There was after a very intriguing statement produced by a now well-known military historian and thinker. He served as a basic in the Italian army in the 1920s and his name was Giulio Douhet.
He produced a statement that any new advancement in guns, and particularly he was talking soldier carried tiny arms offers the advantage to the army that is defending and not the a single aggressing. That is to say more rapidly speedy firing capacity or accuracy, supplying both sides have the similar technology offers the advantage to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if you would like to have an understanding of my references herein, I’d like to cite the following perform: “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 fundamentally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 work. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to talk about absolutes, and he states
“The truth is that each development or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
mossy oak bayou camo , that is intriguing, and I searched my thoughts to attempt to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had trouble performing, and if you say a flame thrower, effectively that is not definitely considered a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following questions:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold accurate right now too? If both sides have the identical weapons, “small firearms” then does the defensive position normally have the advantage, due to the ability to stay 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, following 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 begin to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are really hard 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 correct, 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 may well, 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 exactly where that rule would not be applicable.