There was once a quite fascinating statement created by a now well-liked military historian and thinker. He served as a general 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 speaking soldier carried smaller arms gives the advantage to the army that is defending and not the one aggressing. That is to say faster speedy firing capability or accuracy, providing each sides have the very same technology gives the benefit to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if you would like to have an understanding of 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 buy on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-eight and it is based and generally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 work. Now then, on web page 11 the author attempts to speak about absolutes, and he states
“The truth is that each improvement or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
www.atozgunsammo.shop/product/hornady-outfitter-30-06-springfield-gmx-180-grain-20-rounds , that is interesting, and I searched my thoughts to try to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had difficulty undertaking, and if you say a flame thrower, nicely that’s not genuinely regarded as a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following inquiries:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold correct nowadays too? If both sides have the exact same weapons, “modest firearms” then does the defensive position constantly have the benefit, due to the capability 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 same fire-arm capability start to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are pretty hard to hit. Or in the case of an armored car, 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 starting to see the worth in this Douhet’s observation as it relates to advances in technologies on the battlefield? Certainly, I thought you may well, and therefore, I sincerely hope that you will please take into account it and feel on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.