以一敵幾百

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

1999年10月1日，北京天安門廣場舉行了慶祝建國50周年的盛大慶典活動，當我人民解放軍的各兵種戰鬥分隊英姿勃勃地通過天安門城樓前，當各式戰車與新型坦克轟隆隆駛過寬闊的長安街，在國慶觀禮臺上的一位76歲的老人激動得淚水漣漣，因為，在這位古稀老翁的心中，國旗、軍隊，尤其是坦克，有著非同一般的份量與意義…… 他，就是我軍歷史上赫赫有名的反坦克英雄譚秉
雲。一個人，一支槍，三顆手雷，竟將美騎二師堵截整整八個小時！


1951年的5月下旬，朝鮮戰爭第五次戰役後期，以美國為首的聯合國軍利用志願軍前突太猛，戰線延伸太長的機會，出動大批機械化部隊，企圖與一支巳突破我軍北漢江防線的摩托化部隊會合，斬斷江南我軍後撤之路。


5月24日這天傍晚，班長譚秉雲帶著新戰士毛和在三九０高地下面的公路旁邊挖好了散兵坑。這地形是譚秉雲精心選擇的，這一段公路很窄，一邊是小河，另一邊是山岩。河岸和岩壁都很陡峭，打壞敵人一輛坦克，其餘的坦克很容易被堵塞。作為一班之長,譚秉雲深知這次阻擊任務的重大意義。趕到三九０高地後，他立帶領全班戰士到指定地點構築工事。稍後，他又把其餘戰士留在山腰上的戰壕裏打掩護，自己則帶著毛和下了公路。譚秉雲睜著警惕的眼睛，注視著公路盡頭處的動靜。只見遠處的天幕上，掠動闃一道道光柱。不一會兒，隨著光柱越來越來越近，轟響聲也越來越大。有一道光柱穿過前面的一片樹林，射到了隱蔽著千軍萬馬的三九0高地上，再從高地移向河面，又突然移到了譚秉雲藏身的地方。幸虧他早巳用樹枝將自己隱蔽好，敵人看不見他。從樹葉的縫隙望出去,光柱一道連著一道，數不清有多少，在公路上不停地晃動，一個個龐然大物從遠處疾馳而來。遠看，仿佛扭動著一條巨大的鐵鎖鏈。公路上塵土沖天，把那一道道光柱也染成了橙黃色。"班長，看清了嗎？有多少輛坦克？"新戰士毛和緊張地問。"還看不清楚，"譚秉雲從腰間取下一個手雷遞給毛和說道，"我先上，你在這" 這時，從
轟響的引擎聲巳經分辨得出履帶的鏗鏘聲，車上的光柱還直直地射到了隱蔽著班裏戰友的半山腰上。譚秉雲離開用樹枝遮擋著的散兵坑，在灌木叢中向前爬去。坦克越來越近。譚秉雲雖然是個參加過解放戰爭的老兵，但打坦克比畢竟是生平第一次，心中也不免有些緊張。坦克離他不到二十米了，他一動不動；十五米了，他直起身單腿跪地，右手緊握著手雷，左手食指套在插圈裏，繼續耐心地等待著 . . .

( 來源：溯古追風世界歷史論壇 )



"Nickel" <nickel_deja@yahoo.com.hk> 撰寫於郵件新聞:465302cc$1@127.0.0.1...
> 香港的教科書好像沒有提起過這個人, 以一敵幾百 -
>
> 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.
>
>
>