There was once a pretty fascinating statement created by a now well-liked military historian and thinker. He served as a general in the Italian army in the 1920s and his name was Giulio Douhet.
He created a statement that any new advancement in guns, and especially he was talking soldier carried small arms gives the advantage to the army that is defending and not the 1 aggressing. That is to say faster speedy firing potential or accuracy, supplying each sides have the very same technologies 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 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: 978–8173-5608-8 and it is primarily based and fundamentally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 work. Now then, on web page 11 the author attempts to talk about absolutes, and he states
“The truth is that just about every improvement or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Nicely, 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 trouble doing, and if you say a flame thrower, properly that is not genuinely considered a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following inquiries:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold accurate these days also? If Sks for sale have the exact same weapons, “compact firearms” then does the defensive position generally have the advantage, due to the ability 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 – fast moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the same fire-arm capability commence to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are extremely difficult to hit. Or in the case of an armored car, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Therefore, 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? Certainly, I thought you could, and hence, I sincerely hope that you will please take into account it and consider on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.