QA：最慘的軍事失敗是哪一場?
What was the worst military defeat?
譯文簡介
沒有規定平民傷亡要超過軍人傷亡的4倍。傷亡是基于間接因素，而不是軍人和平民死亡之間的固有數學關系。與在另一個國家的沙漠中與伊拉克軍隊作戰相比，對隱藏在平民中的叛亂分子的長期控制將導致不同比例的戰斗人員與平民死亡。即使是在城市地區的行動，也可能有很大不同的比例，這取決于是否進行了成功的疏散。
正文翻譯
Vladislav Antonov
I can’t say that it’s THE WORST military defeat, but personally for my family - it is.
My great grand-father, just like all men at that time, was fighting against German invaders. He never returned from war, and there were no news or any documents about him. I decided to investigate the case to figure what happened to him.
After researching scanned archives, I was finally able to find some information about him. I figured that he was killed in November 1943 during failed offensive operation called “Orshanskaya offensive operation”. I became more curios and I decided to read more archive materials about this battle.
我不能說這是“最慘”的軍事失敗，但對我的家人來說，的確是。
我的曾祖父，就像當時所有的人一樣，在抗擊德國侵略者。他再也沒有從戰場上回來，也沒有關于他的任何消息或文件。我決定調查這個情況，弄清楚他到底怎么了。
在研究了掃描的檔案后，我終于找到了一些關于他的信息。我估計他是在1943年11月的一次失敗的名為“奧爾尚斯卡亞進攻行動”中犧牲的。我變得越來越好奇，我決定閱讀更多關于這場戰斗的檔案材料。
I can’t say that it’s THE WORST military defeat, but personally for my family - it is.
My great grand-father, just like all men at that time, was fighting against German invaders. He never returned from war, and there were no news or any documents about him. I decided to investigate the case to figure what happened to him.
After researching scanned archives, I was finally able to find some information about him. I figured that he was killed in November 1943 during failed offensive operation called “Orshanskaya offensive operation”. I became more curios and I decided to read more archive materials about this battle.
我不能說這是“最慘”的軍事失敗，但對我的家人來說，的確是。
我的曾祖父，就像當時所有的人一樣，在抗擊德國侵略者。他再也沒有從戰場上回來，也沒有關于他的任何消息或文件。我決定調查這個情況，弄清楚他到底怎么了。
在研究了掃描的檔案后，我終于找到了一些關于他的信息。我估計他是在1943年11月的一次失敗的名為“奧爾尚斯卡亞進攻行動”中犧牲的。我變得越來越好奇，我決定閱讀更多關于這場戰斗的檔案材料。
State Defence Committee of USSR - Comission Report M-715, 11-04-1944.
Quotes:
《1944年11月4日蘇聯國防委員會——M-715任務報告》節選：
“In the conducted operations, our artillery did not supress the enemy's artillery, despite the concentration in large quantities and superiority over the enemy. It did not happen neither during an artillery barrage, nor during the battle. Often artillery targeted an empty sectors, did not hear infantry requests, and lost communication with infantry units. As a result, even the friendly forces were barraged. Infantry was attacking the unsupressed enemy positions and as the result suffered huge losses and did not advance. The work of our artillery, especially in the counter artillery duel part, was insufficient during all the stages of combat engagement”
“Contrary to the instructions of the HQ, which prohibited the use of special units as ordinary infantry in battle, gen. Gordov often used reconnaissance, chemical and sappers units in ordinary infantry operations.”
Instead of careful artillery and operation planning, Gordov sought to penetrate the enemy’s defenses with manpower. This is evidenced by the losses suffered by the army. The total number of losses incurred by the 33rd Army, is more than 50% of the losses of the entire front.
“我軍炮兵在作戰中，盡管數量集中，而且比敵人有優勢，但沒有壓制住敵方的炮兵。無論是在炮擊中，還是在戰斗中，這都沒有發生。炮兵經常瞄準空區，聽不到步兵的請求，與步兵部隊失去聯系。結果，就連友軍也遭到炮轟。步兵進攻未被壓制的敵軍陣地，結果損失慘重，無法前進。我軍炮兵的工作，特別是對抗炮兵的工作，在交戰的各個階段都是不足的?！?br /> “與總部禁止特種部隊作為普通步兵在戰斗中使用的指示相反，戈多夫將軍在普通步兵作戰中經常使用偵察、化學、工兵部隊?！?br /> 戈多夫沒有進行周密的火炮和作戰計劃，而是設法用人力穿透敵人的防線。軍隊遭受的損失就是明證。第33軍的總損失超過了整個前線損失的50%。
“Contrary to the instructions of the HQ, which prohibited the use of special units as ordinary infantry in battle, gen. Gordov often used reconnaissance, chemical and sappers units in ordinary infantry operations.”
Instead of careful artillery and operation planning, Gordov sought to penetrate the enemy’s defenses with manpower. This is evidenced by the losses suffered by the army. The total number of losses incurred by the 33rd Army, is more than 50% of the losses of the entire front.
“我軍炮兵在作戰中，盡管數量集中，而且比敵人有優勢，但沒有壓制住敵方的炮兵。無論是在炮擊中，還是在戰斗中，這都沒有發生。炮兵經常瞄準空區，聽不到步兵的請求，與步兵部隊失去聯系。結果，就連友軍也遭到炮轟。步兵進攻未被壓制的敵軍陣地，結果損失慘重，無法前進。我軍炮兵的工作，特別是對抗炮兵的工作，在交戰的各個階段都是不足的?！?br /> “與總部禁止特種部隊作為普通步兵在戰斗中使用的指示相反，戈多夫將軍在普通步兵作戰中經常使用偵察、化學、工兵部隊?！?br /> 戈多夫沒有進行周密的火炮和作戰計劃，而是設法用人力穿透敵人的防線。軍隊遭受的損失就是明證。第33軍的總損失超過了整個前線損失的50%。
WTF moment:
“In his order of September 4, 1943, addressed to the commander of the 173rd rifle division, Colonel Zaitsev and the commanders of the regiments, Lieutenant Colonel Milovanov, Lieutenant Colonel Sizov, Major Guslitzer, gen Gordov demanded:
“All officers should be put into battle formation “chain” and go through the forest to smoke machine gunners from their nests”
最佳無厘頭時刻：
“1943年9月4日，戈爾多夫將軍向173步槍師指揮官扎伊采夫上校和各團指揮官米洛瓦諾夫中校、西佐夫中校、古斯利策少校發出命令，要求：所有軍官都應該排成戰斗隊形“鏈”，穿過森林，把巢穴里的機槍手干掉?！?
“In his order of September 4, 1943, addressed to the commander of the 173rd rifle division, Colonel Zaitsev and the commanders of the regiments, Lieutenant Colonel Milovanov, Lieutenant Colonel Sizov, Major Guslitzer, gen Gordov demanded:
“All officers should be put into battle formation “chain” and go through the forest to smoke machine gunners from their nests”
最佳無厘頭時刻：
“1943年9月4日，戈爾多夫將軍向173步槍師指揮官扎伊采夫上校和各團指揮官米洛瓦諾夫中校、西佐夫中校、古斯利策少校發出命令，要求：所有軍官都應該排成戰斗隊形“鏈”，穿過森林，把巢穴里的機槍手干掉?！?
On September 4, 1943, Gordov ordered Major General Ikonnikov, Chief of Staff of 70th regiment corps “Immediately send the entire command of the corps into the front-line. Leave in the headquarters only the chief of operations. "
Such inadmissible actions of Gordov led to disorganization of battle management and unreasonable losses in the officer corps. Over the past six months, in the 33rd Army, under the command of Gordov, 4 division commanders, 8 deputy division commanders and divisional chiefs, 38 regimental commanders and their deputies, and 174 battalion commanders were killed and wounded.
It gets only worse…
1943年9月4日，戈爾多夫命令第70兵團參謀長伊科尼科夫少將“立即把整個部隊都派到前線去。在總部只留下行動主官?！?br /> 戈爾多夫這種不可接受的行動，導致了戰斗管理的混亂和軍官團的不合理損失。近6個月來，第33軍在戈多夫指揮下，有4名師長、8名副師長、8名師部門主管、38名團長及副團長、174名營長傷亡。
情況甚至變得更糟糕……
Such inadmissible actions of Gordov led to disorganization of battle management and unreasonable losses in the officer corps. Over the past six months, in the 33rd Army, under the command of Gordov, 4 division commanders, 8 deputy division commanders and divisional chiefs, 38 regimental commanders and their deputies, and 174 battalion commanders were killed and wounded.
It gets only worse…
1943年9月4日，戈爾多夫命令第70兵團參謀長伊科尼科夫少將“立即把整個部隊都派到前線去。在總部只留下行動主官?！?br /> 戈爾多夫這種不可接受的行動，導致了戰斗管理的混亂和軍官團的不合理損失。近6個月來，第33軍在戈多夫指揮下，有4名師長、8名副師長、8名師部門主管、38名團長及副團長、174名營長傷亡。
情況甚至變得更糟糕……
“Major shortcomings occurred in the preparation and conduct of intelligence operations, and especially in the rear of the enemy. The main task — capturing captives — is not performed in many cases. So, in December, 23 reconnaissance operations were conducted in 192 platoon regiment to capture a POW. Not a single prisoner in these operations was captured, and the losses of our reconnaissance groups amounted to 26 people killed and wounded. In 192, 247 and 174 pr, hundreds of search reconnaissance operations were conducted from January 1 to February 15 and not a single prisoner was captured. In 331 and 251 pr, scouts were repeatedly killed in their minefields, since they were not indicated on map”
“情報行動的準備和實施存在重大缺陷，特別是在敵人后方。主要任務——抓俘虜——在很多情況下沒有執行。因此，12月份，192排進行了23次偵察行動來抓1名俘虜。結果一個都沒抓到，而我們偵察小組的損失達26人死傷。在192、247和174排的行動中，從1月1日到2月15日，進行了數百次搜查偵察行動，還是一個俘虜都沒抓到。在331和251排中，偵察兵多次在他們的雷區被炸死，因為地圖上沒有標出這些雷區?！?
“情報行動的準備和實施存在重大缺陷，特別是在敵人后方。主要任務——抓俘虜——在很多情況下沒有執行。因此，12月份，192排進行了23次偵察行動來抓1名俘虜。結果一個都沒抓到，而我們偵察小組的損失達26人死傷。在192、247和174排的行動中，從1月1日到2月15日，進行了數百次搜查偵察行動，還是一個俘虜都沒抓到。在331和251排中，偵察兵多次在他們的雷區被炸死，因為地圖上沒有標出這些雷區?！?
“In the operation of the 33rd Army in the Vitebsk direction, on December 23, the entry of the tank corps into battle was planned after the capture of River Luchesa by the infantry (18 km deep defense). On this basis, tanks were not introduced into battle, and when the infantry was stopped by organized enemy fire from prearranged lines and the river continued to remain ahead, a tank corps, rushed into battle, lost 60 tanks and failed to succeed. In the operations on the Bogushevsky direction on January 8, the tank corps was brought into combat, when essentially the infantry had no success. Having suffered up to 70% of losses, the tank corps advanced 2-4 km with the infantry, and then was withdrawn from combat.”
“在第33軍在維捷布斯克方向的作戰中，12月23日，坦克兵團是在步兵占領盧切薩河(縱深18公里)后進入戰斗的。在此基礎上，坦克沒有投入戰斗，當步兵被敵軍有組織的火力從預先安排好的戰線上攔截下來，河流繼續保持在前方時，一個坦克兵團沖進戰場，損失了60輛坦克，沒有成功。當步兵被有組織的敵軍從預先安排好的戰線上的火力攔截，河流依舊擋在前面時，一支坦克部隊沖進戰場，損失了60輛坦克，未能突破防線。1月8日在博古舍夫斯基方向的作戰中，坦克部隊被投入戰斗，而步兵基本上沒有取得任何勝利。坦克部隊損失達70%，跟隨步兵前進2-4公里后退出戰斗?！?
“在第33軍在維捷布斯克方向的作戰中，12月23日，坦克兵團是在步兵占領盧切薩河(縱深18公里)后進入戰斗的。在此基礎上，坦克沒有投入戰斗，當步兵被敵軍有組織的火力從預先安排好的戰線上攔截下來，河流繼續保持在前方時，一個坦克兵團沖進戰場，損失了60輛坦克，沒有成功。當步兵被有組織的敵軍從預先安排好的戰線上的火力攔截，河流依舊擋在前面時，一支坦克部隊沖進戰場，損失了60輛坦克，未能突破防線。1月8日在博古舍夫斯基方向的作戰中，坦克部隊被投入戰斗，而步兵基本上沒有取得任何勝利。坦克部隊損失達70%，跟隨步兵前進2-4公里后退出戰斗?！?
Thus, the constant attempt of commanders to achieve a breakthrough in defense through the premature entry of the tank corps into a battle did not have any results, and led to the fact that only two tanks left in the tank corps”
“Our counter-battery and counter-mine-attack groups did not suppress the enemy’s artillery and mortars, as a result of which the advance of our infantry was hampered by the enemy’s strong artillery and mortar fire, which is evidenced by the fact that in some operations the percentage of shrapnel wounds reached 70-80%”
“Within 4 months, the chief of staff and the entire headquarters were located at a distance of about 100 kilometers from the location of the front command, and during this time the commander and chief of staff met no more than 3-4 times”
因此，指揮官們不斷試圖通過過早地讓坦克部隊進入戰斗來實現防御上的突破，但沒有任何效果，導致坦克部隊只剩下兩輛坦克。
“我們的反炮兵連和反地雷攻擊小組沒有壓制敵人的火炮和迫擊炮，因此，我們步兵的推進受到敵人強大炮火和迫擊炮火力的阻擋，事實證明，在某些行動中，彈片傷占70-80%?！?br /> “在4個月內，參謀長和整個總部被安置在距離前線司令部約100公里的地方，在此期間，前線指揮官和參謀長會面不超過3-4次?！?br>原創翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.mmg13444.com 轉載請注明出處
“Our counter-battery and counter-mine-attack groups did not suppress the enemy’s artillery and mortars, as a result of which the advance of our infantry was hampered by the enemy’s strong artillery and mortar fire, which is evidenced by the fact that in some operations the percentage of shrapnel wounds reached 70-80%”
“Within 4 months, the chief of staff and the entire headquarters were located at a distance of about 100 kilometers from the location of the front command, and during this time the commander and chief of staff met no more than 3-4 times”
因此，指揮官們不斷試圖通過過早地讓坦克部隊進入戰斗來實現防御上的突破，但沒有任何效果，導致坦克部隊只剩下兩輛坦克。
“我們的反炮兵連和反地雷攻擊小組沒有壓制敵人的火炮和迫擊炮，因此，我們步兵的推進受到敵人強大炮火和迫擊炮火力的阻擋，事實證明，在某些行動中，彈片傷占70-80%?！?br /> “在4個月內，參謀長和整個總部被安置在距離前線司令部約100公里的地方，在此期間，前線指揮官和參謀長會面不超過3-4次?！?br>原創翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.mmg13444.com 轉載請注明出處
HQ instructions prohibited the use of reconnaissance units as regular infantry in combat. This order was systematically violated on the Western Front. Thus, in January 1944, in 33 armies, all reconnaissance units and formations that participated in the offensive as linear units and were completely destroyed.
Results of offensive operation:
Over 26 thousands killed, and 78 thousands wounded. Offensive operation was stopped and Germans were able to retain their positions (while having 3 times less manpower and about 5 times less in artillery and tank power).
Incredible and outrageous incompetence of leadership. No wonder why my great-grand father died there.
司令部的指示禁止在戰斗中使用偵察部隊作為常規步兵。這一命令在西線遭到有系統地違反。因此，1944年1月，在33支軍隊中，所有作為直線部隊參加進攻的偵察部隊和編隊都被徹底摧毀。
攻擊行動的結果：
超過2.6萬人死亡，7.8萬人受傷。進攻行動被停止，德國人得以保留陣地（而兵力只有蘇軍三分之一，大炮和坦克數量只有蘇軍五分之一）。
令人難以置信的無能領導。難怪我的曾祖父死在那里。
Results of offensive operation:
Over 26 thousands killed, and 78 thousands wounded. Offensive operation was stopped and Germans were able to retain their positions (while having 3 times less manpower and about 5 times less in artillery and tank power).
Incredible and outrageous incompetence of leadership. No wonder why my great-grand father died there.
司令部的指示禁止在戰斗中使用偵察部隊作為常規步兵。這一命令在西線遭到有系統地違反。因此，1944年1月，在33支軍隊中，所有作為直線部隊參加進攻的偵察部隊和編隊都被徹底摧毀。
攻擊行動的結果：
超過2.6萬人死亡，7.8萬人受傷。進攻行動被停止，德國人得以保留陣地（而兵力只有蘇軍三分之一，大炮和坦克數量只有蘇軍五分之一）。
令人難以置信的無能領導。難怪我的曾祖父死在那里。
評論翻譯
相關鏈接
-
- 美國駐日軍事基地很可能污染了日本市民的飲用水，威脅數千人的健康 2022/06/11 9151 18 1
-
- 如果俄羅斯被制裁打垮，誰將取代俄羅斯成為主要的非西方軍事出口國 2022/06/02 15378 30 1
-
- 俄軍事評論：俄空軍至今沒有完全掌握烏克蘭的制空權 2022/05/23 20787 51 1
-
- 失敗的美聯儲：為什么美聯儲在通貨膨脹方面犯下歷史性錯誤 2022/05/18 15065 24 1
-
- 為什么人們會在生活中失敗(四) 2022/05/12 7310 1 1
-
- ?為什么人們會在生活中失敗(三) 2022/05/12 7629 0 1
-
- 為什么人們會在生活中失?。ǘ? 2022/05/06 7055 7 1
-
- 為什么人們會在生活中失敗(一) 2022/05/06 7042 6 1
Awesome research. My grand-grand fathers returned from the war despite all this troubles… Cant imagine how hard it was!
了不起的研究。盡管如此，我的祖父還是從戰爭中回來了……無法想象那有多艱難!
原創翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.mmg13444.com 轉載請注明出處
Four of my great-grand fathers died, and my grandfather was in concentration camp, but he survived because German woman secretly fed him
我的四個曾祖父都去世了，我祖父曾身陷集中營，但他活了下來，因為一個德國女人偷偷給他提供食物
How do you have 4 great grandfathers ? Are you considering his brothers too as great grandfathers ?
你怎么會有4個曾祖父?你把他的兄弟也當成曾祖父了嗎?
You have 2 grandfathers + 2 grandmothers - both from moms and dads side.
Each of those 4 persons have their own father.
Which makes 4 grand-fathers.
你有2個祖父+ 2個祖母——這兩對都來自父母一方。
這四位祖父母都有自己的父親。
也就是4個曾祖父。
二
Battle of Tsushima, (May 27–29, 1905), naval engagement of the Russo-Japanese War, the final, crushing defeat of the Russian navy in that conflict.
對馬海峽海戰，（1905年5月27–29日 ），日俄戰爭中的海戰，俄國海軍在那場戰爭中最終慘敗。
日本人一直沒能完全掌握制海權，因為在阿瑟港和符拉迪沃斯托克的俄羅斯海軍中隊出動，雙方在隨后的交戰中都遭受了損失。與此同時，俄國政府決定派遣季諾維海軍上將指揮的波羅的海艦隊，一路前往遠東，與亞瑟港的太平洋艦隊會合，在此基礎上，聯合艦隊將壓倒日本海軍。俄羅斯波羅的海艦隊花了整個夏天進行舾裝，于1904年10月15日從利帕賈起航。10月21日，在北海的多格灘，幾艘俄羅斯艦艇誤以為英國拖網漁船是日本魚雷艇，便向它們開火，這一事件在英國引起了極大的憤怒，俄國政府只得立即道歉并承諾全額賠償，才得以避免戰爭。
在馬達加斯加附近的Nossi-Bé，羅熱斯特文斯基得知亞瑟港向日本軍隊投降，于是提議返回俄羅斯；但是，1905年3月初從波羅的海經蘇伊士派遣的海軍增援部隊，后來在金蘭灣(越南)與他會合，他決定繼續前往。他的整支艦隊組成了一支看似強大的艦隊，但其中許多艦艇都很老舊，不可靠，船員也缺乏訓練。5月初，艦隊到達中國海域，羅熱斯特文斯基經由對馬海峽前往符拉迪沃斯托克。
東鄉海軍上將的艦隊在釜山附近的韓國海岸等待他，5月27日，當俄羅斯艦隊靠近時，他發起了攻擊。日本艦船在速度和武器裝備上都更勝一籌，在為期兩天的戰斗中，三分之二的俄羅斯艦隊被擊沉，六艘被俘虜，四艘到達符拉迪沃斯托克，六艘在中立港口避難。這是一次戲劇性的、決定性的挫??；在長達7個月的航行之后，當距離目的地不到幾百英里的時候，波羅的海艦隊被擊潰了，與此同時，俄國人重新掌控海洋的希望也破滅了。
三
The Gulf War of 1991. It was one of the most lopsided wars in recorded history. Iraq wasn’t just defeated by the US-led Coalition, it was obliterated. It’s military and civilian infrastructure was torn to shreds, leaving its military a shadow of its former self and there was widespread devastation throughout the country. It achieved none of it’s war goals. And all this while inflicting minimal, almost meaningless losses on it’s enemies.
After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the subsequent assembly of the Coalition, sanctions, and ultimatum, the Coalition launched a campaign against Iraq, starting with an air campaign that saw widespread bombing of Iraqi military targets and infrastructure, followed by an approximately 100-hour ground campaign to eject Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and then invade Iraq itself. Most of the battles were massively lopsided and ended in Coalition victories.
1991年的海灣戰爭。這是有史以來最不對等的戰爭之一。伊拉克不僅被美國領導的聯軍打敗，而且被徹底摧毀。其軍事和民用基礎設施被撕成碎片，給其軍隊留下一個昔日的影子，全國各地都遭到了大范圍的破壞。其軍隊沒有實現任何戰爭目標。而與此同時，僅對敵人造成微乎其微、幾乎毫無意義的損失。
在伊拉克入侵科威特、隨后的聯盟會議、制裁和最后通牒之后，聯盟對伊拉克發動了一場戰役，首先是空襲，對伊拉克的軍事目標和基礎設施進行了大范圍的轟炸，接著是大約100小時的地面行動，將伊拉克部隊趕出科威特，然后入侵伊拉克。大多數戰斗都是一邊倒的，最終以聯軍的勝利而告終。
伊拉克士兵在戰爭中死亡的最低估計大約是2.5萬人，甚至可能高達5萬人。數千輛伊拉克坦克和其他裝甲車輛被摧毀。最臭名昭著的事件之一是“死亡公路”事件，當時聯軍飛機摧毀了從科威特撤退的大批伊拉克部隊，留下數英里的被毀車輛和尸體。聯軍坦克以其巨大的優勢，幾乎不費吹灰之力就摧毀了當時世界第四大軍隊的龐大裝甲部隊。大部分伊拉克空軍逃到了伊朗，但那些留在那里的飛機基本上都被摧毀了。伊拉克海軍全軍覆沒。伊拉克的公路、鐵路、煉油廠、發電站、橋梁、工廠、廣播電臺等也遭到大規模破壞，據推測，有3664名平民死亡。
盡管如此，聯軍仍損失了292名士兵，其中只有147人真正死于伊拉克的軍事行動:其他人死于友軍誤擊和其他事故。只有少數聯軍飛機被擊落，包括少數坦克在內的裝甲車輛被敵軍行動摧毀。
This was probably the most humiliating defeat in living memory. Iraq not only lost completely, had it’s military torn to shreds, and suffered widespread devastation, it cost the US and it’s allies almost nothing in terms of losses to enemy action.
伊拉克被逐出科威特，其部分領土被暫時占領。它從一個工業化國家倒退到前工業化國家，并遭受了多年的嚴厲制裁。軍隊被摧毀了。幾年后，美國領導的聯軍為了支持庫爾德人，設立了禁飛區，有效地征用了大部分領空。直到今天，伊拉克仍在按照聯合國的要求向科威特支付賠款。
這可能是人們記憶中最恥辱的一次失敗。伊拉克不僅完全輸了，軍隊被撕成碎片，遭受了廣泛的破壞，美國及其盟友在敵方行動中幾乎沒有損失。
評論
Was with you until the last sentence.
It cost the US a shit-ton! We spent trillions on that war. Terrible use of money.
除了最后一句外都同意。
美國付出慘重代價！我們在那場戰爭上花費了數萬億美元。對金錢極其不合理的使用。
I'm not talking about what the US elected to spend, I'm talking about what Iraq managed to inflict. To have your entire military gutted and inflict trivial losses in exchange is humiliating.
我說的不是美國的開支，我說的是伊拉克造成的后果。你以軍隊全軍覆沒換來對敵人造成微不足道的損失，是一種奇恥大辱。
Your figure for the Iraqi civilian losses are ridiculous. How did you come up with that one. If between 25 & 50k Iraqi soldiers lost their lives then definitely at minimum, four times that many civilians were killed. This, not to mention the subsequent civilian losses after the war due to lack of medicine’s and medical facilities, imposition of various embargo’s, etc, .. . But this is the Iraqi’s just deserts for what they perpetrated against the Iranian’s . Their indiscriminate use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and civilians alike went un-condemned by the US and other Western Allies because what the Iraqi’s were doing was in their best interests.
你給出的伊拉克平民傷亡數字太荒謬了。你是怎么得出的?如果有2.5萬到5萬名伊拉克士兵喪生，那么至少有4倍于此的平民被殺。這就不提戰后由于缺乏藥品和醫療設施、實施各種禁運等造成的平民傷亡了……但這是伊拉克人對伊朗人犯下的罪行所應得的報應。他們不分青紅皂白地對伊朗軍隊和平民使用化學武器，卻沒有受到美國和其他西方盟國的譴責，因為伊拉克所做的一切都符合他們的最大利益。
There is no such rule that civilian casualties will exceed military casualties by a factor of 4. Casualties are based off of circumstantial factors, not an inherent mathematical relationship set in stone between military and civilian deaths. A long occupation against an insurgency hiding amongst civilians is going to have a different ratio of combatant to civilian deaths compared to fighting the Iraqi army in the desert of another country. Even operations in urban areas can have massively different ratios depending on whether or not a successful evacuation is carried out.
沒有規定平民傷亡要超過軍人傷亡的4倍。傷亡是基于間接因素，而不是軍人和平民死亡之間的固有數學關系。與在另一個國家的沙漠中與伊拉克軍隊作戰相比，對隱藏在平民中的叛亂分子的長期控制將導致不同比例的戰斗人員與平民死亡。即使是在城市地區的行動，也可能有很大不同的比例，這取決于是否進行了成功的疏散。
Yes, sure. there is no such relationship between civilian and military casualties but that wasn’t the point of my retort. I was really questioning the figure of 3664 civilian fatalities. Do you believe it?
是的,你說得沒錯。平民傷亡和軍人傷亡之間沒有這種固定關系，但這不是我反駁的重點。我真的很懷疑3664名平民死亡的數字。你相信嗎?
Iraq records indicate less than 3000 civilian deaths. A census Bureau analyst compiled reports from the Human Rights Watch and by removing duplicate reports tallied 2665 identifies civilians being confirmed to have been killed as a direct result of the war. There was no ground fighting in the cities of Iraq during the gulf war; all Iraq civilian casualties came from things like coalition air strikes against infrastructure like power plants and oil refineries and government conplexes.
伊拉克的記錄顯示，平民死亡人數不到3000人。人口普查局的一名分析師匯編了人權觀察組織的報告，并通過刪除重復的報告，確認有2665名平民被證實直接死于戰爭。海灣戰爭期間，伊拉克的城市里沒有地面戰斗；所有伊拉克平民的傷亡都來自于聯軍對發電廠、煉油廠和政府大樓等基礎設施的空襲。
原創翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.mmg13444.com 轉載請注明出處
Totally unbelievable. But I won't engage in a baseless argument. First of all whose cencus bureau. If American then it can definitely be disregarded as mere propaganda. I'll do my own research and then we can revisit the issue. Your comment about collateral casualties via air strikes makes my point though. Are these figures included in your even lower number.
完全難以置信。但我不會參與毫無根據的爭論。首先是誰的人口普查局。如果它是美國的，那么它絕對可以被視為純粹的宣傳。我會自己做研究，然后我們再討論這個問題。你關于空襲附帶傷亡的評論說明了我的觀點。這些數字包括在你給出的更低數字里嗎?
I have already stated that the civillian casualties were due mostly to air strikes hitting targets that housed civilians such as oil refineries and power plants. The research I cited was not done by the US census bureau (which doesn’t concern itself with statistics of other countries demographics) but by an employee using third party sources to compile confirmed identities of those that died as a direct result of the war. What you find believable is of no concern to anyone. You have offered zero evidence or even a counterclaim with an actual number. I don’t care what you want to believe, facts are facts; unless you have actual evidence that prove the Iraqi, US, and even third party NGO’s estimates were off stop wasting people’s time with this nonsense
我已經說過，平民傷亡主要是由于空襲擊中了平民居住的目標，如煉油廠和發電廠。我引用的研究不是美國人口普查局做的(它不關心其他國家的人口統計數據)，而是由一名雇員通過第三方信息來源收集那些直接死于戰爭確認身份的人。你認為可信的東西與任何人無關。你沒有提供任何證據，甚至未提出一個有實際數字的反駁。我不在乎你想相信什么，事實就是事實；除非你有實際的證據證明伊拉克，美國，甚至第三方非政府組織的估計是錯誤的，否則不要浪費人們的時間在這些無稽之談上。
原創翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.mmg13444.com 轉載請注明出處
Hey Jack, why so angry, as I said, I will do my own research and if I find the claim to be substantiated by other sources then I will say so. You seem extremely touchy about my skepticism regarding the figure. By the way, do you happen to have the pulse of what everyone believes. And now you have introduced another question to me, who is the unnamed employee, by who was he employed, what third party sources did he use. How was the identities confirmed. I don’t remember boots on the ground Gulf 1. As far as zero evidence is concerned, don’t talk about yourself like that. Give yourself some credit. If this nonsense is such a time wasting enterprise, why do you keep replying?
嘿，杰克，干嘛生這么大氣，就如我所說，我會自己做研究，如果我發現這個說法被其他來源證實，我會同意你的觀點。你似乎對我對數字的懷疑非常敏感。順便問一下，你是否了解大家的想法?，F在你又向我透露了另一個問題，這位未透露姓名的員工是誰，他是由誰雇傭的，他使用了哪些第三方資源。身份是如何確認的?我不記得第一次海灣戰爭有地面部隊。在沒有證據的情況下，別這么說你自己。相信你自己。如果這些廢話是浪費時間的事情，你為什么一直回復?
“Touchy”? If this is considered touchy then yes, whenever someone formulates a baseless opinion and tries to argue against statistics based on said preconceived motion not cemented in actual evidence I get “touchy.” I’m not even mad, I’m calling it out as it is: you saying you don’t believe it means nothing. Beliefs are not academic. Had you said, “I’ve seen some evidence to disprove this” then fine; even if you didn’t cite your sources, it would have been better than going off about made up ratios that don’t take into account any of the circumstantial factors involved. The researcher I cited was Beth Daponte, who had already left the census bureau at the time of her study and was working at Carnegie Mellon University at the time. The third party sources cited come from the Human Rights Watch. She used provincial records from Iraq to confirm or deny reports.
“敏感”?如果這被認為是敏感的，那么是的，每當有人提出一個毫無根據的觀點，并試圖根據這種沒有得到實際證據支持的先入為主的見解，來反駁統計數據時，我就會變得“敏感”。我根本不生氣，我是這么說的:你說你不相信，這毫無意義。信念不是學術。如果你說，“我看到了一些證據來反駁這一點”，那也行；即使你沒有引用你的資料來源，這也比編造不考慮任何環境因素的比值要好得多。我引用的研究人員是貝絲·達蓬特，她在進行這項研究時已經離開了人口普查局，當時在卡內基梅隆大學工作。引用的第三方消息來源來自人權觀察組織。她利用伊拉克各省的記錄來證實或否認報道。