There was after a extremely exciting statement created by a now common military historian and thinker. He served as a basic in the Italian army in the 1920s and his name was Giulio Douhet.
11 magnum percussion caps produced a statement that any new advancement in guns, and specifically he was talking soldier carried tiny arms offers the advantage to the army that is defending and not the 1 aggressing. That is to say faster speedy firing capacity or accuracy, giving both sides have the identical technologies provides 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 perform: “The Command of the Air” by Giulio Douhet, which was published with University of Alabama Press, (2009), which you can acquire on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-eight and it is primarily based and essentially re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 work. Now then, on 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.”
Effectively, that is exciting, and I searched my mind to try to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had problems undertaking, and if you say a flame thrower, well that’s not seriously regarded a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following inquiries:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold correct these days too? If both sides have the exact same weapons, “small firearms” then does the defensive position normally have the benefit, due to the potential to stay in position with no 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, soon after years of history?
B.) If we add in – speedy moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the exact same fire-arm capability start to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are pretty challenging 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 technology on the battlefield? Indeed, I thought you could, and hence, I sincerely hope that you will please take into consideration it and think on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.