There was once a very intriguing statement made by a now well-liked military historian and thinker. He served as a common in the Italian army in the 1920s and his name was Giulio Douhet.
He created a statement that any new advancement in guns, and especially he was talking soldier carried compact arms gives the benefit to the army that is defending and not the one particular aggressing. That is to say more rapidly rapid firing capability or accuracy, giving both sides have the very same technology offers the benefit to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if 224 valkyrie ammo would like to realize my references herein, I’d like to cite the following work: “The Command of the Air” by Giulio Douhet, which was published with University of Alabama Press, (2009), which you can get on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-eight and it is based and basically re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 work. Now then, on web page 11 the author attempts to speak about absolutes, and he states
“The truth is that every improvement or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Effectively, that is fascinating, and I searched my thoughts to try to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had trouble performing, and if you say a flame thrower, properly that is not actually regarded a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following queries:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold true today as well? If each sides have the very same weapons, “tiny firearms” then does the defensive position generally have the benefit, due to the ability to remain in position without the need of the challenge of forward advancement? Would you say this principal could be moved from a “theory of warfare” to an actual “law” of the battlefield, following years of history?
B.) If we add in – rapid moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the identical fire-arm capability commence to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are very challenging to hit. Or in the case of an armored automobile, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Hence, would the author be right, as the offense is a defense in and of itself anyway?
Are you beginning to see the worth in this Douhet’s observation as it relates to advances in technologies on the battlefield? Certainly, I thought you may possibly, and as a result, I sincerely hope that you will please think about it and think on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.