主题：【翻译】对朝鲜战争步兵战斗与武器使用的评注（1950冬—1951年)II -- 徐荣

战术协同

对连队的采访也揭示出第八集团军某些步兵部队采取的主要安全措施中存在一项由来已久的弱点——没有对前线和第一线编队侧后实施协调、有力的巡逻。前哨不切实用，徒有虚名。部队所谓的“前哨阵地”在主要散兵坑防线前仅15到20英尺也不经常设置。在行军中，距先导步兵排如此之近的尖兵并不会使主力更安全。

这些显而易见的缺点在该战区的记录汇编中引起了司令部的关注。营级部队同样地缺乏机动也是我军防御战术中被指出的一项固有弱点，步兵连之间的间隙（经常是没有有效联络的无人区）经常出现以致各连实际在战斗中不能相互支援，这只能意味着分离的部队将被各个击破。

一个固守在棱线上的营，如果所有武器对地面战斗的准备均已就绪，它就很有可能抵挡敌军一个师三天以上。同样的一支部队如果分割成连级单位，配置在不能阻止敌军进入其间低地的分离的高地上，那么很难指望它扛过一个晚上。

朝鲜战争的整个进程强调了战术协同和完整的通信联络的决定性作用，二者共同组成了行动自由的必要条件。但是和其他时期的其他军队一样，第八集团军只能通过自己艰苦的经历掌握这门课程。

一般情况下伸展过度是较常出现的情形，在这种情形下如何最佳配置各战术单位？这个主要问题的复杂性可能要求所有相关人员更认真回顾，更认真地回顾比以朝鲜战争的经验重新评估任何参谋作业更为必要。这个问题的本质涉及到各级别、各院校和各兵种。从以下陈述可以看出，许多在朝战中指挥有方的军官也还是不清楚真正的答案，他们也不确定战术研究是否作到了理论联系实际。

一位团长这样说：“我在朝鲜参加的每次行动中始终迷惑不解，问题在于以一个完整的团或三个分立的营防御指定地段，哪种部署效果更好。我知道别的团长规定他们手下的营应防守较小的营级环形阵地，从而在该团的防御地段的正面留下了宽广的缝隙。我们的策略正相反，始终保持翼侧间紧密联系，通常需要在主防线上配置两个营的6个步兵连，作为预备队的那个营在后方支援。通过这种手段，我们能够阻止敌军的夜间渗透，我们很少在后方不必要地东奔西跑或麻烦我们的支援炮兵营。我很不愿意以部署小型营级环形阵地的方法防守团级防御地段。除非在绝对必要的情况下，我不会要求支援炮兵像步兵一样作战，而采用部署营级环形阵地的方案就会导致这种类型的战斗。当然，将防线上的兵力密度稀释到这个程度是有缺点的，但是，相当奇怪，从高地上被赶下来的一个排或连如果反击迅速，就能很容易地恢复阵地。有许多次，在我看来，北朝鲜人和中国人未能扩张局部战果，他们进攻缓慢或缺乏纵深，使得我们能够从他们手中夺回主动权。”

一位营长也作了如下评论：“在朝鲜，我军一个步兵营负责的平均正面宽度为4000到5000码。十一月以后，我们认为这是正常的。无论是为了控制更大的地域接受防线上的缝隙，还是以紧密编队部署，决定如何防守这个正面都很花时间。现在我仍然没有什么好主意，采取两种方法都有很大的风险。当我与任何人讨论起这个问题时，我总是得到令人震惊的答复：“噢，那是朝鲜！”但我预见不到将来美军在人力上会拥有优势，足以使我们以野战条令中所谓的“常规正面”作战。现在的陆军军官没有如何防御延伸正面的足够知识。1946—47，在本宁堡步校的一年，预科班有一个关于延伸正面的8小时课题。现在，在利文沃斯（指挥与参谋学院），大多数课题都是基于野战条令规定的理想的常规正面。难道没有理由相信未来在攻防作战中延伸正面都将成为我们的标准吗？这项建议会使我们的军校加大战术教学的力度吗？”

TACTICAL UNITY

The company interviews also revealed a chronic weakness in major security measures by some Eighth Army infantry forces. There was no consistent and vigorous patrolling, either to the front, or laterally by the frontline formations. There was no real use of outposts, worthy of the name. What the troops called “outposts” were not infrequently positioned only 15 or 20 feet forward of the main foxhole line. On the march, the point moved in such close juncture to the lead rifle platoon as to provide no additional margin of safety to the main body.

These obvious shortcomings were called to the attention of command in the notes compiled within the Theater. It was also pointed out as an inherent weakness in our defensive tactics that battalions were not being maneuvered as such, and that the space between companies (often a void with no viable communications) was frequently such that the companies could not actually operate in support each of the other, which meant only that the separate units were asking to be destroyed one at a time.

One battalion, solidly fixed on a ridgeline, with all of its weapons prepared to fight for the ground, might well hold out against an enemy division for three days or more. The same force, divided into company units and so positioned on separate hills that the enemy could not be denied entry into the low ground in between, could hardly be expected to survive one night.

The whole course of the Korean War has emphasized the decisive importance of tactical unity and full communications, which together compose the sine qua non of freedom of action. But as with other armies in other times, Eighth Army could only master the lesson out of its own hard experience.

The complex nature of the main question-how best to deploy component tactical bodies when over-extension is the dominant condition in the general situation perhaps calls for more earnest review by all concerned than any staff matter to be reevaluated on the basis of the Korean experience. The problem, by its nature, concerns all levels, all schools, and all arms. That many of those who commanded successfully in Korea are still in doubt about final answers, and not less so as to whether the search is being conducted in a wholly practical light, is suggested by the following statements.

This from a regimental commander : “I was puzzled through every Korean action in which I participated. The question was whether it was better to defend an assigned sector as a regiment, or as three separate battalions. I know that other regimental commanders prescribed that their battalions would defend in relatively small battalion perimeters, thus leaving wide gaps across the front of the regimental sector. Our policy, on the other hand, was always to tie in from flank to flank, which frequently required positioning of six rifle companies of two battalions on the MLR, backing that up with the reserve battalion. By this means we were able to stop night infiltration by the enemy, and seldom did we have any unwanted characters running around in our rear area or harassing our supporting artillery battalion. I would be very reluctant to defend a regimental sector by means of small battalion perimeters. I don’t like to ask my supporting artillery to fight as infantry any more than is absolutely necessary, and the battalion perimeter plan will result in that type of action. Of course there are disadvantages to thinning your line to the extent that you have to eliminate the battalion reserve position, but, oddly enough, it was our experience on many occasions that a platoon or company driven from a hill will readily regain its position if it counterattacks promptly. On numerous occasions, it seemed to me that the North Koreans and Chinese failed to follow up any initial advantage which they gained locally, and their slowness or lack of depth in their attack permitted us to regain the initiative from them.”

And this from a Battalion Commander: “The average frontage assigned to an Infantry battalion in Korea was between 4000 and 5000 yards. After November, we regarded that as normal. It took a long time to decide how to defend that frontage, whether to accept gaps for the sake of reserves, or try to play it tight. I still don’t have a good idea how I would do it today; there are great risks either way. When I talk to anyone about this problem, I get the stock answer, ‘Oh! That was Korea!’ But I can’t see that in the future the American Army will have such a preponderance of manpower that, should war come, we will fight on what the FMs call ‘normal frontages.’ The Army officer today does not have informed knowledge about how to defend on an extended front. In one year of school at Benning, 1946-47, the Advance Class had one eight-hour problem on extended frontage. At Leavenworth today, most of the problems are based on the ideal of FM normal frontage. Isn’t it reasonable to believe that for us the norm of the future is the extended front both in attack and on defense, and that this proposition should weight the teaching of tactics in our service schools?”