正文翻译
I was watching a show on the American war of independence, and saw battles between the American and British forces being fought in this way. Many battles in that era seem to have been fought with this weird protocol where the two sides stood in rows and patiently loaded their guns taking turns shooting at each other.我正在看一档关于美国独立战争的节目，看到美国和不列颠军队之间的战争就是这种方式。那个时代的很多战争似乎都是以这种奇怪的规则进行的，双方站成一排，耐心地装枪，轮流向对方射击。why would anybody agree to this way of fighting? Were there instances of the fighting starting out this way, but ending in a free-for-all?为什么会有人同意这种战斗方式？有没有这样的例子：以这样子开打，最后却打成混战？
评论翻译
Units in general fought in compact formations during this period for a number of reasons.在这段时期里，部队通常以紧凑的队形作战是有很多原因的。
Weight of fire. The average fire rate for a musket is 3 rounds a minute in the 18th century. That's very low, but if you have 700 men in a battalion in a line formation two or three ranks deep, that's 2100 rounds a minute going down range in a relativity small area. Even if the opposition is in skirmish line and using cover, they will struggle to stand against concentrated firepower like that.2、火力密度。在18世纪，火枪的平均射速是每分钟3发。这是很低的，但是如果一个营700人排成两到三排的横队，那么在相对论的小范围内每分钟就有2100发。如果对手是成散兵线哪怕拥有掩护，他们也很难对抗这样集中的火力。Cavalry. This is a huge threat in this time, and due to the low rate of fire of muskets, individuals or small groups have little chance to repel them. A large compact mass of men can, as noted, put out a lot of shots and present a wall of pikes or bayonets that will stop any charges.3、骑兵。在这个时代，骑兵是一个巨大的威胁，由于火枪的射击速度很低，个人或小团体几乎无法击退它们。但一大群密集的队形可以，他们可以射出大量的子弹，并摆出一堵由长枪或刺刀组成的墙来阻止冲锋。
The bottom line is that most directors aren't educated in this period of warfare or interested in depicting much of this, a bunch of guys in a ditch doesn't look as dramatic as neat lines of men.归根结底，大多数导演都没有受过战争时期的教育，也没有兴趣对战争描绘太多，一堆猫在壕沟里的人看着没有整齐队列那么好看。There were of course many situations where mass formations of men met at less than 100 yards or less and poured fire into each other till one side broke, but this is akin to a modern situation where units might fight in a meeting engagement with very little cover.当然，在很多情况下，会有大编队在不到100码的地方相会，互相开火，直到一方崩溃，但是，这就类似于现代部队在没有掩护的情况下战斗。Mass formations could be effective in frontal charges, as used by Napoleon placing his infantry in attack columns and sending them to directly break enemy lines, however again you have to look at the context of these tactics. These attacks would be supported by mass barrages of hundreds of cannons, and huge formations of cavalry. When effective and not countered properly, the enemy would be heavily suppressed and then broken by a massive swamp of men, which would be incredibly difficult to stop.大编队在正面冲锋中是有效的，就像拿破仑把他的步兵放在攻击纵队中，并派他们直接突破敌人的防线一样，然而，你要看看这些战术的背景。这些攻击是由数百门大炮的火力和庞大的骑兵编队来支持。当这种攻击有效而没有遇到适当的反击时，敌人就会被严重压制，然后被一大群人击溃，这是很难阻止的。As mentioned, land warfare advanced rapidly throughout this period, and military science was heavily studied. Unfortunately, I've yet to see it really depicted accurately in any mainstream visual medium, and even games like Empire Total War drastically simplify it, most movies and show's don't even begin to scratch the surface. Even some older stuff, like Waterloo isn't that accurate. It depicts the scale of the battle correctly, but doesn't really show any of the tactics in detail.如前所述，陆战在这一时期迅速发展，军事科学也有着大量研究。不幸的是，我还没有看到哪个主流视觉媒体能够准确地进行描述，即使是像《帝国：全面战争》这样的游戏描绘得也很粗陋，大多数电影和节目甚至都没有触及表面。即使是一些老片，比如《滑铁卢》也不是那么准确。它对战斗规模的描述是正确的，但真的没有展示任何战术细节。---------------------FlashbackHistoryCommand and control. The only way to send messages from a general was a man on horse or foot. This could lead to commanders having very limited awareness or taking drastic action to regain control. During the battle of Marston Moor, Sir Thomas Fairfax, a Parliamentarian commander, had to remove his identification and ride through the middle of the battle to reach the opposite flank and bring up cavalry reinforcements. If troops were deployed in open order out of formation, they would be almost impossible to control because of how spread out they would be.I see what you're saying here and it's true.“指挥和控制……”我明白你的意思，这是对的。It's also worth considering that this problem wasn't insurmountable. Bugles, individual training, etc. made it possible to control and fight a relatively large bodies of skirmishers. By the wars of the French Revolution and the Napeoleonic Wars, armies were deploying (and controlling) thousands and thousands of skirmishers. While the majority of the army was still in line or column, well over a quarter might be thrown out as skirmishers.但值得考虑的是，这个问题并不是无法克服的。可以通过军号、个人训练等，使他们能够控制并与规模相对较大的散兵作战。在法国大革命和拿破仑战争时期，军队部署成大量的散兵。虽然军队的大多数人仍然组成队列，但四分之一以上的人可能会派出去做散兵。At Buçaco, for instance, the Light Division employed 1,300 skirmishers (out of just under 3,800 men)! In other cases, large numbers of regular infantry were thrown out as skirmishers alongside (or in the absence of) light infantry. At Borodino, one Polish division deployed six of its nine battalions to fight as skirmishers. At Leipzig, six battalions (a third of an entire Polish corps) were deployed to skirmish.例如，在布萨科之战，轻步兵师就雇佣了1300名散兵（总共才3800人）！在其他情况下，大量的常规步兵被派出作为散兵与轻步兵并肩作战。在波罗底诺战役，一个波兰师九个营中的六个作为散兵去战斗。在莱比锡战役，六个营(波兰军团的三分之一)被部署成散兵。
------------------------MyPigWhistlesIt was the most effective way to fight and holding the lines meant to maximize the chance for the soldiers to survive the battle.The actual question is why you would consider this "ridiculous". What would you suggest as an alternative?因为这是最有效的战斗方式，撑住防线就能最大限度地提高士兵在战斗中的生存机会。为什么你会认为这 “荒谬”？你觉得还有其他选择吗？Lor360He is probably viewing this as "why would you stand still in a line letting the enemy shoot you"楼主可能是认为“为什么你们站成排让敌人射杀啊？”ankydogYes, thanks. That's what I meant.是的，这就是我的意思。ppitmWell it is ridiculous. The logical alternative is not to take part in warfare. This has always been the only non-ridiculous option.War is hell. Certain technology levels make the ridiculousness more apparent.确实荒谬。合理的选择是不参加战争。这是唯一不荒谬的选择。战争就是地狱。某些技术水平使得这种荒谬变得更加明显。
Wea_boo_JonesThey didn't. All those assumptions are just bad history memes.The style of fighting was a result of was worked best with the technology at the time. It seems absurd to stand in formation against cannons and muskets but that's because we're used to modern artillery and rifles/machineguns. They also didn't "take turns" firing, they fired as quickly as they ever could but sometimes you would save your reload for the last moment of a charge attack/defense or something similar and you would be given the order to only fire on command etc.并不荒谬。会这么说的都是在玩历史烂梗。这种战斗风格是匹配当时技术的结果。站成队列来对抗大炮和火枪似乎很荒谬，但那是因为我们已经习惯了现代大炮和步枪、机枪的缘故。他们也没有“轮流”开火，他们会以最快的速度开火，但有时你会在冲锋、防御的情况下保持装弹，到最后一刻才在命令下开火。
Pike and shot formations from the 1500s-1600s like this one or this one or this one involved a mix of troops armed with polearms like pikes and troops armed with firearms like arquebuses. They fought in tightly packed formations for good reasons, too. Pikemen needed to stay close to create a thick hedge of pikes that were impenetrable to enemy cavalry and infantry. Musketeers needed to stay close to mass their fire. Both sides needed to stay close for mutual support. The pikes protected the musketeers from cavalry charges. The musketeers protected the pikes from enemy musketry and firearm-carrying cavalry. If one group strayed too far from the other or got scattered, it was asking for trouble. Depending on the threat, formations could be adjusted to maximize firepower (ex. a line) or protection against cavalry (ex. a square). Since its first arrival on the European battlefield, the arquebus/musket was used mostly by troops in close order.从16世纪到17世纪的长矛、射击阵型，包括了装备像长矛这样的长杆武器，还有像火绳枪这样的枪支。他们以密集队形战斗也是有原因的。长矛兵需要靠得很近以形成浓密的长矛林，让敌军骑兵和步兵无法穿透。火枪手需要靠得很近才能集中火力。双方也要靠的很近以便互相支援。长矛兵保护火枪兵免受骑兵攻击。火枪兵保护长矛兵受敌军火枪手和火枪骑兵的攻击。如果一群人离另一群人太远，或者分散开来，那就是在自找麻烦。根据威胁的不同，阵型可以调整，或最大化火力（比如排成排），或防御骑兵（例如排成方阵）。自从第一次出现在欧洲战场上，火枪基本都是在近距离使用。However, European tactics began to evolve in the late 1600s. Political changes meant armies became better drilled and more professional. Technological changes introduced bayonets and lighter muskets. It became possible to combine the functions of the pikeman and the musketeer into a single soldier in the late 1600s (although some armies, like the Swedish army, retained some pikes until the end of the 1600s).然而，欧洲的战术在17世纪末开始演变。政治变革让军队更加训练有素，更加专业。技术上的变化产生了刺刀和更轻的火枪。在17世纪末，将矛兵和火枪的职能合二为一成为了可能（尽管有些军队，如瑞典军队，直到17世纪末还继续使用一些长矛）。So why did these new armies with these new weapons decide to form lines 2-4 men deep and shoot at each other in open fields? After all, this was very similar to how the "shot" part of pike and shot armies had fought.那么，为什么这些拥有新式武器的新军队，要决定排成2-4排的队列，在开阔的战场互相射击？毕竟，这与长矛、火枪部队的“射击”部分非常相似。Surely it would have been smarter to spread out or rush in with the bayonet or blast enemy troops with artillery! Well, armies of the period did all those things, too. However, there were good reasons why linear tactics became such an important part of Western infantry combat.当然，散开或者用刺刀冲锋或者用大炮轰击敌军，这样更聪明！是的，当时的军队也是会做这些事情的。然而，线列战术成为西方步兵战斗中的重要部分是有充分理由的。Infantry in line could deliver massed fire. If you want to deliver as much fire as quickly as possible, a 2-3 deep line of men standing shoulder-to-shoulder is the best way to do it (see this comparison between infantry in open order and a close order line). In this period, delivering a lot of fire very quickly could be a battle winner. A well-placed volley from 700 muskets would kill and wound enemy soldiers and could rattle their comrades so badly they routed or retreated. In some cases, a few volleys won an engagement (ex. the firefight between the Guards at Fotenoy), so you can see why armies of the 18th and early 19th centuries put great faith in volley fire (although experience in the early 19th century would ultimately prove skimishers were better at shooting up enemy lines). The issue of morale brings us to the next point...1、线列步兵可以发射密集火力。如果你想尽可能快、尽可能多地发射火力，2-3排肩并肩站成队列是最好的方法。在这个时期，尽快发射大量火力可以让你成为战斗的胜利者。700支火枪的有效齐射会使敌军大量死伤，也会使他们的战友恐惧，使他们溃散或撤退。在某些情况下，几次齐射就能赢得一次交战，所以你可以理解为什么18世纪和19世纪早期的军队非常信任齐射火力（尽管19世纪早期的经验最终证明散兵在打击敌人队列时更好）。而士气问题就引出了下一点…Infantry in line could deliver effective bayonet charges. After a few volleys, commanders might attempt a bayonet charge, provided the enemy appeared to be wavering or disrupted. In some cases, commanders might forgo musketry entirely and just go in with the bayonet. In either event, the line was a useful formation for bayonet charges. Bayonet attacks often succeeded or failed because of morale. Either the enemy got intimidated and ran away or your men lost their nerve an abandoned the charge. Putting your infantry shoulder-to-shoulder in a closely-packed line improved their morale, since each individual man felt less exposed. And the momentum of their comrades pushed forwards any shirkers in the front ranks. Meanwhile, the enemy had to watch a wall of very angry men with very sharp bayonets running at them, which was understandably rather unnerving.2、线列步兵可以发动有效的刺刀冲锋。在几次齐射之后，指挥官们可能会尝试刺刀冲锋，前提是敌人有所动摇或混乱。在某些情况下，指挥官们可能会完全放弃射击，直接刺刀冲锋。不管是哪种情况，线列都是刺刀冲锋的有用阵型。刺刀攻击的成败往往取决于士气。要么敌人恐惧然后逃跑，要么你的士兵失去勇气然后放弃冲锋。让你的步兵肩并肩排成密集线列能提高他们的士气，因为每个人都能感觉到掩护。而且他们战友的推进力，会把所有逃避者往前推。与此同时，敌人不得不看着一群怒气冲冲的人拿着锋利的刺刀向他们冲来，这是相当令人恐惧的。Infantry in line could repulse bayonet charges. If enemy infantry try to launch a bayonet charge in line or in column, you want to confont them with as much fire as possible. Shoot up the enemy infantry enough and they'll likely abort their charge. Mathematically, a close ordered line 2-3 deep is the best way to maximize your frontage (and your firepower).3、线列步兵能击退刺刀冲锋。如果敌人步兵试图以线列的形式发动刺刀冲锋，你要用尽可能多的火力来对抗他们。射的够多，他们很可能会中止冲锋。从数学上讲，2-3排密集队列是最大化火力的最好方法。Fighting in a close order line gave infantry protection from cavalry. Spread-out infantry are easy meat for cavalry, since the troopers will simply ride between the scattered infantrymen and cut them down. Infantrymen standing shoulder-to-shoulder in a line could stay in line and fire at charging cavalry, like the "Thin Red Line" did at Balaclava. Or, the infantry could fold back their line to form a square and create a hedge of bayonets and muskets to keep the cavalry at bay.4、密集线列作战使步兵免受骑兵的攻击。分散的步兵对骑兵来说很脆弱，因为骑兵可以在分散的步兵之间来回穿梭并砍倒他们。步兵肩并肩站成线列，可以列队向冲锋的骑兵开火，就像电影《细细的红线》在巴拉克拉瓦战役中做的一样。或者，步兵可以把他们线列缩成方阵，用刺刀和步枪围成密林来阻挡骑兵的进攻。With all that said, European warfare from the late 1600s to the early 1800s was not static and unchanging. Although the basic weapons (musket and bayonet, cannon, and sabre) remained the same, the way armies fought battles evolved considerably.从17世纪末到19世纪初的欧洲战争并不是一成不变的。虽然基本武器（火枪、刺刀、大炮和军刀）仍然一样，但军队作战的方式有了很大的发展。
,
