There was after a pretty fascinating statement created by a now well-liked military historian and thinker. He served as a general in the Italian army in the 1920s and his name was Giulio Douhet.

He produced a statement that any new advancement in guns, and especially he was talking soldier carried compact arms provides the advantage to the army that is defending and not the a single aggressing. That is to say quicker fast firing capability or accuracy, supplying each sides have the similar technology provides the advantage to the entrenched position defending.

Okay so, if you would like to comprehend my references herein, I’d like to cite the following function: “The Command of the Air” by Giulio Douhet, which was published with University of Alabama Press, (2009), which you can acquire on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-eight and it is primarily based and essentially re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 function. Now then, on web page 11 the author attempts to speak 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 mind to attempt to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had problems performing, and if you say a flame thrower, nicely that’s not really regarded as a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following inquiries:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold true nowadays too? If each sides have the identical weapons, “modest firearms” then does the defensive position generally have the advantage, due to the ability to remain in position without 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, right after years of history?

B.) If we add in – fast moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the exact same fire-arm capability start to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are very 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 appropriate, 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 technology on the battlefield? Certainly, Buy guns with Bitcoins thought you might, and therefore, I sincerely hope that you will please take into account it and feel on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.