作者fw190a (las)
看板Warfare
標題Re: [心得]《國防軍三部曲》讀後感。
時間Sun Feb 14 12:32:31 2021
※ 引述《wl00669773 (Jerry shou)》之銘言：
: 推 fw190a: 基本同意，除了狹窄海域的定義和限制還是比較模糊 02/12 23:34
: 這方面要看海軍戰略戰術的書籍，會解釋得比教則再清楚一點
: Naval Strategy and Operations in Narrow Seas
: 摘錄部分內容
: ＂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’＂
同一本書，這段我覺得講比較清楚
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.
在二戰中圍繞著歐洲本土，尤其是英吉利海峽與北海的小型水面衝突，
常常被視為狹窄海域的作戰。
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.
隨著水面船艦的續航能力以及武器射程的進步，
尤其是飛機與巡弋導彈，各個大陸週遭以及大型的封閉海域，
例如地中海與加勒比海，都成為實質上的狹窄海域。
~~~~
從這兩段可以推出兩點。
1.首先在二戰中的狹窄海域用法，
就已經超出所謂讓戰列艦難以展開陣型的那種"狹窄"程度，
2.而且把狹窄海域定義擴展的，正是因為飛機等新武器的應用，
所以並不是有狹窄海域這地形，獨立於空權的影響，
而是空權參與制定了狹窄海域的定義。
當然地形的影響，小艇的突擊，陣型難以展開等困難，
在"更狹窄的海域"也實際存在，
但不能用狹窄海域這個概念直接保證上述困難存在。
~~
對於"更狹窄的海域"，或許可以討論看看，
到底戰艦展開的陣型需要多大的空間?10km寬度還不夠嗎?
越多艘戰艦需要的陣型空間真的是成倍率增長嗎?
無法有效展開陣型的危害，有大到讓人直接否決投入戰艦嗎?
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 180.218.136.42 (臺灣)
※ 文章網址: https://webptt.com/m.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講海軍戰術的文章， 02/14 15:09
2F：→ wl00669773: 剛剛稍微挖了一下，有提過英國夜戰戰列艦主隊和分艦 02/14 15:09
3F：→ wl00669773: 隊要保持兩海裡的距離。理論上白天陣型會更分散，具 02/14 15:09
4F：→ wl00669773: 體數據多少我回家再分散看看 02/14 15:09
5F：推 wl00669773: 然後對於二戰戰列艦來說交戰距離大約2km 02/14 15:27
6F：→ fw190a: 寬度和深度又是兩個不同的點，不過的確會有些交互影響 02/14 15:28
7F：→ fw190a: 2km沒問題嗎? 還是說這也是夜戰的距離 02/14 16:35
8F：推 wl00669773: 打錯 是20000yard..20km 02/14 17:18
9F：推 wl00669773: 單看一方的戰鬥陣型 02/14 21:20
12F：→ wl00669773: 邊緣的前衛艦隊等要在主艦隊約30km外 02/14 21:22
儸P;31m→
wl00669773: 痾 這張當我沒說...找錯例子 02/14 21:25
你貼的前面兩張圖應該是在開闊海域戰列線以最長程交火的理想部屬範圍。
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
另外補充一段
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.
蘇里高海戰中美軍採用的陣型就有例可循，
考量到海峽的寬度，為了"在受限的水域"應用而縮短許多。
基本上雷伊泰海戰中雙方都在較狹窄的海域中投入了戰列艦，
不過日方西村艦隊的結局大概算是完美的反面教材。
※ 編輯: fw190a (180.218.136.42 臺灣), 02/16/2021 16:41:47
14F：推 wl00669773: 而且蘇里高海峽的美軍戰列艦基本不太需要機動 .. 02/16 19:50
15F：→ wl00669773: 坐等西村撞上來就行lol 02/16 19:50