There was after a quite intriguing statement created 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 particularly he was speaking soldier carried compact arms gives the advantage to the army that is defending and not the 1 aggressing. That is to say more quickly fast firing capability or accuracy, supplying both sides have the same technologies provides the benefit to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if you would like to realize my references herein, I’d like to cite the following function: “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 based and generally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 perform. Now then, on web 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.”
Effectively, that is intriguing, and I searched my thoughts to try to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had difficulty undertaking, and if you say a flame thrower, nicely that’s not truly regarded a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following inquiries:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold correct these days also? If each sides have the very same weapons, “smaller firearms” then does the defensive position generally have the advantage, due to the capacity to stay in position without the need of 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, following years of history?
B.) If we add in – quick moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the same fire-arm capability commence to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are extremely challenging to hit. Or in the case of an armored car, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. As a result, would the author be correct, as the offense is a defense in and of itself anyway?
Are AR-15 beginning to see the worth in this Douhet’s observation as it relates to advances in technologies on the battlefield? Indeed, I believed you may possibly, and hence, I sincerely hope that you will please take into account it and feel on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.