I.-Its Attack, generally.

Infantry attacks with its fire, or with the bayonet. Which of these is the more effective
1. The object of an attack is to destroy or capture the hostile force, or, at least, to drive it from the field. Capturing the enemy, or driving him from the field, cannot usually be effected by merely firing upon him. True, a mere fire at a distance may finally destroy him. But an insuperable objection to this mode of attack is, that while we are killing or disabling his men, he is killing or disabling as many of our own.
2. If we fire from behind cover, our loss may be comparatively small. But, in that case, the enemy will never remain for any length of time exposed to our fire. He will either attack and rout us from our cover, or retire. And even if he did neither, his actual and complete destruction, capture, or rout, would still require an attack with the bayonet. 3. It follows that the proper mode of attack by infantry on infantry is with the bayonet. The Russian Suwarrow's victories and reputation were won chiefly by his fierce bayonet attacks, which often effected great results, in spite of his ignorance of the art of war.
4. But there are exceptional cases where infantry may properly use only its fire; as (1.) When acting as a support to artillery, it should rarely, if ever, leave its position to use the bayonet; thereby endangering the safety of the guns which it is its first duty to guard. Its function, in this case, being purely defensive, it should act by its fire alone. (2.) Against a line of skirmishers deployed, a well-directed fire will usually be sufficiently effective. (3.) In mountain warfare, its only practicable mode of attack will sometimes be by its fire.
5. When both sides are equally exposed, the actual attack with the bayonet should not be preceded by a distant musketry fire; for, as in that case, our loss will generally be equal to the enemy's, this fire will give us no superiority in the charge, and the loss we have sustained will be therefore entirely thrown away.
6. Nevertheless, our actual attack should be prepared, when possible, by the infliction of such a loss on the enemy as will make him inferior to us at the decisive moment. In war, the object is not to test the comparative courage of the combatants, but to beat the enemy. We must never, therefore, when it can be avoided, fight him on equal terms; and so, never close with him without such a superiority in numbers, position, or spirit, as will make the chances decidedly in our favor. If, without exposing ourselves to much loss, we can inflict a considerable loss upon him, we shall render him inferior to us, both by the number of his men we have disabled, and by the demoralization thereby caused in his ranks.
7. This preparatory loss can be most effectually inflicted by the fire of artillery; as, from its great superiority of range, it can suffer but little, meanwhile, from the enemy's infantry fire. Our attacking infantry are thus enabled to keep out of the range of the fire of the infantry they are to attack, till the moment of advancing to close.
8. When we have no artillery disposable for the purpose, the preparatory effect may be produced by a well-sustained fire of infantry, provided it can find a sheltered position to deliver it from; or, by the fire of a heavy line of skirmishers.
9. If we can make the infantry we wish to attack engage in a prolonged fire, this will exhaust them, and thus render them inferior to us in strength and in spirit, even if we inflict on them but little loss. But as our attacking infantry should, in the mean time, be kept fresh, the preparatory fire, in such case, should not devolve on the troops that are to close with the enemy.
10. One cause of the indecisiveness of the results obtained in many of the battles of the late war, as compared with the great loss of life on both sides, has been, that the opposing battalions were too often kept firing at each other at a distance, both sustaining nearly equal loss, until the ranks were so weakened as to disable either party from making a vigorous and decisive charge. Or else, charges were made on the enemy's battalions before they had been shattered by artillery; so that the attacking troops were easily repulsed, sometimes with great slaughter.

II.  Formations for Attack.

1. Infantry may advance to attack in either of three ways: in column; in line, marching by the front; and by the flank; that is, in line, but faced to a flank.
2. Of these three formations, the last is undoubtedly the worst possible; for (1.) On arriving at the enemy, the troops are not concentrated at the point where the struggle is to be. As they must come up successively, they will be crushed in detail by superior numbers. (2.) Advancing in such a formation, they would be exposed to a destructive raking fire from the enemy's guns; especially since the adoption of the new flank march by fours, which gives to rifled artillery a tolerable mark.
3. The question is, then, between an attack in column and an attack in line. Which is the better of the two? The decisive effect of infantry is produced by a rush on the enemy with the bayonet. The chief elements of success in this attack at close quarters are, the physical momentum of the charge, and the powerful moral effect caused by the swift approach of a compact and orderly hostile mass. A charge in line does not admit of both these elements. The advance of a line of one or more battalions, to be united and orderly, cannot be rapid, and thus has no impetus. Such a line, advancing swiftly, especially over uneven ground, would soon become so broken and disunited as to destroy, in a great measure, the effect, both moral and physical, of its charge, and, at the same time, to deprive the attacking troops of that confidence which is inspired by the consciousness of moving together in one compact, formidable mass, in which every soldier feels himself fortified by the support of his comrades.
4. On the other hand, a column can move rapidly without losing its compactness and order. In attacking the enemy's line, a close column concentrates successively, but rapidly, a force superior to the enemy at the decisive point, and can hardly fail to pierce the line attacked, if it arrive with its momentum unchecked. In a close column, there is a real force created by the pressure of the mass behind on the leading subdivision, pushing it on the enemy, and preventing it from drawing back or stopping; thus imparting to it somewhat of the actual physical momentum of a mechanical engine. A close column shelters raw troops, and carries them irresistibly along with it. A close column, in case of need, can rapidly extend its front by deploying. It can promptly make itself impenetrable to cavalry. Finally, in a column, the officers being seen by the men, the benefit of their example is not lost. The close column would, therefore, seem to be the best formation for attack.
5. Movements in line requiring that high degree of perfection in drill which can rarely be attained by any but regular troops, they were accordingly abandoned by the raw and undisciplined masses of French soldiers that so successfully defended the French Republic from invasion against the veteran armies of Europe; some of which were led by generals who had served under Frederick the Great. Conscious of their military inferiority to the enemy, they instinctively clustered together in close and heavy columns; then rushed down on the enemy's line with the force of an avalanche, often carrying every thing before them. Thus was inaugurated that system of attack in deep and solid columns, which was afterwards so successfully used by Napoleon.
6. Close columns have two defects. One is, that they are oppressive and exhausting to the men, especially in hot weather. But this is not a very serious objection; for they are, or should be, formed only when about to be used, and then their work is generally soon over. 
7. The other defect, however, is of so grave a nature as, in the opinion of some, to more than outweigh their advantages; and this is, the terribly destructive effect upon them of the enemy's artillery fire, or of that of his sharpshooters; for the solid mass is an easy target, int6 which every shot is sure to penetrate. Many of the missiles which would fly over an advancing line, are sure to fall, somewhere or other, in a deep column. This destructive effect was strikingly illustrated in Macdonald's charge on the Allied centre at Wagram. The eleven thousand men (some accounts say fifteen thousand) composing that famous column, advanced under the fire of one hundred and eighty hostile guns. After being driven back twice, they succeeded, in a third attack, in breaking the enemy's centre. But of the entire column, only eleven hundred-men, it is said, were left standing.
8. The recent improvements in fire-arms must render the fire on a close column of infantry, both by artillery and sharpshooters, still more destructive than it was before. But this sacrifice of life can be prevented, to a great extent, by using the columns at a proper time and in a proper manner. They should, like storming parties (which they really are), never be launched against the enemy's line till the fire by which. they would suffer has been quite or nearly silenced by our batteries. Sometimes this may be impracticable; but this precaution has often been neglected when it was perfectly feasible, thus causing a great and useless slaughter.
9. But destructive as may be artillery fire on close columns, on troops advancing in line grape and canister begin to be equally so on their arriving within four hundred yards of the enemy' s batteries; and are certainly quite as destructive, and more so, at the distance of two hundred yards. So that, within this distance, at least, the superiority of lines over columns ceases; and, probably, much sooner.
10. The desideratum is to preserve the advantages of the column, while saving the attacking troops from the almost total destruction which would now seem to threaten them, when marching in such a formation, from the new rifled artillery, which is said to fire with accuracy at two thousand yards, and from the new infantry rifles, said to be reliable, in the hands of sharpshooters, at five hundred yards.
11. Perhaps this object might be attained by the advance of the attacking troops in line, but in loose order, and at double quick, to about two hundred paces from the enemy, a halt, a prompt alignment on the colors, a rapid ployment into close column doubled on the centre, followed by a swift and resolute charge with the bayonet. This method, while giving the rapid clearing of the intervening ground, to within two hundred paces of the enemy, and afterwards the impetus, and other advantages of the column, would, at the same time, afford that comparative immunity from a destructive fire which is the chief advantage of an advance in line. To guard against the danger, in the use of this method, of the troops stopping to fire, instead of ploying into a column of attack, they should commence their advance with pieces unloaded. Their boxes might even be previously emptied of their ammunition. Why should not a battle, as well as an assault on a fortress, have its "forlorn hope? "
12. This mode of attack would be open, it is true, to two objections:  First. It would require for its successful execution under fire great coolness, and much previous instruction in the maneuver, to enable the troops to perform it promptly and accurately. Secondly. In presence of a bold and active enemy, it would expose the attacking troops to the danger of being charged and routed while manoeuvring.
13. In the late War of the Rebellion, in lieu of close columns, attacks have been sometimes made in several lines, following each other at distances of three hundred paces or more. Although these attacks have sometimes succeeded, they are objectionable in principle; for each line is in danger of being repulsed successively, before the arrival of the one in its rear; and there is wanting that great superiority of force at the decisive point which is the most important element of success in a battle. Such formations are essentially defensive in their nature, and not suitable for attack. A line in position, against which the enemy is advancing, is strong in its fire, which will usually preserve it from absolute defeat till a second line, posted at one hundred and fifty, or even three hundred paces in its rear, has had time to come up in support. But even these distances Napoleon's experience appears to have taught him to be much too great; for in his last battle, at Waterloo, he posted his second line, both infantry and cavalry, at only sixty paces behind the first; thus sacrificing, to a great extent, the advantage of keeping the second line out of fire, in order to secure the more important one of concentration of force. But this was only his formation for defence; for, in the same battle, his formations for attack were always in close columns.
14. Our present Infantry Tactics have adopted two new expedients to accelerate the advance of battalions, and diminish the loss to which columns of attack are liable-Division Columns and Advancing by the Flank of Subdivisions. As Division Columns break the battalion line into several columns, each of two or three subdivisions deep, as a substitute for a single column four or five subdivisons deep, they undoubtedly diminish the loss from the enemy's artillery fire in corresponding proportion. But in compensation for this partial advantage, they have three defects: (1.) In moving rapidly for any distance, especially over broken or obstructed ground, both the alignment -and the proper intervals between the columns will usually be lost; thus causing, in the deployment, a dangerous loss of time in re-establishing the alignment and the correct intervals. (2.) In advancing in line of division columns, there is no means of forming square, except by passing through an intermediate formation. (3.) The intervals between the columns are so many gaps, through which cavalry could easily penetrate, and take the columns in rear. The line of division columns appears to have been first suggested by Marshal Marmont, who was a good artillery commander, but not necessarily, for that reason, a weighty authority on a point of Infantry Tactics.

15. The maneuver of Advancing by the Flank of Subdivisions is obnoxious to all the objections just pointed out in regard to Division Columns. On being threatened by cavalry, though the troops would have no intermediate formation to pass through to prepare for forming square, they would have to face into column and close to half distance, which there would often not be time to do. In addition to this, the flank march being habitually by fours, the subdivisions would offer a tolerable mark for the enemy's artillery, and thus be exposed to a destructive enfilade. And in forming into line, where the leading guides have not accurately preserved both their alignment and their intervals, which must be the usual case in the field, there must be more or less delay and confusion, of which a prompt and active enemy would not fail to take fatal advantage. The mode prescribed by the Tactics (Par. 150, School of the Battalion), for executing the maneuver of forming line while advancing by subdivision flanks, seems also to call for remark; it being "by company (or division) into line." In other words, each individual soldier brings a shoulder forward, breaks off from his comrades, and hurries up, not on a line with them, but detached from them, and moving independently, to find his proper place. This destroys for the time being, and at a critical moment, the unity of the subdivisions, and so impairs the confidence soldiers derive from realizing that they form part of a compact mass. In thus executing this maneuver under fire, and near the enemy, there is danger of the men becoming confused and bewildered. For this reason, a better method of forming line would seem to be to re-form the column by a simple facing, and then to wheel into line by subdivisions.
16. The worst possible order of marching in battle, for any considerable number of men, as a battalion, for instance, is by the flank. Such a line, advancing in what is really a column of fours, would be rolled up and crushed, on the enemy's attacking its head; and would, meanwhile, be exposed to enfilade. Marching to a flank, it would be running the gauntlet of the enemy's batteries and musketry fire. In forming into line in either case, much time would be lost; as in tfanl marching in the field, especially when the ground is rugged or obstructed, distances cannot be preserved. It may be here remarked, that marching to a flank in column also, whether by division, company, or platoon, is highly objectionable, as it constantly exposes the column to an enfilading fire, as well as to be suddenly charged in flank by cavalry.