There was after a really exciting statement created by a now common military historian and thinker. Small rifle primers in stock served as a basic 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 speaking soldier carried little arms provides the benefit to the army that is defending and not the 1 aggressing. That is to say more rapidly rapid firing potential or accuracy, providing both sides have the similar technology offers the benefit to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if you would like to understand 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: 978–8173-5608-8 and it is primarily based and basically re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 function. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to talk about absolutes, and he states
“The truth is that just about every improvement or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Well, that is interesting, and I searched my mind to try to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had problems performing, and if you say a flame thrower, nicely that’s not really regarded a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following concerns:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold correct right now as well? If each sides have the same weapons, “compact firearms” then does the defensive position normally have the benefit, due to the capacity to remain 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, after years of history?
B.) If we add in – fast moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the exact same fire-arm capability commence to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are really hard to hit. Or in the case of an armored car, 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 starting to see the worth in this Douhet’s observation as it relates to advances in technologies on the battlefield? Indeed, I believed you could possibly, and hence, I sincerely hope that you will please take into account it and consider on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.