There was as soon as a very interesting statement produced 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 particularly he was talking soldier carried tiny arms gives the benefit to the army that is defending and not the a single aggressing. That is to say faster speedy firing capability or accuracy, supplying both sides have the same technologies provides the advantage to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if you would like to fully grasp 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 get on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-eight and it is primarily based and generally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 work. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to speak about absolutes, and he states
“The truth is that each and every improvement or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Effectively, that is intriguing, and I searched my thoughts to try to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had problems performing, and if you say a flame thrower, effectively that’s not truly regarded a fire-arm is it? Okay so, hornady outfitter 3006 ask the following questions:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold accurate right now also? If both sides have the exact same weapons, “smaller firearms” then does the defensive position constantly 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, soon after years of history?
B.) If we add in – fast moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the identical fire-arm capability start to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are really difficult 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 technologies on the battlefield? Indeed, I believed you could, and therefore, I sincerely hope that you will please consider it and feel on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.