An attack over a plain devoid of cover “should be avoided as far as possible, or weak, widely extended detachments only should be ordered to advance over it, while the bulk of the force is launched at a point where an approach under cover is practicable. If suitable terrain is lacking to permit this, then the decisive attack must be led over the open plain.” (Par. 325 German I. D. R.). In contrast with the continuous skirmish lines of the past, which are still favored by the Austrians, the German regulations permit a gap to be left in the line where an open plain devoid of cover exists, without thereby implying that it cannot be crossed. The French regulations (par. 257), contrary to the German, contemplate that “only weak detachments be left in the open, fire swept spaces,” and that the troops intended for the fire fight be pushed forward under available cover, separate groups being thus formed.[269]

“This mode of fighting in groups does away with the continuous firing lines of the past which no longer fulfill the requirements of modern battle.

“The rearmost fractions of the force endeavor to avoid open spaces, or such as are swept by hostile fire, by moving, sometimes in a close order formation and again widely extended, toward the lines of cover, without regard to the direction in which the enemy may happen to be. The unit that finds the advance easiest takes the lead, and all the others, supported by the fire of their immediate neighbors, endeavor to follow it.

“Depending upon the character of the terrain and available cover, the forces deployed for the fire fight will, therefore, advance in a rather dense formation in the areas favorable for such a procedure, while weak forces only will be found on open and fire swept ground. The advance is regulated by designating the objective of the attack and by stipulating the necessity of mutual coöperation.”

This French group attack owes its existence to the silently accepted fact that an open plain cannot be crossed when swept by unsubdued hostile fire; it reckons with an unfavorable terrain such as an attacker will only find in exceptional cases. We by no means fail to recognize the fact that individual portions of the attacker’s force, when favored by the terrain, will be able to advance more quickly than others, and that other portions may even be compelled to discontinue their advance for a time; but it seems a precarious proceeding to lay down this result of the hostile fire effect as a guide in the training of troops. The group tactics of the Boers stood the test only on the defensive; they could not prevent individual groups from being attacked by far superior forces. In an attack, the units favored by the terrain will constitute the framework upon which the units which are compelled to advance more slowly, will form. There is, however, danger that these leading groups will succumb to the superior fire of a defender who is deployed on a broader front. Although this may not happen, the spirit of the regulations tempts leaders to drive everything forward, to rush ahead with isolated parts of the force. An additional drawback of these systematic group tactics lies in the difficulty of deploying the troops moving in the narrow avenue of approach. If the French infantry really desires to avoid the plain and wants to stick principally to cover, who will guarantee that the great freedom allowed it, will not cause it to crowd together under cover, lose the direction to its objective, and become completely mixed up?[270] This danger is the more imminent since no importance is attached to a more definite limitation of the frontage to be covered, while wide extension is, on the contrary, actually preached. The fear of losses will gain the upper hand and the attack will lose its energy. “It is easy to teach troops to be over-cautious, but it is a precarious undertaking to lead such troops against the enemy.” (Sir Ian Hamilton).

While the new German Infantry Drill Regulations do not underestimate the difficulties of an advance over open ground, they require that the march direction be maintained and that cover be utilized only within the assigned “combat section”; they leave it to subordinate commanders to choose suitable expedients for crossing such unfavorable ground. “Within the limits of the section assigned to an organization for an attack, the plain devoid of cover should be avoided as far as possible, or weak, widely extended detachments only should be ordered to advance over it, while the bulk of the force is launched at a point where an approach under cover is practicable. If suitable terrain is lacking to permit this, then the decisive attack must be led over the open plain.” (Par. 325 German I. D. R.). For purposes of instruction, it is entirely correct to require “that even on terrain devoid of cover, well-trained infantry should not open fire until the medium ranges are reached.” (Par. 326 German I. D. R.). The necessity, when under hostile fire, of adapting movements to the accidents of the ground, should not impair the energy of the advance and cause portions of the attacking force to lag behind, thereby disintegrating it. On the other hand, we should not be afraid to leave gaps in our attacking line, as the enemy would, in any case, not be able to use them for his own advance.

Thus we have here the German united attack, on the one hand, and the French group attack, on the other. Since group tactics no doubt diminish losses, they should be used in delaying actions, in holding attacks, and in defense; they should unquestionably not be employed when a concerted, rapid movement of skirmishers to the front becomes necessary. How should the Vth Corps at Wörth and the Guard at St. Privat, for instance, have attacked, according to the French regulations?