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.

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

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.
>
>
>