There was when a quite intriguing statement created 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 speaking soldier carried little arms provides the benefit to the army that is defending and not the 1 aggressing. That is to say faster fast firing ability or accuracy, offering both sides have the identical technology offers the benefit to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if Small pistol primers in stock would like to have an understanding of 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 purchase on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-8 and it is primarily based and fundamentally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 perform. Now then, on web page 11 the author attempts to speak about absolutes, and he states
“The truth is that each improvement or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Nicely, that is intriguing, and I searched my mind to attempt to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had problems carrying out, and if you say a flame thrower, effectively that’s not definitely thought of a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following queries:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold correct right now as well? If each sides have the very same weapons, “modest firearms” then does the defensive position often have the benefit, due to the capability 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, immediately after years of history?
B.) If we add in – rapid moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the very same fire-arm capability start to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are really 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 appropriate, 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? Certainly, I thought you may possibly, and as a result, I sincerely hope that you will please look at it and consider on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.