×

Loading...
Ad by
  • 最优利率和cashback可以申请特批,好信用好收入offer更好。请点链接扫码加微信咨询,Scotiabank -- Nick Zhang 6478812600。
Ad by
  • 最优利率和cashback可以申请特批,好信用好收入offer更好。请点链接扫码加微信咨询,Scotiabank -- Nick Zhang 6478812600。

呵呵,请你用与俺相同的字数来概述一下整个章节吧,下面是有关美军行动计划的原因原文,你牛你来给个中文翻译给大家看一下:

Operation SHOWDOWN

As the indications that the Communists were seizing the initiative on the ground became more apparent in late September and early October, General Van Fleet grew concerned. In his letter of 5 October to Clark urging the approval of a limited objective attack on the U.S. IX Corps front, he commented: "It is extremely desirable that we take the initiative by small offensive actions, which will put the enemy on the defensive in order to reverse the present situation. Our present course of defensive action in the face of the enemy initiative is resulting in the highest casualties since the heavy fighting of October and November 1951."

To offset this trend, Van Fleet recommended the adoption of the IX Corps plan, called SHOWDOWN, that was designed to improve the corps defense lines north of Kumhwa. Less than three miles north of this city, Van Fleet pointed out, IX Corps and enemy troops manned positions that were but 200 yards apart. On Hill 598 and Sniper Ridge, which ran northwest to southeast a little over a mile northeast of Hill 598, the opposing forces looked down each other's throats and casualties were correspondingly high. If the enemy could be pushed off these hills, Van Fleet went on, he would have to fall back 1,250 yards to the next defensive position. Counting on maximum firepower, consistent with ammunition allowances, and maximum close air support, the Eighth Army commander was optimistic about the possibilities of SHOWDOWN.

Although Clark had voiced his opposition to hilltaking expeditions in the past, he evidently decided that SHOWDOWN offered a better than average chance for winning its objectives without excessive casualties. If all went according to plan, two battalions, one from the U.S. 7th Division and the other from the ROK 2d Division, would be sufficient to accomplish the mission. The field commanders estimated that the operation would take five days and incur about 200 casualties. With sixteen battalions of artillery mounting some 280 guns, and over 200 fighter-bomber sorties in support, the infantry was not expected to encounter serious obstacles. At any rate, Clark approved SHOWDOWN on 8 October, but cautioned Van Fleet to give the operation only routine press coverage and to stress the tactical considerations arguing for the seizure of the hills.

Report

Replies, comments and Discussions:

  • 枫下拾英 / 历史 / 上甘岭之战(中称597.9高地,美称598高地/三角山),据美官方战史叙述,为阻共军力夺地面战主动权以扭转美联军的不利守势,美军以"摊牌"计划率先发动进攻,原以为付较小代价几天就能拿下几个山头,而对手的顽强出乎其意料打了1个多月,以放弃告终… +1
    • 美官方战史系列之一《Truce Tent and Fighting Front》中讲述上甘岭之战的第13章Stalemate最后一节Operation SHOWDOWN部分截图: +1

      全文可点击链接下载全书:
      https://history.army.mil/html/books/020/20-3/CMH_Pub_20-3.pdf

      :

      :

      • 上述英文原版资料已经被编入中译本《朝鲜战争中的美国陆军》第一卷,第13章“僵局”最后一节“摊牌战役”全文截图如下: +1


        :

        :

        :

        :

        :

        :


        :

        :

        :

        :

        :

        :

        • 你这个中文翻译版本有很多错误。这里是另外一个网友贴出的英文原文。 +1
          • 他这个不是翻译版。如果是的话,我要吐了。 +5
            • 对。而且有明显的刻意篡改。例如估计志愿军19,000人伤亡故意改成10,000人。 +1
              • 呵呵,你就蛋里挑骨头吧。俺截图的这本是1988年版的, +1

                或许时间长了印刷质量也不行,你再仔细看看,你所说的 “19,000人伤亡故意改成10,000人”,恐怕是印刷质量问题导致那 “ 9 ”字模糊成“0”了吧:


                :

              • 再弄个清晰一些的截图看一下到底是 19,000 还是 10,000: +1

                ​​​​​​​

            • 原版和中译版俺都截图贴出来你比较一下翻译或许你能翻得更好? +1

              :

              ​​​​​​​

              • Operation SHOWDOWN 我全看完了, +1
                原文是叙事性的,译文却是宣传性的。放在全文看,首先“摊牌战役”这个翻译就有问题。摊牌在中文里有最终的意思,好像它决定了朝鲜战争一样,其实它只是别人放弃的一个计划。从翻译来说,开篇的第一句话就有问题:…“共产党已经越来越明显地掌握了地面作战的主动权。” 好像共产党处于主动地位。这句话原文的含义是:共产党已经越来越明显地试图掌握地面作战的主动权。但实际上它还是处于被动地位。
                • Operation Showdown的直译本来就是“决战行动”,你再翻译一下General Van Fleet的信是咋说的吧: +1
                  "It is extremely desirable that we take the initiative by small offensive actions, which will put the enemy on the defensive in order to reverse the present situation. Our present course of defensive action in the face of the enemy initiative is resulting in the highest casualties since the heavy fighting of October and November 1951."
                  • Fleet 认为(在双方对峙的时候)联军在小范围内主动出击,可以减少伤亡,比被动防守好。
                    • "我们很期待以小规模进攻行动获取主动,这将迫使敌人处于守势,从而扭转目前的局势。自1951年10月与11月激战以来,以我们当前的防御方式,在面对敌人的主动行动时所导致的伤亡是最高的"…说明当时共军是攻势,联军处于不利的守势! +3
                      • 为了改变当前的状况,
                        迫使敌人处于防守状态,我们主动采取小规模的战斗是极其有利的。我们当前采取的防御行为在敌人的主动进攻下造成了自1951年10月和11月间大战以来的最高的伤亡。这是我的翻译。含义:1,联军处于主动地位,有攻守选择的权利。2,进行小规模战斗并不是为了改变战争状态,而是为了减少伤亡。3,冯将军只是一个局部战场的指挥官,他说的并不代表整个朝鲜战局的状态,而该文也在对峙一章,说明双方总体上处于对峙状态,没有谁优谁劣的说法。
                        • 紧接着:"SHOWDOWN,that was designed to improve the corps defense lines north of Kumhwa…Hill 598, the opposing forces looked down each other's throats and casualties were correspondingly high."说明共军利用地形给联军造成伤亡,为改变状况才打的 +1
                          • 志愿军小规模的进攻确实给联合国军造成了很高的伤亡,但是书中也写了志愿军的进攻经常给联合国军的炮火覆盖然后撤退,志愿军的伤亡其实更大。差别在于联合国军在意自己的伤亡,而志愿军不在乎。
                            • 一个军力强弱如此分明、差异巨大的两军对垒,弱势一方如果太在乎伤亡根本就不敢参战,也不会发生战争了!另外,共军参战与本土安危息息相关,而美联军本来就是远道而来帮韩国恢复领土及维和并非为自己国土而战,对伤亡的在乎能一样么?更别提意识形态方面本来就有的差别。 +1
          • 网友opulus的帖俺有看过:(#15590722@0),俺上面不是已经给出整本书的原版链接吗?都来自同一个网站,只是他转的是整章txt内容,俺贴的是电子书下载链接。上甘岭叙述只是那章里的最后一小节,不是整章。 +1
    • 看看辛苦了 +1
    • 跟他们着急, 真犯不上. 老实说, 要是我骂中共和毛泽东, 我可以比他们骂的更准确, 而不是拿着所谓大被同眠之类的噱头来忽悠大家. +1
      • 不着急,手边有资料就翻一点出来公益一下罢了。老说群众眼睛雪亮,其实公众多数都埋头于刨食或消遣,手头没史料也没时间精力去探究历史细节/真相,很容易被忽悠洗脑的。忽悠者往往也是被洗过的,如病毒中招又去传染给别人一样... +4
        • 他们中间有太多自嗨锅啦。做白日梦然后自己高兴。 +1
          • 这年头,精神兴奋很多来自于碎片般的洗脑帖或网文,向有既定观念/立场的受众定向推送投喂,寓洗脑于娱乐,让人如吸大麻一样嗨起来,还能挣流量收益.... +4
          • 👍
    • 对。上甘岭本来就是为了几个山头营级规模的战斗。美军发起战斗的原因为阻共军力夺地面战主动权以扭转美联军的不利守势,并不是要大规模入侵朝鲜。其目标就是占领三角山阵地,将战线往中方推1250码而已。这点得失对任何一方其实都不太重要。
      • 是不是为了训练韩国人?
      • 说明白了其目标就是减少很小一段防守压力。
    • 看兄, +6
      你这样写帖子和小嘴巴说北京降雨量创有史以来最高一样,不准确。首先,上甘岭战役是双方陷入僵局时发生的一场局部战斗,它对整个战争态势影响很低。其次,“ …据美官方战史叙述,为阻共军力夺地面战主动权以扭转美联军的不利守势“ 也只是在很小的一个局部,和”美联军的不利守势“这个概念相差很大。再次,虽然美联军最后以放弃告终,但结果是它不可思议地部分达到了作战目的,上甘岭战役后,志愿军在上甘岭人员比战前大幅减少,美联军的防守压力减小了。
      • 呵呵,请你用与俺相同的字数来概述一下整个章节吧,下面是有关美军行动计划的原因原文,你牛你来给个中文翻译给大家看一下: +1

        Operation SHOWDOWN

        As the indications that the Communists were seizing the initiative on the ground became more apparent in late September and early October, General Van Fleet grew concerned. In his letter of 5 October to Clark urging the approval of a limited objective attack on the U.S. IX Corps front, he commented: "It is extremely desirable that we take the initiative by small offensive actions, which will put the enemy on the defensive in order to reverse the present situation. Our present course of defensive action in the face of the enemy initiative is resulting in the highest casualties since the heavy fighting of October and November 1951."

        To offset this trend, Van Fleet recommended the adoption of the IX Corps plan, called SHOWDOWN, that was designed to improve the corps defense lines north of Kumhwa. Less than three miles north of this city, Van Fleet pointed out, IX Corps and enemy troops manned positions that were but 200 yards apart. On Hill 598 and Sniper Ridge, which ran northwest to southeast a little over a mile northeast of Hill 598, the opposing forces looked down each other's throats and casualties were correspondingly high. If the enemy could be pushed off these hills, Van Fleet went on, he would have to fall back 1,250 yards to the next defensive position. Counting on maximum firepower, consistent with ammunition allowances, and maximum close air support, the Eighth Army commander was optimistic about the possibilities of SHOWDOWN.

        Although Clark had voiced his opposition to hilltaking expeditions in the past, he evidently decided that SHOWDOWN offered a better than average chance for winning its objectives without excessive casualties. If all went according to plan, two battalions, one from the U.S. 7th Division and the other from the ROK 2d Division, would be sufficient to accomplish the mission. The field commanders estimated that the operation would take five days and incur about 200 casualties. With sixteen battalions of artillery mounting some 280 guns, and over 200 fighter-bomber sorties in support, the infantry was not expected to encounter serious obstacles. At any rate, Clark approved SHOWDOWN on 8 October, but cautioned Van Fleet to give the operation only routine press coverage and to stress the tactical considerations arguing for the seizure of the hills.

        • 上面,我给了一点儿。 +1

          To offset this trend, Van Fleet recommended the adoption of the IX Corps plan, called SHOWDOWN, that was designed to improve the corps defense lines north of Kumhwa.
          上甘岭战役的目的。
          • (#15592748@0) +1
    • 昨天有人问上甘岭之战的意义,我回答了,朝鲜战争后期美国不是不能再往前推进,以美国对志愿军制空和火力差距来说,但美国也要考虑国际政治和国内政治,能忍受多大的伤亡,上甘岭之战恰恰给美国政客停战的理由,朝鲜战争才得以结束。 +1
      • 有一定道理,但最后导致韩战的停战有多方面原因,其中53年3月5日斯大林一命呜呼了,继任的赫鲁晓夫要清洗,催促中国赶紧停战完事也是一个很重要的因素! +1
    • 韩战是中华民族的伟大胜利,五毛们觉得战胜了美帝,恨国党们解决了毛二,台湾人民获得了自由,日本韩国获得了大发展。输的只有美丽国,丢人丢钱没捞到一点好处 +4
      • 台湾那个时候也不是民主国家,获得了什么自由,和大陆是独裁一和独裁二的区别 +1
        • 侬理解能力有待提高
          • 总统把位子传给儿子还不是独裁,什么是独裁呀,要没有江南事件和美国,还能一直传下去,不只是独裁是皇帝啦,和民主完全没关系 +1
            • 别扯了,不值得一回
      • 韩战最大的得利者是苏联!中朝主观为自己,客观成为了苏联的抗美代理。中朝都付出了巨大代价,朝鲜保住了自己的地盘,中方也保住了朝鲜这个缓冲地,并让世人见识了共军,改变了中国军队对外军一触即溃不堪一击的历史印象与偏见 +3
        • 太爱站在领袖的角度了,这些关屁民何事。我只关心,没有了韩战,还一辈子被关在那个笼子里 +4
          • 呵呵,没了朝鲜这个缓冲,东北工业大后方就直接面对外军,中国的战后重建所需的东北工农业就未必能有稳定的和平环境,还得重兵布局中朝边境…共军参战本可避免,若美方回应了中国的警告并承诺不会冒犯或不过38线的话 +3
            • 对对对,稳定和平地啃了几十年的窝头,用了几十的粮票肉票蛋票布票。估计95%的还没这待遇呢 +6
              • 共党擅长打仗但对搞建设没经验不擅长也却人才,加上强化意识形态的斗争哲学,大搞冒进和运动,无视人性…结果20来年的宝贵时间都耗掉了…个人觉得,老毛就是在此过程中蜕变了,从一个实用主义革命者变成了极端化政治理念的形式主义者… +2
                • 共产主义就是个邪恶的东西,在欧洲混不下去了才转头向东在当时的两个劣质文明俄国和满清生根发芽。共党打仗靠的是刘邦的那种邪恶狡诈以及十几万日本关东军的加入,不然的话一群土包子怎么操枪弄炮 +6
                  • “十几万日本关东军”有无证据出处?但有原关东军和日本技术人员被征兵是事实,只是数量需要依据…共军后来得到苏军所缴大量日军装备也是事实,但八路最熟的也就是日军装备,换成苏式或美式反而不熟了。弱势方不靠使诈和顽强岂不早被灭了? +1
                    • 证据出处到处都是,可能更多。这种和国民党打过仗的肯定卖命,而且这十几万人如果不出力的话,被俘虏的剩下的几十万都不能回日本,那个时候东北被苏联控制,这个你应该比我清楚多了 +1
                      • 别一句话“证据出处到处都是”,说得好像随手就能拿出正经的史料来证明似的,你倒是随便拿几个出来啊!别拿那些情绪化的网文出来就行.... +1
                        • 都在中共中央军委档案馆呢,你我半夜蒙面盗之… +1
              • 还有60年饿死一千万,59,61饿死多少人不知道,这些都是收获。 +3
                • 年年都有饿死的,我家每年都有农民敲门讨饭,给一个馒头一碗白饭都感激不尽的
                  • 早知道我就去你家了,那时候我一年平均有多半时间吃不上馒头。 +2
                    • 呵呵好的……有一段时间家里发面做馒头,那面粉袋子上印着加拿大
                      • 你这不是气人嘛,我吃的馒头都是65粉。现在好了,可以叫全麦面粉了。
                        • 也不是天天吃,窝头黄面玉米棒子也占很大比例。家里是南方人,能定量供应一点大米
            • 没有中国支持,金日成怎么会首先打过38线?怎么会有东北工业大后方就直接面对外军?也许外军指北韩军队? +2
              • 估计你对相关历史了解不多,据俺所知,金日成有意避开老毛与斯大林密会,在得到斯大林表态支持后就开始积极备战了。当苏朝已达成共识后才告知毛…苏联派了几千顾问组建与培训北韩军队以及提供装备,老毛之前只是答应放四野的2个鲜族师回归而已,别的都被苏朝蒙在鼓里… +1
                • 中国当代史除了亲身经历,没有几个人了解。因为都被隐瞒和篡改了。今日成的做法和一般人无异,就是先得到老大,苏联的点头,然后再开始。我们看实际发生的事就可以了。苏联给了技术支持,老毛给了北韩部队,才有了朝鲜战争。 +2
                  • 老毛给的本来就是抗日时跑过中国来的朝鲜人发展起来的队伍,后来成为四野的一部分,又都是同在共产阵营,日本投降后金要建国和发展自己的本族武装,老毛能不松手么?那毕竟是外族兵啊!金要发动统一战争在毛看来也属于它国内政,当然也没料到后来的联军介入局面。 +1
                    • 这些朝鲜族人算不算中国人。如果不是,中共就是用外国人(朝鲜人,日本人)屠杀中国人。如果是,中共就是用中国人卷入朝鲜内战。 +2
                      • 呵呵,评史要有历史的位置感,否则就像你拿当代人的观念去评判古人做这做那对不对一样。当年朝鲜被日全境占领算是亡国了,朝鲜抵抗力量部分过境逃亡和加入共军很正常,那年代的国籍观念能与现在相比么?你这是拿今人观念去套当年,还政治正确得振振有词,天真如红卫兵啊! +1
                        • 这些朝鲜族人大多数都是解放战争的时候参加四野的,不是为了打日本人,是为了打中国人。这个话题与这个帖子无关。我另外开个帖子来讨论吧。
          • 这不是站在领袖的角度,而是被宣传蒙蔽了。北韩付出成重代价是咎由自取,如果他不首先越过三八线就没有这个代价。而中国付出的沉重代价是为苏联当了炮灰。 +2
            • 如果从49年算起到现在,还是中国人民赢了,毕竟能吃饱喝足想出来的能润。朝鲜最倒霉,中间滋润了一段时间。俄国也是失去了二战后的地位沦为附庸
    • 长津湖与上甘岭是韩战开启与收尾经典之战,中方付出巨大代价,前是迫使对手撤回三八线以南,后是稳定战线,使其不再贸然发动新攻势直至停战。也证明了美方一再误判/低估中方,开始是认为中方不敢出兵或出兵也不堪打;后来是认为上甘岭不堪打估计几天能搞定,结果… +1
      • 前一个战役,志愿军没达到目的,后一个战役,联合国军基本上达到了目的。两次战役都以志愿军损失惨重为代价。那到底是谁的经典之战? +3
        • 思考的角度差异?前者,联军没有达到原本占领北韩全境的目的,被迫撤回三八线以南;后者,没有达到"行动计划“设定的占领那些高地将共军驱离/后撤防线的目的...前者共军达到帮北韩收复失地目的,后者达到稳住了防线目的。代价大小与武器装备差异是匹配的 +2
          • 上甘岭战役的目的是什么,原文里写得很明白,占领那些高地是手段。联军有占领北韩全境的目的?如果有,那也是将军的个人决定,联合国决议没有。志愿军长津湖战役目的写得清清楚楚。 +1
            • 过三八线是麦克阿瑟的自负,但未经总统首肯他敢么?知道过线时杜鲁门特意跑去威克岛见他吗?细节未完全解密,但推测他说服了总统,用牛皮哄哄打消了疑虑,于是挥兵过线北上剑指鸭绿江再无顾忌,杜总后来恨死了麦被他忽悠了。上甘岭是后来局势变化后老美计划的小战役,两码事 +1
      • 如果占领全境了,估计也没你了,真是救了你,就算还有你了,你也不用辛苦跑这么远,出来发贴了 +4
        • 呵呵,不就事论事,以这种事后诸葛的评论方式来说事对厘清当时的历史真相有何意义?只是为了拐个弯变相转移话题来论人? +2
          • 在加拿大看着中文正史自娱自乐挺爽的是吧 +1
            • 你没读主帖内容,英文原版和中译版都有啊,也可以对照着读嘛.....韩战涉及中美苏朝/韩,光读一种文字资料就全面了?俺不懂俄文韩文,只有中英资料可选有何不可?你都读过那些摆出来看看喽..... +1
      • 两次战役都是以巨大的人员伤亡把敌人吓退了。就像以前的地痞上来就往自己胳膊插三刀。 +4