There was when a very exciting statement produced by a now common military historian and thinker. He served as a basic in the Italian army in the 1920s and his name was Giulio Douhet.
224 valkyrie ammo created a statement that any new advancement in guns, and particularly he was talking soldier carried smaller arms provides the benefit to the army that is defending and not the one particular aggressing. That is to say faster fast firing ability or accuracy, providing each sides have the identical technologies offers the advantage to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if you would like to recognize 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 essentially 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 each improvement or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Well, that is intriguing, and I searched my mind to try to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had difficulty doing, and if you say a flame thrower, properly that’s not genuinely thought of a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following concerns:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold correct these days as well? If both sides have the identical weapons, “smaller firearms” then does the defensive position normally have the advantage, due to the ability 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, right after years of history?
B.) If we add in – speedy moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the identical fire-arm capability start to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are really tough to hit. Or in the case of an armored car, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Therefore, 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 thought you could, and as a result, I sincerely hope that you will please take into consideration it and assume on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.