Smaller Arms in the Battlespace – Who Definitely Has the Benefit?


There was after a pretty intriguing statement made 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 particularly he was talking soldier carried tiny arms gives the advantage to the army that is defending and not the 1 aggressing. That is to say more quickly fast firing capacity or accuracy, supplying both sides have the very same technology gives the advantage to the entrenched position defending.

Okay so, if you 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 acquire on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-8 and it is primarily based and generally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 operate. Now then, on web page 11 the author attempts to speak about absolutes, and he states

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

Well, that is interesting, and I searched my mind to attempt to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had difficulty carrying out, and if you say a flame thrower, properly that’s not actually viewed as a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following inquiries:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold true nowadays too? If each sides have the very same weapons, “little firearms” then does the defensive position often have the advantage, due to the capability to stay in position without the need 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 – rapid moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the exact same fire-arm capability commence to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are extremely hard to hit. Or in the case of an armored vehicle, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Therefore, would 224 valkyrie ammo 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 technologies on the battlefield? Indeed, I thought you could possibly, and as a result, I sincerely hope that you will please take into consideration it and think 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 *

WC Captcha 2 + = 3