There was when a very interesting statement created by a now well-liked military historian and thinker. online guns store served as a common in the Italian army in the 1920s and his name was Giulio Douhet.
He produced a statement that any new advancement in guns, and especially he was talking soldier carried little arms provides the benefit to the army that is defending and not the one aggressing. That is to say faster speedy firing capacity or accuracy, providing each sides have the very same technologies offers the advantage to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if you would like to comprehend 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 buy on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-8 and it is based and essentially re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 operate. Now then, on web page 11 the author attempts to talk about absolutes, and he states
“The truth is that every development or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Effectively, that is fascinating, and I searched my mind to try to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had difficulty doing, and if you say a flame thrower, nicely that is not seriously thought of a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following concerns:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold true these days as well? If each sides have the very same weapons, “compact firearms” then does the defensive position generally have the advantage, due to the capacity to remain in position with out 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, after years of history?
B.) If we add in – quick moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the similar fire-arm capability start to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are pretty really hard to hit. Or in the case of an armored automobile, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. For that reason, would the author be appropriate, as the offense is a defense in and of itself anyway?
Are you starting to see the value in this Douhet’s observation as it relates to advances in technologies on the battlefield? Indeed, I believed you could, and thus, I sincerely hope that you will please take into account it and assume on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.