There was after a very fascinating statement made 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 created a statement that any new advancement in guns, and specifically he was talking soldier carried tiny arms provides the advantage to the army that is defending and not the 1 aggressing. black market guns is to say faster speedy firing ability or accuracy, supplying both sides have the very same technologies provides the advantage 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 perform: “The Command of the Air” by Giulio Douhet, which was published with University of Alabama Press, (2009), which you can obtain 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 interesting, and I searched my thoughts to attempt to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had problems performing, and if you say a flame thrower, properly that is not genuinely viewed as a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following concerns:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold correct these days also? If both sides have the exact same weapons, “little firearms” then does the defensive position constantly 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, right after years of history?

B.) If we add in – quick moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the exact same fire-arm capability start to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are quite hard to hit. Or in the case of an armored car, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Consequently, would the author be correct, 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 technology on the battlefield? Indeed, I believed you may well, and as a result, I sincerely hope that you will please think about it and feel on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.