話題討論：臺軍演習(xí)試射陶氏導(dǎo)彈17發(fā)7中，被網(wǎng)民嘲笑菜就多練
Taiwan is rethinking its use of US-made anti-tank missiles after less than half hit their targets in recent combat drills
譯文簡介
在最近的演習(xí)中出現(xiàn)問題后，臺灣（地區(qū)）軍方將評估美國提供的導(dǎo)彈的使用情況。
正文翻譯
Taiwan's military will uate the use of US-provided missiles after problems during recent drills.
在最近的演習(xí)中出現(xiàn)問題后，臺灣（地區(qū)）軍方將評估美國提供的導(dǎo)彈的使用情況。
Only seven of the 17 TOW missiles fired hit their targets.
發(fā)射的17枚陶氏導(dǎo)彈只有7枚擊中了目標(biāo)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
發(fā)射的17枚陶氏導(dǎo)彈只有7枚擊中了目標(biāo)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 7 )
收藏
those are pretty spectacular failures to watch.
這些失敗都十分引人注目。
The wires hit the water and short out. TOW is not designed to be fired over larger bodies of water. They fly about four seconds, which matches a range of 800 to 1,200 meters which is the maximum range over bodies of water.
導(dǎo)彈線觸水兵短路。陶氏的設(shè)計不適合在較大的水體上發(fā)射。它們大約飛行4秒，符合800到1200米的射程，這是在水體上空的最大射程。
You can see in the first video that the tow started to spin out faster than gravity could have dragged the wires to the water.
可以在第一個視頻中看到，導(dǎo)彈開始飛出的速度比重力將導(dǎo)彈線拖到水中的速度要快。
Missile was stuck in full yaw and pitch. TOWs are not spin stabilized. Second and third videos may be because of the water, however.
導(dǎo)彈完全處于偏航和顛簸狀態(tài)。陶氏不是自旋穩(wěn)定的。然而，第二和第三個視頻可能是因為水。
hanguang is the army's strategy to park every armored vehicle on the coast as a bunker and use them to deny the PLA the beachhead. where else would they be using TOW missiles?
漢光演習(xí)的臺軍戰(zhàn)略，是把每一輛裝甲車停放在海岸上作為掩體，并用它們來阻止解放軍的灘頭陣地。他們還會在哪里使用陶氏導(dǎo)彈?
That sounds like not a TOW problem
這聽起來不像是陶氏的問題。
its a doctrine problem which ties back to a "why does taiwan need a standing army" problem
這是一個理論問題，可以追溯到“為什么臺灣（地區(qū)）需要常備軍”的問題。
Does that mean a TOW can’t be fired in heavy rain?
這是否意味著陶氏不能在大雨中發(fā)射?
Sounds like a skill issue to me. Syrian rebels were sniping motherfuckers with TOWS ten years ago.
聽起來像是技能問題。十年前，敘利亞叛軍用陶氏狙擊那些混蛋。
Could be surivor bias: they don't show the misses and counterfire.
可能是幸存者的偏見：他們不展示失誤和反擊。
They did actually. The CIA required video receipts for each round fired. They didn’t want the rebels selling the missiles on the black market so the rebels had to account for each one if they wanted resupply. Thats why the rebels would “waste” rounds on soldiers - they weren’t the ones paying for it.
他們確實展示了。中央情報局要求每次發(fā)射都有錄像記錄。他們不希望叛軍在黑市上出售這些導(dǎo)彈，所以如果叛軍想要補(bǔ)給，就必須對每一枚導(dǎo)彈進(jìn)行說明。這就是為什么叛軍會在士兵身上“浪費”彈藥——他們不是付錢的人。
That doesn’t refute the fact that we were not shown the ones that work
這并不能反駁這樣一個事實，即我們沒有看到生效的導(dǎo)彈。
If the Syrian rebels had abysmal hit rates like Taiwan is having, the CIA would probably have stopped sending them any TOWs
如果敘利亞叛軍的命中率像臺軍那樣糟糕，中央情報局可能會停止向他們發(fā)送任何陶氏。
The problem is likely on their end. Maintenance, training or both. The TOW has an excellent combat record.
問題很可能出在他們身上。維護(hù)，訓(xùn)練或兩者兼而有之。陶氏有著出色的戰(zhàn)斗記錄。
usage, TOW isn't designed to be used over water like that. Seems more like the military higherups didn't plan properly when purchasing their weaponry.
They should have gone for the RF guided tows or maybe hellfires if they wanted an anti landing ship missile
是使用問題，陶氏不是設(shè)計用來在這樣的水面上使用的。似乎更像是軍方高層在購買武器時沒有做好適當(dāng)?shù)挠媱潯?br /> 如果他們想要反登陸艦導(dǎo)彈，他們應(yīng)該選擇射頻制導(dǎo)拖曳導(dǎo)彈或者地獄火導(dǎo)彈。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Worked for me in Battlefield.
我在《戰(zhàn)地》里很好用。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
I cant think of any reason why firing it over water would cause a problem but I'm not a TOW gunner.
我想不出有什么理由導(dǎo)致在水面上發(fā)射會造成問題，但我不是陶氏導(dǎo)彈發(fā)射員。
They are wire guided. Water shorts the signal.
它們是金屬絲引導(dǎo)的。水會讓信號短路。
The wire doesn't sag into the water while the missile is in flight. It's pulled taught.
當(dāng)導(dǎo)彈飛行時，金屬絲不會垂入水中。它拉直了。
ATP 3-21.8 says to avoid firing over water at ranges above 1100 yards because it can short the wires and/or reduce range, I imagine it’s a combination of spray, salt, humidity, and waves that create issues
ATP 3-21.8說要避免在超過1100碼的水面上射擊，因為它會讓導(dǎo)線短路和/或縮小射程，我想是水霧、鹽分、濕度和海浪的組合造成了這個問題。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Interesting, thanks.
有意思，謝謝。
The wire is not pulled taught in flight. It simply unspools.
Wire Spools. Two wire spools, each holding 3,750 meters of wire, are located at the rear of the missile. The wire is made of fine steel and is coated with a thin layer of varnish for insulation. There is virtually no tension on the wire, so it droops down on the ground behind the missile as the missile flies downrange.
-FM 3-22.34
導(dǎo)線在飛行中沒有拉直，很簡單它使用線軸。
線軸。兩個，每個線軸有3750米導(dǎo)線，位于導(dǎo)彈的后部。導(dǎo)線是用精鋼制成的，并涂上一層薄薄的絕緣漆。導(dǎo)線幾乎沒有張力，所以當(dāng)導(dǎo)彈向下飛行時，它會垂到導(dǎo)彈后面的地面上。
thereddaikon
Thanks, it certainly looks taught in video but I suppose it does sag.
謝謝，在視頻中看起來肯定是繃直的，但我想它確實下垂了。
wire guided, the wires dip into the water causing issues.
線導(dǎo)導(dǎo)彈，導(dǎo)線浸入水中引起問題。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Bleh, since I looked it up from a different comment.
部隊，我在另一個評論中查到，
臺灣（地區(qū)）采購了RF型BGM-71Fs，非線導(dǎo)型。
文章說：
“8月26日至27日在屏東縣進(jìn)行的試驗使用了老式TOW 2A反坦克導(dǎo)彈，由安裝在M1167悍馬裝甲車上的新型TOW 2B發(fā)射器發(fā)射?！?/b>
所以他們發(fā)射的是原版陶式導(dǎo)彈，2A型，我想這種導(dǎo)彈已經(jīng)有幾十年沒有生產(chǎn)了。DSCA的檔案可以追溯到2004年，所以在那之前。維基百科指出，它們是在1980年出售的，盡管文章沒說。不過，我不打算進(jìn)一步調(diào)查了。
因此，盡管購買了RF型TOW，他們還是在水上發(fā)射了44年以上的有線制導(dǎo)型陶氏。
Oh so sounds like more of a reporting error then. We know wire guided tows have issues with water its in the manual even. So it sounds like they were using older stocks for training but I guess it got reported as issues with the missiles that were expected?
哦，聽起來更像是一個報道錯誤。我們知道導(dǎo)線制導(dǎo)型陶氏導(dǎo)彈有怕水的問題，甚至在手冊上都有。所以聽起來他們是在使用舊的庫存進(jìn)行訓(xùn)練，但我猜它被當(dāng)做預(yù)計要購買的導(dǎo)彈存在的問題了？
So by purchasing 1,700 missiles they can expect 700 hits? Definitely not an environment I’d want to be moving a vehicle around in.
所以購買1700枚導(dǎo)彈，他們就能命中700次? 我絕對不希望在這樣的環(huán)境里開船。
Sure maybe? If the target is just floating in the ocean stationary and not shooting back and with no close air support.
你確定可能嗎? 如果目標(biāo)只是漂浮在海洋中靜止不動，不還擊，也沒有近距離空中支援的話。
By purchasing 100 launchers, they can expect 41 hits.
購買100個發(fā)射器，他們預(yù)計可以命中41次。
To be fair, there's little reason why these shouldn't be made fire and forget in 24
公平地說，沒有什么理由不把這些導(dǎo)彈做成發(fā)射后不管的型號。
not really a TOW problem though. it's thing is that optical guidance is effectively not jammable compared to IR/Radar.
雖然不是陶氏的問題。問題是，與紅外/雷達(dá)相比，光學(xué)制導(dǎo)實際上是不會受到干擾的。
And putting sensors and guidance in every missile is expensive
而且在每枚導(dǎo)彈上安裝傳感器和制導(dǎo)系統(tǒng)都很昂貴。
There was a plan in the 90's to do it. But that upxe was dropped for budgetary reasons due to the peace dividend. TOW's replacement is Javelin for infantry and JAGM for vehicles. Both of which are fire and forget.
90年代曾有過這樣的計劃。但由于和平紅利的預(yù)算原因，這一更新被取消了。TOW的替代品是用于步兵的標(biāo)槍和用于車輛的JAGM。這兩者都是發(fā)射后不管的類型。
That is pretty terrible. Do the launchers or missiles have some kind of a defect?
這太可怕了。發(fā)射裝置或?qū)椨惺裁慈毕輪?
Nothing wrong with the missiles, just soliders using them incorrectly. The older, wire-guided variants have a much shorter range on water due to the guidance wires drifting down and then shorting the signals.
That's why TOW (and similar wire-guided missiles) are not suited for coastal defence, Sweden and Norway bought Hellfire for exactly this role.
導(dǎo)彈本身沒有問題，只是士兵使用不當(dāng)。老式的線制導(dǎo)改型在水面上的射程要短得多，因為制導(dǎo)線向下漂移，然后使信號短路。
這就是為什么陶式導(dǎo)彈(以及類似的線導(dǎo)導(dǎo)彈)不適合用于海岸防御，瑞典和挪威購買地獄火導(dǎo)彈正是為了這個目的。
Does this mean TOW can't really be used in rain either? I guess the wires are uninsulated?
這是否意味著陶氏也不能在雨中使用? 我猜它的電線沒有絕緣吧?
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Where are you living that raindrops are large enough to short across the wires?
你住在哪里？雨大到能短路導(dǎo)線？
Wet ground conducts electricity.
濕地導(dǎo)電。
Order of magnitude difference. Wet soil is in the 100-500 mS/m range; saltwater is measured in mS/cm (usually around 50, higher in the shallows).
數(shù)量級的差異。濕土的電導(dǎo)率在100- 500ms /m范圍；海水的電導(dǎo)率測量單位是mS/cm(通常在50左右，淺水區(qū)更高)。
Did you look at the image in the lix? Did you read the lix?
These are wire-guided, which limits their max range when fired over large bodies of water. This is because the trailing wires will eventually drift down into the water and short-out the signal
So, no, rain is not a issue. Unless it's rained enough to cause a large body of water. The image is out of FM 3-22.34.
你看鏈接里的圖片了嗎?你看鏈接了嗎?
這些都是金屬絲制導(dǎo)的，這限制了它們在大面積水域上發(fā)射時的最大射程。這是因為拖拽的電線最終會漂流到水中，導(dǎo)致信號短路。
所以，不，下雨不是問題。除非雨下得夠大，形成一大坨的水。圖片出租FM 3-22.34。
If the intent is to use these systems to fire on amphibious vehicles making landfall, landing craft etc it would seem like perhaps a poor choice to sell them this weapon system for that purpose you know?
Taiwan might have been better served with Javelin or Spike.
如果目的是用這些系統(tǒng)向登陸的兩棲車輛、登陸艇等開火，那么向他們出售這種武器系統(tǒng)似乎是一個糟糕的選擇，你知道嗎?
臺灣（地區(qū)）用標(biāo)槍或長釘可能會更好。
Eh, I fail to see what that has to do with the seller. The limitations of the TOW 2B are well documented, it is likely the most publically documented line of ATGMs ever produced apart from maybe the Malyutka. It's also, uhh, a anti-tank guided missile. The Javelin wouldn't likely do any better, it again is a ATGM. If a landing craft would even produce sufficient contrast for the tracking gates to work is at best questionable. Again the same for the Spike, which I'm not sure how is even in the equation with how you phrased your statement being the US does not produce it. The TOW works as it is a SACLOS missile, it is guided by a human being.
額，我看不出這和賣家有什么關(guān)系。陶氏 2B型的局限性是有據(jù)可查的，它可能是除了“馬留特卡”外，有史以來資料公開程度最高的反坦克導(dǎo)彈系列。這也是一種反坦克導(dǎo)彈。標(biāo)槍不太可能表現(xiàn)得更好，它也是ATGM。登陸艇是否能產(chǎn)生足夠的對比度，使跟蹤門起作用，相當(dāng)值得懷疑。長釘也一樣，我不確定這與你所說的“美國不制造它”有什么關(guān)系。這種陶氏導(dǎo)彈的工作方式就是一種SACLOS（瞄準(zhǔn)線半自動控制）導(dǎo)彈，它是由人引導(dǎo)的。
臺灣（地區(qū)）選擇了陶氏導(dǎo)彈，而不是美國幫臺灣（地區(qū)）選擇的（或者用官方術(shù)語是“臺北經(jīng)濟(jì)文化代表處”）。美國沒有賣標(biāo)槍導(dǎo)彈。
這個帖子根本沒有意義，因為賣給臺灣（地區(qū)）的陶氏導(dǎo)彈是RF型，而不是線導(dǎo)型。盡管可能有沒有被DSCA記錄在案的早期軍售，但我不想再查了。
From what I can find, they fired (or were planned to fire) over 290 missiles. (lix in Chinese) Hit rate is unknown for the rest, though; the 7/17 count is for the firings that took place and were seen by journalists. Some people I've seen have speculated from the large number of firings that they're firing off old stock (from the 80's and 90's) for familiarization training.
據(jù)我所知，他們發(fā)射了(或計劃發(fā)射)290多枚導(dǎo)彈。(中文鏈接)然而，其余導(dǎo)彈的命中率不知道；17發(fā)7中是指發(fā)生并被記者看到的發(fā)射。我所見過的一些人從大量的射擊中推測，他們是在用舊庫存(來自80年代和90年代)進(jìn)行熟悉訓(xùn)練。
Common ROC L
國軍日常大失敗。
Another day, another PRC W.
大陸又一次贏麻了。
Here's the entire video of that entire exercise, from start to finish.
https://www.youtube.com/live/vuWCarXqXQg?feature=shared
這是整個演習(xí)的視頻，從頭到尾。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
According to them, it was actually 10 hits out of 17 missiles fired. For the misses:
據(jù)他們所說，實際上是發(fā)射17枚命中10次。至于未命中的：
4枚為故障彈
這次射擊操演的成效有些是沒有命中，有些彈藥是失效的
實際上在生手的部分就有超過二分之一，是希望由有實彈射擊經(jīng)驗的熟手來帶領(lǐng)生手做一個經(jīng)驗傳承
I'm not really sure why they think defective rounds isn't a problem, unless they're going for an "it's a RTX problem not our problem" angle.
我真的不知道為什么他們認(rèn)為故障彈藥不是問題，除非他們是從“這是RTX的問題而不是我們的問題”的角度出發(fā)的。
I'm not really sure why they think defective rounds isn't a problem,
Probably because they're firing off 44+ year old TOW-2As. They aren't likely defective apart from being expired.
可能是因為他們發(fā)射的有超過44年歷史的陶氏2a型。除了過期，它們不太可能有故障。
Be ***.
Do nothing.
Win.
作為大陸，
啥也沒做，
贏了。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Jeffery
"It's unclear if the problem was the weapon or the operator."
Yes, that was my question also. The BGM-71 TOW is an established missile design, used in several combat situations. Either the batch sent to Taiwan is somehow defective, or the operators need training. It is still used by over 50 countries, including the U.S. Army and Marines.
“目前還不清楚問題出在武器還是操作員身上?！笔堑?，這也是我的問題。BGM-71 TOW是一種知名的導(dǎo)彈設(shè)計，用于幾種戰(zhàn)斗情況。要么是送到臺灣（地區(qū)）的那批產(chǎn)品有缺陷，要么是操作人員需要培訓(xùn)。它仍然被50多個國家使用，包括美國陸軍和海軍陸戰(zhàn)隊。
I mean their own military basically said 'we weren't worried about hitting targets we were worried about teaching them basic operation.'
If you were teaching someone to use a rifle you wouldn't think the rifle was broken when they only hit the bullseye with half their shots. You'd think, 'decent job for a first time shooting a gun'. These are far more complicated than a gun.
我的意思是他們自己的軍隊基本上說，“我們不擔(dān)心擊中目標(biāo)，我們擔(dān)心的是教會他們基本的操作”。
如果你在教別人使用步槍，你不會因為他們只射中了一半的靶心而認(rèn)為步槍壞了。你可能會想，“就第一次打槍來說還不錯”。這些武器比槍復(fù)雜得多。
I'm not an expert here, but doesn't the person manually guide the TOW after launch? Wouldn't most hits or misses be operator related
我不是這方面的專家，但是這不是一種發(fā)射后手動制導(dǎo)的陶氏導(dǎo)彈嗎? 大多數(shù)命中或未命中不是都和操作有關(guān)嗎？
Looks like the exercise planners didn't take into account: that firing a significant distance over water would have an adverse effect on guidance should the wire become submerged, same prohibition against firing over high-power transmission lines.
看起來演習(xí)策劃者沒有考慮到：如果電線淹水，在水面上遠(yuǎn)距離發(fā)射會對制導(dǎo)產(chǎn)生不利影響，同樣禁止越過高功率輸電線路發(fā)射。
The TOW missile is guided to target by the operator. So, the title should have read ". . . . after less than half of their soldiers were able to hit their targets in recent combat drills"
陶氏導(dǎo)彈由操作員制導(dǎo)瞄準(zhǔn)。所以，標(biāo)題應(yīng)該是“……在最近的戰(zhàn)斗演習(xí)中，只有不到一半的士兵能夠擊中目標(biāo)。”
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Ukrainians don’t seem to have any issues with them. I suspect that more training is required.
烏克蘭人似乎對它們沒有任何意見。我懷疑需要更多的培訓(xùn)。
The TOW weapon works fine when used against a land target. But the system was never intended to be fired over water. Once the trailing guide wires make contact with the water the guidance system goes haywire.
TOW武器在對付陸地目標(biāo)時效果很好。但該系統(tǒng)從來不是用在水上發(fā)射的。一旦拖尾導(dǎo)絲與水接觸，制導(dǎo)系統(tǒng)就會失控。
Former Marine 0311 here. Anytime the 0352 Marines shot their target, they were dead on. Those are wire guided missiles. It was probably the operator. All the operator has to do is keep it on target.
我是前海軍陸戰(zhàn)隊0311。只要0352海軍陸戰(zhàn)隊員打靶，他們就會準(zhǔn)確無誤。那些是金屬絲制導(dǎo)導(dǎo)彈。可能是操作員的問題。操作員所要做的就是讓它對準(zhǔn)目標(biāo)。
100% operator error, the TOW is more accurate at longer distances than any other AT system. My Soldiers were scoring 100% hit rate at our last gunnery...
絕對是操作員的錯誤，陶氏在更遠(yuǎn)的距離下筆任何其他反坦克導(dǎo)彈更加精準(zhǔn)。我的士兵在最后一次射擊中命中率是100%……
It’s a relatively small island not much bigger than Hawaii. Why would China even use tanks? I would think cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, drones, bombers, submarines, naval ships etc.
這是一個相對較小的島嶼，比夏威夷大不了多少。為什么中國要使用坦克? 我認(rèn)為是巡航導(dǎo)彈、彈道導(dǎo)彈、無人機(jī)、轟炸機(jī)、潛艇、海軍艦艇等。
TOWs may be outdated technology compared to more modern drone technology. Drones are just easy to pilot and hit with from relative safety up to completely safe on a different continent. The conflict in Ukraine is seeing new drone developments almost monthly. TOW missiles are just so vulnerable.
與更現(xiàn)代的無人機(jī)技術(shù)相比，陶氏的技術(shù)可能過時了。無人機(jī)的駕駛和攻擊都很容易，從相對安全到另一個水平的完全安全。烏克蘭沖突中幾乎每個月都有新的無人機(jī)發(fā)展。陶式導(dǎo)彈太脆弱了。
The TOW is guided, not a homing missile. Operator error is 100% responsible.
陶氏是制導(dǎo)導(dǎo)彈，不是尋的導(dǎo)彈。操作失誤100%要負(fù)責(zé)。
Kind of a lame excuse for bad marksmanship.
槍法不好，爛借口一大堆。
Well, the US is 10 years behind in shipments of armaments that Taiwan has already paid for while shipping off freebies to Ukraine.
嗯，臺灣（地區(qū)）付了錢，美國10年后才運送軍火，同時卻免費送給烏克蘭。
Thats funny since the US troops and the Ukrainians have been using them and have no complaints. Ukraine is actually using them in combat and praise TOW highly along with other US anti-tank weapons.
真好笑，因為美國軍隊和烏克蘭人一直在使用它們，而且沒有抱怨。烏克蘭實際上在戰(zhàn)斗中使用了陶氏，并高度贊揚了陶氏和其他美國反坦克武器。