There was after Buy Colt Delta Elite made by a now well known 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 compact arms gives the benefit to the army that is defending and not the one particular aggressing. That is to say more rapidly speedy firing capacity or accuracy, delivering both sides have the exact same technology gives 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 function: “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 generally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 perform. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to speak about absolutes, and he states
“The truth is that each improvement or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Well, that is exciting, and I searched my mind to attempt to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had difficulty undertaking, and if you say a flame thrower, properly that is not really deemed a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following inquiries:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold correct nowadays also? If both sides have the identical weapons, “compact firearms” then does the defensive position normally have the benefit, due to the capacity to stay in position devoid 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, just after years of history?
B.) If we add in – quick moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the very same fire-arm capability commence to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are extremely hard 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 beginning to see the worth 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 look at it and believe on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.