Re: [闲聊] 战史教授谈研究战史的初学者/学生

楼主: carsen (carsen)   2024-04-25 13:34:27
我看的是英文版的《会战成瘾》(The Allure of Battle),我觉得helldog
你的解读和原文不太一样,似乎是在断章取义。你驳斥作者是如何偏颇无知,
你的见解是如何如何,但是却没有把作者原本的想法好好呈现出来。
举例来说,helldog你驳斥《会战成瘾》的作者,说他轻视德军的突破战术,
却不知道协约国的战术成功,是靠更多的资源,和侦察机反砲兵云云:
: 比如他把stormtrooper战术批评的一文不值,却大大称赞英国的SS143手册
: (英国版的stormtrooper战术),他大力称赞协约国坦克战术的成功,
: 但资深一点的军迷都知道,一战的坦克工艺还不够成熟,自己抛锚的机率
: 还远高于被敌人击毁,协约国的战术成功与其说是坦克战术,还不如说
: 协约国有更多的砲兵、更多的砲弹、还有自己版本的渗透战术;
: 砲击终于能摧毁德军前线,还能把弹幕滚动到摧毁德国砲兵,
: 因为反砲兵技术有大突破;透过侦察机与对砲火火光的观察,
: 找出敌军砲兵的位置,而德国人只能听音辨位;
: 渗透战术让步兵能用较小的代价拿下占领阵地。
作者在《会战成瘾》第12章的原文提到:
Heading into the final offensives of 1918, the British Army
developed innovative small unit tactics that employed enhanced
firepower with Lewis guns, rifle grenades and mortars.
This allowed platoon-sized units to fight their way ahead,
supported where possible by armored cars and lighter and
faster Whippet tanks.
......
On the other hand, the Germans had an offensive system
developed by, and informally named for, General Oskar von
Hutier. His infiltration tactics were developed on the
Eastern Front, then brought to the Western Front in 1918.
They rejected Allied-style frontal assaults after long
artillery preparation in favor of shorter bombardments and
attacks led by Sturmtruppen (“assault troops”). Instead of
rifles, elite lead infantry used close-assault weapons
(grenades, flamethrowers, pistols) to infiltrate through,
rather than try to storm over, opposing trenches. They bypassed
strongpoints under orders to maintain momentum of attack,
pressing deep into rear positions to sow panic and confusion,
and to disrupt communications and delay reinforcement.
They left heavy bunkers and machine gun nests behind for the
regular infantry that followed to isolate and take care of.
These assault tactics proved quite successful,
but they were not enough.
By 1918 everyone knew how to break through enemy trenches,
whether by Hutier tactics, innovative British Army small unit
tactics or French combined arms assaults with tanks and
aircraft. The key difference was that Allied armies and
generals now had the numbers and resources to make their
technological innovations and tactical systems work on
a war-winning and not just battle-winning scale.
Germans did not.
到了1918年的最后攻势时,英国陆军开发了创新的小部队战术,使用
路易士机枪、枪榴弹和迫击砲,以增强火力。这样让排级单位能够在
装甲车和轻快的小灵犬坦克支援下向前推进。……
另一方面,德国人拥有由奥斯卡·冯·胡蒂尔将军开发,并以他的名字
非正式命名的进攻系统。他的渗透战术是在东线发展出来,1918年被
引入西线。这些战术摒弃了像盟军在长时间砲火准备之下的正面攻击,
转而采用短促的砲击和突击部队(Sturmtruppen)率领的进攻。精锐
的步兵先锋进攻时,使用近战突击武器(手榴弹、火燄喷射器、手枪)
取代步枪,渗透敌方战壕,而非直接猛冲。他们奉命绕过坚固据点,
保持冲击力,深入后方阵地,制造恐慌和混乱,扰乱通讯,拖延增援。
他们放过重型掩体和机枪阵地,让随后跟进的一般步兵去孤立和解决。
事实证明,这些突击战术非常成功,却还是不够。
1918年时,每个人都知道如何突破敌人的战壕,无论是用胡蒂尔战术、
英国陆军创新的小部队战术,还是法国使用坦克和飞机进行联合攻击。
关键区别在于,协约国将领现在拥有足够的数量和资源,可以让他们
的技术创新和战术系统在战争中发挥作用,而不仅仅是在战斗中取胜。
德国人却没有。
可以看到作者不像helldog你所说的“把stormtrooper战术批评的一文不值”,
反而称赞‘这些突击战术非常成功’,也没有“大大称赞英国的SS143手册”。
作者持平地叙述了各国发展的突破战术,接着强调,突破战术的最终关键,
还是在于协约国比起德国拥有更多的数量和资源。
实际上,作者这一小节的重点是在讨论,德国于1917年时的军工产能和技术
远远落后于协约国,在这样的情势下,双方相对应的战术发展与战略变化,
协约国最终以消耗战取得胜利,以及后续造成的种种影响。
作者也再三提到,一战时空中力量的重要作用,是用侦察机为砲兵寻找目标
和引导砲击:
Then it was realized that scout planes had advantages of
distant observation unequaled in the history of war as they
followed the retreating German armies, told Allied generals
exactly where they were, and guided in attacks and artillery.
...... Fixed-wing scouts soon became critical to all sides,
their cameras the keen eyes of the big guns, of mapmakers and
operations planners. ......
French air power, on the other hand, played a key role. Once
air superiority was established over the battlefield
the accuracy of massed artillery (nearly 3,000 French guns
by June) markedly improved. ......
In contrast, German corps lacked enough spotter aircraft
to properly coordinate even counterbattery fire, ......
...... while air superiority gave them advantages of
target-spotting and long-range indirect artillery fire. ......
接着人们意识到,侦察机的远距离观察优势,在战争史上无可比拟,他们
可以追踪撤退的德军,告知协约国将领敌人的确切位置,并引导攻击和砲击。
……定翼侦察机很快成为各方面的关键,他们的相机成为重砲、地图制作、
作战规画的敏锐目光。……
另一方面,法军的空中力量则发挥了关键作用。当战场上拥有空优时,
法军大规模火砲(到6月时有将近3千门)的精准度就会显著提升。……
相较之下,德军缺乏足够的侦察机,甚至无法妥善协调反砲兵火力……
……空优为他们提供了定位目标修正弹著,与长程间接砲击的优势。……
我觉得helldog你引用资料时,不应该老是用这种断章取义的态度。
作者: moslaa (万变蛾)   2024-04-25 13:40:00
推。所以我现在要认真讨论时,一定要看到原始资料毕竟只要是人,都存在误读可能。所以最好作法是,公示自己说法的依据资料大家一同检视。
作者: helldog (妈宝地狗)   2024-04-25 16:39:00
我承认我误解作者的意思,但你指责我断章取义,对我也不公平,我希望你能道歉;还有作者在P605页犯的错误,德军能用空军炸毁默兹河的铁桥,为何你就不提?我上一行打错,是作者觉得德国没有派飞机炸默兹河铁桥是失误,问题是在当时根本就办不到。
作者: leptoneta (台湾高山族自治区书记)   2024-04-25 17:52:00
我比较好奇不公平的点在哪
作者: helldog (妈宝地狗)   2024-04-25 19:09:00
动不动就说别人断章取义,公平在哪?
作者: detonator (犬之爱)   2024-04-25 19:12:00
老毛病果然又犯了
作者: articlebear (政治真的满狗屁的)   2024-04-25 19:44:00
先去跟作者道歉如何?
作者: helldog (妈宝地狗)   2024-04-25 19:55:00
笑死,那作者在书里胡说的部份,要不要跟读者道歉?

Links booklink

Contact Us: admin [ a t ] ucptt.com