There was after a very interesting statement made by a now popular 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 especially he was talking soldier carried compact arms offers the advantage to the army that is defending and not the one particular aggressing. That is to say faster rapid firing capacity or accuracy, giving both sides have the exact same technologies provides 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 perform: “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 function. Now then, on web page 11 the author attempts to talk about absolutes, and he states
“The truth is that each development or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Properly, that is interesting, and I searched my mind to attempt to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had trouble doing, and if you say a flame thrower, effectively that is not genuinely regarded as a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following queries:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold accurate these days also? If both sides have the similar weapons, “small firearms” then does the defensive position generally have the benefit, due to the capacity to remain 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, soon after years of history?
B.) If we add in – rapidly 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 really hard to hit. Or in the case of an armored vehicle, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Thus, would the author be right, as the offense is a defense in and of itself anyway?
Are cheap guns beginning to see the value in this Douhet’s observation as it relates to advances in technology on the battlefield? Indeed, I thought you may possibly, and thus, I sincerely hope that you will please think about it and consider on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.