case may be. Lieutenant-General Rohne has done a great deal to bring about a correct appreciation of the rate of fire. He states: "The opposition to an increased rate of fire is perhaps due to the belief that it is invariably coupled with a reduction in accuracy. This is not the case, however, and even if it were true to a certain extent, it need not necessarily be harmful. To be sure, when a high rate of fire is solely due to the excitement of the skirmishers, it is unquestionably to be condemned because no attempt is made at aiming; but when it is the product of systematic peace training, it need not necessarily preclude good aiming. It is entirely consistent with a high rate of fire to load and point quickly, to keep the target constantly in view, and, at the same time, to aim accurately and to pull the trigger without flinching.
"The leader who reduces the rapidity of fire in battle in order to save ammunition, wastes lives and time, both more valuable than ammunition. Disabled soldiers are more difficult to replace than ammunition, and lost time cannot be replaced at all."[1]
A high rate of fire need by no means be synonymous with waste of ammunition. Ammunition would unquestionably be wasted if fire were delivered for hours at the same high rate. It is very probable, however, that in the battles of the future the fire will be moderate for some time, or, better still, cease entirely, only to break forth like a thunderstorm over the enemy when opportunity offers or necessity demands. The slower the troops fire the longer they will present a target to the enemy. The coolness shown in firing individual shots at the commencement of an action will disappear owing to the impression produced by losses. This is apparent even in field firing. Lieutenant-General Rohne arrives at the following average results:
- ↑ Schieszlehre für die Infanterie, 2nd Edition.
