中国的055南昌号走廊上挂着英国皇家海军无敌号返回朴茨茅斯的海报。马岛战争是为数不多的直接影响中国海军战术和硬件的冲突之一，至今仍被中国海军研究和推崇
Image of HMS Invincible returning to HMNB Portsmouth displayed on the hallway of Chinese Type-055 DDG Nanchang. The Falklands war was one of the few conflicts that had direct influence to the tactics and hardware of the Chinese Navy, one that is still studied and admired by the PLAN today
译文简介
谢菲尔德号被击沉，是因为指挥官把他们的脑细胞留在了朴茨茅斯。
正文翻译
Image of HMS Invincible returning to HMNB Portsmouth displayed on the hallway of Chinese Type-055 DDG Nanchang. The Falklands war was one of the few conflicts that had direct influence to the tactics and hardware of the Chinese Navy, one that is still studied and admired by the PLAN today
中国的055南昌号走廊上挂着英国皇家海军无敌号返回朴茨茅斯的海报。马岛战争是为数不多的直接影响中国海军战术和硬件的冲突之一，至今仍被中国海军研究和推崇
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
中国的055南昌号走廊上挂着英国皇家海军无敌号返回朴茨茅斯的海报。马岛战争是为数不多的直接影响中国海军战术和硬件的冲突之一，至今仍被中国海军研究和推崇
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
图
评论翻译
很赞 ( 3 )
收藏
So sure - but this isn’t a unique PLAN thing. Falklands is studied by pretty much every modern navy and air arm because it’s the closest thing we have to a complex peer or near peer hot naval conflict. For a lot of the weapons systems and equipment used, it was the only time they had ever been used against their intended contemporaries. I guarantee you every single western naval officer of a certain rank has had studied falklands at some point in their training/career
当然，但并非只有中国海军是这样。几乎每个现代海军和空军都在研究福克兰战争，因为它是现代最接近实力相当的海军热战。对于许多武器系统和设备的使用来说，这是它们唯一一次被用来对付差不多的同等对手。我向你保证，每一个拥有一定等级的西方海军军官，在他们的训练或职业生涯中，都研究过福克兰群岛战争。
Yes lessons are important, tactical precedence etc but you forgot one thing -
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, BABY!!
是的，教训很重要，战术要优先，但你忘了一件事——
“帝国反击了”，兄弟！！
I absolutely love that magazine cover
我非常喜欢那本杂志的封面
please, what magazine cover?
请问，什么杂志封面？
This one (starring HMS Hermes): https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EU0yT96XQAEKzAg?format=jpg&name=medium
这个（英国皇家海军的竞技神号航母）
A444SQ
I bet it would still be studied if it was a more powerful UK vs Argentina where both the Argentine carrier and all her aircraft were sunk and the Argentine light cruiser was sunk
我敢打赌，如果是更强大的英国对阿根廷，阿根廷的航母和她所有的飞机都被击毁，轻型巡洋舰被击沉，照样会被研究。
That almost happened in OTL anyways, had Warspite been recommissioned sooner the first thing the British would have done would have been to let her track the Argentina carrier, as by that point she was the most modern nuclear submarine in the fleet
差一点就发生了这种情况，如果厌战号更早一点重新服役，英国人做的第一件事就是让她跟踪阿根廷航母，因为在当时，它是舰队中最现代的核潜艇。
The most modern were the Swiftsure class SSNs as the Valiant and Churchill Class are 60s vintage
最现代的是快速级攻击核潜艇，因为英勇级和丘吉尔级是60年代的古董
Yes by commission date, Swiftsure class is the most modern, however, Warspite had two major refits, which included a sensor sweep and reactor upgrade, some of the systems which were even newer than the ones found on some of the Swiftsure class, and the equivalent of an underwater Harpoon
按服役日期来说确实如此，快速级是最现代的，然而厌战号进行了两次重大改装，包括传感器和反应堆升级，其中一些系统甚至比快速级上的系统更新，相当于水下的鱼叉。
Well it actually wasn't peer on peer or anything close to it, because the USA was secretly bailing out the UK the entire time.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/cia-files-reveal-how-us-helped-britain-retake-the-falklands-7618420.html
实际上他们的实力并不对等或者不接近，因为美国一直在暗中帮助英国。【链接】
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The USSR also assisted Argentina.
苏联也援助了阿根廷。
Is that confirmed?
确认吗？
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Certainly a good question. I think as much as it can be at present.
这确实是个好问题。我想目前还是比较可信的。
Hardly, US kept pushing for diplomatic resolution to the “Malvinas” - pretty much suggesting UK should give it up, they didn’t want UK to respond and pressured Thatcher not to go.
However if you have a source for this bail out please post as I’m always ready to learn.
美国几乎没有帮助英国，它一直在推动外交解决“马尔维纳斯”问题——几乎是在暗示英国应该放弃，他们希望英国不要做出回应，并向撒切尔施压。
不过，如果你有上面说法的来源，请发出来，因为我随时准备学习。
The UK military intervention was accepted by the US, Thatcher cleared this up with the US president. This was more than a courtesy too - Monroe Doctrine notwithstanding, the UK did need US loans to finance the counterattack. The V bombers also used USAF tankers for their bombing sorties against Argentina, AFAIK (might be mistaken on this last).
The Falklands War was a nice chapter in US-UK relations... interestingly, the US failed to return even a courtesy call before their invasion of Grenada a little later, despite Grenada being a member of the Commonwealth at the time.
美国接受了英国军事干预的打算，撒切尔向美国总统澄清了这一点。这也不仅仅是一种礼貌——尽管有门罗主义，英国确实需要美国的贷款来帮助反击。V型轰炸机也要使用美国空军的加油机来对阿根廷进行轰炸(可能在最后一点上弄错了)。
福克兰战争是美英关系的美好篇章，有趣的是，尽管格林纳达当时是英联邦成员国，但美国在之后入侵格林纳达之前甚至连一个礼节性的电话都没给英国打。
The bombing sorties (operation black buck) use Handley Page Victors as tanker aircraft, no USAF aircraft were involved.
黑鹿行动中出击的轰炸机是使用胜利者轰炸机作为加油机，没有美国空军飞机参与。
Where did the victors get their fuel from?All of their fuel came from the US. They wouldn't have been a task force or operation black buck if the US didn't divert a tanker to ascension island first.
那胜利者轰炸机从哪里获得燃料？它们所有的燃料都来自美国。如果美国不先将油轮开到阿森松岛，他们就无法进行打击行动。
Some translations, lest we start making wild assumptions:
The title of the poster is called “Classic Naval Battles” (经典海战). Unfortunately the brief descxtion below the image is mostly blocked by the news program’s title card, but the part still readable roughly says “…a [undeclared ???]… surrounding the sovereignty of the Malvinas Islands… The first ??? in the twentieth century… Quickly controlled the islands, while the British… Set sail for the South Atlantic on 5 April. After two and a half months of naval engagements…”
这是一些翻译，以免我们开始胡乱假设：
海报的标题叫做“经典海战” 。不幸的是，图片下方的简短描述大部分被新闻节目的标题给挡住了，大致可读的部分是“……围绕着马尔维纳斯群岛的主权……二十世纪第一场……迅速控制马岛…英国立即……于4月5日驶向南大西洋……经过两个半月的海军交战……”
总的来说，这是一个相当基本的维基百科式的福克兰战争总结。老实说，我认为这是很标准的东西。中国的机构喜欢随意张贴有趣味性的海报。我的中学在走廊上张贴了从光合作用到海湾战争等各种小海报。这就是我们会做的事。我不会对它做太多的解读。
The poster uses the name Malvinas, instead of Falkland? Has China decided to not get involved in that particular point of contention, or do they not differentiate between the two names?
海报上用的是马尔维纳斯这个名字，而不是福克兰？中国是否决定不介入这个争执点，还是不区分这两个名称？
It’s always been known as the Malvinas Islands (马岛) in Chinese, both officially and popularly. Personally I imagine it’s due to China’s support for the Third World against western imperialism during the Cold War. Obviously China is now (and was back then too) neutral on the Falklands issue, but the name “Malvinas” simply stuck around cuz that’s what everybody says.
在中文里，它一直被称为马尔维纳斯群岛(马岛)，无论是官方还是民间。我个人认为这是因为在冷战期间中国支持第三世界反对西方帝国主义。显然，中国现在(当时也是)在马岛问题上保持中立，但“马尔维纳斯”这个名字保留了下来，因为每个人都这么叫。
Also 马岛 is just epeasier to pronounce in Chinese. If use Falkland (福克兰) in China, the abbreviation would be 福岛, a nomenclature that has already been occupied by Fukushima, Japan, and made well known by the nuclear disaster.
此外，马岛在中文中更容易读。如果用福克兰，简称福岛，这个名称已经被日本福岛占了，并因核灾难而广为人知。
At the risk of opening this up to political discussion, the only peoples to have ever lived on the islands long term will not be your friends if you use that name to their faces. If you invade them, kill them and move in your own settlers, you might be ok
冒着引发政治讨论的风险，如果你当着他们的面使用这个名字，那些少量长期生活在岛上的人不会把你当成朋友，如果你入侵他们，杀死他们，然后让自己的定居者搬进来，那就没事。
Depends on if they lift the translation from Spanish/Dutch or English. Translations hundreds of years ago have little bearing on todays ownership.
People are way too keen to throw sovereignty though language.
这取决于他们是从西班牙语、荷兰语还是英语翻译过来的。几百年前的翻译对如今岛屿的所有权几乎没有影响。
人们太热衷于通过语言来表达主权了。
Usually is more about the fact that if you name it, it means you acknowledged the island, and if you name it in your own language, you can argue you recognized at yours.
In asia pacific this is specially complicated because of the huge amount of islands and big powers that claim them, like the Senkaku.
So yeah, names are important. People is also important but you can always go the russian way, invading an island, putting slavs and 50 years later make a poll.
通常更多的是这样一个事实，如果你给它起了名字，那意味着你承认了这座岛屿，如果你用自己的语言给它起了名字，那就是认为那是你的。
在亚太地区，这一点尤其复杂，因为有大量的岛屿和声称拥有这些岛屿的大国，比如尖阁列岛【钓鱼岛】。
所以是的，名字很重要。人也很重要，但你可以走俄罗斯的路，入侵一个岛屿，让斯拉夫人搬到上面，然后50年后进行投票。
In Spain we call them Malvinas as well.
在西班牙我们也叫它马尔维纳斯。
They're called Malvinas in Portuguese as well. Before the war it wasn't even a political thing or symbolic of anything, Malvinas is just the name in Spanish (or Portuguese) for the same reason that Germany is named "Alemaña" in Spanish, instead of being called Deutschland.
它在葡萄牙语中也被叫作马尔维纳斯。在战争之前，它甚至不是一个政治问题或什么象征，马尔维纳斯只是西班牙语(或葡萄牙语)中的名字，原因与德国在西班牙语中被命名为“Alemaña”，而不是被称为“Deutschland”相同。
Not really, they are called Malvinas because that was the name given by a french explorer in 1764. So not exactly the same reason as why Deustchland is called Alemania.
并非如此，它之所以被称为马尔维纳斯，是因为这是一位法国探险家在1764年起的名字。所以和德国被称为“Alemaña” 的原因不一样。
Except this poster is put on a warship (theoretically) built to counter the exact same force it praises and demonstrates. Think the other way round, imagine seeing PLA wikipedia style military history (the positive type) poster being shown on a British Type-45 or American Burke, things wouldn't exactly go very smooth
除了这张海报被贴在一艘军舰上，（理论上）它是造来对抗它所赞扬和展示的国家的。反过来想想，要看到解放军维基百科式的军事历史(正面类型)海报出现在英国45型或美国伯克上，事情不会很顺利。
The PLAN doesn't have any significant naval campaigns of its own to use as teaching tools. They acknowledge they're still learning from the West, and this is part and parcel of that. Doesn't seem so odd to me. Honestly, it feels like something the Japanese would have done if infographics were a thing in the late 1800s.
中国海军自身没有什么重要的海军战役作为教学工具。他们承认他们仍在向西方学习，这是其中不可或缺的一部分。我觉得这并不奇怪。老实说，如果信息图表在 1800 年代后期流行，我感觉日本肯定会做。
China does side with Argentina on this. they also sides with Japan with their disputes with Russians/Soviets until recent years. sides with Korea on Dokdo.
在这个问题上，中国确实站在阿根廷一边。直到最近几年，他们还在与俄罗斯/苏联的争端中站在日本一边。在独岛问题上站在韩国一边。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The Invincible was supposed to become the HMAS Australia, it was almost a done deal when the Argies intervened.
无敌号本应成为澳大利亚皇家海军的澳大利亚号，在阿根廷介入时，都快板上钉钉了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
They could have bought 1 of the 3 ships ordered by Iran and got it customized
他们本可以购买伊朗订购的3艘船中的1艘，然后进行定制
So Argentina ruined the austrlian dream of keep sinking ships with their aircraft carriers?
所以阿根廷毁了澳大利亚用航母击沉船只的梦想？
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
It was a done deal
In February 1982 the RAN announced they were buying Invincible for 175 Million Pounds
In June 1982 the Australians said the UK could cancel the sale if the UK desired
The sale was not officially cancelled until June 1983
这是一笔完成了的交易。
1982年2月，英国海军宣布以1.75亿英镑的价格买下无敌号。
1982年6月，澳大利亚人表示，如果英国愿意，可以取消交易。
直到1983年6月，交易才正式取消。
A very clear and dramatic example of the influences of the falklands war happened after the sinking of the Type-42 destroyer HMS Sheffield by the French made Exocet missile. During the time, a deal for four Type-42 destroyers and it's subsystems had already been agreed between the PLAN and British shipbuilders. With the sinking of HMS Sheffield and it's sister ship, the deal was immediately scrapped and PLAN desicionmakers made a 180 turn towards French naval equipment and technology. Less than a year after the Falklands war, the technology of the French Exocet, the missile that had previously taken out the Type-42, was transferred to the PLA, leading the development of the YJ-8 ASM and later the C-801, anti ship platforms that are still operated by the PLAN today
在 42 型驱逐舰谢菲尔德号被法国制造的飞鱼导弹击沉后，受福克兰战争影响的一个非常明显和戏剧性的例子发生了。在当时，中国海军和英国造船厂已经就四艘42型驱逐舰及其子系统达成协议。随着谢菲尔德号及其姊妹舰的沉没，该协议立即被取消，海军决策者做出180度大转弯，转向法国海军的设备和技术。福克兰战争后不到一年，干掉了42型的法国飞鱼导弹的技术被转移给中国解放军，引领了YJ-8和后来的C-801反舰导弹的发展，中国海军至今仍在使用。
The Sheffield and the Coventry were only sunk because Treasury Brain had reduced their weapons and sensors. Two ships sunk, dozens of lives lost and valuable exports done away with just to save a few pounds in the short term.
谢菲尔德号和考文垂号之所以沉没，是因为财政部减少了它们的武器和传感器。两艘船沉没，数十人丧生，宝贵的出口被取消，仅仅是为了在短期内节省一点钱。
I genuinely feel like the brits are just bad at marketing and demonstrating the capability of their "export products", compare that to the French and that difference is more than obvious.
我真的觉得英国人不善于营销和展示他们的“出口产品”， 与法国人相比，这一点非常明显。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Well, we sold 2 x 42's to Argentina
我们卖了2艘42型给阿根廷
What if Argentina bought them just to know their capabilities so to attack them efficiently in a later war?
如果阿根廷购买它们只是为了了解它们的能力，以便在以后的战争中有效地攻击它们呢？
Well the Sheffield was a combination of that and operational failure/ some bad luck.
谢菲尔德号的结果是操作失误和一些坏运气的结合。
The only reductions HMT made affected the size of the ships, not the weapons or sensor fits. Lightweight Sea Wolf was only proposed for installation after the war on the B3s (B1 and B2 lacked the necessary topweight margin)
财政部唯一削减的是船只的尺寸，而不是武器或传感器的安装。轻型海狼是在B3之后才被提议安装的（B1和B2缺乏必要的顶重余量），而这些舰只的设计则是使用古老的965型
By that logic no navy should ever be cut anywhere, and they should always get what they ask for. HM Treasury was in pretty dire straits in the early 80s, cuts were occurring across the entire government. Far more people died in poverty from Thatcher's austerity than died in the RN at this time.
按照这个逻辑，所有海军都不应该被削减经费，他们应该得到所有他们想要的东西。英国财政部在80年代初陷入了相当严重的困境，整个政府都在削减开支。在撒切尔的紧缩政策下，死于贫困的人远远多于当时死于海军的人。
In the end, every department needs to fight for an increased budget.
The OP is right in the sense that lack of funding makes Royal Navy ships more vulnerable. This just has to be balanced by the demands of other departments, too, and it's up to the government to decide which to prioritise.
The argument is that no navy should be cut if the desire is to win naval battles and keep ships afloat. If there are greater desires than that, then that's too bad for the Royal Navy.
最后，每个部门都需要争取增加预算。
在缺乏资金使皇家海军舰艇更加脆弱这点上，楼主说的是对的。这也必须通过其他部门的需求来平衡，由政府决定优先考虑哪个。
重点是，如果想要赢得海战，让舰艇生存，就不应该削减海军经费。如果还有比这更大的愿望，那对皇家海军来说就太糟糕了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The cuts in question were made long before Thatcher, and in fact of the 8 in commission during the Falklands half had been ordered by Labour governments, and the design had been finalized under a Labour government in the late 1960s.
None were ordered during Thatcher’s premiership, with the last one (Edinburgh) being ordered 9 days before she took office.
在撒切尔上台之前就已经开始削减了，事实上，在福克兰战争中服役的8艘舰艇中，有一半是由工党政府下令建造的，并且设计已在 1960 年代后完成。
在撒切尔在任期间，没有一艘被订购，最后一艘（爱丁堡号）是在她上任前9天订购的。
It is unethical to send people into a warzone using inferior kit to save relatively small amounts of money.
The money used to build the best ships you could make would be peanuts next to annual government expenditure and it is a one off cost.
Plus welfare spending increased under Thatcher. Just like NHS privatisation, council house sell offs and university tuition fee increases most of this stuff happened under Blair not Thatcher.
为了节省少量资金而让人们使用劣质的装备进入战区是不道德的。
建造最好的船所花费的钱与政府每年的支出相比微不足道，而且是一次性成本。
此外，在撒切尔时期，福利支出有所增加。像医疗私有化、市政厅出售和大学学费上涨，大多数事情都发生在布莱尔时期而不是撒切尔时期。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
HMS Sheffield was sunk because the ops room left their braincells in Portsmouth.
A capable destroyer sunk by incompetence
谢菲尔德号被击沉，是因为指挥官把他们的脑细胞留在了朴茨茅斯。
一艘强大的驱逐舰因无能而沉没。
Classic British government, let's save a few quid now so we can lose millions later.
典型的英国政府，先省点钱，之后损失很多钱。
That's absolutely fascinating. Anyone here know how the PLAN's culture is about the "brotherhood of the sea?" I know a lot of communist states have put a focus on eradicating concepts of military - especially naval - internationalism, but things like this might suggest otherwise. Or perhaps it's like Teddy Roosevelt and Tsushima?
这非常吸引人。有人知道中国海军的文化是不是关于“海上兄弟情”的吗？我知道许多共产主义国家都把重点放在消除军事——尤其是海军——的国际主义概念上，但现在的情况可能表明情况并非如此。或者是像泰迪·罗斯福和对马岛？
I'm speculating freely, but the Chinese naval militia gives me distinct non brotherhood of the sea vibes.
我随便猜的，但中国海军给了我明显的非海上兄弟情的感觉。
It's more that they've studied the war intensively. Without any real experience of their own they have to take what they can from other conflicts. And ultimately there aren't many modern naval conflicts to look at, so the Falklands has been a major focus.
Desert Storm is another one they've focused on, although more for the Army and Air Force.
更重要的是，他们对战争进行了深入研究。由于他们自己没有真正的实战经验，他们不得不从其他战争中吸取经验。现代海军冲突并不多，因此福克兰战争一直是主要焦点。
沙漠风暴是他们关注的另一场战争，尽管更多的是针对陆军和空军。
They can study it all they want but I’m assuming they came to the conclusion that the rest of the world did that Desert Storm was not a peer/near peer conflict. Maybe they learned how to announce your intentions with a multiple month build up and still roll over your adversary.
他们可以随心所欲的研究。但我认为他们得出的结论与世界上其他国家一样，沙漠风暴不是一场对等的战争。也许他们学会了如何用几个月的时间来宣告你的意图，并仍然击败你的对手。
There is not one single 'hallway' on any destroyer in the world.
世界上任何一艘驱逐舰上都没有单独的“走廊”。
The interesting thing about that conflict is how easily the UK could have lost. If Argentina had taken delivery of more than the 5 air launchable Exocet missiles they had in total.. If the war had happend a few years later, and Argentina had taken stock of say 30 missiles and could be more liberal with their use, who knows what would have happened.
这场冲突有趣的地方在于，英国很有可能输。如果阿根廷接收的飞鱼导弹超过5枚，如果战争在几年后爆发，而阿根廷储备了30枚导弹，并且可以更自由地使用它们，谁知道会发生什么。
Though also one that the Argentines could have lost with far more losses, say if the British submarines had gotten to sink more than just Belgrano, especially their carrier.
然而阿根廷也可能会有更大的损失，比如说如果英国潜艇击沉的不仅仅是贝尔格拉诺号，尤其是他们的航母。
Well, you could also argue "what if Argentina actually used their aircraft carrier"
Or what if Argentina used their entire armed forces... including professional soldiers in the islands instead of conscxts.
There are a lot of "ifs" in that war in which the results could have been vastly different.
你也可以说“如果阿根廷真的使用了他们的航母”。
或者如果阿根廷动用了全部的武装力量，包括岛上的职业士兵，而不仅仅是征召兵。
在那场战争中有很多“如果”， 结果可能都大不相同。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The what if they used their carrier means that carrier dies like Belgrano, with how it was being tracked the entire time by RN submarines. One of the smartest thing the Argentines did during that war was flee when that became clear.
And I was under the impression that it was a military basically under the conscxtion model. There of course were more professional soldiers, and some were present, but they would always be far fewer than the bulk of the military.
Though indeed looking more into it, there were some of the more professional parts of the military occupied with tensions with Chile.
如果他们使用他们的航母，那只会像贝尔格拉诺号一样完蛋，因为它一直被英国潜艇跟踪。在战争中，阿根廷人做的最聪明的一件事就是在形势明朗时逃跑。
在我的印象中，它基本上是一支征兵模式下的军队。他们当然有更多的职业士兵，也有一些人在场，但他们远远少于军队的主体。
尽管阿根廷确实对它进行了更多的调查，但军方中一些更专业的人士却忙于处理与智利的紧张关系。
Argentina also had submarines, they only used the one that was going to be decomissioned, but they also had one Type 209, which was pretty modern for the time, but had some problems, and other submarines were on maintanance and their commanders in training in Germany, so yeah, we could also add another if there. Thing is a part of the Argentine navy didn't want to risk some important assets, not only their carriers, but also a big part of their fleet.
At the end of the day, Argentina used like half of their capabilities and had a really bad luck (bombs not exploding, bad weather before operations plus some maintenance and operative problems)
阿根廷也有潜艇，他们只使用了一艘即将退役的潜艇，但他们也有一艘209型潜艇，这在当时是相当现代化的，但有一些问题，其他潜艇正在维护，他们的指挥官在德国接受训练，所以是的，我们可以再增加一艘。问题是，阿根廷海军一部分人不想拿重要的资产去冒险，不仅是他们的航母，还有他们舰队的很大一部分。
到最后，阿根廷动用了他们一半的力量，而且运气非常糟糕（炸弹没有爆炸，作战前天气不好，加上一些维护和操作问题）。