Results of Russian experiments. The sand bag employed was made of coarse linen of grayish green color and when filled and tied, was approximately 50 cm. long (width of a man’s shoulders), 30-35 cm. wide, and 30-35 cm. high. The filled sand bag weighed 14-20 kg., depending upon the filling material (sand or broken stone). When filled with sand or broken stone, the sand bag stopped all projectiles, while, when filled with earth, even two bags placed in rear of each other did not afford sufficient protection. The sand bags were scarcely discernible with the naked eye at 400 m. They were not an easy target to hit, and, even at 300 m., it was difficult to aim at them.

The men had a distinct aversion against constructing shelter trenches while lying down. During the war they could be made to intrench only by great exertions on the part of the officers. The reason for this is obvious; digging with the small spade while in a prone position is uncomfortable. The skirmisher considers it much more profitable to fire than to puzzle out how he can best stir up the soil with the small spade while in a prone position. Moreover, he knows that at any moment he may have to make a rush to the front.

The beautiful idea that these trenches were to be used and widened by the reserves, was usually not carried out. The reserves preferred to make longer rushes and to take advantage of folds of the ground rather than occupy themselves with intrenching under hostile fire.

At ranges from 2000-1000 m., single men made short rushes, only 30-40 m. long, as the filled sand bag constituted a considerable load. Before a man ran forward, he slung his rifle, grasped the sand bag with one hand at the tied end, with the other at a loop specially provided for that purpose; then he jumped up, ran forward 30-40 m., as rapidly as he could in a crouching position, placed the sand bag on the ground, and threw himself down behind it. Under effective hostile fire, at 1000-550 m. (during our peace maneuvers at 420-280 m.), the men then crawl forward, utilizing the sand bag as cover. The men would rather crawl a greater distance with the sand bag than intrench while lying down.

From the position of the enemy, the skirmishers lying behind grayish green sand bags could not be recognized with the naked eye at 2000-1000 m. It is reported that both officers and men were at first very much disinclined toward making these experiments, but that they changed their views after one or two exercises, and the principal apprehension, that of increasing the weight of the field equipment, disappeared because of the undeniable advantages of the sand bag.

Russia. In instructions issued by General Kuropatkin, the following statement in regard to the Japanese infantry appears: “It advances in widely deployed lines. The firing line advances by short, alternating rushes, the men then throwing themselves down and intrenching. In spite of our extraordinarily violent fire, the firing line continues to advance by alternate rushes, leaves its half completed shelter trenches and begins to dig new ones. The supports then advance by alternate rushes, occupy the first line of trenches and complete them. When the firing line advances from the second line of trenches, they are occupied by the supports, while the reserves move up into the first line of trenches. In this manner, the advance is continued by successive rushes. From this, it is apparent that the infantryman in the firing line must act on his own initiative in selecting a point for intrenching.”

Japan. In a number of cases, the Japanese conducted an attack in the manner described. At Liao Yang, on September 1st, 1904, shelter trenches were dug at 750 and at 530 m. from the Russian position. The advance beyond this was so managed that the men intrenched after every rush, finally arriving, in the course of the day, within 300 m. of the enemy. An assault made from this position on the afternoon of the 2nd was repulsed. The whole Japanese line again faced to the front on arriving in the shelter trenches which they had dug 300 m. from the hostile position. The Japanese now perfected their weak intrenchments and were even able to repulse two counter-attacks made by the Russians. This was certainly an exceptional case, and, besides, it involved an attack on a fortified position.

The German Manual of Field Engineering (No. 46) recommends that the man, when lying on his left side, construct in the first place a parapet 30 cm. high, as head cover and rifle rest. This produces pits 50 cm. wide, 60 cm. long, and 40 cm. deep, usually deeper in front than in rear, which makes aiming uncomfortable.

France. According to the Instruction pratique sur les travaux de campagne (24th October, 1906), the men are to improve available cover; where natural cover is wanting, artificial cover is to be constructed when the hostile fire compels a halt or the men are forced to halt to regain their breath. At short ranges, the skirmishers dig individual pits. It is desirable for the soldier to use his knapsack as cover while working, and to leave it in position later also, to get better head cover.

England. Although the troops are not equipped with portable intrenching tools, it is prescribed that captured positions be fortified; in open country, when the hostile fire is too hot, this is to be done at night.

The suggestion of creating cover for skirmishers by using the pits produced by short shell salvos, is a singular one. Detailed experiments have been made in Austria.[421] In instructions issued by the commander of the XIth Corps, it was recommended that, when exposed to moderate hostile fire, the soldier should hug the ground as closely as possible while at work. The intrenching proceeded most rapidly when the soldier first excavated the ground in front and threw it forward. But in order to do this, the man has to push himself backward during the work and must throw the earth some distance. The parapet is low, but affords sufficient protection.

The task is greater when the soldier lies first on his left, then on his right side, removes earth from a borrow pit at his right and then from one on his left, and piles it up in front. As the skirmisher lies on the natural surface of the ground during this operation, he naturally constructs a higher parapet.

The employment of the reserves by the Russians at Plevna, on September 11th, 1877: The general reserve consisted of nine battalions and was too weak to make an impression at one point; fifteen battalions were detailed to cover the lines of communication and the artillery (which was not at all in danger). Forty battalions that did not enter the fight were scattered all over the battlefield, no one being able to account for their presence.[424] When Skobeleff had effected a lodgment in the Turkish position, every available man should have been sent to this point. Although there were 9 battalions, 30 guns, and 4 troops (Eskadrons) available, only the Schuja Regiment (1300 men), which had suffered heavy losses in previous actions, was despatched to the point in question, and that more for the purpose of covering the retreat than to make the most of the success that had been gained.

In contrast to the Japanese commanders, who promptly launched all their troops, the Russian commanders were inclined to despatch numerous detachments, to organize provisional units, while completely ignoring existing organizations (this had, indeed, also the advantage that a suitable leader could be found for carrying a special mission into execution), and to form strong reserves by details from any and all imaginable units. These reserves were frequently not used at all.[425]

On March 5th, 1905, the commanding general of the Xth Army Corps (Zerpitzki) had available one brigade of his 31st Division, one regiment of his 9th Division, one regiment of the VIIIth Corps, three Rifle regiments of the mixed Rifle Corps, the 5th Rifle Brigade, and one regiment of the Vth Siberian Army Corps.[426]

On October 15th, in the battle on the Shaho, the general reserve of the army consisted of 32 battalions belonging to five different divisions and five different army corps. In his order for the battle, Kuropatkin laid particular stress on the necessity of forming reserves (Army Orders dated August 15th, 1904): “Keeping back more than half of the force in reserve is the best guarantee for success.” On December 27th, 1904, he made a similar statement.

In contrast with this, Russia (1904): “In employing the general reserve, the commander-in-chief must be even more economical than the troop leader; he should, when necessary, detail single units to support this or that section, but he should in no case use up his whole reserve before the decision has occurred.” The failures of the British in the South African war may likewise be traced in part to a faulty use of the reserves. Thus, we read in the regulations of 1896: “The reserve should occupy a favorable defensive position in order to check the enemy in case of defeat; if the attack succeeds, the reserve should move up into the position and take charge of the pursuit.”

The launching of L’Estocq’s Corps at Preussisch-Eylau, is still a model worthy of imitation.[427]

In the battle of Vionville, three battalions and four batteries were detached from the 20th Infantry Division, which had arrived during the afternoon, and sent to the right flank to take part in the action of the 5th Infantry Division, as infantry support seemed necessary on the right flank. When the head of the division reached Tronville, the question was discussed, as to whether it was desirable first to concentrate the division for action, or to throw the leading battalions into the Tronville forest, where portions of Lehman’s Brigade were still holding their ground. As an advance of the French out of the woods would have endangered the left flank of the Prussian artillery line, three battalions were at once thrown into the forest, while the six remaining battalions were kept in reserve for the time being. Subsequently, three more battalions were sent forward to reinforce the infantry engaged in the forest

“What a decisive blow the 20th Division could have struck, if it had been employed in one body!” (v. Liebert).[428]

Although no one disputes that victory depends upon a superiority of fire at the decisive point, yet there is a great diversity of opinion as to how this superiority is to be attained.

General Bronsart von Schellendorff states:[433] “Every battle seeks to bring about a decisive victory, but this is, after all, invariably the sum of local victories. Successful battle-tactics consist of correctly estimating the tactical value of these local successes and of contriving to gain a victory at the decisive point; in other words, to manage so that the sum-total of positive factors will be greater than that of the negative factors.”

In the opinion of the advocates of this course,[434] unity of action is attainable by practice and study, but not by set formations. If unity of action could be ensured in all bodies of troops by means of study and practice, there would seem to be no reason why the regulations should lay down still more definite rules to govern the manner in which an attack should be conducted. The matter is not so simple, however. Bearing in mind the great latitude that the regulations allow each individual in choosing the formation which he deems proper in a given case, it is obvious that many very different procedures may result. This in itself is no drawback, and to a certain extent this condition must exist, as the task in hand, the nature of the country, and the existing situation vary. But, if a given problem can be correctly solved in several ways, it will also admit of a decidedly incorrect solution; and it is the more likely to be solved incorrectly, the less study and practice is indulged in by a large part of the corps of officers, and the less this class of officers finds in existing regulations as a guide to conduct. When, in spite of undeniable progress, we see dispersed attacks and an unquestionably incorrect conduct in every maneuver, and this with a corps of officers nearly all of whom are professional soldiers, who have had the advantage of study and practice, what may we expect in war, where the corps of officers will be very largely composed of officers of the Reserve and Landwehr, who have but very limited opportunities for study and practice, but who, after the very first battle, may have to command companies.

General von Scherff,[435] the chief advocate of “united action,” is opposed to the “combat with units of command” (Kommandoeinheiten) briefly sketched above. He makes a distinction between battle-tactics and the tactics of detachment warfare. In his opinion, the sum of the local successes can by no means gain the victory; that can only be done by the united launching of adequate forces at the decisive point. “No weapon in the world will ever alter the fact that five battalions united in one body have a greater inherent fighting power than five separate battalions—not to mention twenty separate companies—always provided that a united body of troops is also launched as one body.”

1. The 26th Infantry Brigade was alarmed and put in march toward the battlefield to support the advance guard brigade of the VIIth Army Corps, engaged at Colombey. The commander of the 26th Infantry Brigade received orders from the commanding general to engage. It was not necessary for the brigade to provide its own reserve as the 25th Brigade had been directed to concentrate between Marsilly and Colligny, and to be at the disposal of the corps commander. The troops already engaged were in a critical situation; their moral and physical energy was exhausted. It is only too patent that the first battalion (1st Battalion, 13th Infantry) appearing on the scene was thrown into the fight to afford at least temporary relief, but this insufficient reinforcement was involved in the general failure. After about a quarter of an hour, the 25th Brigade (the IIIrd Battallion, 73rd Infantry had remained in bivouac at Pange) was concentrating for action at Coincy, but, instead of its making a united attack, only the 1st Battalion of the 73rd Infantry was launched. This battalion did, indeed, penetrate into the “Tannenwäldchen” at the “Todten-Allee”, but was then surrounded on three sides, had to fall back with considerable losses, prevented the further advance of the IInd Battallion of the 73rd Infantry, and rallied on the Füsilier Battalion of the 13th Infantry, on the bank of the Vallières brook. “Although the General Staff account of the war is silent on this subject, we are justified in assuming that only the presence of the brigade commander, who had learned a lesson from the second local assault, prevented the Füsilier Battalion of the 13th Infantry from making a fourth isolated effort. After re-forming the organizations, the new attack, which was made with indomitable spirit, proceeded more in connection with that of three other battalions advancing on the same line, and this united advance was closely followed by a second echelon consisting of the last battalion of the brigade (the IInd Battalion of the 13th Infantry), which had arrived just in time. The result was that the enemy was completely routed.”[436]

2. At the Gorze-Rezonville road, on August 16th, 1870, the isolated attacks made against Hill 970 by eight battalions, belonging to three different brigades, likewise accomplished nothing, whereas, had a higher commander been present, a united attack launched by him would undoubtedly have been successful.[437]

3. The well executed attack made against the hill west of the suburb of St. Martin, on January 19th, 1871, by six battalions of the 29th Infantry Brigade shows the importance of the united launching of a large body of massed infantry. The engagement of the 16th Infantry Division, in particular the attack made on Grugies (battle of St. Quentin) is the antithesis of the above-mentioned attack. Although the situation did not necessitate the simultaneous launching of the available forces, the brigade attacked in driblets. The attack made by these fractions, launched one after another, was not able to bring about a decision. In the first place, at about 11 A. M., three companies (5th, 6th, and 7th of the 69th Infantry), soon afterwards supported by the 8th Company of the 29th Infantry, and the 8th Company of the 69th Infantry, attacked the French position at the railway embankment and cut. The Prussian troops fought with great gallantry, the 5th, 6th and 7th Companies of the 69th Infantry making four attacks, and the other two companies, three. Although these five companies succeeded in gaining temporary successes, they lacked a common commander, and were supported from the rear only when they were thrown back after fighting for three-quarters of an hour.

About noon, the four companies of the Ist Battalion, 29th Infantry, were brought up, but did not engage until the first line had been forced back and the 5th, 6th, and 7th Companies of the 69th Infantry, at any rate, were out of action for the time being. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the Ist Battalion of the 29th Infantry attacked in three groups, the strongest of which consisted of 2-l/2 companies, the weakest of only half a company. Only the strongest of these groups scored a success, and the Ist Battalion of the 29th Infantry was completely routed after a bloody fight. The 9th and 10th Companies, 29th Infantry, did not arrive on the battlefield until after the companies of the Ist Battalion of this regiment, whose heroic fight cannot be sufficiently praised, had ceased to exist as tactical units.

At 12:30 P. M., the 3rd and 4th Companies of the 70th Infantry were brought up and threw back the French, but were in their turn defeated. At this moment the 10th and 11th Companies of the 40th Infantry arrived; these companies were also able to advance, but their success was a temporary one only.

At 1:30 P. M., the IInd Battalion of the 40th Infantry appeared, threw the French back, but was soon attacked by superior forces and suffered the same fate as its predecessors.

At 2:30 P. M., the Füsilier Battalion of the 70th Infantry and the 9th and 12th Companies of the 40th Infantry were brought forward, but only the former engaged seriously at once—again without success. A little while later, the 9th and 12th Companies, 40th Infantry, advanced energetically. At about 3:30 P. M., the French made a very strong counter-attack; all that had been gained seemed about to be lost again, when the decision was finally brought about by the vigorous action of the 41st Infantry and a charge made by Reserve Dragoons.

The capture of Grugies, of the sugar mill, and, a little later, of Gauchy, now followed.

The resistance of the French was broken. General von Barnekow had thus, apparently, gained his object; but at what a price? In this engagement, the launching of troops in driblets may be very accurately followed:

1. At 11 A. M., five companies were launched in two separate groups (5th, 6th, and 7th Companies, 69th Infantry—8th Company, 29th Infantry and 8th Company, 69th Infantry);

2. Toward noon, four fresh companies (1st Battalion, 29th Infantry) were also launched in separate groups;

3. A little later, two fresh companies were put in (9th and 10th Companies, 29th Infantry);

4. At 12:30 P. M., two fresh companies were launched (3rd and 4th Companies, 70th Infantry);

5. A little later, the 10th and 11th Companies, 40th Infantry, were pushed in;

6. About 1:30 P. M., the IInd Battalion, 40th Infantry, was brought up;

7. About 2:30 P. M., the Füsilier Battalion, 70th Infantry, and the 9th and 12th Companies, 40th Infantry, advanced.

Thus, between 11 A. M. and 2:30 P. M., General von Barnekow gradually drew into the fight twenty-five companies, in seven different detachments, from the reserve formed by the 16th Infantry Division at Essigny le Grand. Besides, the troops generally did not appear on the battlefield until the energy of the troops already engaged was exhausted.[438]

Moreover, the retreat of the several detachments was not a voluntary one, for the French, thanks to their great superiority, generally forced them to retire. This engagement thus presents a series of partial successes, which became reverses, however, in a very short time.

Launching reinforcements in driblets increased the numbers required beyond all reasonable bounds, produced heavy losses, and involved the weak reinforcements, which arrived successively, in disaster, without turning the tide of the battle. Decisive victories can only be brought about by simultaneously launching masses.

“The system of close order battalion tactics was no longer practicable under Chassepot fire, and everyone promptly went to the opposite extreme of extended order, company column tactics, with which all were sufficiently familiar, since it had been carefully practiced in minor field exercises in time of peace.” (The attack made by the 26th Infantry Brigade against Schlosz Aubigny, August 14th, 1870[439])

There is always danger that unity of action will be sacrificed by the continued assignment of individual tasks; that the leader will not be able to count with confidence on the initiative of subordinate leaders restoring this unity, and “that, in the end, no higher commander will any longer have the assurance that his wishes will be carried out.” The battles around Metz during August, 1870, show a tendency on the part of the infantry to leave behind, in reserve and in rallying positions, parts of the troops launched to perform a certain combat task, “to detach parts to maintain communication (very often not at all endangered) with neighboring detachments”, and to despatch others to a distance to cover a flank, or to make a wide turning movement for the purpose of enveloping the enemy’s flank.

To prevent a battle from degenerating into a number of disconnected, local combats, and to ensure that the enemy will be actually subjected to the fire of as many rifles as the supreme commander intended, General von Scherff proposes that the battle formation, consisting of several echelons separated by fixed distances, be taken up outside of the zone of hostile fire, and that these echelons then advance simultaneously and as uninterruptedly as possible upon the enemy. In this movement the terrain is to be taken advantage of only so far as the orders permit. In view of the flat trajectory of the modern rifle, he concedes that fire while in motion, formerly considered permissible by him at long and medium ranges, may be replaced by an advance by rushes of the firing line, alternating with firing in a prone position, the ammunition to be expended at each halt being fixed by the officer charged with fire direction. He moreover considers it necessary to have a main firing position, located approximately at the outer limit of short ranges, for the purpose of gaining the superiority of fire. Base units must be designated in order to prevent weak detachments from encountering the enemy single-handed. Moreover, he intends to keep the advance going by increasing the fire, and by detailed and definite orders providing for the constant reinforcement of the firing line by men of the steadily following supports and reserves. Further, since according to his proposal, a halt by the rear echelons of an attack that has once been launched, is excluded on principle, it follows of necessity, that, for the fire effect of the firing line at the really decisive ranges, there can remain only a very brief period of time, measurable in minutes, which is amply sufficient, in his opinion, for the object to be accomplished.

It is charged that General von Scherff’s proposal[440] (see p. 205 supra) favors a set scheme for conducting every fight. This is not true; there is quite a difference between “more definitely regulating the conduct of an attack”, aimed at by the author of Kriegslehren, and the formulation of a normal procedure.