发信人: "Nickel" <nickel_deja@yahoo.com.hk>, 看板: history
标  题: Re: 以一敌几百
发信站:  (Wed Jun  6 00:36:39 2007)
转信站: Lion!news.nsysu!ctu-gate!news.nctu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews.googl
Origin: pcd619156.netvigator.com

这个更厉害,一个人挡美军一个机械化师

-------------------

1999年10月1日，北京天安门广场举行了庆祝建国50周年的盛大庆典活动，当我人民解放军的各兵种战斗分队英姿勃勃地通过天安门城楼前，当各式战车与新型坦克轰隆隆驶过宽阔的长安街，在国庆观礼台上的一位76岁的老人激动得泪水涟涟，因为，在这位古稀老翁的心中，国旗、军队，尤其是坦克，有著非同一般的份量与意义…… 他，就是我军历史上赫赫有名的反坦克英雄谭秉
云。一个人，一支枪，三颗手雷，竟将美骑二师堵截整整八个小时！


1951年的5月下旬，朝鲜战争第五次战役後期，以美国为首的联合国军利用志愿军前突太猛，战线延伸太长的机会，出动大批机械化部队，企图与一支巳突破我军北汉江防线的摩托化部队会合，斩断江南我军後撤之路。


5月24日这天傍晚，班长谭秉云带著新战士毛和在三九０高地下面的公路旁边挖好了散兵坑。这地形是谭秉云精心选择的，这一段公路很窄，一边是小河，另一边是山岩。河岸和岩壁都很陡峭，打坏敌人一辆坦克，其馀的坦克很容易被堵塞。作为一班之长,谭秉云深知这次阻击任务的重大意义。赶到三九０高地後，他立带领全班战士到指定地点构□工事。稍後，他又把其馀战士留在山腰上的战壕□打掩护，自己则带著毛和下了公路。谭秉云睁著警惕的眼睛，注视著公路尽头处的动静。只见远处的天幕上，掠动阒一道道光柱。不一会儿，随著光柱越来越来越近，轰响声也越来越大。有一道光柱穿过前面的一片树林，射到了隐蔽著千军万马的三九0高地上，再从高地移向河面，又突然移到了谭秉云藏身的地方。幸亏他早巳用树枝将自己隐蔽好，敌人看不见他。从树叶的缝隙望出去,光柱一道连著一道，数不清有多少，在公路上不停地晃动，一个个庞然大物从远处疾驰而来。远看，仿佛扭动著一条巨大的铁锁链。公路上尘土冲天，把那一道道光柱也染成了橙黄色。"班长，看清了吗？有多少辆坦克？"新战士毛和紧张地问。"还看不清楚，"谭秉云从腰间取下一个手雷递给毛和说道，"我先上，你在这" 这时，从
轰响的引擎声巳经分辨得出履带的铿锵声，车上的光柱还直直地射到了隐蔽著班□战友的半山腰上。谭秉云离开用树枝遮挡著的散兵坑，在灌木丛中向前爬去。坦克越来越近。谭秉云虽然是个参加过解放战争的老兵，但打坦克比毕竟是生平第一次，心中也不免有些紧张。坦克离他不到二十米了，他一动不动；十五米了，他直起身单腿跪地，右手紧握著手雷，左手食指套在插圈□，继续耐心地等待著 . . .

( 来源：溯古追风世界历史论坛 )



"Nickel" <nickel_deja@yahoo.com.hk> 撰写於邮件新闻:465302cc$1@127.0.0.1...
> 香港的教科书好像没有提起过这个人, 以一敌几百 -
>
> Maj. John Robert Osborn
>
> http://imdb.com/title/tt0386064/board/thread/64340965?d=67001046&p=1#67001046
>
> I understand your point, probably because you phrased it far more
> eloquently
> than the OP. I agree to an extent, but personally, at least in this case,
> I
> found the scene to be more... emotional than contrived. The other thing I
> found was that this movie, for the most part, did a very good job of
> showing
> how people 'really die' in war, that is, suddenly, messily, and
> tragically.
> For the most part. The thing is that often times, individuals do make last
> stands of that kind, in which they are able to kill or wound a truly
> unbelievable number of enemy soldiers single handedly, and quite often
> they
> die in the act. For instance, in the Korean War there was an American
> soldier (Cpl. Tibor Rubin) who did this exact thing several times, on one
> occasion singlehandedly holding a hill with a machine gun against an
> entire
> comany (150-200) of enemy soldiers for 24 hours without reinforcement,
> eventually forcing them to retreat. He survived, but there are countless
> examples of the opposite, such as a soldier in world war two in the battle
> of Hong Kong (Sgt.Maj. John Robert Osborn) who, also using a machine gun,
> allowed his unit to retreat while holding off several hundred japanese
> soldiers. After miraculously escaping and rejoining his unit, they came
> under attack again, and he again fought with superhuman strength, killing
> dozens of enemy soldiers and throwing back grenades they had tossed into
> their midst, until finally one landed that he could not reach in time, and
> he threw himself on it to save his comrades. Obviously, this is not the
> case
> for the majority of soldiers, but for some it is. As I was trying to point
> out, perhaps ineefectively, Jin-Tae had already been established as an
> exceptionally brave and skilled soldier, so in my mind, it wasn't far
> fetched at all that he should find it in within himself to sacrifice his
> life that way, or that he should be able to take down a few dozen enemy
> soldiers in the process. After all, he did die, rather, than miraculously
> wiping out the entire enemy force and limping back home to live happily
> ever
> after with his brother. Not only does he die, but he dies rather
> ingloriously. That may seem antithetical, given the mood of the scene in
> the
> film, but think about it; his brother doesn't know what he did. No-one
> knows
> what he did. He doesn't get any medals, he doesn't get a memorial
> ceremony,
> he doesn't even get a funeral: his body just sits in the mud and decays
> until someone digs it up 50 years later. Some end for a hero.
>
> Given that, I really don't have a problem with that sort of scene, that
> sort
> of death for a main character, as long as it actually serves a purpose,
> makes sense, and is well/tastefully done. When it's tacked on just to be
> cool, or to fit some 'hollywood rule', then it's stupid. I suppose you
> could
> see this that way, but I don't really see how, personally. At any rate, I
> appreciate your even and well-worded response.
>
>
>