Little Arms in the Battlespace – Who Truly Has the Benefit?

Blog A Way Hunger  » Others »  Little Arms in the Battlespace – Who Truly Has the Benefit?

There was when a pretty exciting statement created by a now popular military historian and thinker. He served as a basic 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 modest arms gives the benefit to the army that is defending and not the 1 aggressing. That is to say quicker fast firing capacity or accuracy, delivering each sides have the very same technology provides 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 function: “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-eight and it is primarily based and fundamentally 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 every single improvement or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”

Well, that is interesting, and I searched my mind to attempt to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had difficulty undertaking, and if you say a flame thrower, properly that’s not seriously regarded as a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following concerns:

A.) Does of his hold true today too? If both sides have the same weapons, “modest firearms” then does the defensive position generally have the advantage, due to the capacity to remain in position without the need 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, immediately after years of history?

B.) If we add in – rapidly moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the same fire-arm capability begin to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are really challenging to hit. Or in the case of an armored automobile, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Thus, 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? Certainly, I believed you could, and hence, I sincerely hope that you will please contemplate it and feel 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.