There was after a really intriguing statement made by a now common military historian and thinker. He served as a general in the Italian army in the 1920s and his name was Giulio Douhet.
He produced a statement that any new advancement in guns, and specifically he was talking soldier carried modest arms offers the benefit to the army that is defending and not the 1 aggressing. That is to say quicker speedy firing capability or accuracy, offering each sides have the similar technology gives the advantage to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if you would like to fully grasp my references herein, I’d like to cite the following function: “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 primarily based and basically re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 perform. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to talk about absolutes, and he states
“The truth is that every improvement or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Well, that is fascinating, and I searched my thoughts to attempt to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had trouble undertaking, and if you say a flame thrower, well that’s not actually considered a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following concerns:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold true nowadays as well? If both sides have the same weapons, “compact firearms” then does the defensive position constantly have the advantage, due to the potential 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, after years of history?
B.) If we add in – quickly moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the very same fire-arm capability commence to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are really difficult to hit. Or in the case of an armored vehicle, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Hence, would the author be correct, 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? Indeed, 224 valkyrie ammo thought you may well, and hence, I sincerely hope that you will please consider it and think on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.