话题讨论：“不再是顶级战斗力量”英国陆军是如何迷失方向的
‘No longer a top-level fighting force’ How the British Army lost its way.
译文简介
由于多年来的裁撤和国防部的战略性削减，英国军队在可能的全面战争即将来临之际摇摇欲坠。
正文翻译
‘No longer a top-level fighting force’ How the British Army lost its way.
Weakened by years of cuts and strategic MoD reductions, the forces are faltering just as the possibility of all-out war is nearing
“不再是顶级战斗力量”英国陆军是如何迷失方向的。
由于多年来的裁撤和国防部的战略性削减，英国军队在可能的全面战争即将来临之际摇摇欲坠。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 4 )
收藏
So we throw Ukraine a moderate amount of mostly outdated weapons and now Russia is fought to a standstill (I know, its complicated).
所以我们扔给乌克兰适量的大多是过时的武器，现在俄罗斯被打得停滞不前(我知道，这个问题很复杂)。
但我们期待的是一场全面战争，以下国家的军队将全力与我们并肩作战：奥地利、比利时、保加利亚、克罗地亚、塞浦路斯共和国、捷克共和国、丹麦、爱沙尼亚、芬兰、法国、德国、希腊、匈牙利、爱尔兰、意大利、拉脱维亚、立陶宛、卢森堡、马耳他、荷兰、波兰、葡萄牙、罗马尼亚、斯洛伐克、斯洛文尼亚、西班牙和瑞典。
什么样的俄罗斯军队能打败他们?
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
我支持英国建制派重新武装的呼声。英国武装部队的状况令人尴尬。但所有这些关于战争的东西都是胡说八道。我们有三叉戟，他们有上千枚核弹。这真是太奇怪了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Trident is there for an important but a very specific job; to deter an enemy who is considering using nuclear weapons against the UK. While in theory you could use it e.g. to solve the Houthi problem by making the areas they control uninhabitable, that would be unpopular and would reduce the weapon stockpile. We need the ability to project convential power to do things like keep trade routes open and deter adventures like the invasion of Ukraine - or Belize - or the Falklands. IMHO having a large stock of user-friendly high tech (conventional) weapons is relatively more important than it used to be but we still need to convince other nations that if we want to we can send a decent sized group of elite troops half way around the world and have them win whatever fight we have sent them to. (I'd like to say a division, but I'm not sure we could, which is really what people are worrying about).
三叉戟的任务很重要但也很具体：用于威慑正在考虑对英国使用核武器的敌人。虽然从理论上讲，比如，你可以用它来解决胡塞武装的问题，比如让他们控制的地区无法居住，但这将不受欢迎，而且会减少这种武器的储备。我们需要投射常规力量的能力，来做一些事情，比如保持贸易路线的畅通，阻止入侵乌克兰、伯利兹或福克兰群岛这样的冒险。在我看来，拥有大量用户友好的高科技(常规)武器相对来说比以前更重要，但我们仍然需要说服其他国家，如果我们愿意，我们可以派遣一支规模可观的精英部队，穿越半个地球，让他们赢得我们派他们去的任何战斗。(我想说是一个军种，但我不确定我们能做到，这正是人们真正担心的)。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
It appears to be a bit more ambiguous than that.
它似乎比你的说法更加模棱两可。
A source which suggests that it is, if anything, more specific than I have claimed, is "The Silent Deep: The Royal Navy Submarine Service Since 1945" This contains a chapter on the political decisisons leading up to the decision to buy Trident, and the various choices were uated against a very specific goal: being able to damage the Soviet unx to a degree which their leaders would find unacceptable in exchange for any benefit that they could derive from eliminating the UK. I will conceede that this covers elimination due to an escalating conventional war as well as from a Soviet unx first strike. The government appears to have considered in detail the damage that could have been done by the various options, taking into account the specific defences of the Soviet unx, especially the anti-missile systems defending Moscow. To quote a chunk:
一个消息来源表明，如果有的话，它比我声称的更具体：《寂静的深海：1945年以来的皇家海军潜艇服务》。其中有一章是关于导致购买三叉戟决定的政治决策，各种选择都是针对一个非常具体的目标进行评估的：能够伤害苏联到一定程度，令其领导人认为，这种伤害用于换取他们可以从消灭英国中获得的任何利益都不可接受。我承认，这包括了由于常规战争升级和苏联的第一次打击而导致的消灭。政府似乎已经详细考虑了各种选择可能造成的损害，考虑到苏联的具体防御，特别是保卫莫斯科的反导系统。引用一大块:
英国政府的目标显然是建立一支能够满足选项1所规定标准的三叉戟部队，即以莫斯科境内的特定地点和设施为目标，例如地下指挥中心。苏联领导层对保持行政中心不受损害的重视体现在它在莫斯科周围部署反弹道导弹系统……
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nuclear-deterrence-factsheet/uk-nuclear-deterrence-what-you-need-to-know
This deters states from using their nuclear weapons against us or carrying out the most extreme threats to our national security.
这阻止了他国对我们使用核武器或对我们的国家安全实施最极端的威胁。
我们在使用武器的确切时间、方式和规模上故意含糊其辞。这确保了威慑的有效性不会被破坏，并使潜在侵略者的计算复杂化。
这似乎并不排除在入侵事件中使用核武器。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
they have thousands of nukes. Its just bizzare.
“他们有成千上万的核武器。这太奇怪了。”
我想这就是原因。俄罗斯已经表明，它愿意在不使用核武器的情况下打一场常规战争。这是北约和俄罗斯之间的代理人战争。我想西方担心的是另一场类似乌克兰的冲突，但随后是一个或多个波罗的海国家。由于这些国家是北约成员国，北约必须采取行动保持其可信度，这意味着派遣地面部队。因此，人们认为需要一支有能力的军队。
谁都不知道俄罗斯将如何走出这场战争。但我相信西方担心的是俄罗斯军工生产的不受控制，军队正在获得大量相关的战斗技能，也许俄罗斯全国范围内依然有意愿再次忍受另一个屠宰场。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Ukraine has shown that a large portion of NATO will do fuck all to help you if you're invaded and you have to rely heavily on the US.
乌克兰已经表明，如果你被入侵，你不得不严重依赖美国，北约的很大一部分将会竭尽全力帮助你。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
目前美国正处于选举年，其中一位候选人想要退出北约。所以如果你是东欧人，你只是有点紧张，因为如果特朗普获胜，俄罗斯可能会购买一堆中国设备，然后在乌克兰之后冲向波罗的海国家。
And even with American foreign aid Ukraine is losing badly
即使有美国的外援，乌克兰也输得很惨。
Vastly overperforming expectations and fighting the #3 military power to a standstill is not losing badly by any calculation.
乌克兰的表现大大超出预期，与世界第三军事强国战斗到僵持状态，无论如何都不算输得很惨。
这个十年的“白色方案”战役止步于托伦，纳粹继续用II型坦克对西方提供的丘吉尔坦克发动攻击，然而毫无战果，而每座山后的无后坐力步炮造成了致命的损失。VT弹药将斯图卡和亨克尔从天上击落。
Almost all Ukraine's support comes from NATO member states; the US is the lesser contributor in this instance.
乌克兰几乎所有的支持都来自北约成员国；在这种情况下，美国的贡献较小。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Ukraine wasn't a member of NATO before Russia invaded. NATO is not obligated to help Ukraine but they are helping anyway. Had Russia invaded a NATO member then this war would have ended over a year ago with Russia limping home being soundly defeated.
在俄罗斯入侵之前，乌克兰不是北约成员国。北约没有义务帮助乌克兰，但他们无论如何都在帮助。如果俄罗斯入侵北约成员国，那么这场战争将在一年前结束，俄罗斯一瘸一拐地回家，被彻底击败。
Not all conflicts get to the point of nuclear weapons. Most don't. In fact we have one conflict where nukes were used. They are a great deterrent against existential threats. But nukes are the final argument. You can't start there and most things are not to the level of using nukes as a response. This was a lesson learned in Vietnam. The USAF had over optimized for a nuclear war and tactical air power was lacking. Their fighters were built for and pilots trained to shoot down strategic bombers. And their strike fighters were made to deliver tactical nukes. The transition back to air superiority and conventional strike was a difficult one.
并不是所有的冲突都会发展到使用核武器的地步。大多数不会。事实上，我们有过一次动用核武器的冲突。它们是对生存威胁的巨大威慑。但核武器是最后的争论。不能从核武器开始，而且大多数事情都没有达到使用核武器作为回应的程度。这是越南战争的教训。美国空军对核战争进行了过度优化，缺乏战术空中力量。他们的战斗机是为击落战略轰炸机而建造的，飞行员也接受过击落战略轰炸机的训练。他们的攻击战斗机是用来运送战术核武器的。向空中优势和常规打击的转变很是艰难。
Russia is spending an absurd amount of money on their military, around half of their government spending now is on their armed forces. They’ve taken a major setback in Ukraine but they’ve learned from it and it’s clear now that they’re restructuring their country for a protracted conflict and not about to give up. And we don’t just want to be better than Russia, we want to overmatch them. Maintaining a large power disparity is a deterrent that makes conflict less likely overall, and if conflict does arise it means we can end it as quickly as possible to limit the destruction.
俄罗斯在军事上花的钱多的离谱，大约一半的政府开支都花在了武装部队上。他们在乌克兰遭遇了重大挫折，但他们从中吸取了教训，现在很明显，他们正在重组自己的国家，以应对旷日持久的冲突，而不是放弃。而我们不只是想比俄罗斯好，我们还想超过他们。维持巨大的实力差距是一种威慑，可以降低冲突的可能性，如果发生冲突，这意味着我们可以尽快结束冲突，以限制破坏。
核威慑在常规战争中是无用的。如果俄罗斯入侵爱沙尼亚，用核武器攻击莫斯科就太过分了。我们不想依赖核武器，因为在核战争中俄罗斯与我们势均力敌，我们想在我们拥有最大优势的地方与他们进行常规作战。如果我们因为核武器而忽视我们的常规力量，那么冲突就更有可能升级为核冲突，我相信你明白这是一件坏事。
I think I have two seperate points mixed together there.
我想我把两个不同的观点混在一起了。
首先，我真的很讨厌这些标题的语气，比如“第三次世界大战”、“全面战争”、为了杀戮场的“征兵即将开始”等等，而他们真正的意思是“也许我们应该能够在波兰部署一个师或两个师，如果事态发展的话”，也许我们的军队规模不要达到乌克兰的六分之一。就像我说的，我同意你的建议和你说的大部分内容，只是这些东西的鼓点让我的同事应该更好地了解他们是否会被征召。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
其次，我认为俄罗斯会很快输掉一场“全面战争”，而且如果发生这种情况，核升级的可能性将达到有史以来的最高点。在一场全面战争中，欧洲将打击俄罗斯境内的目标，并攻击俄罗斯，以剥夺其在乌克兰的基地和其他东西。俄罗斯被大打一顿可能是最可能发生核交火的方式，所以我们确实需要小心，不要从乌克兰吸取错误的教训，并假设冷战规则被取消，我们可以在不使用核武器的情况下愉快地与俄罗斯开战。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
编辑：每个给你投反对票的人都是白痴
The last time UK had a "top-level fighting force"(army-wise) was during latter half of WW2.
英国上一次拥有“顶级战斗力量”(军队方面)是在二战后半期。
Where they really top? Wouldn't they have another Dunkirk moment if Soviet and America weren't in the war?
他们在那方面真正是顶级的? 如果苏联和美国没有参战，他们不会有另一个敦刻尔克时刻吗?
You're overlooking British India, the Crown colonies, its protectorates, etc., i.e., the Commonwealth nations, which also included dominions like Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa—nations that almost immediately joined Britain's declaration on Germany and actively fought alongside them. So, yes, they were making significant contributions, contrary to what Hollywood may lead you to believe. The Battle of Imphal, the Battle of Kohima, the campaigns in Africa, etc., were just as crucial in ensuring the Allied victory in World War II as the Battle of Moscow or any other American victory. While the United States and the Soviet unx entered the fray in 1941, the British Imperial forces had been fighting the war since 1939.
你忽略了英属印度、直辖殖民地、其保护国等，即英联邦国家，其中还包括澳大利亚、新西兰和南非等自治领——这些国家几乎立即加入了英国对德宣战的行列，并积极与他们并肩作战。所以，是的，他们做出了重大贡献，与好莱坞可能让你相信的相反。英帕尔战役、科希马战役、非洲战役等等，在确保盟军在第二次世界大战中的胜利方面，与莫斯科战役或美国的任何其他胜利一样至关重要。相比于美国和苏联在1941年加入战争，大英帝国的军队从1939年就开始了这场战争。
Contributing and world class is different things. Chinese fought and held millions of Japanese and UK army's contribution is less that that.
贡献和世界级是两码事。中国人对抗并拖住了数百万日本人，而英国军队的贡献并没有那么大。
如果没有英国，苏联可能仍然会赢。如果没有苏联人，即使英国有来自印度的增援，德国的全部军队也会在非洲击溃英国。换句话说，如果英国（没）有美国的租借协议，你认为他们能单独推进柏林吗?
Is the Nazis fought a 1 front war against the USSR, Moscow probably would've fallen. UK kept enough forces occupied in the Western front and Africa.
如果纳粹和苏联打一场一条战线的战争，莫斯科可能已经沦陷了。英国在西线和非洲保留了足够的兵力。
Maybe it would have been close. But the other way with Germany single front against UK it wouldn't have been close at all.
也许会很接近。但反过来，如果德国单线对阵英国，它（英国）根本差得远。