"Troops which, while engaged with the enemy, are either withdrawn by order or defeated, can no longer choose their line of retreat. If the enemy pursues, they must retire perpendicularly to their former front, without changing formation, and need a force on which they can rally in order to prepare for renewed resistance. From this it follows that a systematic retreat can only be carried out when the force still has some distribution in depth. It would be wrong however, for a force intended for decisive action to retain a reserve for covering the retreat instead of employing it for the purpose of gaining the victory."
To break off the action by systematically relieving the troops engaged with the enemy,[1] is only possible if the force still has reserves available, if cavalry and artillery are in a position to take a hand in the fight, or if the troops that have been withdrawn are sheltered from the enemy's fire by features of the ground—all of which depends in many cases on chance.
It is much more difficult to break off an action in defense than in attack, as in the former case, the assailant approaches closer with every moment. This brings up the question, as to whether it would not be better for the defender to hold out until darkness sets in than expose his troops to the incalculable results of a retreat under fire. When the assailant has once entered the zone of short ranges, the defender will no longer be able to effect a systematic retreat. If the defender has used up all his reserves, the withdrawal should be begun at the point where the enemy is not pressing his attack, or where he has been unable to gain a superiority of fire. When a withdrawal is made, the whole local front should retire at once and simultaneously; it would be a mistake to reduce gradually the strength of the units engaged, for this would only give the enemy an opportunity to annihilate completely the remaining parts. If a company cannot maintain its position, a platoon certainly could not do so.
- ↑ Taktik, V, p. 344.
