Little Arms in the Battlespace – Who Genuinely Has the Advantage?

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

He made a statement that any new advancement in guns, and particularly he was speaking soldier carried small arms provides the advantage to the army that is defending and not the one aggressing. That is to say more rapidly rapid firing capability or accuracy, giving both sides have the same technologies provides the advantage to the entrenched position defending.

Okay so, if you would like to have an understanding of 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 based and essentially re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 function. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to speak about absolutes, and he states

“The truth is that every 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, effectively that is not actually considered a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following questions:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold true today also? If cci 11 percussion caps have the identical weapons, “compact firearms” then does the defensive position constantly have the advantage, due to the ability 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, just after years of history?

B.) If we add in – fast moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the identical fire-arm capability begin to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are really tough to hit. Or in the case of an armored vehicle, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Hence, would the author be right, 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? Certainly, I thought you may, and therefore, I sincerely hope that you will please look at it and feel on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.