io 
portion seems more suitable than that of the General, who, in asking for four 
batteries per Army Corps, is evidently looking at the conditions of siege warfare. 
The General thinks that a field army should be just as capable of attacking a 
fortified place as of storming a position in the open field. It should, therefore, 
possess the means of overcoming the defenders, whether the latter shelter them¬ 
selves behind permanent works or behind temporary ones. In his essay upon 
“ Sudden Attacks Against Fortified Places,” General von Sauer has already tried 
to prove that permanent works cannot resist high-angle fire. It remained to 
prove that this kind of fire would find its natural and necessary employment 
upon the field of battle ; hence the essay which we are now discussing. 
As has been already remarked, this theory, however ably expressed, is much 
too absolute. We need not here go back to the “ Sudden Attacks Against 
Fortified Places,” it is sufficient to refer to the articles which have appeared in 
the Revue Militaire de VMranger to show how exaggerated General von Sauer’s 
ideas on this subject are. The new theory which he now propounds is also open 
to grave discussion, and it is difficult to admit that a field of battle can in all 
points be likened to a fortress. The author’s arguments do not appear suffi¬ 
ciently strong to be accepted without dispute. No doubt unity in tactics would 
be very desirable, if it were possible. But would not the danger arise, that in 
giving to Army Corps a large number of batteries for high-angle fire with the 
view of enabling them to carry out a sudden attack, they would be over-weighted, 
would be rendered more suitable for the defence than for the attack, in short, 
would lose the mobility which is so necessary for offensive operations ? 
We will now recapitulate the principal arguments employed against General 
von Sauer’s theories with regard to the extensive employment of plunging fire 
upon the field of battle. 
1. —It is not correct to say that the defence upon the field of battle always 
presents conspicuous targets to the attack. If the defence knows how to make 
a judicious use of natural cover and of temporary fortification, it will conceal 
from the enemy the organisation of its lines and the distribution of its forces. 
With smokeless powder the reconnaissance of a defensive position will be very 
difficult. 
2. —Plunging fire, in spite of the progress made of late years, will be sparingly 
employed in the field, because its regulation takes a long time in consequence of 
the lengthened time of flight of the projectiles. Also it does not possess any 
special advantages witli regard to range, its effects are, so to speak, localised, and 
this inconvenience is not corrected by the employment of a shrapnel with a very 
wide cone of dispersion, as General von Sauer pretends. Again, this kind of fire 
is with difficulty adapted to rapid changes of the object aimed at; a fact which 
renders howitzers, and especially mortars, powerless to repel surprises. Lastly, 
in consequence of the weight of their projectiles, these pieces can never be supplied 
with more than a small number of rounds, which is a serious inconvenience, 
especially for the attack. 
3. —It is not correct to say that the assailant’s mortars or howitzers will be 
always invulnerable to the direct fire of the defence, because in the open country 
sufficient cover will seldom be found to insure complete defilade. In this respect 
the defence has the advantage over the attack, having usually plenty of time at 
disposal to select the most favourable positions for its plunging batteries. 
From these reasons it may be concluded that the employment of plunging fire 
in the field will always be of a limited character, but that it will intervene, more 
by its moral effect than by its real action, upon certain points of the battle-field. 
The proportion of a battery to each brigade, recommended by General von Sauer, 
is therefore much too large; it would result is over-loading the Army Corps 
without any sufficient compensation. 
