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

There was when 224 valkyrie ammo produced by a now common 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 specifically he was speaking soldier carried little arms provides the advantage to the army that is defending and not the one particular aggressing. That is to say quicker rapid firing capacity or accuracy, giving both sides have the same technology gives the advantage to the entrenched position defending.

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

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

Effectively, that is fascinating, and I searched my thoughts to try to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had difficulty undertaking, and if you say a flame thrower, effectively 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 true nowadays also? If both sides have the very same weapons, “compact firearms” then does the defensive position often have the advantage, due to the ability 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, following years of history?

B.) If we add in – quickly 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 very challenging to hit. Or in the case of an armored vehicle, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Therefore, 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 technologies on the battlefield? Certainly, I believed you may well, and therefore, I sincerely hope that you will please consider 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. Required fields are marked *