模擬海戰(zhàn) - 美國和英國航母戰(zhàn)斗群 VS 6艘中國055型驅(qū)逐艦
US & UK Carrier Groups vs Six Chinese Type 055 Destroyers (Naval Battle 138) | DCS
譯文簡介
你們向我發(fā)起了挑戰(zhàn)，要求我探究如何抵御并戰(zhàn)勝一支完整的中國055型驅(qū)逐艦編隊(duì)。在這段視頻中，我模擬了美國和英國的航母戰(zhàn)斗群協(xié)同作戰(zhàn)的場(chǎng)景。
正文翻譯
US & UK Carrier Groups vs Six Chinese Type 055 Destroyers (Naval Battle 138) | DCS
美國和英國航母戰(zhàn)斗群vs 6艘中國055型驅(qū)逐艦
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
美國和英國航母戰(zhàn)斗群vs 6艘中國055型驅(qū)逐艦
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
評(píng)論翻譯
很贊 ( 45 )
收藏
Grim Reapers
2024年7月18日
0:00 Overview
1:57 BATTLE 1: USCSG vs 6 x Type 055 (Briefing)
4:11 BATTLE 1: USCSG vs 6 x Type 055 (Battle)
7:57 BATTLE 2: USCSG & UKCSG vs 6 x Type 055 (Briefing)
9:42 BATTLE 2: USCSG & UKCSG vs 6 x Type 055 (Battle)
你們向我發(fā)起了挑戰(zhàn)，要求我探究如何抵御并戰(zhàn)勝一支完整的中國055型驅(qū)逐艦編隊(duì)。在這段視頻中，我模擬了美國和英國的航母戰(zhàn)斗群協(xié)同作戰(zhàn)的場(chǎng)景。中國的055型驅(qū)逐艦裝備了YJ-21高超音速導(dǎo)彈和YJ-18超音速導(dǎo)彈；而美國和英國方面則分別用SM-3、SM-6、SM-2、“增強(qiáng)型海麻雀”(ESSM)導(dǎo)彈和紫菀（英語：MBDA Aster）防空導(dǎo)彈進(jìn)行防御，并利用F-35戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)和超級(jí)大黃蜂發(fā)射“遠(yuǎn)程反艦導(dǎo)彈(LRASM)”、 “矛”3(SPEAR CAP3)空對(duì)面導(dǎo)彈和“灰鯖鯊”(Mako)空射高超聲速導(dǎo)彈進(jìn)行反擊。
視頻概要：
0:00 視頻概述
1:57 第一場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)斗：美國單航母戰(zhàn)斗群對(duì)抗6艘055型驅(qū)逐艦（戰(zhàn)前簡報(bào)）
4:11 第一場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)斗：美國單航母戰(zhàn)斗群對(duì)抗6艘055型驅(qū)逐艦（戰(zhàn)斗過程）
7:57 第二場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)斗：美國和英國航母戰(zhàn)斗群聯(lián)合對(duì)抗6艘055型驅(qū)逐艦（戰(zhàn)前簡報(bào)）
9:42 第二場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)斗：美國和英國航母戰(zhàn)斗群聯(lián)合對(duì)抗6艘055型驅(qū)逐艦（戰(zhàn)斗過程）
I just want to reiterate THIS IS A VIDEO GAME, it does not replicate all the intricacies found in a real world battle, it does not replicate the weapons capabilities in real life, and therefor it does not have any bearing on real life. I think some people forget that.
我想再次強(qiáng)調(diào)，這一段內(nèi)容是視頻游戲，它無法復(fù)現(xiàn)現(xiàn)實(shí)世界戰(zhàn)斗中的所有細(xì)節(jié)，也無法真實(shí)反映武器的實(shí)際性能，因此它與現(xiàn)實(shí)生活沒有直接關(guān)聯(lián)，有些人似乎忘記了這一點(diǎn)。
Not only is this a game, this is DCS, the worst game to simulate a naval battle in. His videos are fun, but in no way it simulates or represents what would have happened if the USN and PLAN clashed in the sea.
這不僅是一場(chǎng)游戲，而且還是“數(shù)字戰(zhàn)斗模擬器（DCS，一款專注于現(xiàn)代空戰(zhàn)的飛行模擬器游戲）”，它在模擬海戰(zhàn)方面表現(xiàn)最差勁。雖然他的視頻很有趣，但它們并不能真實(shí)模擬或代表美國海軍和中國海軍在海上沖突會(huì)發(fā)生什么。
@superbudegu? can I ask why DCS is the WORST game to simulate a naval battle in? Is it highly inaccurate compared to other games?
我能問為什么DCS是模擬海戰(zhàn)方面最差勁的游戲嗎？它比其他游戲的準(zhǔn)確性差很多嗎？
@kimjonglongdong3158? DCS is not made for modern naval warfare simulation, only something like Command: Modern Operations can do something like this and even CMO is not realistic enough. the naval battles you see on this channel are not real and this is not how they would nplay out in real life. Most of the weapons used have their real capabilities classified, the ranges of the naval battles are not real, the missiles and AI are dumb af, there is no EW involved, etc. Naval warfare is very complex for a game like DCS to emulate properly, not even CMO is capable of that.
DCS并不是為現(xiàn)代海戰(zhàn)模擬設(shè)計(jì)的，只有像“指揮:現(xiàn)代行動(dòng)（Command: Modern Operations）”這樣的游戲才能進(jìn)行類似的模擬，即便如此，CMO也不夠現(xiàn)實(shí)。這個(gè)頻道上的海戰(zhàn)并不真實(shí)，也不是現(xiàn)實(shí)中會(huì)發(fā)生的情況。大多數(shù)武器的真實(shí)性能是保密的，海戰(zhàn)的范圍也不真實(shí)，導(dǎo)彈和人工智能表現(xiàn)得很笨拙，沒有涉及電子戰(zhàn)等因素。海戰(zhàn)非常復(fù)雜，DCS這樣的游戲很難準(zhǔn)確模擬，CMO也做不到。
@superbudegu? Ah so its more that DCS is better suited to older tech battles, plus lack of info on modern systems? The battles are still pretty fun though
啊，我明白了，DCS更適合模擬以前的科技戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，而且缺乏關(guān)于現(xiàn)代系統(tǒng)的詳細(xì)信息？不過這些戰(zhàn)斗看起來仍然很有趣。
@kimjonglongdong3158?because it's literally a digital air combat simulator. It's not made to simulate Naval combat. It's just a aircraft simulator that has Naval assets
因?yàn)樗举|(zhì)上是一款數(shù)字空戰(zhàn)模擬器，不是為模擬海戰(zhàn)設(shè)計(jì)的。它只是一個(gè)包含海軍資產(chǎn)的飛機(jī)模擬器。
Yes. It also forgets the notion of American Exceptionalism.
是的，它還忽略了美國例外論的概念。
@hdmccart6735? yeah i don't think caps server is going to have the same computational power as an AEGIS battle management suite.
是的，我不認(rèn)為該軟件下的服務(wù)器會(huì)有與“宙斯盾”作戰(zhàn)系統(tǒng)相同的計(jì)算能力。
@Tuhoeterra? Guess it depends on who has the better deal with TSMC.
這要看誰與臺(tái)積電有更優(yōu)的交易條件了。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
fuck, good thing you told me, I thought i was watching the Discovery channel.
天哪，幸好你提醒我，我還以為我在看探索頻道。
@superbudegu?not to mentionnthat no carriermfleet would ever get into missile range of some other ship. Its literaly the whole point of a carrier to not do that.
別忘了，沒有航母會(huì)冒險(xiǎn)進(jìn)入其他艦船的導(dǎo)彈射程。航母的整個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)理念就是避免這種情況。
This is all true but if the Ukraine war taught us anything is that countries like Russia and China significantly oversell their military capabilities. Until China's Navy is tested in combat their capabilities are unknown and likely to be far below that of the U.S. and our Allies regardless of what Wikipedia says.
雖然這些都是事實(shí)，但烏克蘭戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)告訴我們，像俄羅斯和中國這樣的國家可能會(huì)大幅夸大他們的軍事能力。除非中國海軍在實(shí)戰(zhàn)中得到檢驗(yàn)，否則他們的真實(shí)能力是未知的，很可能遠(yuǎn)低于美國及其盟友的水平——不管維基百科怎么說。
Some people refuse (on their own free will) that DCS is a game....
and they are quite adamant about it....
有些人拒絕接受DCS只是一款游戲的事實(shí)，而且他們對(duì)此非常堅(jiān)定。
Stop raining on peoples parades...
別總是給別人的熱情潑冷水……
Imagine demonetizing just for showing Afghanistan
想象一下，僅僅因?yàn)檎故玖税⒏缓咕捅挥凸芄俜匠蜂N“貨幣支持”的功能。
We must have said something that YT didn't like, but not sure what.
我們可能說了些什么油管不喜歡的話，但不確定是什么。
@grimreapers? "China too powerful so..."
“因?yàn)橹袊珡?qiáng)大了，所以...”
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Secret service's stern warning to YT caused it?
是不是特工機(jī)構(gòu)對(duì)油管發(fā)出了嚴(yán)厲警告？
@laurentitolledo1838? LOL. Could be, after they spent an hour trying to holster their sidearms.
哈哈，確實(shí)有可能，畢竟他們?cè)嚵艘粋€(gè)小時(shí)才把槍放回槍套。
I like that you showed the 3 minute version. Gives us a proper frx of reference.
我喜歡你展示的3分鐘的版本，這給了我們一個(gè)合適的參考框架。
This is a amazing. The UK has two crippled never-eady toys that they call carriers. Such a serious topic to kick off the joke.
這真是令人驚嘆。英國有兩艘他們稱之為航母的殘次品，在這么嚴(yán)肅的話題下開玩笑。
Well not really, they are the most modern aircraft carriers with a lot of sailing hours already…
實(shí)際上并非如此，它們是非?，F(xiàn)代化的航母，航行時(shí)間已經(jīng)夠長了…
In 2023 alone, China built 43.22 million tons of ships while America only 0.6 million. Just imagine if China puts that massive ship building capacity into military purpose. It can make American navy look like a small baby in no time.
僅在2023年，中國就建造了4320萬噸的船只，而美國只有60萬噸。想象一下，如果中國把這種巨大的造船能力用在軍事上，很快就能讓美國海軍相形見絀。
The problem is with the conversion rate (seen 30:1 from some study) and restricted supply of crucial parts. But I highly doubt the scenario as the building time of modern warships are that long and the supply chain so vulnerable. The side that is slightly disadvantaged in the first few days will have their shipbuilding asset wiped out. And to consider that the US has two ocean fronts and its operation base lined up all the way toward China's door step, basically it can afford to lose many battles but keep gaming while China is one defeat from game over.
問題在于轉(zhuǎn)換率（有些研究顯示是30:1）和關(guān)鍵部件的供應(yīng)限制。但我非常懷疑這種情況，因?yàn)楝F(xiàn)代戰(zhàn)艦建造時(shí)間長，供應(yīng)鏈脆弱。一開始稍微處于劣勢(shì)的一方，其造船資產(chǎn)很快就會(huì)被摧毀?？紤]到美國有兩個(gè)海洋前線，而且其基地一直延伸到中國的家門口，基本上它可以在輸?shù)粼S多戰(zhàn)斗后繼續(xù)戰(zhàn)斗，而中國只要一次失敗，就可能全盤皆輸。
The difference is quality vs quantity. Chinese boats are floating aluminum cans, US boats are heavily armored
區(qū)別在于質(zhì)量VS數(shù)量。中國的船只就像漂浮的鋁罐，而美國的船只則是重型裝甲。
@user-hb6pz8nx4c? Chinese type 055 is far more advanced/powerful than American small floating coffins like Arleigh burke built with 1980s technology
中國的055型驅(qū)逐艦遠(yuǎn)比美國那些用1980年代技術(shù)建造的類似阿利·伯克級(jí)的“小型浮動(dòng)棺材”要先進(jìn)得多。
No. Unlike china, the USA has the capability to actually hit and destroy all of these dockyards. It has bases surrounding China. China can never hit the mainland USA and its shipyard. As sure the USA can produce ships uninterrupted vs china who have to watch the sky.
不，與中國不同，美國有能力真正擊中并摧毀所有這些造船廠——它的基地環(huán)繞中國，而中國永遠(yuǎn)無法觸及美國本土及其造船廠。美國可以不間斷地生產(chǎn)船只，而中國則必須時(shí)刻警惕。
@mrspaceman9307? Those small American bases surrounding China won't last 10 minutes in the first wave of Chinese assault, as they are far away from American homeland with severe logistical challenges.
And China's capacity can easily build a fleet 10 times the existing American navy, before war even starts. It's just a matter of will.
那些環(huán)繞中國的美國小型基地在中國的首波攻擊中無法堅(jiān)持10分鐘，因?yàn)樗鼈冞h(yuǎn)離美國本土，面臨嚴(yán)重的后勤挑戰(zhàn)。中國的能力可以輕易地在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)開始前建造出比現(xiàn)有美國海軍大10倍規(guī)模的艦隊(duì)，這只是個(gè)意愿問題。
@user-hb6pz8nx4c? oh boy, you clearly dont know about China nowadays.
哦，天哪，你顯然不了解現(xiàn)在的中國。
@mrspaceman9307? American bases within Chinese strike range are just called Chinese bases 1 week into the war, lol
What you need to figure out is how will America fight with nothing but Pacific Ocean between homeland and the Chinese fleet.
在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的第一周，中國打擊范圍內(nèi)的美國基地就會(huì)被稱為中國基地，哈哈。
你需要考慮的問題是，美國將如何在太平洋這個(gè)將美國本土與中國艦隊(duì)隔開的廣闊海域上進(jìn)行戰(zhàn)斗。
@user-hb6pz8nx4c? America is the one running on greater number of ancient 1980s Burkes buddy.
美國現(xiàn)在主要依賴的是數(shù)量更多的、老舊的1980年代伯克級(jí)驅(qū)逐艦，朋友。
@kirovfactory? It's not about warships, its about logistics, it's about the Liberty class, not battleships.
Chinese shipbuilding can actually sustain pronged conflict in North America, while America is just a few sunk ships away from not able to defend Hawaii.
Also I don't think you comprehend what it means when a single Chinese shipyard is larger than all US shipyard combined, you'll deplete your entire missile inventory just to take one out for a week and reduce Chinese advantage from 250x to 240x.
這關(guān)鍵不在于戰(zhàn)艦，而在于后勤能力，以及自由級(jí)這樣的艦艇，我們討論的不是戰(zhàn)列艦。
中國的造船業(yè)實(shí)際上可以在北美持續(xù)多線沖突，而美國只有幾艘沉船，是無法保衛(wèi)夏威夷的。
你可能沒有完全理解，如果一個(gè)中國的造船廠的規(guī)模就超過了所有美國造船廠的總和，這代表著什么。你將不得不用盡所有的導(dǎo)彈，只為了摧毀一個(gè)造船廠并讓它一周內(nèi)無法運(yùn)作，這樣也只能將中國的優(yōu)勢(shì)從250倍降低到240倍。
@mrspaceman9307？中國內(nèi)陸的造船廠比美國還多。
Ya do know that the US could just bomb these shipyards in an actual war
你知道美國在實(shí)際戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中可以轟炸這些造船廠，對(duì)吧。
@aburetik4866?what made you think that they can easily make destroyers
是什么讓你覺得他們能輕易制造驅(qū)逐艦？
@aburetik4866?and how would you know who’s more advance ? Have you been on these ships? Have you ever heard that technology can be upxed as well? Look at the M1 abrams for example, it’s a 1970s tank and still pulls off real well today do to upxed features that are up to date. The tank model is old but the technology? Nope. Same thing with the Russian T-70 tanks those are hella old but with up to date technology they can still kick off and do some damage.
你怎么知道誰更先進(jìn)？你上過這些船嗎？你有沒有聽說過技術(shù)也可以更新？以M1艾布拉姆斯（英語：M1 Abrams）為例，它是一款1970年代的坦克，但由于更新了功能，今天仍然具備出色的表現(xiàn)。坦克型號(hào)老了，但技術(shù)呢？可不陳舊。俄羅斯的T-70坦克也一樣，它們非常老舊，但配備了最新的技術(shù)，仍然可以發(fā)動(dòng)攻擊并造成損害。
Hence why US is worried about China. Its not about current strength of China, but rather the future prospect
這就是美國擔(dān)心中國的原因。不是關(guān)于中國目前的實(shí)力，而是未來的前景。
@kirovfactory? In Pentagon war games from the past 10 years, US navy lost every single time. All American bases in the West Pacific from Japan to Australia as well as major ships are vulnerable to Chinese missile strikes. China is now adding carriers, large destroyers/cruisers and modern submarine into the mix. US stands no chance at all. Calling it just a defeat will be generous. It will be total annihilation.
在過去10年的五角大樓戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)游戲中，美國海軍每次都輸了。從日本到澳大利亞的所有美國基地以及主要艦船都容易受到中國導(dǎo)彈襲擊的威脅。中國現(xiàn)在又增加了航母、大型驅(qū)逐艦/巡洋艦和現(xiàn)代化潛艇。美國根本沒有機(jī)會(huì)。說它只是失敗都算是寬宏大量了，這將是徹底的殲滅。
@user-hb6pz8nx4c? Right now, China has 8 Type 055 destroyers and China is building another 12 Type 055B destroyers. 055B will feature all electric drive system, laser weapons, railgun, 2500 km range ballistic anti-ship missiles. Rumor says China is putting these missiles and hypersonic missiles on the existing Type 055 destroyers as well. 055B will be 15,000 tons in displacements. 055B will also feature a newer version of the 055 dual band radar. Due to technology shortcoming, Zumwalt potential has never been realized. And China is showing how it is done.
目前，中國有8艘055型驅(qū)逐艦，并正在建造另外12艘055B型驅(qū)逐艦。055B將采用全電驅(qū)動(dòng)系統(tǒng)、激光武器、軌道炮、2500公里射程的彈道反艦導(dǎo)彈。有傳言說中國也在現(xiàn)有的055型驅(qū)逐艦上安裝這些導(dǎo)彈和高超音速導(dǎo)彈。055B的排水量將達(dá)到15000噸。055B還將配備更新版本的055雙波段雷達(dá)。由于技術(shù)上的缺陷，這艘驅(qū)逐艦從未實(shí)現(xiàn)其潛在的能力。與此同時(shí)，中國正在展示如何有效地實(shí)現(xiàn)這些。