must supply this picture and the drill-ground is the place where its general forms should be impressed upon every individual participating in the performance of a task." Experience has taught us that this image of the drill-ground becomes distorted in war through influences which have almost never permitted it to appear on the battlefield in its true form. The initiative of subordinate leaders should overcome the obstacles which stand in the way of a realization of this ideal image.
The system of tactical missions reckons with the sum-total of local successes, assigns tasks to the different units of command, and leaves to the latter the choice of the means, without restricting their independence. The course of the combat can be influenced only by the action of retained forces, and it is sought to produce united action by acquainting all leaders with the object of the combat, they in turn endeavoring to attain this object even though they do so in different ways.
The system of united action seeks to ensure victory by simultaneously placing in readiness all the forces intended for the general combat, by an orderly concentration for action, and by launching the troops at one and the same time, without, however, requiring all parts of the force to employ the same formations. This system dictates to the leader the number of troops he should launch. Since in action everything is ordered as necessity therefor arises, the result is that the leader loses sight of the general action in view of the great number of separate orders that must be issued.
In the system of tactical missions, there is danger of arbitrary action on the part of subordinates, and of dispersion; moreover, it is not always easy to deploy strong firing lines, and there is an increased tendency to overestimate the value of cover and, in consequence, to overstep the assigned frontage.
The system of united action is open to the objection that initiative of the individual disappears and that the rules laid down in drill regulations degenerate into a pattern devoid of all spirit.
In Austria (1906), Captain Wachtel[1] suggests that, when a decision is not sought, an attack in groups be made, and that, when a decision is sought, a united attack be made. In Switzerland, Major Sonderegger[2] advocates a procedure based on that of General von Scherff.
The initiative of the individual should carry the troops over difficulties occasioned by the terrain or the enemy. Such checks occur most frequently from the time a force enters the zone of effective hostile fire until the assault has been decided upon. In the author's opinion, the individualized attack is a concession made, at the expense of united action, for the purpose of making the attack succeed at all.
