There was when a really 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 created a statement that any new advancement in guns, and particularly he was talking soldier carried tiny arms provides the benefit to the army that is defending and not the one aggressing. That is to say faster fast firing capacity or accuracy, offering each sides have the very same technology offers the benefit to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if you would like to understand 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: 978–8173-5608-8 and it is based and generally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 operate. Now then, on web 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.”
Properly, 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 trouble performing, and if you say a flame thrower, well that is not definitely considered a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following questions:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold accurate nowadays as well? If each sides have the identical weapons, “compact firearms” then does the defensive position generally have the advantage, due to the potential to remain in position with out 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 – fast moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the very same fire-arm capability commence to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are extremely 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 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 technology on the battlefield? Certainly, atozgunsammo.shop/product/taurus-judge-410ga-45lc-stainless-magnum-revolver-with-3-inch-barrel-cosmetic-blemishes believed you could, and hence, I sincerely hope that you will please consider it and feel on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.