There was when a incredibly intriguing statement created by a now popular 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 specifically he was speaking soldier carried little arms gives the benefit to the army that is defending and not the 1 aggressing. That is to say faster fast firing ability or accuracy, giving each sides have the very same technologies offers the benefit to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if you would like to recognize my references herein, I’d like to cite the following work: “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-eight and it is based and fundamentally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 perform. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to talk about absolutes, and he states
“The truth is that every development or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Well, that is exciting, and I searched my thoughts to attempt to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had difficulty performing, and if you say a flame thrower, properly that’s not really viewed as a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following concerns:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold accurate nowadays also? If glock switch have the similar weapons, “little firearms” then does the defensive position often have the advantage, due to the ability to stay in position without the need of 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 exact 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 automobile, 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 value in this Douhet’s observation as it relates to advances in technology on the battlefield? Indeed, I believed you may possibly, and therefore, I sincerely hope that you will please look at it and believe on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.