Modest Arms in the Battlespace – Who Actually Has the Benefit?

There was once a very fascinating statement created by a now popular 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 aggressing. That is to say more quickly fast firing ability or accuracy, giving both sides have the identical technology gives the advantage to the entrenched position defending.

Okay so, if you would like to understand my references herein, I’d like to cite the following work: “The Command of the Air” by Giulio Douhet, which was published with University of Alabama Press, (2009), which you can obtain on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-8 and it is primarily based and essentially re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 perform. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to talk about absolutes, and he states

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

Well, that is fascinating, 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, nicely that is not actually regarded as a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following queries:

A.) Does 243-70 of his hold true currently too? If each sides have the very same weapons, “modest firearms” then does the defensive position generally have the benefit, due to the potential to stay in position without having 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, immediately after years of history?

B.) If we add in – rapid moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the similar fire-arm capability start to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are quite 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 correct, as the offense is a defense in and of itself anyway?

Are you beginning to see the worth in this Douhet’s observation as it relates to advances in technologies on the battlefield? Indeed, I thought you may, and thus, I sincerely hope that you will please look at it and believe on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.