There was as soon as a incredibly exciting statement created by a now well-known 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 talking soldier carried modest arms gives the advantage to the army that is defending and not the a single aggressing. That is to say more rapidly rapid firing capacity or accuracy, offering both sides have the exact same technology offers the advantage to the entrenched position defending.

Okay so, if you would like to realize my references herein, I’d like to cite the following work: “The Command of the Air” by Giulio Douhet, which was published with University of Alabama Press, (2009), which you can buy on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-8 and it is primarily based and fundamentally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 operate. Now then, on web page 11 the author attempts to talk about absolutes, and he states

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

Effectively, that is fascinating, and I searched my thoughts to attempt 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 is not definitely regarded a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following queries:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold true now also? If Glock 19 Gen 3 Slide have the identical weapons, “tiny firearms” then does the defensive position constantly have the advantage, due to the ability to stay in position with no 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 – fast moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the similar fire-arm capability start to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are incredibly difficult to hit. Or in the case of an armored vehicle, 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 starting to see the value in this Douhet’s observation as it relates to advances in technology on the battlefield? Indeed, I believed you may well, and thus, I sincerely hope that you will please look at it and believe on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.