Tiny Arms in the Battlespace – Who Really Has the Advantage?
There was as soon as a extremely intriguing 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 especially he was talking soldier carried modest arms gives the benefit to the army that is defending and not the one particular aggressing. That is to say more quickly fast firing capacity or accuracy, offering each sides have the very same 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 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 based and basically 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 improvement or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”
Well, that is fascinating, and I searched my mind to attempt to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had difficulty doing, and if you say a flame thrower, effectively that’s not truly thought of a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following queries:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold accurate today too? If each sides have the similar weapons, “little firearms” then does the defensive position constantly have the advantage, due to the ability to stay in position without the challenge of forward advancement? Would Browning Citori 725 Feather Superlight Over/Under Shotgun say this principal could be moved from a “theory of warfare” to an actual “law” of the battlefield, following 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 very difficult to hit. Or in the case of an armored automobile, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. As a result, would the author be right, as the offense is a defense in and of itself anyway?
Are you starting to see the worth in this Douhet’s observation as it relates to advances in technologies on the battlefield? Indeed, I believed you might, and therefore, I sincerely hope that you will please consider it and assume on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.