There was after a really intriguing statement made by a now well-known military historian and thinker. He served as a basic in the Italian army in the 1920s and his name was Giulio Douhet.
He produced a statement that any new advancement in guns, and particularly he was talking soldier carried little arms provides the benefit to the army that is defending and not the a single aggressing. That is to say quicker rapid firing capability or accuracy, delivering both sides have the same technology offers the benefit to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if you would like to fully grasp 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-eight and it is based and fundamentally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 work. 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.”
Properly, 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 problems performing, and if you say a flame thrower, nicely that is not really regarded as a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following queries:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold true currently too? If both sides have the same weapons, “modest firearms” then does the defensive position usually have the benefit, due to the ability to remain 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, after years of history?
B.) If we add in – rapid moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the identical fire-arm capability commence to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are pretty difficult to hit. Or in 11 percussion cap of an armored vehicle, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Consequently, 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 therefore, I sincerely hope that you will please look at it and think on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.