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

There was as soon as a pretty interesting statement created by a now well known military historian and thinker. He served as a general 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 talking soldier carried compact arms offers the advantage to the army that is defending and not the one particular aggressing. That is to say quicker speedy firing ability or accuracy, giving each sides have the identical technologies offers the advantage to the entrenched position defending.

Okay so, if you would like to realize 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 generally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 function. Now then, on web page 11 the author attempts to talk about absolutes, and he states

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

Nicely, that is intriguing, and I searched my thoughts to attempt to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had trouble performing, and if you say a flame thrower, effectively that’s not truly regarded as a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following concerns:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold accurate today as well? If each sides have the exact same weapons, “modest firearms” then does the defensive position often have the benefit, due to the capability 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, just after years of history?

B.) If we add in – rapid moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the exact same fire-arm capability start to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are extremely difficult to hit. Or in the case of an armored automobile, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Consequently, would micro draco in stock be appropriate, as the offense is a defense in and of itself anyway?

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