作者fw190a (las)
看板Warfare
标题Re: [心得]《国防军三部曲》读後感。
时间Sun Feb 14 12:32:31 2021
※ 引述《wl00669773 (Jerry shou)》之铭言：
: 推 fw190a: 基本同意，除了狭窄海域的定义和限制还是比较模糊 02/12 23:34
: 这方面要看海军战略战术的书籍，会解释得比教则再清楚一点
: Naval Strategy and Operations in Narrow Seas
: 摘录部分内容
: ＂most naval actions in the future will most likely take place in relative
: proximity to the shores of the world’s continental landmass, in areas
: known as ‘littoral waters’, and part of a war in the littorals would take
: place in the waters of enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, the popularly
: called ‘narrow seas’＂
同一本书，这段我觉得讲比较清楚
The term narrow seas became extensively used during World War II in
reference to the numerous clashes between small surface combatants in
the waters surrounding the European landmass, especially the English
Channel and the North Sea.
在二战中围绕着欧洲本土，尤其是英吉利海峡与北海的小型水面冲突，
常常被视为狭窄海域的作战。
With the steady extension of the range and
endurance of surface ships and the increase in the effective range of
weapons, especially after the advent of aircraft and cruise missiles,
everlarger parts of the ocean bordering the world’s continents and large
enclosed seas such as the Caribbean and the Mediterranean became in
fact narrow seas.
随着水面船舰的续航能力以及武器射程的进步，
尤其是飞机与巡弋导弹，各个大陆周遭以及大型的封闭海域，
例如地中海与加勒比海，都成为实质上的狭窄海域。
~~~~
从这两段可以推出两点。
1.首先在二战中的狭窄海域用法，
就已经超出所谓让战列舰难以展开阵型的那种"狭窄"程度，
2.而且把狭窄海域定义扩展的，正是因为飞机等新武器的应用，
所以并不是有狭窄海域这地形，独立於空权的影响，
而是空权参与制定了狭窄海域的定义。
当然地形的影响，小艇的突击，阵型难以展开等困难，
在"更狭窄的海域"也实际存在，
但不能用狭窄海域这个概念直接保证上述困难存在。
~~
对於"更狭窄的海域"，或许可以讨论看看，
到底战舰展开的阵型需要多大的空间?10km宽度还不够吗?
越多艘战舰需要的阵型空间真的是成倍率增长吗?
无法有效展开阵型的危害，有大到让人直接否决投入战舰吗?
--
※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 180.218.136.42 (台湾)
※ 文章网址: https://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/Warfare/M.1613277153.A.612.html
1F：推 wl00669773: 人在外面fw大可以先翻一下我以前讲海军战术的文章， 02/14 15:09
2F：→ wl00669773: 刚刚稍微挖了一下，有提过英国夜战战列舰主队和分舰 02/14 15:09
3F：→ wl00669773: 队要保持两海里的距离。理论上白天阵型会更分散，具 02/14 15:09
4F：→ wl00669773: 体数据多少我回家再分散看看 02/14 15:09
5F：推 wl00669773: 然後对於二战战列舰来说交战距离大约2km 02/14 15:27
6F：→ fw190a: 宽度和深度又是两个不同的点，不过的确会有些交互影响 02/14 15:28
7F：→ fw190a: 2km没问题吗? 还是说这也是夜战的距离 02/14 16:35
8F：推 wl00669773: 打错 是20000yard..20km 02/14 17:18
9F：推 wl00669773: 单看一方的战斗阵型 02/14 21:20
12F：→ wl00669773: 边缘的前卫舰队等要在主舰队约30km外 02/14 21:22
罗P;31m→
wl00669773: 痾 这张当我没说...找错例子 02/14 21:25
你贴的前面两张图应该是在开阔海域战列线以最长程交火的理想部属范围。
再稍微找了一下，
U.S. Navy Surface Battle Doctrine and Victory in the Pacific中提到，
After the conference, Oldendorf signaled his battle plan to the six
battleships,eight cruisers, and twenty-one destroyers of his force.
The battle plan specified disposition “A-2” from USF 10A,
intended for the employment of task forces like this one.
A-2” (see figure 2) placed the battle line in the center and
light forcesat either flank.
This was an efficient arrangement for the confined waters at
the head of the strait, and it maximized the effectiveness of
Oldendorf ’s gunfire.
https://imgur.com/lYmCOQy
另外补充一段
In the South Pacific, destroyers were
often so assigned with those in the van at 5,000 yards and those
in the rear at 3,000 yards. This was because of certain governing
limitation in that area.
苏里高海战中美军采用的阵型就有例可循，
考量到海峡的宽度，为了"在受限的水域"应用而缩短许多。
基本上雷伊泰海战中双方都在较狭窄的海域中投入了战列舰，
不过日方西村舰队的结局大概算是完美的反面教材。
※ 编辑: fw190a (180.218.136.42 台湾), 02/16/2021 16:41:47
14F：推 wl00669773: 而且苏里高海峡的美军战列舰基本不太需要机动 .. 02/16 19:50
15F：→ wl00669773: 坐等西村撞上来就行lol 02/16 19:50