There was after a extremely fascinating statement produced by a now well-liked 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 especially he was talking soldier carried tiny arms gives the advantage to the army that is defending and not the one aggressing. That is to say more rapidly fast firing capacity or accuracy, providing each sides have the exact same technology gives the advantage to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if you would like to realize 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 obtain on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-eight and it is based and essentially re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 perform. Now then, on web page 11 the author attempts to talk about absolutes, and he states
“The truth is that each and every improvement or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Properly, that is interesting, and I searched my thoughts to attempt to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had problems doing, and if you say a flame thrower, properly that’s not seriously deemed a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following queries:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold true right now too? If 224 valkyrie ammo have the exact same weapons, “tiny firearms” then does the defensive position always have the benefit, due to the capability 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, right after years of history?
B.) If we add in – speedy moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the very same fire-arm capability begin to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are quite hard to hit. Or in the case of an armored car, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Consequently, 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 technology on the battlefield? Certainly, I thought you could, and hence, I sincerely hope that you will please contemplate it and believe on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.