Modest Arms in the Battlespace – Who Genuinely Has the Advantage?

There was after a incredibly interesting statement created 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 made a statement that any new advancement in guns, and particularly he was speaking soldier carried smaller arms gives the advantage to the army that is defending and not the one aggressing. That is to say quicker rapid firing ability or accuracy, giving each sides have the exact same technology provides the advantage to the entrenched position defending.

Okay so, if Buy Glock 17 would like to fully grasp 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 get on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-8 and it is based and basically re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 function. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to talk about absolutes, and he states

“The truth is that each and every improvement 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 undertaking, and if you say a flame thrower, properly that’s not actually regarded as a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following questions:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold true currently as well? If both sides have the same weapons, “compact firearms” then does the defensive position generally have the advantage, due to the potential to stay in position without 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, after 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 start to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are quite hard to hit. Or in the case of an armored automobile, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Therefore, would the author be right, as the offense is a defense in and of itself anyway?

Are you beginning to see the value in this Douhet’s observation as it relates to advances in technology on the battlefield? Certainly, I thought you may well, 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 exactly where that rule would not be applicable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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