There was once a incredibly fascinating statement created 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 produced a statement that any new advancement in guns, and especially he was talking 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 speedy firing capacity or accuracy, offering each sides have the same technology provides the benefit to the entrenched position defending.

Okay so, if you would like to comprehend 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 invest in on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-8 and it is based and fundamentally 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 just about every development or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”

Properly, that is interesting, 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, well that is not really considered a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following questions:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold true now as well? If each sides have the identical weapons, “smaller firearms” then does the defensive position normally have the advantage, due to the ability to stay in position with out 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, just after years of history?

B.) If we add in – rapid moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the similar fire-arm capability begin to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are really really hard to hit. Or in the case of an armored vehicle, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Consequently, would the author be appropriate, 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 technologies on the battlefield? Indeed, ZF39 Scope k98 Mauser Sniper rifle german thought you may possibly, and hence, I sincerely hope that you will please consider it and assume on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.