There was as soon as a very exciting statement created by a now common military historian and thinker. He served as a common in the Italian army in the 1920s and his name was Giulio Douhet.
He made a statement that any new advancement in guns, and particularly he was talking soldier carried modest arms offers the advantage to the army that is defending and not the one aggressing. That is to say more rapidly fast firing capacity or accuracy, offering each sides have the very same technology offers the benefit 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 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 based and generally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 work. Now then, on web page 11 the author attempts to speak about absolutes, and he states
“The truth is that just about every development or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Properly, that is fascinating, and I searched my thoughts to try to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had trouble carrying out, and if you say a flame thrower, properly that is not genuinely deemed a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following concerns:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold accurate today also? If each sides have the very same weapons, “smaller firearms” then does the defensive position generally have the advantage, due to the potential 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, immediately after years of history?
B.) If we add in – quickly moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the same fire-arm capability commence to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are quite hard to hit. Or in Glock for sale of an armored car, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Therefore, would the author be right, 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 technology on the battlefield? Indeed, I thought you may well, and hence, I sincerely hope that you will please think about it and believe on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.