Small Arms in the Battlespace – Who Actually Has the Benefit?

There was after a very intriguing statement produced by a now preferred military historian and thinker. He served as a general 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 advantage to the army that is defending and not the one aggressing. That is to say more rapidly rapid firing potential or accuracy, offering both sides have the similar technologies provides the benefit to the entrenched position defending.

Okay so, if Cheap Ammo For Sale 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 get on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-eight and it is based and generally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 operate. 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.”

Nicely, that is interesting, and I searched my thoughts to attempt to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had problems carrying out, and if you say a flame thrower, properly that’s not seriously thought of a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following inquiries:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold correct today as well? If each sides have the identical weapons, “little firearms” then does the defensive position normally have the advantage, due to the ability to remain in position with no 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 similar fire-arm capability start to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are really really hard to hit. Or in the case of an armored car, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. For that reason, would the author be correct, 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? Indeed, I thought you may possibly, and hence, I sincerely hope that you will please take into account it and feel on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.