There was after a incredibly interesting statement created by a now preferred 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 especially he was talking soldier carried modest arms offers the benefit to the army that is defending and not the 1 aggressing. That is to say more rapidly rapid firing potential or accuracy, supplying each sides have the exact same technology offers the benefit 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 primarily based and essentially re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 function. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to speak about absolutes, and he states
“The truth is that every single development or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Effectively, that is intriguing, and I searched my thoughts to attempt 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, well that is not definitely deemed a fire-arm is it? Okay so, hornady outfitter 3006 ask the following concerns:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold accurate currently as well? If each sides have the very same weapons, “tiny firearms” then does the defensive position generally have the advantage, due to the ability to stay in position with out 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 commence to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are very really hard to hit. Or in the case of an armored vehicle, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Therefore, would the author be right, as the offense is a defense in and of itself anyway?
Are you beginning to see the value in this Douhet’s observation as it relates to advances in technologies on the battlefield? Indeed, I believed you could, and hence, I sincerely hope that you will please take into account it and think on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.