Tactics

Anatomy of the Attack.

Turning now to the attack itself, in all such operations, and more particularly so in modern times, may be discovered a definite tactical anatomy. First there is the act of approach, culminating in contact, which links strategy to tactics. Next there is the attack proper, and lastly the pursuit, or act of annihilation, which is virtually a new attack, and which should when possible be carried out by a fresh body of troops. The attack may be divided into three acts, or stages. First it is necessary to deprive the enemy of freedom of action; this is ef fected by deceiving him and surprising him, an attack on the mind of his command. By distracting and frightening him, an at tack on his moral. And, finally, by compelling him to alter his dispositions, improvise new distributions, and force him to as sume a defensive attitude, in other words to protect himself rather than hit out. It is difficult to find a word which embraces the idea of all these actions ; possibly "distraction" is the best, which literally means "to pull asunder," to perplex the enemy's mind, to harass his moral, and to confound his organization. This distraction, or the upsetting of the enemy's mental, moral and physical equilibrium creates an opportunity for a decisive thrust, a dislocation of the enemy's plan which throughout history has commonly been achieved by a manoeuvre against the enemy's rear, or, failing his rear, one, or both, of his flanks. The result of this dislocation is that the enemy is compelled to make a corn plete "change of front" in plan and in distribution, so complete that frequently being forced to fight in two directions simulta neously he is deprived of all power to concentrate his forces. Thus unhinged, and reduced to a state of mental bewilderment, moral paralysis and physical disorganization, he offers himself an easy target to the knock-out blow which entirely disrupts his army, reducing it to a mob to be annihilated by the pursuit. Thus the attack may be divided into three acts, namely, distraction, dis location and disruption, the one paving the way for the next and melting into it until the enemy's destruction is complete.

Tactical Elements.

Throughout history two main types of weapons have been used in attack and defence, namely, missile weapons and shock weapons. Frequently the first have gained supremacy in defensive actions when used by foot soldiers, and in offensive actions when used by mounted men. The second throughout the greater part of military history have par excellence constituted the weapon of the attack. So much so has this been the case that until quite recently it may be said that the tactical object of missile weapons has been to assist, or restrict, the movement forward of the arme blanche. Similarly, there have been two types of protection, and two types of movement, namely, direct protection by body, armour, earth-works or terrain, and indirect protection by formation, invisibility and fire-power. Movement has been of two degrees—by foot and by horse. There have been also two main attack formations, the column and the line. The second is essential for the full development of missile weapons, and the first for what conventionally is called shock tactics. By this it must not be understood that weight of

numbers endows a column with breaking power. In war there never is any shock of this description, for, as Commandant Colin says : "an impulse never comes from the rear." What depth does endow a column with is manoeuvrability, moral superiority, and above all, reserves at hand once the enemy's front has been shot, or hacked, through. In fact the column is a concentrated line in movement.

The simplest form of attack is one line or column meeting another line or column head on, this is known as the parallel order of battle. Generally speaking, as military history clearly shows, this order, the frontal fight, does not lead to a solution unless one side preponderates numerically, when the frontal attack of the stronger side develops into an overlapping attack, that is an attack which meeting with little or no resistance out flanks its opponent's front. In this attack of mobile wings pivoted on a stable centre, which is holding the enemy, may be discovered the germ of all tactical development down to the present day. We will now trace the above theories throughout the recorded history of war.

Leadership and the Pha'.anx.

The primitive tactics of the archaic period of war are not a thing of the past, for they may be witnessed daily in brawls, riots, individual contests and mob fighting. They are brutal and cowardly, yet they form the nursery of individual courage and cunning, and from the earliest days onwards these two human qualities have stood in direct antag onism. Even to-day the highest military rewards are given for bravery and not for intelligence, and still the introduction of any novel weapon which detracts from individual prowess is met by opposition. Mob-fighting, whether on horse or foot, goes back to pre-cultural times; yet even then the idea of a leader must have existed, and it may be said that true military operations only began to take form when once a leader attained over his followers sufficient authority to order them out to fight or witness a fight, in place of merely assuming leadership during a haphazard brawl. When this control was established, the true battle, as Homer often describes it, was waged between the leaders themselves, their followers frequently being mere audiences to cheer on their respective champions and villify those of their enemy. If the followers engaged, and the tribal weapons were the spear and shield, it must soon have been obvious that the side which could first form a wall of men normally won. This wall is the beginning of the phalanx as known throughout Greece and depicted on the monuments of ancient Assyria and Egypt. The phalangites con stituted the village, or city, militia. Their drill consisted in the "fall in" in lines, or ranks, and their tactics in forward or back ward movement accompanied by push of pikes. The phalanx possessed little or no power to attack the simplest defences, con sequently if the enemy refused to abandon his city wall, of come out of his village, the only method whereby he could be brought to book was to attack him economically, that is to destroy his crops. This was the normal system of war in ancient Greece.