There was when a quite interesting statement produced 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 made a statement that any new advancement in guns, and specifically he was speaking soldier carried little arms provides the benefit to the army that is defending and not the a single aggressing. That is to say faster speedy firing potential or accuracy, giving each sides have the same technology gives the advantage to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if you would like to recognize 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 purchase on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-8 and it is primarily based and fundamentally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 operate. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to speak about absolutes, and he states
“The truth is that each development or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Well, that is exciting, and I searched my thoughts to try to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had problems carrying out, and if you say a flame thrower, effectively that’s not actually regarded as a fire-arm is it? Okay so, gun store europe ask the following queries:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold accurate today too? If both sides have the similar weapons, “small firearms” then does the defensive position normally have the advantage, due to the capability to remain 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, just after years of history?
B.) If we add in – speedy moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the very same fire-arm capability start to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are incredibly difficult to hit. Or in the case of an armored vehicle, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Therefore, 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 technologies on the battlefield? Certainly, I thought you could, and therefore, I sincerely hope that you will please think about it and think on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.