Little Arms in the Battlespace – Who Actually Has the Advantage?

There was when a quite intriguing statement made 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 made a statement that any new advancement in guns, and especially he was speaking soldier carried modest arms gives the advantage to the army that is defending and not the a single aggressing. That is to say more rapidly rapid firing capability or accuracy, supplying both sides have the very same technology gives the advantage to the entrenched position defending.

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

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

Properly, that is intriguing, and I searched my mind 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, well that’s not actually viewed as a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following queries:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold correct nowadays also? If both sides have the identical weapons, “little firearms” then does the defensive position generally have the benefit, due to the potential to stay in position with no 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, soon after years of history?

B.) If we add in – fast moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the same fire-arm capability start to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are extremely difficult to hit. Or in 224 valkyrie ammo of an armored automobile, 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 starting to see the value in this Douhet’s observation as it relates to advances in technology on the battlefield? Indeed, I thought you may possibly, and therefore, I sincerely hope that you will please take into consideration it and think on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *