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

There was once a pretty exciting statement made 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 produced a statement that any new advancement in guns, and specifically he was speaking soldier carried smaller arms provides the benefit to the army that is defending and not the 1 aggressing. That is to say more rapidly rapid firing capability or accuracy, providing both sides have the identical technologies offers the benefit to the entrenched position defending.

Okay so, if you would like to realize 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 purchase on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-eight and it is based and generally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 work. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to speak about absolutes, and he states

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

Well, that is intriguing, and I searched my thoughts to try to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had trouble doing, and if you say a flame thrower, nicely that is not definitely regarded a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following concerns:

A.) Does Sig Sauer P320 of his hold correct now also? If each sides have the identical weapons, “little firearms” then does the defensive position constantly have the benefit, due to the potential to stay in position devoid 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 begin to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are pretty difficult to hit. Or in the case of an armored car, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Thus, would the author be appropriate, 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? Indeed, I believed you may, and therefore, I sincerely hope that you will please think about it and think on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.