There was after a very fascinating statement produced by a now preferred military historian and thinker. 224 valkyrie ammo served as a general in the Italian army in the 1920s and his name was Giulio Douhet.
He made a statement that any new advancement in guns, and particularly he was talking soldier carried little arms gives the benefit to the army that is defending and not the one aggressing. That is to say faster fast firing capability or accuracy, offering both sides have the exact same technology gives the benefit to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if you would like to fully grasp 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 based and generally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 function. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to talk about absolutes, and he states
“The truth is that every improvement or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Effectively, 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 trouble carrying out, and if you say a flame thrower, properly that is not truly regarded as a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following questions:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold correct currently too? If both sides have the identical weapons, “smaller firearms” then does the defensive position always have the benefit, due to the capacity 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, right after years of history?
B.) If we add in – rapidly 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 very difficult to hit. Or in the case of an armored vehicle, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. For that reason, 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 technology on the battlefield? Certainly, I thought you may possibly, and therefore, I sincerely hope that you will please look at it and think on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.