There was as soon as a very intriguing statement made by a now common 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 specifically he was speaking soldier carried compact arms offers the advantage to the army that is defending and not the one particular aggressing. That is to say more rapidly rapid firing potential or accuracy, supplying each sides have the very same technology gives the benefit to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if uzi parts kit 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 based and essentially 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 every development or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Effectively, that is fascinating, and I searched my thoughts to try to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had difficulty doing, and if you say a flame thrower, effectively that’s not definitely regarded as a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following concerns:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold correct nowadays also? If each sides have the same weapons, “modest firearms” then does the defensive position constantly have the benefit, due to the capability to remain in position without 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, soon after years of history?
B.) If we add in – fast moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the exact same fire-arm capability start to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are incredibly 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? Indeed, I thought you may, and thus, I sincerely hope that you will please take into consideration it and feel on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.