主题：【翻译】对朝鲜战争步兵战斗与武器使用的评注（1950冬—1951年)II -- 徐荣

噪音：信号与武器

本战区发布的战地记录中简要论述了中共军队动用号手制造恐怖气氛和使用多种管乐器发出战斗信号的情况。

音响的战术使用

如何削弱敌军这些手法产生的效果，使我军士兵较容易应对？这个问题给作者留下了深刻印象，对十一月会战的研究告一段落以后，解决它立即成为头等大事。不同级别的指挥和参谋部门还没有了解到解决该问题的迫切需要，在这方面还无所作为。他们的消极反应无非厚非。他们被紧张的战斗搞得精疲力竭，而且要全神贯注于恢复经历过苦战的部队的战斗力以及保存战斗力完好的部队。没有在第八集团军中服役的任何团队或个人被特别指派收集和整理来自我军步兵队伍、与敌军战术特点有关的战场情报，了解更多有关与敌军（噪音战术）程序的知识，有助于我军采取措施压制它的作用。

上述意见不包含一丝一毫的诡辩，相反，它是坦诚的批评。作者相信美军参谋系统中一项固有弱点是由于环境的影响。我们实际上忽略了完善我军战斗情报系统的一条主要途径。

《朝鲜战争步兵战术注解》这份文件简要涉及了敌军是如何使用制造噪音的器械对付美军的问题，并提供了敌军使用这些器械作为战场信号的某些细节。敌军主要出于以下三个目的制造噪音（1）制造普遍的恐怖（2）疑兵之计（3）控制己方部队。这份报告中包括敌军信号的实例和含义。

然而，这份报告遗漏了任何这些奇袭手段对我军士兵影响的描述，而且它也未详细说明关于中共军队噪音战术的资料是如何收集的。

在十一月会战中，对中国人这种古老战术，普通美国连队非常的恐怖和惊慌。

关于这一点，毋庸置疑。我军士兵不习惯在战场上听到军号、牧羊人的号角、长笛、刚果鼓和卡嗒声。当敌军在夜间进攻中使用这些乐器时，主要由于这些声音附加的神秘性，严重挫伤了我军的士气。

在敌军进攻下生还的步兵连后来在集合的时候坦白地承认了这一情况。这些连队中的大部分都曾表现坚强甚至英勇。据信，连队一般水平上的管理并不逊色于我军年报上的纪录。但当他们讨论起敌军进攻的哪些特点导致了他们最严重的灾难时，他们最经常以下列语言概括对敌军制造噪音的诡计的反应：“那使我们毛骨悚然。”这是精神饱满地脱离战斗的人员的证词，他们是在本连其他人员在场的情况下作上述陈述的。因此，尽管第八集团军已经开始适应中共军队的古怪战法很久了，这些证词也应被不折不扣地认真对待。

这些士兵中的95%以上回忆不起中共军队怎样、何时（在战斗的哪个阶段，在什么战术形势下）使用任何制造噪音的器具的细节。大多数人只能回忆起他们听到了多种噪音，例如喇叭和口哨，而且这些噪音使他们精神极度紧张。只有不到1%的士兵能回忆起号声或牧羊人号角发出的“鸡鸣”的曲调。

各连集合起来就这一争论焦点进行回忆，这些明确的数据就来自于多次集合的记录汇编。这项工作不得不逐连重复完成。在集合中，一名士兵回忆起当战斗进行到特殊时刻响起了号声。其他众多士兵愿意证实他的回忆。那么，为使所有士兵专心回忆号声本身，应该询问这样一个问题：“你听到的确切是什么？”

许多次，（士兵们的）回答是否定的。但是调查仍在继续，直到偶尔发现少数士兵通过集中注意力能够使记忆重现，并且能用口哨吹或用嘴唱出（中共军队的）号声。这些士兵这么做了以后，在集合现场的所有其他士兵也会回忆起来，并赞同证人所说是准确的。然后，（研究人员）便作了记录。

几乎以同样的方法，研究人员也调查清楚了中国人使用噪音制造恐怖与使用乐器进行指挥两种情况之间的区别。

还剩最后一步——获取乐器本身，如此即可通过训练使第八集团军的部队了解中共军队的信号，适应它制造恐怖的战术，最终或许还能“以其人之道，还治其人之身”。

当时，这些制造噪音的乐器简直成了无价之宝。然而，作者完全肯定：把它们作为纪念品收集是很容易的，即使是从丢失的阵地撤退的我军士兵也成功地缴获了中共军队的乐器。所以，（研究人员）进行了调查。在每个连队，他们都向士兵们解释：这些战利品对陆军相当重要，只需暂时借用，每个缴获者都将得到收条。士兵们很不情愿地翻开他们的行军背包和铺盖卷，交出了所需数量的中共军号、牧羊人号角、铜哨子等等。

十一月会战结束之后两周，训练第八集团军的步兵抵抗中共军队噪音战术的工作充分开展起来了。在阵线后方的夜间演习中，扮演“进攻者”一方的部队使用了中共军队的噪音战术和信号器械。到了1951年1月中旬，敌军这种手法给我军士兵带来的刺激就已被消除了。

然而，考虑到中共军队在十一月会战中使用噪音战术所取得的显著效果，（研究人员）相信并建议我军自己的训练机构也采取此类改革，使部队适应噪音的这种奇特用途也应当成为准备战斗的标准操作程序。

NOISE:

SIGNAL AND WEAPON

TACTICAL USE OF SOUND

The field notes published in the Theater dwell briefly upon CCF’s use of noisemakers to create terror and the use of various wind instruments for giving combat signals.

The problem of reducing these techniques to a pattern which would become comprehensible to our troops impressed the writer as being of prime importance immediately after the study of the November battle was undertaken. Command and staff at the various levels were not as yet concerned about the acuteness of this need and had taken no action with respect to it. Their negative reaction was but natural. They were worn from the strain of battle and engrossed with the problem of rehabilitating the units which had been hardest used in the fighting and conserving those which were still combat-worthy. It was not specifically the assigned task of any group or individual serving with Eighth Army to collect and correlate battlefield information originating in our own infantry line, pertaining to the tactical characteristics of the enemy, toward the end that by more perfect knowledge of his procedures we would take steps toward their neutralization.

This statement is not made in any spirit of apology but to the contrary is frankly critical; the writer belives that the condition reflects an inherent weakness in the staff system of the US Army. We are in fact overlooking a main avenue toward the perfecting of our combat intelligence.

The document, “Notes on Infantry Tactics in Korea, deals briefly with the matter of how the enemy used noise-making instruments against American forces and supplies some detail on the use of these instruments in the sounding of signals on the battlefield. It is set forth that the enemy’s noise effects were directed toward (1) the creation of a general terror, (2) the simulating of a more extended deployment than in fact occurred, and (3) the control of his own forces. Examples of signals and their meaning were included in the report. The report omitted, however, any description of the effect on our troops consequent to these surprise methods, and it did not specify how the data on CCF noisemaking tactics were collected.

In the November battle, the reaction of the average American company to the Chinese use of this centuries-old technique was one of exaggerated fear and alarm.

Of that, there can be no question. Our troops were not conditioned to the expectation of hearing such instruments as bugles, shepherds’ horns, flutes, Congo drums, and rattles on the field of battle. When they were employed initially in the night attack, the effect was greatly unnerving, mainly because of the attendant element of mystery.

Infantry companies which had survived the attack, when later assembled, admitted this frankly. What the enemy had done was not offered as an excuse for their own conduct. None such was needed. Most of these companies had faced the unknown strongly and even heroically; it is believed that the general level of company conduct will compare favorably with anything in our annals. But when they discussed the features of the enemy attack which caused them the greatest distress, the common reaction to the enemy’s noise-making tricks was most frequently summed up in these words: “That was what made our hair stand on end.” These were the expressions of men freshly delivered from battle; they were spoken in the presence of other men of the company. For that reason, they should not be discounted, though Eighth Army has long since become conditioned to CCF eccentricities.

At least 95 percent of these same men could remember none of the pertinent details of how and when (at what stage of combat and under what tactical conditions) CCF had used any of the noise-making instruments. The majority could report only that they had heard various noises such as bugles and whistles and that the sounds had impacted strongly on their emotions. Less than percent could remember the sequence of notes in any of the bugle calls or the sound of the “rooster call” blown from the shepherd’s horn.

Such specific data as were developed from the numerous assemblies came finally from requesting the companies to concentrate on the point at issue. This had to be done repeatedly, from company to company. One man in the assembly might remember that a call was heard at a particular point in the fight. Numerous of the others would confirm his recollection. Then all hands would be asked to concentrate on the call itself, the question being asked : “Exactly what did you hear?” Many times the result would be negative. But the search was continued until finally here and there were found the few individuals who through concentration could refresh their memories and either

whistle or sing the call. Once that was done, the others in the assembly would all remember it and agree that the witness was accurate. The score was then written down.

In much the same way, the distinction was finally made between the Chinese use of noise for the creation of terror and the conditions under which noise-making instruments were being used for control purposes.

There remained the final step - the procurement of the instruments themselves, so that in training exercises Eighth Army formations could be conditioned to the enemy signals and terror-creating techniques and in the end might be able to turn these same devices against CCF.

At the time the noise-making instruments seemed almost priceless. However, the writer was perfectly sure that with their usual penchant for souvenir-hunting, our troops, even in withdrawing from a lost field, had managed here and there to possess themselves of the CCF instruments. Search was therefore instituted. At every company formation it was explained that these prizes would be of great value to the Army, that they were needed only temporarily, and that the owner would be given a receipt. With a manifest reluctance, soldiers dipped down into their barracks bags and bedrolls and brought forth CCF bugles, shepherds’ horns, bronze whistles, etc., in the required number.

Within two weeks after the conclusion of the November battle, the business of indoctrinating Eighth Army infantry against CCF noise-making tactics was well begun. In the conducting of night exercises back of the line, CCF noise and signal instruments were used by the side playing “aggressor.” By mid-January, 1951, the sting had been removed from this part of the enemy technique.

However, in view of the marked effects achieved by CCF with noise-making tactics during the November battle, it is believed, and is recommended, that such innovations should be anticipated by our own training establishment, and that conditioning troops to the eccentric use of noise should be SOP in preparation for combat.