There was once a really intriguing statement created by a now popular military historian and thinker. He served as a common 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 provides the advantage to the army that is defending and not the 1 aggressing. That is to say more rapidly fast firing capacity or accuracy, giving both sides have the exact same technology offers the benefit to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if you would like to comprehend 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 purchase on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-8 and it is primarily based and essentially 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 each improvement or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Properly, that is exciting, 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, nicely that is not really regarded as a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following queries:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold true these days too? If 224 valkyrie ammo have the identical weapons, “little firearms” then does the defensive position constantly have the benefit, due to the capacity to stay in position without having 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 same fire-arm capability start to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are really tough 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 may, and hence, I sincerely hope that you will please think about it and assume on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.
