There was once a incredibly exciting statement created 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.

224 valkyrie ammo produced a statement that any new advancement in guns, and specifically he was speaking soldier carried compact arms provides the benefit to the army that is defending and not the one aggressing. That is to say faster fast firing potential or accuracy, offering both sides have the same technologies gives the advantage to the entrenched position defending.

Okay so, if you would like to comprehend 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 obtain on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-8 and it is based and fundamentally 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 development or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”

Effectively, that is interesting, 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, nicely that’s not actually considered a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following concerns:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold accurate nowadays too? If both sides have the similar weapons, “tiny firearms” then does the defensive position generally have the benefit, due to the capacity to remain in position without 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 – quickly 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 extremely 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 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 might, and thus, I sincerely hope that you will please take into account it and think on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.