There was once a really interesting statement created by a now well-liked military historian and thinker. He served as a common 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 talking soldier carried smaller arms offers the benefit to the army that is defending and not the a single aggressing. That is to say more quickly speedy firing capability or accuracy, providing both sides have the identical 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 operate: “The Command of the Air” by Giulio Douhet, which was published with University of Alabama Press, (2009), which you can get on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-eight and it is based and essentially re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 function. Now then, on web page 11 the author attempts to talk about absolutes, and he states

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

Effectively, that is 224 valkyrie ammo , and I searched my thoughts to attempt to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had difficulty doing, and if you say a flame thrower, effectively that is not seriously deemed a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following concerns:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold accurate now as well? If both sides have the similar weapons, “modest firearms” then does the defensive position often have the benefit, due to the capability to remain 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 – speedy 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 pretty really hard to hit. Or in the case of an armored vehicle, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Hence, would the author be correct, 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? Certainly, I believed you might, and therefore, I sincerely hope that you will please take into account it and consider on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.

Categories: Uncategorized


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published.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