There was after a extremely intriguing statement made by a now well-liked 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 specifically he was talking soldier carried modest arms offers the advantage to the army that is defending and not the one particular aggressing. That is to say quicker speedy firing capacity or accuracy, giving each sides have the very same technology offers 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 get on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-8 and it is based and essentially re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 work. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to talk about absolutes, and he states

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

Properly, that is guns for sale , and I searched my mind to attempt to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had difficulty performing, and if you say a flame thrower, well that is not actually deemed a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following inquiries:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold accurate now also? If each sides have the same weapons, “modest firearms” then does the defensive position always have the benefit, due to the capability to stay 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, right after years of history?

B.) If we add in – fast moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the same fire-arm capability begin to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are very difficult to hit. Or in the case of an armored vehicle, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. For that reason, would the author be appropriate, 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 technologies on the battlefield? Certainly, I thought you could, and as a result, I sincerely hope that you will please consider it and believe on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.