步枪
老伙计
在朝鲜的战斗中，步枪兵（包括装备卡宾枪的士兵）参与积极射击的比例明显要高于二战中的军事行动。
人们能察觉这一点但无法进行精确地计算，因此很难以精确的百分率表示这个增长。然而，根据调查所涉及的昼间和夜间军事行动的平均状况，研究人员认为无论敌人使用哪种武器，超过50%的部队都能够在交火时坚守阵地。
在朝鲜的军事行动中，手榴弹往往是初上战场的新兵的首选。然而，根据观察，一条几乎不变的法则再次得到验证：一旦我军士兵开始使用某种武器打击敌军士兵，他就会一直用下去，后来他就会积极主动地使用这种他擅长的火器。在朝鲜的昼间进攻中，部队经常以很窄的正面前进。因为山岭的棱线上缺少活动空间，所以连队以纵深队形行进。由于队列本身的限制，让所有人都毫无阻碍的使用手中的武器是不可能的。在某连中只有两三个班或许还有同等数量的重武器，能够进入阻止敌军进攻、控制战场的关键阵地。地形本身就减少了积极使用武器的人数，除非让各班轮流进入和撤出前沿阵地。
此外，向可从正面进攻的较低的小山岭突击时，步兵在登上山顶后通常立即靠拢，与他们随身携带武器的微弱火力相比，攀登中的士兵更需要火炮、坦克、多用途战车、迫击炮的弹幕射击把敌人赶下山去。在这种行动中，步兵很少实施行进间射击。在一般情形，这种射击打不中任何目标，因为在到达军事棱线前山坡的突出部会干扰交战双方的射击，它也从来没有牵制住敌人。当散兵线看到某个像目标的东西时都会停下来射击。但在这种行动中，步枪的用处不大，反之，手榴弹却可以大显身手。
THE RIFLE
THE OLD STANDBY
In the Korean fighting, there is manifestly a higher percentage of active fire participation by riflemen (including those armed with the carbine) than in operations during World War II.
This can be felt, rather than accurately counted, and therefore it is difficult to arrive at an accurate percentage figure indicative of the increase. However, averaging out the night and day operations which were covered in the survey, it is considered that well in excess of 50 percent of troops actually committed to ground where fire may be exchanged directly with the enemy will make use of one weapon or another in the course of an engagement.
The pattern of Korean operations is such that the hand grenade is frequently the first weapon employed by the novice in combat. But again it is observed as an almost invariable rule that once the individual uses any weapon against enemy personnel, he will go on then to become in future engagements relatively a self-starter with his personal firearm. In the daylight attack in Korea, troops frequently advance with an extremely narrow front, the company going forward in depth because of the lack of space for deployment in the movement along the ridge crest. This cramping of the formation by its nature often makes it impossible for all hands to use their weapons freely. Of a given company, only two or three squads, and perhaps the same number of heavy weapons, may be able to take position where they can bear against the enemy-held ground. In such instances, the terrain itself reduces the number who participate actively with weapons, except as squads are rotated in and out of the forward positions.
Again, in the assault upon the lower sub-ridges, which can be attacked frontally, the foot force is likely to close as rapidly as it can toil uphill, with the climbing men depending more upon the barrage fires of the artillery, armor, multiple mounts, and mortars to beat the enemy down than upon the relatively feeble power of their hand-carried weapons. In this type of action, marching fire is rarely given effective use by the infantry. In the average situation, it would serve no object, since the bulge of the hillside intervenes between the two forces until the military crest is reached, and the fire would not even serve to keep the enemy pinned. The rifle line will halt and fire when it sees anything resembling a target. But in this type of action, there is likely to be small practical use for the rifle, whereas the grenade may prove very handy. 夜间防御提供了证明M1加兰德步枪火力的最佳机会。是否能够在短时间内大规模发扬M1步枪的火力首先取决于识别目标的距离。如果敌军在我方开火前抵近并在交战的第一阶段出现双方互掷手榴弹的局面，那么即使防线位于高地、袭来的手榴弹威力不大，也不利于发扬步枪火力。对我方火力组遭受敌军投弹手的近距离压制的战斗的研究表明上述规律几乎无一例外出现在这些战斗中。在防御的第一阶段大量使用手榴弹抑制了其它或许是更有用的防御火力的使用。士兵们并不乐意从手榴弹换用步枪并在急需应对敌人的行动时又换回手榴弹。稳定的步枪战斗通常等到手榴弹互掷到了尾声才开始。在近战防御中，在使用双人散兵坑的场合，在同时需要手榴弹和子弹火力的情形，完全可以通过指定一人为专职投弹手、另一人为专职射手的办法建立有效的步枪火力。在三人或四人火力组中，一人应以投弹为主要任务。留意一下二战时的术语吧，他应该被叫做这个组的“炸弹人”。
当敌人的进攻被阻止在自动武器能首先与之交战的射程之内时，它们的火力将会使步枪防线明显活跃起来，对M1步枪和卡宾枪的全面使用将持续到战斗终止。关于步枪的射击量，应当再次指出这与不同形式下的战术变化所造成的阵地战和运动战间的比率有直接关系。至于在步枪防线中的叫喊和欢呼，这是稳定的射击的结果，每个士兵都从中受益，叫喊和欢呼激发他的判断力，使他更加活跃，努力寻找最有效的开火位置。所有对夜战的研究的结论是：开火最激烈的部队会根据形势变化做出最迅速使用的战术调整，不给敌人喘息的机会。
The night engagement on defense provides the most favorable opportunity for Ml fire. Whether it can be developed quickly in considerable volume depends primarily on the distance at which recognition takes place. If the enemy gets in close before firing starts and the initial phase sees the two sides engage in a heavy exchange of hand grenades, the rifle firing is apt to develop raggedly, even though the defending line is on higher ground and the incoming grenades are doing little damage. The study of actions in which our firing groups are closely pressed by enemy grenadiers shows almost no exception to this. Heavy use of grenades in the first stage of defense tends toward the repression of other, and perhaps more useful, fires by the defense. Men do not shift readily from the grenade to the rifle and back again as enemy movement might seem to require. Steady rifle action will usually await the dying-away of the grenade exchange. In close defense, where the two-man foxhole system is used, it could conceivably build up the effectiveness of infantry fire as a whole to designate one man primarily as thrower and the other as firer, in any situation which calls for both grenade and bullet fire. Out of a three-man or four-man fire team, one man should be encharged with the main duty of grenading. To advert to World War I terminology, he should be the “bomber” of the team.
When the enemy in the attack is intercepted at such range that the automatic weapons can first engage him, their fire is highly stimulating to the rifle line, and general use of the Ml and carbine (provided the ammunition holds) is likely to persist until the action is concluded. In connection with rifle fire volume, again it should be noted that there is a direct relationship between the rate of buildup and mobile response to the tactical changes in situation. As with shouting and cheering along the rifle line, there is something about steady fire production, and participation therein by the individual, which enlivens his senses and makes him move about more, in the endeavor to see where the fire would be most useful. The entire study of night actions is conclusive to this end: the unit which engages strongly with fire will also make the most rapid and practical adjustment to the changes in situation and will leave the fewest openings to the enemy. 从十一月到次年三月的朝鲜战事中，实际上很少有部队（即使是排级兵力）在身体上被中共军队的进攻压垮。总的来说，我军步兵坚守阵地直至打光大多数武器的弹药；随后士兵们尽可能向后方阵地撤退。他们并未屈服于逃跑的欲望，那些幸存者是以相当良好的秩序撤退的。只有极少的战例中我军防线未进行强烈抵抗就被撕碎，这是因为散兵坑中的士兵遭遇了迅速的奇袭，当敌军在他们周围25至30码距离内开火才收到警报，他们“感觉被压得抬不起头来，无法射击”，由于缺少火力保护，阵地陷落了。
但是在我军更多的战例中，尽管一开始面临同样严重的不利局势，士兵们仍然保持信心并用M1步枪开火，因而成功守住了阵地。只要实施坚决的指挥，大声下达命令，无论离敌军多近士兵们都会作出反应。但如果当士兵们遭受猛烈奇袭的打击时，把他们丢给自己的装备任其自生自灭，那么他们就会无所作为，或者软弱无力地试图用手榴弹阻击敌军。报告中有一些关于这种差别的非常令人吃惊的战例。
In Korean operations from November to March, there were relatively few examples of units - even of platoon strength - being actually physically “overrun” by the CCF attack. Generally, our infantry stood its ground and fought until most of the weapons ran dry; the men then withdrew as best they could to positions farther back. They did not yield to the desire for flight; they went back in reasonably good order - those who survived. But in the rare cases in which the line was cracked apart without giving a strong account of itself, it was because the men in the foxholes were taken by swift surprise, getting their first warning as fire broke around them from 25 to 30 yards range. They “felt that they could not get their heads up to fire”; for lack of fire, the position fell.
But there were just as many more case studies in which our troops, taken initially at this same heavy disadvantage, still rallied and opened fire with their Mls and thereafter managed to hold the position. When strong direction was given, and commands were shouted, the men responded, no matter how close the enemy. But when they were left to their own devices, under the shock of dramatic surprise, they either did nothing or made feeble attempts to grenade the enemy to a halt. The record provides some very startling examples of this difference. 我军再次吸取了这个教训：即使近距离冲锋中的敌人也能被子弹火力阻止住，尽管他只要在运动中手榴弹就可能起不了多大作用。敌人的队伍退下去以后，可以把手榴弹滚下山或者直接扔向他的队列，那是一种完全不同的情形。但在近距离战斗中，手榴弹和子弹的合成火力依然比单独使用其中一种更为有效。
因为新兵在夜战中经常胡乱开枪，在战后总结里，就算特别注意细节，也不可能说出每个人使用武器的情况，甚至不可能了解谁积极参战了。那些检查武器和个人弹药供给之类事物的下级军官也不可能彻底搞清楚这个问题。在紧张的夜战造成的混乱中，有相当数量的人错拿了别人的武器；此外，下级军官也不可能总是在黑暗中检查是否每个士兵都发挥了积极作用。因此，关于个人行为的数据并非总是能够获取并加以证实的，必须认识到这一点：某些参战者阵亡或失踪了，所有的目击者都受到震动，他们提供的情报无论如何都会有相当大的误差。
然而，通过战后回溯战斗发生时的各个事件，加上点数士兵谁在战斗中使用了武器和谁积极参战，综合起来看，可以得出以下合理的估计：
在朝鲜，一个普通步兵连中有12%——20%的人员不但积极参与射击，而且还程度不同的主动在关键岗位上发挥领导作用，同时也从事了改善阵地形势、增加凝聚力的个人活动。
除了这支关键性力量，还有大约25%——35%的人员也不同程度地参与了整个射击行动，但并没有发挥出对战斗过程的标志性影响。 The lesson is again drawn that a charging enemy, even at close range, can be stopped by bullet fire, though the grenade is not likely to avail as long as he is in motion. After his line has gone down, and grenades can be rolled downhill or thrown against his line, that is a quite different situation. But in short range action, combining grenade and bullet fire is still more effective than either weapon used separately.
Because of the high incidence of panic firing among the unseasoned men during night defense, it was not possible in the Korean critiques, even when full attention was given to detail, to determine the total circumstances in which each man used his weapon, or even to be sure that he had been an active firer. That could not be finally ascertained even by those junior leaders who made a check of weapons and personal ammunition supply following engagement. There is considerable weapons-switching in the confusions of a strenuous night engagement; moreover, junior leaders cannot always determine, in the darkness whether each of their men is taking an aggressive part. Hence the data on personal action is not always obtainable and verifiable, and it must be recognized that, when some of the actors are dead or missing, and all of the witnesses have been shaken, there is a considerable margin of error which may apply either way.
However, from synthesizing incidents around which the fighting developed, and from the post-critique showing of hands on the questions of which men had used weapons in addition to those who had played a prominent part in the engagement, this estimate is supportable :
In the average infantry company in Korea, between 12 and 20 percent of the
men not only participate actively in the firing, but exercise varying degrees of initiative in on-the-spot leading and taking personal action of a type that betters the unit position and induces cohesion. .
In addition to this control force, there are between 25 and 35 percent of the men who take some part in the fire action, with varying degrees of consistency, but without otherwise giving marked impulse to the course of events. 研究人员认为这种表现说明我军比起二战时的平均水平有了扎实的进步。
在二战中，很容易遇到做出“我看见了敌人；我没有开火；我不知道为什么”这种回答的士兵。在朝鲜战场，这种回答奇怪地消失了。实际上，在战后总结中没有一个未开火的士兵做出这样的解释。
未开火的士兵给出的理由可能会是这些：
“我一直看不见敌军目标，我认为最好还是不开火。”
“手榴弹劈头盖脸地砸来，我抬不起头。”
“我面前有一座小土山，敌军隐藏在它后面，我看不见。”
“我还没看见任何人向我冲过来，就从背后被俘了。”
“机枪卡壳了，我在帮军士修理机枪。”
“敌军人数太多，我希望他们可能没注意到我，就没开火。”
“我的枪冻住了，又找不着别的枪。”
诸如此类。所有的解释在他们所处的形势下都是可以说的通的。但与二战时的经验相比，没有一种回答显示士兵的双手为某种根深蒂固的习惯所束缚。
从统计学的意义上说，没有出现那种回答的意义可能并不像表面看上去那么重要。我们甚至可以认为在一个普通连队中总有那么一些人串通好了掩盖真相。但这些答复强烈暗示，“参与射击是一种光荣的义务”的想法开始在步兵队伍中扎根，每个士兵都感觉到自己身负义务。
It is believed that this showing is a substantial improvement over the participation averages among World War II troops.
The infantry soldier, so commonly met with in World War II, who made the stock answer: “I saw the enemy; I didn’t fire; I don’t know why,” is strangely missing from the Korean scene. In fact, this reply was not returned by a single man among the non-firers at any critique.
Among the reasons given by the non-firers would be these:
“I didn’t see an enemy target at any time and I thought it best to hold fire until I did.”
“Grenades were coming in at such a rate I couldn’t get my head up.”
“There was a rise of earth in front of me which hid their people to view.”
“I was captured from behind before I saw anyone come against me.”
“I was helping the sergeant get the machine gun back into operation.”
“There were so many of them that I held fire, thinking they might pass us by.”
“My gun was frozen and I couldn’t find another.”
And so on. All of these explanations made sense in the situation. But in contrast to World War II experience, there were no answers returned indicating that the soldier’s hand was held by some deep-rooted inhibition.
Statistically, the absence of such answers may not be as important as it appears on the surface. We may even take it that there are a few such men in the average company, and that they are covering up. But there is a strong implication that the idea has become ingrained in the infantry line that fire participation is an obligation of honor, and the obligation is felt by the average soldier. [此贴子已经被作者于2005-11-21 11:23:33编辑过] |
注册
战争研究论坛 →
讨论区 → [战史资料] → [美军观点]中国人民志愿军的战术（中英对照）
2005-11-9 9:19:54
![搜索徐荣在[战史资料]的所有贴子](pic/find.gif)
