1941 April.

I could tell you much more about Japan, about England pacts with Japan that give them freedom to act in China, and reasons why SU made pact with Japan. In short: England don't want to fight against Japan in Asia and use bluff and concessions trying not to start war against Japan. AS history showed in Singapoore it's not worked so well as initially planned.
Show Spoiler

I do recommend this Movie "Bitter Harvest" and it is definitely way better than Enemy at the Gates. You will enjoy it, that is for sure. It is more historically accurate and I think it was based also on a true story. There is no better movies than it being based on true story.
https://www.basedonatruestorypodcast.com/57-behind-the-true-story-of-bitter-harvest/
Watch this trailer and you will recieve an interesting insight on both Ukraine and Russia during the 1930s.

I watched description and trailer to that movie. No, I am not big fan of anti-Soviet propaganda. I watched and read such shit enough in 90-s. But, I also not fury communist who said “Stalin is our god and leader, he did everything right and never be wrong”. I prefers use my brains to judge about events, not my feelings. But, just on one second turn on your imagination – how movie that was did in 2017 in Canada, man who collected only Ukrainian sources could be unbiased? Or you don’t know what was in 2014? If you want to dispute about Famine 1932 you could write private message to me, but I never will be talking about this in open air. I don’t want pull all of this Ukrainian-Russian holywar shit on these forum. And one question for you: do you watched soviet movies about war? If no, I could you offer watch next:
I don't know if exist english subtitles to these movies or not, but for me these movies in one row with "Fullmetal Jacket", "Band of Brothers" and "Pacific Front".

Pyad zemli (Square foot of soil)
Goryachiy sneg (Hot snow)

1-st movie was strict made on same-name novel, author went through war from start to end.

And one last word about so lovely for you tactic of human waves. If you think goal of this tactic is dropping cannon fodder on HMG, you are deeply wrong. First – it’s only used by weaker opponent against more stronger, when you have little amount of artillery, hmgs, tanks and planes (or none), but have more manpower in this battle. Just imagine yourself as officer of army of country with weak industrial base and you need defeat enemy that have more firepower than you (like Japan in WW2 in ground battles or Korea in Korean War). You will be fight or just drop weapon and go to surrender? If you choose 1-st variant, you need a tactic that give you possibility for victory.
How it was and how it looks:
http://eternalcontras.blogspot.com/2011/07/blog-post_10.html
My free retelling the most valuable parts for you:

“Renouncement from attack in full growth was did in WW1. Experience showed that, HMG could kill any amount of attacking soldiers, if HMG don’t be suppressed. 7 august 1915 Australian soldiers attacked Turkish trenches in hill Baby 700 (Hallipoli). Australian trenches was in 30-40 meters from Turkish. Right before attack was artillery firing from naval guns. But it was ended 7 minutes earlier than planned, Turkish soldiers went out from shelters and take defense positions. 3 waves of Australian soldiers couldn’t achieved Turkish trenches.
To find possible decisions used many tactical methods: heavy artillery fire while infantry getting closer to enemy trenches, waves of infantry behind tanks, use artillery fire to did big amount of craters – small groups of soldier run from one to another and getting closer to enemy positions. But from attack in full growth renounce all countries in WW1.
While in Korean War this tactic used so much and with great success? What changed? In WW1 no one whining about waves of attacking infantry that leave defending soldiers without ammo.

Could HMG kill attacking wave?
Even if you have HMG this not mean that it can stop attacking in full growth infantry. You need some conditions for this. In first: good sector of view and good place to view, that HMGunner could have enough time to open fire, see target and correct himself fire. In WW1 in Europe neutral territory have good view and attacks were in day conditions. In Korea attacks were in poor visibility conditions (night, snow, mist e.t.c). Second: attackers need to overcome some obstacles (barbwire as example). Many attacks were ripped off when attacking infantry try overcome barbwire. Third: HMG must be in flank to position of attacking wave or it will be shoot only right behind himself and it will not trying to defend trenches. It will be shoot to separate soldiers instead the whole wave. AS remark: there is tactical method called final protective fire of HMG’s. Right before attacking wave make final jerk to trenches, HMGunners turned they weapon and start firing parallel to defended front on height of belt attacking soldiers. They fire not at targets, but at earlier marked lines, in this way enemy soldiers by themselves went into bullets flow. Next moment: HMGunner must have good training in WW1 HMGunners were trained like artillery crews and they could fire on long distances. After WW1 HMG was consider as more simple weapon and level of training was decrease. If blob of attacfers will be big enough, it can kill defenders.
In 1928 Japanese officers after analysis of WW1 battle actions tried to find method to achieve enemy positions with minimum loses and start of bayonet fight in trenches. As decision were accept next actions: infantry covertly getting closer to enemy positions and one fast run from 30-50 meters go to enemy trenches. Enemy couldn't open effective fire for time while infantry will be running these 30-50 meters. In consider that much easier to getting closer to enemy positions under poor visibility conditions, like snow, rain or night. Main accent was did on night attacks. Night attacks were main visit card of Japanese infantry in WW2. Covert attacks used all armies in WW2. But Japanese experience of this tactic show some disadvantages and restrictions of it.
History of battles in Pacific Ocean saves many happening when JF (Japan Forces) take big loses with minor results or even catastrophic results for some reasons:
Not every time possibly covertly closer to enemy positions on 30-50 meters, especially if squad is big. More soldiers, more sound. One careless sound or move could reveal all, after that squad was catching under heavy fire and attacking side need to retreat with big loses. It’s good example that tactic for small forces couldn't every time used by big forces and that if some tactic couldn't used by big forces that mean, that it can’t be used by small forces. But we need to pay attention that JF were cultivated in offensive style and under early revelation (when distance greater than 30-50 meters) they always gone to attack, that led to big loses.
But near to end of WW2 JF start find ways how this tactic could help against USF in Pacific Front. The most common moments: JF make loud noises, screams and started rifle and HMG fire. Goal of this was scare US soldiers and make them open fire to reveal they positions to JF. While in that moment main forces preparing for attack from different angle as more closer as possible to found USF positions, silently and covertly with ready bayonets and grenades. Sometimes small groups of snipers deployed behind USF positions in night and start firing into void, this make illusion of encirclement and make morale of defenders lower.”

In link that i showe before more facts and rules how it was and how it works in Korean War and in Pacific Front with some picts and USF reports. If you want know more use goole translate (unfortunately it couldn't translate site as link, use copy-paste method)

This tactic in most closer to your expectation view, was used in last time IRC in Iraq-Iranian war, when Iranian militiaman (young boys) often unarmed or with small amount of weapon, used to storm Iraq defense (it was almost end of the war where both sides can’t achieve success, but in final Iran won this war). After ammunitions of defenders were empty in action gone professional soldiers with good ammunition and weapon, they take positions of Iraq forces. But again, it was not stupid run on HMG how it everyone imagine, main goal it have - that enemy used most of his ammo and can’t fight effective after that.

If moderator will be here, feel free to move this tread to history or offtopic, i am too tired from all of this.