Compact Arms in the Battlespace – Who Definitely Has the Advantage?

There was as soon as a incredibly interesting 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.

He made a statement that any new advancement in guns, and especially he was talking soldier carried smaller arms offers the benefit to the army that is defending and not the one aggressing. That is to say faster fast firing ability or accuracy, offering each sides have the similar technology provides 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 perform: “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-eight and it is based and fundamentally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 perform. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to speak about absolutes, and he states

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

Well, that is interesting, and I searched my thoughts to attempt 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, properly that is not seriously viewed as a fire-arm is it? Okay so, Aguila Minishell 12 Gauge Ammo – 200 Rounds #4/#1 Buck Mix Ammunition ask the following concerns:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold accurate today also? If both sides have the exact same weapons, “compact firearms” then does the defensive position always have the benefit, due to the potential 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, 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 begin to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are incredibly tough 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 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? Indeed, I thought you may well, and hence, I sincerely hope that you will please take into consideration it and believe on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Related Post