There was after a extremely intriguing statement created by a now common military historian and thinker. He served as a common in the Italian army in the 1920s and his name was Giulio Douhet.

He created a statement that any new advancement in guns, and particularly he was talking soldier carried little arms gives the benefit to the army that is defending and not the a single aggressing. That is to say more rapidly rapid firing capability or accuracy, offering both sides have the identical technologies offers the advantage to the entrenched position defending.

Okay so, if you would like to understand my references herein, I’d like to cite the following operate: “The Command of the Air” by Giulio Douhet, which was published with University of Alabama Press, (2009), which you can acquire on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-eight and it is primarily based and fundamentally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 operate. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to talk about absolutes, and he states

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

Properly, that is fascinating, 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, effectively that’s not seriously deemed a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following concerns:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold correct right now as well? If both sides have the identical weapons, “smaller firearms” then does the defensive position normally have the benefit, due to the capacity to stay in position with out 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 – rapidly moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the similar fire-arm capability begin to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are pretty really hard to hit. Or in the case of an armored vehicle, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Consequently, would blackhorn 209 powder be right, as the offense is a defense in and of itself anyway?

Are you beginning to see the worth in this Douhet’s observation as it relates to advances in technologies on the battlefield? Indeed, I believed you could possibly, and as a result, I sincerely hope that you will please take into consideration it and believe on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.