为什么现代机械化战争(不包括游击队和叛乱)中还有步兵?
Why are there still foot soldiers in modern mechanized war (not including guerrilla or insurgency)?
译文简介
军迷讨论“为什么现代机械化战争(不包括游击队和叛乱)中还有步兵?”
正文翻译
为什么现代机械化战争(不包括游击队和叛乱)中还有步兵?
评论翻译
相关链接
-
- 龙之崛起：导览优德棋牌官方下载现代步兵班组 2020/12/11 29933 54 3
-
- 优德棋牌官方下载SH-15 –东亚最现代化的155毫米自行榴弹炮 2020/12/09 38243 98 3
-
- QA:优德棋牌官方下载的基础设施有多现代化? 2020/12/04 32424 63 3
-
- 为什么在电影、电子游戏（《使命召唤：现代战争》）和电视节目中， 2020/11/30 32296 82 3
-
- 印度：无人机为阿塞拜疆赢得了战争，所以我们必须明智地使用军事现 2020/11/30 36108 115 3
-
- 凯撒 8×8轮 –世界上最现代化的自行榴弹炮之一 2020/11/27 25289 116 3
-
- 一张图引发的一场战争，物理，还是数学，几个月的孩子，还是几岁的 2020/11/19 20469 17 3
-
- 谋杀与混乱：南非农业如何成为一场 “全面战争” 2020/11/18 11984 52 3
闽公网安备 35020302001346号
Armored vehicles have terrible visibility and can't operate in urban terrain effectively without infantry support. Of course, you could simply bomb the city to the ground but unless you're waging a war of annihilation that's generally frowned upon.
Also, there are certain types of terrain like swamps, mountains, and jungles where armor cannot reach. If the world was a perfectly flat desert infantry would be obsolete. But it isn't, so they will always be needed.
装甲车辆的可见性很差，如果没有步兵的支援，它们在城市地形上无法有效作战。当然你可以直接把城市炸成平地，但除非发动的是歼灭战争，否则这样做通常会引起不满。
此外装甲单位还无法到达一些特定类型的地形，如沼泽、山脉和丛林。如果这个世界是完全平坦的沙漠，那么步兵就过时了。但事实并非如此，所以他们总是有用处的。
People don't realize future warfare is sensor warfare and one of the best ground sensors includes the Mk. 1 eyeball with optics.
人们没有意识到未来的战争是传感器战争，最好的地面传感器之一包括带光学瞄准的Mk.1眼球（？）。
wait till mk.2
还是等MK2吧。
coming 2077
即将问世的2077。
Bugs and all
全是bug。
This is why the US, Russia/USSR, and China all placed such a premium on conducting maneuvers and war games after nuclear tests. You need to know if the men can operate in those conditions or not, otherwise what's the point? Obviously, it's super unsafe and those guys are largely dead now from awful cancer, but it was a concern back in the 50s
这就是为什么美国、俄罗斯/苏联，还有优德棋牌官方下载都十分重视核试验后的机动和战争演习。他们需要知道人员是否能在那种条件下执行任务，否则还有什么意义？显然，那里非常不安全，现在那些人大部分都死于可怕的癌症，但这一问题在50年代就引起了关注。
yeah but that's kind of the way nuclear weapons have been considered in more recent times again, as a tactical or small scale use. Vietnam apparently had some generals considering cutting the Ho Chi Minh trail with a tactical nuke but that discussion didn't last long
是的，但近年来再次出现了一种核武器使用方式，即将其作为一种战术武器或小规模使用。在越战时期，显然有一些将军曾考虑用战术核武器切断胡志明小道，但这种讨论并没有持续太久。
Sure, there have always been military thinkers who wonder if breaking the Nuclear Taboo would be so bad. But even in the Vietnam example the idea was never to occupy the area after hitting it.
当然，一直有军事思想家怀疑，打破核禁忌是否有那么糟糕。但即使是在越南战争的情况下，我们的想法也绝不是在核爆某地区后再去占领它。
Some of it was just absurdly ahead of its time though. Like Macnamara had an entire strategic obxtive around a multi-level sensor war. That work laid the foundations of pretty much everything about how we expect a modern war to be fought.
然而，其中一些却荒唐地超前于它所处的时代。比如麦克纳马拉，就有过一个围绕多层次传感器战争的完整战略目标。这项工作为我们对现代战争的预期奠定了基本的基础。
If you were an enemy tank and I were an infantryman I could just walk behind you and you’d never be able to kill me.
Jokes apart some of the reasons are holding cities, directing attack for both air and artillery/mech, fighting armour with ATGMs and such, being able to better differentiate targets and non combatants, CQB in urban areas held by enemy forces, attacking places that are not accessible to armour or aircraft (see the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan), and finally, preventing enemy infantry from doing all these things.
Eyes on the ground are the basis of the entire reconnaissance chain.
Unless your aim is total annihilation of relatively flat, well mapped land with little hiding opportunities and MANPAD/ATGM threats, you’ll need feet.
如果你是敌方坦克，而我是步兵，我可以走在你后面，而你永远也杀不了我。
不开玩笑了，其中一些原因是把守城市，指引空中和火炮/装甲部队发起攻击，使用反坦克导弹之类的武器打击装甲部队，能够更好地区分目标和非战斗人员，在敌人控制的城市地区进行室内战斗，攻击装甲或飞机无法到达的地方（看看苏联在阿富汗的战役），以及最后，防止敌军步兵做这些事情。
面侦察是整个侦察链的基础。
除非你的目标是彻底消灭相对平坦、地图完备地区上的目标，且目标几乎没有隐蔽的可能性，且没有便携式防空武器/反坦克导弹的威胁，否则都需要步兵。
Yeah, it was wild watching Syrian conflict videos where they'd just send in tanks without a support unit. It really showed their inexperience because they thought just having a big machine roll in that can blow up buildings was enough. But there was more than enough instances where tanks were just going in literally alone into an area with a bunch of hiding opposition who would outright humiliate the people in the tanks.
是的，叙利亚冲突的视频就很野，他们没有支援单位，直接派出坦克。这很能说明他们缺乏经验，因为他们认为直接派出一台巨大的机器冲进去，能够把建筑物炸掉就足够了。但有很多情况下，坦克直接单独进入一个地区，而那里隐藏着一群敌人，他们会明目张胆的羞辱坦克里的人。
Hot
很哲学。
Soon could be no reason whatsoever. A variety of drones will take a lot of jobs from infantry.
步兵很快就会失去存在的理由。各种无人机将会抢走步兵的很多工作。
I asked the same question about tanks... Why do we still man tanks when they can all be remotely ran? The only remote tanks they have are support tanks which just carry supplies and follow the primary tank's tracks basically... But why do you NEED people inside?
Turns out, you need people for pretty much anything beyond the sky. Drones work easily because it literally just needs to float up high and drop payloads. Not a lot of variables to calculate there. Sort of like how an airliner can do the whole route on autopilot but much harder to drive a Tesla through a city.
You really do need people to secure areas, make dynamic adjustments, encounter obstacles, etc. You can't really "secure" an area without people able to look around corners, asses nuances, and point out targets.
For the time being, and likely quite a while, humans are essential to be on the ground to guide the robots which are tools. However, a LOT is changing and especially around the corner. American soldiers at least, are getting more and more high tech every year to the point that most of our resources are being dumped into soldier defense to keep them alive, while also focusing on tools to help them better guide machinery. For instance, drones are becoming really common and expected to rapidly scale out over the next few years. From scouting and getting eyes in the air, to assisting the securing of areas by sending up a fleet which creates a 3D live map of everything going on below so humans can use the information to stay safer.
对于坦克我也问了同样的问题……既然坦克都可以远程操控，为什么我们还要让人去开坦克呢？现在唯一的遥控坦克是支援型坦克，只负责运送补给，基本上是跟着主战坦克走……但为什么还需要人去坦克里面驾驶呢？
事实证明，天空之外的任何地方都需要人类。无人机工作起来很容易，因为它其实只需要飞到很高的地方，投下有效载荷。不需要计算很多变量。这有点像客机可以自动驾驶飞完整个路线，但驾驶特斯拉穿越城市要困难得多。
确实需要有人来保护区域，进行动态调整，解决障碍等等。如果没有人能够观察角落、评估细微差别并指出目标，就无法真正“保护”一个区域。
目前，而且很可能在相当长的时间内，人类到实地对作为工具的机器人进行指导都是必不可少的。然而，很多情况正在发生变化，而且即将出现。至少美国士兵，每年正得到越来越多的高科技装备，以至于为了维持士兵的生存，我们的大部分资源都投入到他们的防御中，同时也专注于工具，以帮助他们更好地引导机器。例如，无人机正变得非常普遍，预计在未来几年将迅速扩大规模。从侦察到空中监视，再到派遣一队无人机以三维实时地图的方式记录下下方发生的一切，从而协助守住某个区域，这样人们就可以利用这些信息来保持安全。
someone on here the other day tried to convince me that you don't need infantry to win a war SMH
前几天曾有人试图说服我，不需要步兵就能打赢战争。
Apart from what has been mentioned about holding ground, wars are won by logistics and vehicles have a far greater logistical footprint than infantry. A vehicle runs out of fuel or throws a tire and its just a static chunk of metal (admittedly with a big gun.) Infantry can carry most of what they need for a while and be quite self sufficient
除了前面提到的坚守阵地之外，战争是靠后勤赢得的，车辆的后勤足迹比步兵大得多。战车如果耗尽燃料或发生爆胎，就会变成一个不能动的大铁坨(当然还有一门大炮)。而步兵如果携带大部分需要的物品，则可以坚持一段时间，并且能够自给自足。
wars are won by logistics
Wars are lost with bad logistics. Wars are won psychologically and emotionally.
战争靠后勤保障取胜
糟糕的后勤保障会导致战争失败。而通过心理和感情，可以赢得战争。
I'd turn it around:
Wars are won with good logistics and lost psychologically and emotionally.
我认为相反:
有了良好的后勤保障，能赢得战争。而战争会输在心理和感情方面。
What you would need to remove humans.... Small bots that can go where humans can, think tactically as well as a human and repair themselves. Tank crew are also first line maintenance. Can your robotank fix a thrown track?
Think of it like fast food restaurant. They automate as much as possible. If there's people there it's because it's not cost effective to get rid of them yet.
We can't build machines more effective and cheaper than humans for doing these tasks. Can we make machines better than horses? Yes, which is why we don't use draft animals anymore. But the Germans in WWII still used a lot of them because they couldn't replace them all with trucks the way the US did.
What I suspect you'll see first are bots for limited situations first. Like breaching a defended stronghold? Weapon bot that goes in and shoots everything and then the soldiers go in after it is safed. But I don't think anyone is willing to leave a bot weapons free to even the extent we do so with a jumpy private.
需要拥有什么东西，才能撇开人类……小型机器人，它能够前往人可以到的地方，跟人一样进行战术思考，并且自我修复。坦克乘员也是一线的维护人员。你所谓的机器人坦克能修好坏掉的履带吗？
可以将其想象为快餐店。他们会尽可能的自动化。如果还要用人，那就是因为换掉人还不够划算。
我们还不能造出比人类更加有效且廉价的机器来做那些工作。我们能造出比马更好的机器吗？是的，所以我们再也不用牲口了。但二战的德国人依然用了很多牲口，因为他们做不到像美国那样一切都用卡车。
我猜你会发现，机器人将首先用于有限的情况下。比如突破防御堡垒？装备了武器的机器人冲进去，射杀所有人，然后等安全后，士兵再进去。但我认为没有人会愿意让一台机器人自由开火，甚至不会让它达到一个神经兮兮的士兵那种程度。
Cheap, stealthy, excelent at holding ground, good all around and quite versatile. Infantry does the grunt of the work. Even in mechanized warfare there are places where tanks cannot enter.
便宜，隐形，擅长把手阵地，各方面都好，而且用途相当广泛。步兵可以干各种粗活。即使在机械化战争中，也有坦克无法进入的地方。
Can't fit an IFV on a windowsill
因为我们无法把步兵战车开上窗台。