There was once a really fascinating statement created by a now preferred military historian and thinker. He served as a general in the Italian army in the 1920s and his name was Giulio Douhet.
He created a statement that any new advancement in guns, and particularly he was talking soldier carried tiny arms gives the advantage to the army that is defending and not the one aggressing. That is to say more quickly speedy firing ability or accuracy, supplying both sides have the identical technology offers the advantage to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if 224 valkyrie ammo would like to recognize my references herein, I’d like to cite the following operate: “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-eight and it is primarily based and generally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 operate. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to speak about absolutes, and he states
“The truth is that every development or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Properly, that is intriguing, and I searched my mind to try to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had difficulty performing, and if you say a flame thrower, well that’s not seriously thought of a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following questions:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold true today also? If both sides have the exact same weapons, “little firearms” then does the defensive position generally have the benefit, due to the potential to stay in position without 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 – speedy 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 pretty tough to hit. Or in the case of an armored vehicle, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. As a result, would the author be correct, as the offense is a defense in and of itself anyway?
Are you beginning to see the value in this Douhet’s observation as it relates to advances in technology on the battlefield? Indeed, I believed you could, and hence, I sincerely hope that you will please look at it and feel on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.