There was when a really fascinating statement produced by a now well known military historian and thinker. He served as a general 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 talking soldier carried tiny arms offers the benefit to the army that is defending and not the one aggressing. That is to say more quickly fast firing potential or accuracy, delivering each sides have the very same technology gives 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 function: “The Command of the Air” by Giulio Douhet, which was published with University of Alabama Press, (2009), which you can purchase on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-eight and it is primarily based and essentially re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 perform. 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.”
Well, that is intriguing, and I searched my thoughts to attempt to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had trouble undertaking, and if you say a flame thrower, nicely that’s not genuinely considered a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following questions:
A.) Does 224 valkyrie ammo of his hold correct right now as well? If each sides have the very same weapons, “tiny firearms” then does the defensive position always have the advantage, due to the capability to stay 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, following years of history?
B.) If we add in – quickly 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 difficult 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 right, 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 technology on the battlefield? Certainly, I thought you could, and thus, I sincerely hope that you will please contemplate it and feel on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.