There was as soon as a extremely intriguing statement made by a now well-liked military historian and thinker. He served as a common in the Italian army in the 1920s and his name was Giulio Douhet.

He created a statement that any new advancement in guns, and specifically he was talking soldier carried smaller arms provides the benefit to the army that is defending and not the one aggressing. That is to say more rapidly rapid firing potential or accuracy, offering each sides have the similar technology gives 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 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 primarily based and generally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 operate. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to speak about absolutes, and he states

“The truth is that every development or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”

Properly, 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 problems carrying out, and if you say a flame thrower, properly that is not genuinely regarded a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following concerns:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold accurate today also? If each sides have the exact same weapons, “little firearms” then does the defensive position generally have the advantage, due to the capacity to stay in position with out the challenge of forward advancement? Would 590a1 18.5 barrel say this principal could be moved from a “theory of warfare” to an actual “law” of the battlefield, after years of history?

B.) If we add in – quickly moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the very same fire-arm capability begin to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are incredibly tough to hit. Or in the case of an armored automobile, 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 worth in this Douhet’s observation as it relates to advances in technology on the battlefield? Certainly, I thought you might, and hence, I sincerely hope that you will please consider it and consider on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.