There was as soon as a very fascinating statement produced by a now preferred 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 especially he was speaking soldier carried smaller arms provides the benefit to the army that is defending and not the one particular aggressing. That is to say quicker rapid firing capacity or accuracy, supplying each sides have the identical technologies offers 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 perform: “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 basically re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 perform. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to talk about absolutes, and he states

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

Well, 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 trouble performing, and if you say a flame thrower, effectively that is not actually regarded a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following concerns:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold true currently as well? If each sides have the same weapons, “modest firearms” then does the defensive position generally have the advantage, due to the ability to remain in position devoid of the challenge of forward advancement? Would Small rifle primers in stock say this principal could be moved from a “theory of warfare” to an actual “law” of the battlefield, following years of history?

B.) If we add in – fast 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 extremely really hard to hit. Or in the case of an armored automobile, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. As a result, would the author be correct, as the offense is a defense in and of itself anyway?

Are you starting to see the value in this Douhet’s observation as it relates to advances in technologies on the battlefield? Indeed, I thought you may possibly, and therefore, I sincerely hope that you will please contemplate it and assume on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.