There was when a very interesting statement created by a now well-known military historian and thinker. He served as a basic in the Italian army in the 1920s and his name was Giulio Douhet.
He created a statement that any new advancement in guns, and specifically he was talking soldier carried little arms gives the benefit to the army that is defending and not the one aggressing. That is to say more quickly rapid firing potential or accuracy, offering each sides have the identical technology gives the benefit to the entrenched position defending.
Okay so, if you would like to have an understanding of 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 get on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-eight and it is primarily based and generally re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 function. Now then, on page 11 the author attempts to speak about absolutes, and he states
“The truth is that every single development 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 problems doing, and if you say a flame thrower, nicely that’s not really deemed a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following queries:
A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold correct nowadays too? If both sides have the very same weapons, “modest firearms” then does the defensive position normally have the advantage, due to the capability to stay 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, just after 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 commence to have the benefit – such as the USMC on ATVs which are extremely hard to hit. Or in the case of an armored car, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. Hence, would Ppu Carcano ammo be appropriate, 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 technologies on the battlefield? Indeed, I thought you may, and thus, I sincerely hope that you will please consider it and assume on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.