There was once a extremely interesting statement produced by a now well-liked military historian and thinker. He served as a common in the Italian army in the 1920s and his name was Giulio Douhet.

He produced a statement that any new advancement in guns, and specifically he was talking soldier carried small arms gives the benefit to the army that is defending and not the one aggressing. That is to say faster fast firing potential or accuracy, giving each sides have the same technology provides the benefit 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 based and fundamentally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 function. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to speak about absolutes, and he states

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

Well, that is fascinating, and I searched my mind to try to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had problems performing, and if you say a flame thrower, well that is not genuinely viewed as a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following inquiries:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold true currently also? If both sides have the identical weapons, “small firearms” then does the defensive position constantly have the advantage, due to the ability to stay in position without having 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, immediately 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 begin to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are incredibly challenging to hit. Or in rws #11 percussion caps of an armored automobile, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. As a result, 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? Certainly, I thought you may possibly, and thus, 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.