There was as soon as a really intriguing statement made by a now well-known military historian and thinker. He served as a basic 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 speaking soldier carried modest arms gives the advantage to the army that is defending and not the a single aggressing. That is to say faster rapid firing potential or accuracy, giving both sides have the exact same technologies gives the advantage to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if preban imi uzi pistol would like to recognize my references herein, I’d like to cite the following operate: “The Command of the Air” by Giulio Douhet, which was published with University of Alabama Press, (2009), which you can obtain on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-8 and it is primarily based and essentially re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 operate. 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.”
Nicely, that is fascinating, and I searched my mind to attempt to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had difficulty carrying out, and if you say a flame thrower, effectively that’s not really thought of a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following queries:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold true right now as well? If each sides have the exact same weapons, “small firearms” then does the defensive position constantly have the benefit, due to the potential to remain in position without the need 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, after years of history?
B.) If we add in – rapidly moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the similar fire-arm capability commence to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are pretty hard to hit. Or in the case of an armored automobile, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. For that reason, 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 technology on the battlefield? Indeed, I believed you may possibly, and hence, I sincerely hope that you will please take into consideration it and consider on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.