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

There was after a extremely interesting statement made by a now preferred military historian and thinker. He served as a common 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 small arms offers the benefit to the army that is defending and not the one aggressing. That is to say faster rapid firing capability or accuracy, providing both sides have the same technologies provides the benefit to the entrenched position defending.

Okay so, if you would like to fully grasp 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 acquire on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-8 and it is primarily based and generally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 work. 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.”

Effectively, that is exciting, and I searched my mind 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’s not seriously thought of a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following questions:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold accurate right now as well? If each sides have the very same weapons, “small firearms” then does the defensive position always have the advantage, 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, after years of history?

B.) If we add in – quick moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the exact same fire-arm capability begin to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are very tough to hit. Or in the case 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, Glock 19 Gen 3 Slide believed you may well, and hence, I sincerely hope that you will please take into consideration it and believe on it, see if you can come up with an instance where that rule would not be applicable.