The characteristic tendency of modern times is the liberation of the individual from antiquated ideas and from the restraint exercised by ostensibly reactionary governmental power. The key-note of this tendency, which places individualism above collectivism, is absolute independence of the individual in municipal and national affairs, in science and art. Even tactics has been influenced to a certain extent by this tendency. Success in battle, however, will not be assured by the sum-total of a number of negative or positive individual efforts, but only by the simultaneous launching of masses controlled by a single will. Within these limits the independence of the individual is permissible, for a commander does not exact apathetic obedience, but, on the contrary, intelligent coöperation on the part of everyone, and this cannot be regulated by hard and fast rules.
Instead of laying down rules to cover all cases, the German Drill Regulations leave the leader free to dispose of his troops according to the purpose of the combat and the nature of the ground. In this he is assisted by the initiative and independent action of his subordinate leaders. Normal formations for attack and defense are requisite however, in armies in which the tactical training of commanders and subordinate leaders is deficient and where it is feared that the latter will abuse the latitude allowed them. Where such normal formations are prescribed, it is assumed that hard and fast rules are requisite for training; that the average officer cannot be expected to estimate a situation correctly and arrive at proper decisions; and that the majority of them must be given definite rules for combat if they are to render any service at all.
Drill regulations should facilitate quick mutual understanding between leader and organization and lay down general principles for ordinary situations, for combat tasks, and for formations, but should not, by their rules, direct the actions of a leader from the very beginning into definite grooves. If the regulations contain a normal procedure, there is danger that it will be employed where inappropriate, and that the mental alertness of the leaders will relax and fail in war at the very moment when its presence is most vitally necessary.[207]
[207] “Leaders who have been trained only in the mechanical part of drill and who subsequently have to act independently, fare like the lame man deprived of his crutches, or the near-sighted man deprived of his spectacles.” von Seidlitz.
“Tactics will always vary according to the nature of the ground, therefore it is impossible to tell beforehand what might happen in each particular case.” (Frederick the Great). Whether or not a particular normal procedure is appropriate does not depend upon the terrain but solely upon the tactical situation.[208]
[208] It is only in cases where precisely identical situations may be presumed to exist that there can be any question of a normal procedure. The last stages of the infantry attack in fortress warfare present features of this nature and on that account a normal procedure has been formulated for it in almost all of the European armies.
While there is considerable unanimity of opinion as to the general manner of carrying out an attack, opinions differ radically as to details. “If all the advocates of a normal attack had to describe it in words, there would be about as many suggestions as there are advocates. Which of the many normal attack schemes is the most suitable for average troops? A conference called for the purpose of investigating this point would probably have the strange result that each representative would concede that what the others desire is practicable but need not be done.”[209] Anyone who thinks himself capable of evolving a normal procedure, should bear in mind that all such systems have invariably failed to fulfill the expectations entertained for them because of obstacles which could not have been foreseen during their preparation. Regulations that prescribe too many details are very apt to lead to stereotyped forms and to that which cannot stand the test of actual war. So far every war has had surprises in store for the troops and this will be equally true in the future. Troops will be able to find a way out of such situations only if they have been taught to follow the spirit rather than the letter of their regulations, if they have been individually trained and accustomed to strict discipline, and if their leaders have been taught to reflect on tactics. It is better to send troops into battle with the order, “Help yourselves as best you can,” than to encumber them with combat rules of doubtful value which leave them in the lurch at the first opportunity, because the troops have not been taught to depend upon their own initiative. The consequent indecision is increased in the same proportion as the faith the troops and their leaders had in the lauded universal remedy, the normal procedure. In spite of the excellence of our regulations, we should accustom ourselves to the idea that a future war may correct their provisions.[210]
[209] General Bronsart v. Schellendorff, I, Betrachtungen, etc. p. 42
British Drill Regulations: “Although a normal attack is apparently capable of being changed to suit the various situations, the continual practice of it leads to a stereotyped formation, to lack of skill and mobility. The disadvantages coupled with a normal attack are not apparent in time of peace, but in war they will make themselves felt through losses and failures.”
[210] Major von Hülsen, Schema oder Selbständigkeit?, (Berlin, 1906).
The enunciation of certain technical combat principles as a guide in the training of the troops is, however, far removed from laying down a stereotyped form for attack (normal attack). Every thinking officer will anyhow, consciously or unconsciously, formulate in his own mind some sort of a “normal attack”, which is nothing but a firm opinion of how he thinks an attack ought to be carried out. If such combat regulations are called “drill attack” (Schulangriff), many of the objections advanced against the normal attack are eliminated. Such definite provisions facilitate in a great measure the intercourse between leader and troops.
“Instructions as to what to do in battle,” says Clausewitz (On War, II), “must not be taken for more than they are; they should not be regarded as hard and fast rules or systems, but merely as good general forms which individual judgment can utilize as is most suitable.... By means of a uniform method, commanders attain skill, precision, and confidence, the possession of which qualities on their part will make the whole machine run easier....
“The drawback is that the habit of acting in a certain groove tends to become fixed and thus antiquated while the attendant circumstances imperceptibly change, and this should be prevented by enlightened and thorough criticism. When, in the year 1806, the Prussian generals (Prince Louis at Saalfeld; Tauenzien on the Dornberg at Jena; Grawert in front of and Rüchel in rear of Kapellendorf) without exception came to grief by employing Frederick the Great’s system of tactics, it was due not merely to the fact that they had gotten into a certain groove of acting which was out of date, but to the most dire poverty of resource to which a fixed system of tactics has ever led. Owing to this incapacity of thinking for themselves, they involved Hohenlohe’s army in such ruin as has never before or since overtaken any army on the battlefield.”
General von Boguslawski[211] demands that the conduct of the attack be regulated by precise instructions both on the drill-ground and in action. He states: “The many different methods of dealing with even the simplest cases, unquestionably evident in the army at the present time, are an evil calculated not only to train but also to confuse the soldier and the subordinate leader. Precise regulations are by no means incompatible with adaptation to the varying features of the terrain in a given case, and will infuse unity and certainty into offensive movements. A normal formation must be prescribed, but it should be flexible.”
[211] Taktische Darlegungen, p. 51.
Elsewhere he makes the following statement in regard to a normal attack: “I believe that the normal attack should be regarded as the basis of troop training—a solid foundation for further development. In carrying out the spirit of this procedure, further work should be done on varied ground. This spirit aims at the unity of the attack. The formations taught on the drill-ground should be retained as long as possible. The training of officers and men must be such, however, that they will deviate, whenever necessary, from these normal formations. But if the formations, as well as the training and drill, are truly practical and adapted for war, departures from the scheme laid down in the regulations will be insignificant. This, briefly, is my idea of the normal attack or uniform procedure, which not only does not have a detrimental effect, but, on the contrary, is absolutely necessary in order to facilitate the work of the higher leader.”
General von Scherff states:[212]
“It would contribute to clearness and to proper division of responsibility if the regulations would definitely prescribe:—
“1. That only the superior commander who makes dispositions for battle according to his own judgment, be charged with assigning appropriate missions;
“2. That the subordinate leader, charged with the execution of a mission, determine, by an independent choice of any expedient provided by the regulations, the formation in which his organization is to carry out the task assigned; and, finally,
“3. That the subsequent conduct of such an organization be governed by a definite normal procedure, familiar to the men from the drill-ground, so as to ensure mutual coöperation of its component parts.”
[212] Einheitsangriff oder individualisierter Angriff, Berlin, 1902.
[213] Aufmarsch, Entfaltung, Entwicklung.
Column tactics, which influenced us even after the Franco-German war, required that troops be concentrated, prior to an action, from the narrow route column into a broad combat formation. This tedious systematic concentration[214] was invariably employed before entering an action, except when, in critical situations, companies and battalions had to be launched into the fight directly from route column. The commander of a force could reduce the time required for going into action only by approaching the field of battle in assembly formation.[215]
[214] “By concentration is meant the passage from route column to a broader close order formation. It is employed for the purpose of decreasing the depth of a column and for assembly.” (Par. 315 German I. D. R.)
[215] Examples: The approach of the IInd Army to the battlefield of Gravelotte, see Taktik, III, p. 305.
The advance of the 1st Army from its cantonments toward the Bistrits to the battlefield of Königgrätz was a mistake. The army first approached in route columns, then concentrated, again formed route columns, and finally concentrated for action. v. Lettow-Vorbeck, II, pp. 407 and 480. From what I know of the terrain the advance should in this case have been made in assembly formations.
Valuable time was thus lost. Even when the situation was not pressing, the leader was obliged, for example, to allow a regiment having a depth of 1200 m. to close up to a depth of 100 paces. When this had been done, he was forced to wait until thin skirmish lines gained a proper distance to the front. The rear elements were able to follow only when the skirmishers had gained a distance approximately equal to the former depth of the entire column. Such a concentration is only proper however, when the commander wishes to launch his troops subsequently in several directions. Advantage should be taken of every opportunity for decreasing the depth of the column (by forming column of sections).
The advance of large bodies of troops presents no difficulties even in close country, if, as recommended by the author,[216] the battalions in route column are placed abreast of each other and are permitted to go around obstacles and take advantage of the cover available. However, even at long ranges, troops in such formations present favorable targets to hostile machine guns and artillery.
[216] See Taktik, III, p. 307.
The British were surprised in close order formations at Magersfontain and Colenso. In subsequent engagements, in order to avoid this, their infantry, when still a great distance away from the enemy, took up an attack formation which permitted only movements directly to the front (at Poplar Grove, for example, this was done when 10 km. from the enemy). An advance in such a formation was possible only because the plains of South Africa presented no obstacles, and because the British had only to hold the enemy who stood passively on the defensive. Each brigade formed its four battalions into an open double column with a front of 2000 and a depth of 800 m., the distances and intervals between battalions being 300-400 m. Each battalion deployed from this column so that its eight companies, each in a thin line (with 2 and finally 20 pace intervals between the men), followed each other at a distance of 100-120 paces. The advantage of having troops in hand so that they can be used in other directions than straight to the front, had disappeared.
The Formation of a Brigade of Four Battalions of the 6th
Infantry Division
during the advance on Poplar Grove on March 7th, 1900.
Front about 800 m., depth, 1800-2000 m.
When an engagement is expected, the different elements, each in route column, are directed upon their several objectives, i.e., the column is developed for action. This is done because it is necessary to gain a start over the enemy in deployment and advantageous to move in route column. Thus a development for action (Entfaltung)[217] is nothing but an extension of front accomplished by breaking up the original route column into a number of separate columns. The latter march on diverging lines and can generally remain in route column. Deep column should not be formed unless an immediate extension is not anticipated. During the development for action, preparations should be made providing for the necessary depth of the combat formation.
[217] The German I. D. R. make a distinction between extension of front, “development for action” (Entfaltung, pars. 315 and 466), and “distribution in depth” (Gliedern, pars. 287-291 and 427). The term “to form for attack” (Auseinanderziehen, par. 241), means that troops are given a combat formation both as regards frontage and depth.
When the necessity for engaging can be foreseen, the concentration into an assembly formation should be avoided, since it generally entails a loss of time and energy, and the development for action chosen instead. (Par. 315 German I. D. R.). The latter has the additional advantage of affording a higher degree of readiness for action without letting the troops get out of hand. It should be practiced not only from route column but also from assembly formation.[218]
[218] See the defeat of the Russian Reserve Brigade under Orlov on September 2nd, 1904, at Liao Yang, in Angriffsverfahren der Japaner, by von Lüttwitz.
The development for action should begin as soon as there is danger of getting under effective artillery fire. The length of time required for going into action may be reduced by shortening the route column (by concentrating the troops into deep column); by forming several route columns abreast, unless column of sections has already been formed; by clearing the roads of troops; by marching across country; by indicating beforehand on which side of the infantry the artillery is to be brought up (pars. 315-323 German I. D. R.); and, finally, by directing the heads of the various elements upon their respective objectives. (Development for action).
In the Austrian regulations, the development for action is not so clearly emphasized: “A concentration preceding the attack in rencontres is permissible in only those exceptional cases when it becomes apparent, during the preparatory stage of the action, that the enemy has a visible start in deployment.” When time is not pressing, the regulations prescribe a concentration for action and, simultaneously therewith, such a grouping of the principal units (if possible out of range of the effective fire of hostile guns, and well concealed) that the attacking troops need move only straight to the front. A more extended formation is taken up when the zone of hostile artillery fire is reached. The march to the battlefield is discussed in detail by the French regulations: In the first place, in order to take advantage of cover and to keep the roads clear for artillery, it will be necessary to leave the road and to advance across country. This will, as a rule, result in widening the front of the advancing force, even though this be only to the extent of placing columns abreast of each other. Hourly halts are to be made, so as to give an opportunity for replenishing ammunition and time for reconnaissance. Small columns are preferred in woods and in close country and larger columns on passable ground. Attention is specially called to the danger to which troops are exposed when surprised in defiles by hostile fire. This march to the battlefield is followed by a concentration of the troops in concealed and protected positions.
The deployment for action (Entwicklung) consists of forming the troops for battle and includes the extension into line of skirmishers. As a rule, the deployment follows the development for action, but may be made directly from route column or from an assembly formation.
It is impossible to define clearly where the development for action ceases and where the deployment begins. The formation of a line of skirmishers to cover a route column does not constitute a deployment. There is no room for doubt that the regulations have in mind the rencontre, in which the passage from route column to skirmish line proceeds naturally and smoothly. In attacking an enemy prepared to defend a position, the procedure is much more cautious. In this case the force which has been developed for action is withdrawn as much as possible from the view and the fire of the enemy (par. 367 German I. D. R.), and led forward from cover to cover. (Par. 369 German I. D. R.). Even in situations in which haste is required, it is a good plan to follow the procedure laid down by the regulations, viz: “First direct the troops upon the proper objective, then give them a suitable formation.”
An analysis of the question as to whether an immediate launching of troops into action is necessary (5th Infantry Division at Vionville) or whether they should first be regularly concentrated (6th Infantry Division at Vionville) is of special interest. The concentration of the 1st Prussian Army Corps at Waterloo, and of the 5th Bavarian Infantry Brigade at Nehweiler (Wörth), almost in rear of the French, is justly criticised. At Nachod, the Austrian brigades, owing to their time-consuming concentration, lost an opportunity of throwing the weak Prussian advanced troops from the heights south of Wysokow, while the latter were reinforced by parts of the main body which arrived by half-battalions. This reinforcement, while made in driblets, was, however, sufficient.
During its march to the battlefield of Gravelotte, the 3rd Infantry Division concentrated at Buxieres for the purpose of cooking. Then it formed again in route column, concentrated once more south of Rezonville, and from there moved on in echelon formation. The concentration of the 28th Infantry Brigade on August 6th, 1870 (Spicheren), was still less justifiable. About noon, when the head of the brigade reached the exit of the Kollertal Wood at Raschpfuhl, it received orders to cross the Saar. Upon receiving this order, the five battalions present concentrated, unfurled their flags and then marched across country to the railroad bridge of Mattstall. In order to effect a crossing, route column had to be formed again. The delays which occurred here led the parts of the force which had crossed first, to throw themselves into the fight.[219]
[219] Geschichte des Regiments Nr. 77, p. 51.
When part of a larger force, the battalion may be broken up into companies either by directing the latter upon their respective objectives, or by forming for attack by command.
When forming for attack by command, the front, the base company, intervals, distances, and the relation of the companies to each other must be indicated. The intervals should be sufficiently large to permit the companies to move unhampered, and so maintained that irregularities of marching will not be communicated from one to the other.
A space approximately equal to the front of a platoon will suffice for this purpose. Thus the interval between companies at war strength would be 150 paces, and between companies at peace strength 100 paces. Intervals may be increased or diminished when necessary so as to enable the troops to take the fullest advantage of cover. The same holds true for distances. For rules in regard to the distance between the second and first line, see p. 121, supra. When a battalion has formed line of companies at long range from the enemy for the purpose of reducing the effect of the hostile fire, distances should be diminished to facilitate the transmission of orders.
When the battalion is acting alone, the intervals depend upon the purpose of the combat. In the fights around Mukden, some of the Japanese battalions, stationed at points where the decision was not sought, were each assigned a front of 800 m. In these cases the four companies of each battalion had to be deployed abreast of each other at large intervals.
It is impossible to prescribe fixed forms of deployment for particular situations. In each case the formation of the battalion depends upon the situation, the purpose of the combat, and the nature of the ground, the battalion commander having the option of going into action in one, two, or three lines.
Moreover, the formation depends upon whether—
1. The battalion is acting alone or as part of a larger force; and whether one or both of its flanks are resting on impassable obstacles;
2. Whether it is fighting a decisive or a containing action; whether it is to attack or to stand on the defensive;
3. Whether it is to prepare the attack by its own fire or is to take advantage of the preparation effected by other troops; and, finally,
4. Whether or not it has to fight at night.
A battalion acting alone, whose flanks are not resting on natural obstacles, will, as a rule, place entire companies successively into action so as to retain complete organizations for other purposes. It will seldom be proper for the battalion to form for attack in the regular manner. When this can be done the battalion should form in three lines in conformity with its task of initiating, carrying out, and deciding the fight. In this case the leading company is reinforced by the second company as soon as the situation has become sufficiently clear. More frequently, the battalion commander will send only a single company into action, retaining the others for the time being under cover.
The advance guard battalion of a regiment will, as a rule, be compelled to develop considerable fire in a rencontre (par. 357 German I. D. R.), in order to check the advance of the enemy, and for this purpose it will frequently place two companies into action at once. But since the battalion commander cannot count upon reinforcements and, moreover, as he does not know on which flank the combat is subsequently going to develop, he will provisionally retain the other two companies in rear of the center, or echelon them in rear of both flanks. (See “a” and “b” above figure).
In a containing action one should endeavor to employ few rifles but, on the other hand, expend much ammunition, and keep supports and reserves far in rear so as to minimize the losses. If the force is to deploy first of all only for fire action, but is later to participate in the decisive attack, it will be advisable to place two companies in the first line, one in the second, and one in the third. The companies in the second and third lines will then be less exposed to hostile fire, and the battalion commander will be able, by first launching one and then the other company, to exercise an influence on the course of the action during a longer period than would otherwise be possible. (See “b”).
When a battalion is fighting as part of a larger force, and when both its flanks are secure, it will need only supports for feeding the frontal attack (par. 289 German I. D. R.) and can cover a greater front. A reserve may either be entirely dispensed with, or made very weak.
When only one flank of the battalion is secure, the threatened flank should be protected by echeloning the supports and the reserve in rear of it. In this position, these echelons are not so apt to be bullet-stops as when they are placed in rear of the center. Besides, they can more easily execute enveloping movements and can take a hostile flank attack in flank. When both flanks are in the air, only the most essential precautions should be taken on the one flank, while on the other everything available is united for the decisive attack.
In defense, three companies can sometimes be taken into the first line for the purpose of developing a strong fire, while the fourth company is held in rear of a threatened flank or in rear of the center. (See “d”). When it is desired to employ the reserve offensively, only one or two companies are placed in the first line, the others being held in reserve in rear of the flank which is to take the offensive. Interval and distance increase with the size of this reserve.
When a battalion from the reserve is called upon to make an immediate attack which has been prepared by the fire of other troops, all its companies may be taken at once into the first line. In this case the battalion may be formed for attack with its companies at close intervals. This might also be a suitable combat formation for night operations. All these formations are subject to change however, as soon as the proper utilization of cover makes it necessary.
The general principles stated for a battalion are also applicable to a regiment. The regiment may either be directly formed for attack, or the heads of the battalions may be deflected toward the points where the deployment is to take place. An interval of 300-400 m. between heads of battalions is best calculated to facilitate the subsequent deployment. The distances depend upon the nature of the ground and the purpose of the combat.
The regimental commander assigns tasks to his battalion commanders, but leaves the latter entire freedom of action in regard to the formation to be taken up and the manner of deploying. He should interfere with companies only in exceptional cases. Such interference is justified only when the conduct of subordinate leaders threatens to impair unity of action in the combat and when time is lacking to observe the proper channels in communicating an order.
Methods of Forming a Battalion for Attack.
In developing the brigade[220] for action, the depth of column begins to exert an influence. Every concentration of the brigade retards its entry into action. If the longest distance to be covered in developing the brigade is assigned to the leading element of the column, the march into action will be accelerated.
[220] For historical references in regard to the importance in action of the brigade, see essay published in Jahrbücher für Armee und Marine (August-September number of 1877) entitled, Die Infanterie-Brigade in ihrer Entwicklung aus der Brigade von 1812. In regard to the employment of the regiments in line or in echelon, see Moltke, Kritische Aufsätze sur Geschichte des Feldzuges von 1866. Moltke’s Taktisch-Strategische Aufsätze, p. 99, et seq.
When an infantry brigade approaching the battlefield is to prolong the flank of the fighting line, its entry into action might be hastened, perhaps, by letting the rear regiment continue the march in the original direction while the leading regiment takes the longer route. The rear regiment would then be abreast of the leading one after about 15 minutes. If the battalions are subsequently developed on radiating lines, the development of the whole force will, after a few minutes, have progressed far enough to permit a deployment of skirmishers.
When the brigade takes up a combat formation, each regiment is assigned a separate task (attack of a point, or defense of a section). If the tasks assigned are definite and harmonize with each other, mutual coöperation will be assured. The brigade commander ordinarily sends his orders to the regimental commanders, but, when circumstances (haste, correction of errors) compel him to depart from this rule, he should inform those officers of the action taken. In a brigade consisting of two regiments, its commander, in order to be able to influence the action, will be compelled to retain at least one battalion as a reserve.
Brigades of three regiments[221] (each of three battalions) have an advantage in this respect. But if such an increase in infantry units were contemplated, it would be better, for reasons that will be given later on,[222] to form the additional troops into a third division in each army corps.
[221] The British division consists of twelve battalions formed into three brigades.
In the United States the three unit organization is most clearly marked. The division consists of three brigades, each brigade of three regiments, and each regiment of three battalions. The battalions have a strength of only 400 men.
[222] Taktik (Kriegsgliederung), III, p. 31, et seq.
The possibility of regulating the movements of a body of troops by means of a base unit, depends upon a number of preliminary conditions which will seldom be fulfilled in war:
1. The leader of the base unit would have to remain unharmed to the very last. If he were disabled the command of the unit would devolve upon the next in rank who would perhaps not join it in every case.
2. The fresh organisation which imparts the impetus necessary for a further advance, would have to maintain the direction after the original base unit had ceased to exist on account of the mixing of organizations.
3. The base unit would have to encounter less difficulties during its advance than the other units of the force. If the base unit were to encounter greater difficulties than the other units, this might serve as an excuse for reducing the rate of advance. In attack, the organization nearest the enemy, in other words, the one that is led better and more energetically than the others, is quite naturally charged with maintaining the direction. Moreover, this organization will be able to facilitate by its fire the advance of the elements in rear.
The designation of a base unit[223] or unit of direction on the battlefield cripples the energy of an entire line and the initiative of the individual in favor of uniformity of movement. A base unit is only profitable in night operations, in crossing unfavorable ground (woods), and in bringing the fighting line up to the effective zone of hostile fire. “With the entry into action, the importance of the base company gradually decreases as the demands made by the combat increase”. (Par. 242 German I. D. R.). In all other cases, it is better to indicate either the objective on which the troops are to march, or the flank toward which they are to maintain connection.
[223] “A unit may also be designated upon which the others have to regulate their movements without thereby being curbed in their endeavor to advance (base unit of combat).” (Par. 371 German I. D. R.)
In France units of direction are prescribed (la direction est confidée aux unités qui suivent les chemins ou les lignes naturelles du terrain), but their duties are not given in detail. Units of direction are also prescribed in Austria.
A change of direction of march is executed by wheeling or turning with the subordinate units toward the new front. (Par. 185 German I. D. R.). A change of front is effected in the same manner. With long lines, echeloning and movements by the flank will result, which can only be rectified gradually by issuing appropriate orders. When skirmishers have been deployed in a wrong direction, or when a deployment in another direction becomes necessary after the conclusion of a combat, it is advisable to deploy a new line in the desired direction, from the closed bodies still available, and to withdraw, at the same time, those parts of the former skirmish line which are no longer necessary.
1. Engagement at Helmstedt, on July 25th, 1866. The 20th Infantry had to deploy to its left rear after its successful attack on the Ütting Hill.[224]
[224] Geschichte des Regiments Nr. 20, p. 54.
2. The battalions of the XIth Army Corps wheeling toward the Niederwald after crossing the Sauer (battle of Wörth).[225]
[225] Gen. St. W., I, p. 254, sketch p. 262.
3. The wheel executed by Kottwitz’ Brigade during the battle of Loigny-Poupry (2nd Dec., 1870). (This is also cited as an example of the conduct of a counter-attack made by the defender). Toward noon the advance guard of the 17th Infantry Division held Lumeau. The 33rd Brigade, its battalions in double column, was concentrated south of Champdoux. The division commander retained two battalions as a reserve and ordered Major-General von Kottwitz “to execute a quarter wheel to the right and to form his command for attack in the general direction of Loigny,” for the purpose of relieving the pressure on the Bavarians defending Schlosz Goury. The attack was directed against the French Division Jauréguiberry, which was attacking Schlosz Goury. This division first came under fire at 3-400 m. and then approached to within about 150 m. of the defenders’ position; strong reserves followed in rear of its right flank, but otherwise nothing was done to protect the right.
By wheeling at once to the right, the right wing of Kottwitz’ Brigade would still have struck the eastern garden wall of Schlosz Goury, and, as Loigny had been indicated to the general as the objective, a fan-shaped extension of the brigade, precluding mutual coöperation, would have been unavoidable. The general had fourteen companies at his disposal and decided to advance in a southerly direction until his second line overlapped the most advanced hostile line, so that the attack as planned would have struck simultaneously both the first and second lines of the enemy. The slight loss of time involved caused the general no uneasiness, as he could carry out his intentions without interference beyond range of the fire of the enemy, whom he could observe during the entire movement. The brigade formed for attack, during its movement to the south, when about 1200 m. from Goury. The general, who was on the right flank, halted the brigade after it had advanced far enough, and wheeled it to the right.
As the second line overlapped the first, the Füsilier Battalion of the 76th Infantry had to shorten its step until the 2nd and 3rd Companies of the same regiment had come abreast and until the 6th and 8th Companies of the 75th Infantry had also joined the line. The center half-battalion, (2nd and 3rd Companies of the 76th Infantry), the unit of direction, was ordered to march on the church spire of Loigny. All the units of the force, with the exception of the IInd Battalion, 76th Infantry, at once deployed lines of skirmishers. The 1st and 4th Companies, 76th Infantry, and 5th Company, 75th Infantry, covered the left flank and turned toward Ecuillon. Of the eleven companies launched in this flank attack, six were in the first line (approximately 1100 rifles on a front of 800 m.), and five in the second.
The bulk of the second line, in an endeavor to close with the enemy quickly, joined the firing line when 400 m. from the enemy. The attack came as a complete surprise to the French; their lines were taken in flank, and all their attempts to form new defensive lines to oppose the onslaught of the Hansards proved unavailing. The dense, unwieldy masses of the French were more and more crowded together by the uninterrupted advance of the Hansards and offered good objectives to the German marksmen. The advance of the brigade was supported by the artillery in position near Lumeau. This artillery followed the brigade to Ecuillon.
The Hansards traversed a distance of 3500 m. during this attack. The right wing and the bulk of the 2nd and 3rd Companies, 76th Infantry, which had been detailed as the unit of direction, with orders to march on the church spire of Loigny, strayed to Fougon; the left wing penetrated into Loigny.[226]