Chapter I

THE PREPARATION AND SOLUTION OF TACTICAL PROBLEMS.

The solution of practical problems in tactics, either on the map or on the terrain, constitutes what is known as the applicatory method of instruction. It is the method followed by all modern armies, being properly regarded as the best substitute possible in time of peace for the actual experience of war. Indeed it is not to be regarded purely as a substitute for actual experience, inasmuch as it affords opportunity for the frequent and repeated application of principles to various concrete cases. Actual warfare will furnish to the majority of officers comparatively few opportunities of this kind.

_Kinds of problems._--Tactical problems may be solved on the map or on the terrain. In the former class are included map problems, and one or two-sided war games. Problems on the terrain include tactical walks or rides, terrain exercises (without troops) and one and two-sided field maneuvers (with troops). These problems are prepared with a view to illustrating certain tactical principles. In some cases they call especially for decision, in other cases they are intended to give practice in the technique of carrying out a decision already made. Often the two functions are combined in a single problem. The former class are known as problems of decision. The latter are usually called troop leading problems.

Each class of problem has its particular field, and tactical instruction should not be limited to any one class. Problems involving a decision as to a course of action for a large force must necessarily be solved on a map, due to the inability of one man to see in person the terrain that would be covered by a division, for example. Thus, for the higher commanders, all problems of decision must of necessity be map problems even if, as in actual warfare or maneuvers, the decision is carried out on the terrain. Troop leading problems on the terrain should, for similar reasons, generally be limited to forces not exceeding a regiment in size. Problems involving the detailed location of defensive works can be solved satisfactorily only on the ground and should always take the form of terrain exercises.

The two-sided war game is played by two individuals or two groups under the direction of an umpire. It is of peculiar value in that it calls for quick and frequent decision and, by its form--particularly the competition involved--it serves to stimulate interest.

The tactical walk or ride is an exercise on the terrain in which various situations, either independent or continuous, are presented by the instructor and discussed with the students. It has the defect of failing to place upon the shoulders of most of the students the responsibility of making a decision, and in this respect is inferior to the terrain exercise in which each student is required to write out his solution to every situation. The tactical ride, however, affords opportunity for bringing out, more or less forcibly, certain tactical principles which the instructor has in mind, and it may occasionally be employed to advantage.

Field maneuvers are problems in which the solution, instead of being written by the student, is actually executed on the terrain with troops.

The map problem will be the means of instruction most readily available to the largest number of officers, but this should whenever practicable, be supplemented by exercises on the terrain, both with and without troops.

Tactical problems vary greatly in substance, in fact no two are alike. In their general form, however, they are usually similar. The problem will ordinarily open with a statement of the general conditions in the theatre of war as a whole, the two combatants being usually designated by colors, such as Blue and Red. This statement is called the “general situation,” and is usually presumed to be known to both combatants, at least in a general way. It is, of course, always imaginary, even if the problem actually involves real troops. In small problems the “general situation” may be omitted. The problem next sets forth in some detail the circumstances of some particular body of troops on one side, under the heading “special situation--Blue,” (or “Red.”) Under this heading may be included a statement of the strength and position of the troops under consideration (of which the student is assumed to be the supreme or one of the subordinate commanders); information as to friendly troops in the vicinity with a statement of their movements and intentions (if necessary); the orders received from higher authority; certain information concerning the enemy, more or less incomplete and often unreliable, usually in the form of advices from higher authority, messages and reports from subordinates, spies, deserters, prisoners or civilians, newspapers, etc.; information as to the hour and date at which the situation opens, weather, terrain, and such other local conditions as may have a bearing on the situation; etc., etc. The information set forth in the “special situation” in whole or in part, may, or may not be known to the enemy. As to this the student is generally required to judge for himself. The problem concludes with a statement of certain “requirements,” the fulfillment of which constitutes the “solution.” These requirements may include:

1. The “estimate of the situation,” with the decision and plan
of action of the commander.

2. The orders and messages issued by the commander.

3. Actions of the commander.

4. Sketches or plans of dispositions, etc.

The “estimate of the situation” is a logical process of thought, terminating in a tactical “decision.” Such a process will be no innovation in the brain of any thinking man, since it is characteristic not only of tactics, but of all other serious affairs of life. It involves a careful consideration and analysis of all the evidence bearing upon the situation. The form given at the beginning of this Chapter sets forth in brief and comprehensive manner the principal points to be considered in making this estimate. It is intended to guide and assist the mental process, by insuring consideration of all matters of importance, but it should not be allowed to restrict independent thought. Not all of these considerations will exert an influence on the solution of any given problem. There is often some one preponderating condition, seldom more than two or three, which really influence the decision.

The most important consideration, which forms the basis of all subsequent thought and action, is the _mission_ of the command. In a force which is an integral part of a larger force the mission will usually, although not always, be embodied in the orders of higher authority. For an independent command, however, the mission must generally be deduced from the commander’s knowledge of the wishes or intentions of superior authority, and of the existing situation and conditions. It is here that the judgment of the commander is called into play, since the accomplishment of his true mission may require a course of action entirely at variance with the orders he has received. It is for this reason that orders too restrictive, and in too great detail, should not be given to subordinates who are expected to exercise to any considerable degree, independence of command. Their initiative must not be unduly hampered, as unexpected developments may entirely change the situation, and with it the mission. For example; an independent command, sent forward to seize a certain town finds it occupied by a superior force of the enemy, while another large force is approaching from a flank, and threatening to cut off retreat. It is now apparent that the original mission must be abandoned. The commander’s new mission has become that of saving his command by a prompt retreat. Gen. Von Verdy du Vernois says: “The officer who suddenly encounters the enemy while patrolling with his platoon must conduct his actions from a different point of view than if he commands his platoon as skirmishers in front of his company. A division in an army corps will generally be so situated that it must carry out an action, even though it be completely annihilated in so doing, and then it would still be promoting the general purpose; on the other hand, a division widely separated from an army would, as a rule, utterly fail to accomplish its mission if it allowed itself to be annihilated.” In such cases the commander must consider whether his division is not worth more than the accomplishment of his specific mission.

An estimate of the situation usually involves a careful consideration of times and distances. The information as to the enemy will be more or less incomplete, and often contradictory. Each item of information must be carefully weighed to determine the degree of credibility to be attached thereto, and from the preponderance of evidence the course of action must be determined. The only absolutely reliable information of the enemy is that obtained from the personal observation of trained officers, and even this may sometimes be at fault.

In order to secure some degree of uniformity in the solution of map problems and to avoid confusion of ideas, it is necessary to adopt certain systematic assumptions. Those which bear on any particular case will usually be stated in the problem, such as the condition of the weather, fordability of streams, etc. The most usual of these assumptions, however, are not ordinarily stated, but are always to be understood. These are:

1. It is to be assumed that the (imaginary) troops under your command are, unless otherwise expressly stated, brave, well disciplined and experienced soldiers and that every subordinate is thoroughly instructed, and fully competent, each within his own sphere.

2. It is to be assumed that the enemy will probably act with good judgment, and make no mistakes. This usually means that he will take that course of action which you would least desire to have him take, or which would be, amongst the courses open to him, that most embarrassing to you.

It is apparent, of course, that neither of these assumptions will always hold in real life. We know that Gen. Lee’s plans for his campaigns in Virginia and Maryland, were based very largely on his knowledge of the personal characteristics of his opponents. Also, that after the death of Jackson, he never again attempted such a movement as that executed by Jackson’s corps at the battle of Chancellorsville. Some assumptions, however, are necessary as a basis for systematic study. Those adopted are the most natural and reasonable in the usual case.

In order to successfully solve tactical problems the commander must be able to read and interpret a map with rapidity and accuracy, and must have an eye for ground forms. He must be familiar with the organization of both his own and the opposing army, and acquainted with the powers and limitations, and with the tactics of each arm of the service. He must be familiar with the methods which constitute “good practice,” and acquainted with military precedents. In this manner he best fits himself to properly perform his high duty, for knowledge and experience as well as character and intellect are necessary as a basis for decision.

A good map, of course, affords a much quicker and better comprehension of the general situation than can possibly be obtained by any one individual on the terrain. In fact without good maps a large force would be seriously hampered in its operations. As it is impossible for any single individual to see in a limited time, or to comprehend as a whole if he had seen, the extent of ground surface that would be covered by a large force, terrain exercises should be limited to the smaller units, or to portions only, of the larger forces, preferably not larger than a regiment. By this is not meant that _field maneuvers_ should be limited to small bodies of troops. But for the higher commanders all problems, either in office or field, with or without troops, will be virtually map problems. The terrain exercises will be limited in effect to the commanders of the smaller units.

One form of problem, easy of solution on the ground, is more difficult on the map, i. e. _visibility problems_, the determination of whether a certain point or locality is visible from a certain other point or locality, a question often of grave importance in military operations. Methods of solving visibility problems on the map are given in various textbooks on mapping and topography. A little practice soon gives such facility that the less critical problems of this kind can be solved by inspection.

The tactical suggestions contained in this volume, are often referred to as the “rules” or “principles” of the Art of War. It may be said that they will apply to the majority of cases, otherwise they could hardly be dignified under the title of “principles.” They are, however, subject to frequent exception, and must always give way to judgment and common sense. It is for this reason that the Art of War is the most difficult branch of human endeavor. Experienced commanders will continue to violate the “rules” when their judgment dictates such a course, but unlike the tyro, they will do so with their eyes open, fully appreciating the necessity for their action, and the risks that are involved. They will, on occasion, throw aside the “rules,” not through ignorance, but with the keen insight and ripe judgment of trained intelligence, which will always be superior to rule and precedent. War is an art, rather than a science. Its ever varying problems cannot be solved by the application of rules of mathematical rigidity. Scientific progress has indeed a great influence upon warfare as upon other arts, but it can never replace the human element, and the victories of the future no less than those of the past, will be won by the talents and genius of the general, and the bravery, skill and devotion of his soldiers.

It is responsibility above all else that develops character, initiative and judgment. The knowledge of responsibility strengthens even the weak, and often calls into action powers they were not previously suspected of possessing. It is for this reason that the most important object in the military training of officers is the development of responsibility. The supreme commander and each subordinate within his own sphere, should be required to exercise his own judgment, and be responsible for his own actions. Thus alone can he be qualified to meet the exigencies that are constantly arising in warfare. Military writings are accordingly filled with cautions such as “Do not interfere with your subordinates, nor usurp their prerogatives,” “Tell a subordinate what you want him to do, not how he is to do it,” “Avoid orders too much in detail,” etc., etc.

How then, in time of peace, may military responsibility, and the benefits resulting therefrom be attained? When an officer reads military history and textbooks on the Art of War, the responsibility for the facts alleged or the conclusions and deductions made rests entirely on the authors. The student gains from such works a certain amount of knowledge, but he certainly assumes no mental responsibility. When, however, he undertakes an independent solution of a tactical _problem_ the entire responsibility for this solution rests on his shoulders alone. Capt. Buddecke of the German Army says:

“After we have gained in the above manner a correct insight into the details of the problem, we get to the main task, which is to think ourselves completely into the spirit of the problem and to arrive at an estimate and decision for our future course.

By repeatedly and quietly reading the problem, paying due regard to the map in front of us, we gain, just as in focussing a telescope, a clearer and clearer conception of the situation. The more we succeed in placing ourselves mentally in the given situation and recognizing all the details in their relation to the general problem, the more we succeed in thinking ourselves into the soul of the leader, in conceiving the magnitude of his task, and in sharing his responsibility, the more eager we shall become to take over his duties and play an active part in the operations.

The longer we pore over the map, the clearer will be our conception of the measures which the situation demands. And in this it is important to hold and consider carefully; that is, to follow out, to their furthest effects, all the thoughts and ideas which come to us, often passing like lightning through our brains, and suggesting various lines of action. Often it is precisely these fleeting thoughts which lead us to the right path. But ideas which are not fully thought out and thoroughly weighed can not have a decisive influence on our judgment and decision. A head which has a hundred thoughts, but which can neither hold fast nor think out a single one, will always remain undecided and irresolute in tactics.

Only by intensive reflection is found in the confusion, the Ariadne thread which will lead us from the maze. However, although attention to details is to be recommended, yet the larger points of view which we have gained must not be lost in the consideration of minor details--a mistake often made and naturally often leading to false conclusions. It is rather our chief duty to find just these main points, and attention to minor details is but a means to this end.

Character and intuition unconsciously weave their thread into this labor of comprehension. To that which our brain devises is added, with good or bad effects, that which our intuition presents; and from the combined activity of both come as a product judgment and decision.

It is a delicate psychological process which takes place in the head and breast of the tactician, and without doubt this inner effort is one of the most stimulating and interesting of activities.

A tactical question awakens all our spiritual and mental powers. It demands keenness and understanding, common sense and imagination, firmness and patience, caution and daring, sense of locality and memory, judgment and the power of decision. The whole character, the whole disposition, the whole individuality of a man finds its expression here. Thus the solution of a tactical problem reflects the spirit of its author, since it is based on the peculiarities of his own individual character. A hesitating character will, in doubtful cases, prefer the defensive to the offensive. Kindred natures will follow similar trains of thought and in the majority of cases reach similar solutions.”

The independent solution of tactical problems affords a means of training to both the intellect and the character superior to that afforded by any other kind of tactical study save only the actual experiences of war. In war a commander’s mistakes are paid for in blood, and experience is dearly bought. In the solution of tactical problems in peace the student’s mistakes are paid for at most only in chagrin, the experience is cheap.

There is always more than one, and there may be many satisfactory solutions to any problem. Hence the fact that two solutions differ radically by no means proves that one or the other is wrong. Each reflects the personality of its author, and either might accomplish the desired result. A simple plan, based on a sound decision and consistently carried out, will be better than the best plan executed in a dilatory and half-hearted fashion. Above all the plan must be simple, “Simplicity is the keynote of sane tactical procedure.” Complicated maneuvers offer little promise of success.

The plan should not be based wholly, nor in general even chiefly upon the known or probable movements of the enemy. The commander’s plan should be dictated chiefly by his own mission. In war it is best to lead, to retain the initiative, and to force the enemy to adapt his plans to yours. Hence if in doubt it is usually best to follow a bold and aggressive plan of action. Caution may avoid defeat, but boldness alone wins victories.

There is a certain manner in which tactical problems, particularly map problems, should be solved in order to gain the greatest possible benefit from this form of training. In brief this may be stated as follows: solve the problem _yourself_, make a thorough, honest and independent solution, and _write it out_. When you are fully satisfied with your solution, and not until then, read the “approved solution,” (if there be one) or submit your work to a reviewer for remark and criticism. For a beginner the solution of a map problem may require hours, even days. Becoming mentally wearied there is a strong tendency to “slur over” parts of the solution which may appear for the instant relatively unimportant; to be content with less than one’s best; to solve portions of the problem, and then read the corresponding portions of the approved solution, etc. Such tendencies are inimical to progress, and they are, moreover, an indication of a weakness of character which one should strive to overcome.

The statement of the problem should be read carefully, a number of times, localities being noted and marked on the map. Having become thoroughly impregnated with the situation, the student then proceeds to make his mental estimate, jotting down the points that occur to him, in pencil. For the beginner, at least, it is then best to write out the estimate in full, using the form at the beginning of this chapter as a guide, in order to early acquire the habit of making a logical and complete estimate. If the problem calls for the estimate and orders, and is accompanied by an approved solution, it is usually well to complete the estimate to include the decision, and then read the approved solution to the same point and compare. Then assume the decision of the approved solution and write the orders necessary to carry out that decision, comparing these on completion with those of the approved solution. If the student writes orders based on his own decision they might differ so greatly from those of the approved solution that there would be no satisfactory basis for comparison.

Upon completing his independent solution the student should read the approved solution, if there is one, and submit his work to a critic for remark. The student’s mistakes and omissions in decision and detail will then be plainly apparent. These he should carefully consider, honestly acknowledge, and determine to avoid in future. They will thus be strongly impressed on his mind as _practical experiences_. As has been remarked, however, a difference or apparent difference in two solutions is by no means proof that one of them is in error. It is, of course, manifestly impossible that two solutions by different persons could ever be exactly alike. It is not of problems in arithmetic that we are speaking.

Take the problem as you find it, and do not waste time criticising and attempting to pick flaws in the “situation.” Nature cannot be “faked,” and it is difficult enough to create an imaginary situation which is even reasonably plausible, a fact which each will appreciate when he attempts to write a problem himself. To write a good problem is usually a task more difficult than to solve one.

In the solution of map problems considerable advantage may be derived from combined study with a congenial mate. Each man serves as a spur, a critic and a guide to the other. They should work in company, each independently, and then compare and discuss their results while these are fresh in their minds.

The apparatus required for the solution of map problems is very simple; including a “map measure” (wheel), scales, colored pins for marking the positions of troops, etc., small rectangles of cardboard or sheet lead, representing bodies of troops to the scale of the map, and colored according to the arms of the service, etc., etc.

_Diagrammatic analysis and synthesis._ In both the solution and preparation of problems it is frequently a great aid to comprehension to lay out the situation (the combatant troops and critical features of the terrain) in a diagrammatic form. This clears away for the time, the mass of details which sometimes befog the main issues. Problems which at first reading appear complicated, are often seen to be quite simple when laid out in this manner, and the decision will often be plainly apparent. As has been said heretofore, questions of time and distance will usually be of great importance. Unless the troops are placed in their proper relative positions at the epoch considered, incorrect decisions are apt to result. A few examples will serve to illustrate this method. (See Fig. I.)

_Fig. A._ A Blue division, acting as right flank guard to a Blue field army, is marching east when it receives reports of a Red column of all arms, advancing from the southeast toward the Blue flank with the evident intention of attacking. The Blue division turns southeast and advances in two columns against the Red force. In the resulting encounter, it is evident, the Blues will be able to deploy and establish a line of battle much faster than the Reds, provided the latter continue to advance in one column. Should the Reds form two columns to the front their march will be delayed while waiting for the columns to form abreast.

_Fig. B._ A Blue army on the offensive, advancing east in two columns, approaches the line of an unfordable river, passable only at the bridges shown. A Red army also in two columns, is approaching the stream from the opposite direction, for the purpose of checking the Blue advance at the river. The Blue northern column reaches the northern bridge in advance of the Red northern column, and effects a crossing. The Blue southern column, on approaching the other bridge, learns that the advance of the Red southern column has already reached it, and that the Reds are making dispositions to dispute the passage.

The commander of the Blue northern column places his leading troops in a defensive position (A-B) so selected that the Red northern column can advance neither west nor south without first attacking the position. With the remainder of his column he turns south and marches to attack the right flank of the Red southern column in order to enable the Blue southern column to effect a crossing.

_Fig. C._ The advance guard of a large Blue force acting on the offensive is marching south. The main body has been somewhat delayed, and is several miles in rear. On approaching the screen, the Blue advance guard commander learns that a Red force is approaching in two columns. The aggregate strength of the two Red columns is considerably greater than that of the Blue advance guard, although less than that of the entire Blue force. To continue his advance and attack the superior Red force in its two column formation, favoring rapid deployment, while the Blue main body is still well to the rear, would be extremely apt to prove disastrous to the Blue advance guard commander. He therefore decides to seize the best defensive position available, one moreover which he will have time to occupy in an orderly fashion, and there hold the Reds until the arrival of the Blue main body, which will take the tactical offensive upon its arrival.

_Fig. D._ A Blue army (A) and a Red army (B) are engaged in battle on an east and west line. A Blue division is approaching the battlefield from the southeast under orders to attack the left flank of the Red position at B. While passing the screen on his right the commander of the Blue division receives word from his patrols, which have been beyond the screen, that a Red force, estimated to consist of at least two divisions is approaching from the northeast, apparently with the intention of reaching the right rear of the Blue position at A. The Blue division commander at once decides to discontinue his advance northwest, to change direction to the right, and to seize a defensive position as far from the main battlefield as possible without risking a premature or rencontre engagement with the superior Red force now approaching. To facilitate the prompt occupation of the defensive position selected he advances toward it in two columns. Here he hopes to “contain” the Red force, keeping it out of the main battle until a decision is reached, or until the main Blue army can make arrangements to withdraw.

_Preparation of problems._ In the preparation of practical problems, either map problems, terrain exercises, one or two-sided war games or field maneuver problems, the following hints will be found useful:

1. Give the problem a semblance of reality, make the situations plausible, and introduce as few unnatural conditions as possible. For example, in a terrain exercise or field maneuver problem it is better not to state that a certain stream is impassable when in fact it is easily passable. Bridges which are assumed in the problem to have been destroyed should be conspicuously placarded. Otherwise they are very apt to be used. It is usually preferable, even in map problems, to make the problem fit the terrain as it actually exists, rather than to alter the terrain to fit the problem. In a map problem it is permissible to assume that corn shown on the map has been cut, that woods where underbrush is indicated are impassable for infantry, that streams are swollen and roads muddy from recent rains, etc. But do not assume that there is snow on the ground in July, or that corn is standing in January. In maneuver problems it is always best to let the commanders take the terrain as they find it.

2. Make the problem simple and brief, and omit ordinarily all data which has no direct bearing upon the solution. Simple problems are best for purposes of instruction. It is however, occasionally desirable to introduce in the statement certain data which is really of no importance in order to give the student practice in analyzing and weighing information, and to teach him to base his decision on the best of the information, and to avoid being led astray by unimportant or conflicting reports. The commander must acquire by experience the power to see and cleave to the main issues amidst the fog of uncertainty, conflicting, erroneous and unimportant information, etc. The analysis of information is a most important part of his duty, as upon this his plan of action must be based.

3. The problem should be made instructive. Ordinarily it will be drawn with a view to illustrating certain tactical principles. It should, however, never be forced, but always allowed to develop naturally, especially in war games and field maneuvers. The officer who prepares the problem should not be disappointed if the solutions take a course quite different from his expectations. Authorship confers no special rights of interpretation.

4. Field maneuver problems should be made progressive and interesting to both officers and men. Unless their interest can be sustained they will get little benefit from the instruction. Unreality, unnecessary fatigue, delays and inaction should be avoided. Officers charged with the instruction of troops of the army or militia often lay out schedules which allow insufficient time for relaxation, and this results in dulling the interest of the troops thereby decreasing the benefits obtained from the course of instruction.

5. Field maneuver problems should be adapted to the kind and number of the troops which are to take part in them. Elaborate “general situations” are usually undesirable. Each commander should be given such information as he might reasonably be expected to have under real conditions.

6. Where the situation given in the problem includes both real and imaginary troops (as may be the case) great care should be taken to avoid a contact or mixing of real and imaginary troops. This complicates the situation, and introduces the most objectionable element of unreality.

7. In field maneuver problems it is best to make the tasks of the opposing commanders nearly equal. Arrange the troops and the situation so that each has a chance to accomplish his mission. A commander cannot be expected to put his heart into the game if he knows that he is bound to fail in his mission, or certain to meet with defeat. On the other hand, the knowledge that they have a chance to succeed, even against superior numbers, stimulates the interest of both officers and men. In map problems, however, the student may occasionally be given a situation in which it is impossible for him to accomplish his mission.

8. In starting a field maneuver problem it is best to have the opposing sides out of contact. Do not state in the situation that a commander has a mounted patrol at such a point, unless the patrol is actually there. Do not manufacture messages for real patrols, but allow them to report what they actually learn. The commander should be allowed to send out his own patrols.

9. The commander (in a field maneuver problem) should be allowed ample latitude in making his decision, and should not be coerced into any particular plan of action. It is well, however, to arrange the situation so that a contact of the opposing sides will take place at some suitable locality. This adds greatly to the interest of the problem. It is desirable when practicable to have the problem end within a reasonable distance of the camping place, in order to avoid a long and fatiguing march thereafter.

10. Consider the distances that the troops must march during the day and do not exceed what is reasonable under the conditions. A long rest should be given at mid-day, and the troops should return to their camp at a reasonable hour in the afternoon. If this does not allow sufficient latitude temporary camps may be established at suitable localities. A problem once commenced should, of course, be carried to completion with the least possible interruption.

BIBLIOGRAPHY, ETC.

The “Gettysburg-Antietam Map” referred to in this volume is a 3 inch map (3 in. to the mile) of the vicinity of Gettysburg, Pa., issued by the Book Department, Army Service Schools, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where it can be purchased for a nominal sum. It is the best map for its particular purpose with which the authors are acquainted.

Maps on a scale of 1:62,500 (commonly called 1 inch maps) of many portions of the United States, are now issued by the United States Geological Survey (Washington) at a nominal cost. They are excellent maps, and suitable for the solution of map problems, especially those involving the operations of divisions or larger forces.

Special maps of the vicinity of Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and of various other maneuver grounds used by the Army and the Militia, may be obtained from the Book Department, Army Service Schools, or from the War Department.

The following is a short list of books which will be found useful for study and reference in connection with the subject of minor tactics. Most of them have been consulted in the preparation of this volume. Government publications may be obtained from the War Department, Washington, D. C., by issue or purchase. The other works can be obtained through the Book Department, Army Service Schools, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Field Service Regulations, U. S. A., 1914. Government Publication.

Drill Regulations of Inf., Cav., and Field Artillery. Government Publications, (separate volumes)

Engineer Field Manual. Government Publication.

Organization of the bridge equipage of the U. S. Army. Government Publication.

Bulletin No. 4, War Dept.

Notes on Field Fortification, Army Field Engineer School.

How to feed an army. Government Publication.

American Campaigns. Steele.

Applied minor tactics. Morrison.

Battle orders. Von Kiesling.

Cavalry in future wars. Von Bernhardi.

Cavalry in war and peace. Von Bernhardi.

Cavalry tactics as illustrated by the War of the Rebellion. Gray.

Conduct of war. Von der Goltz.

Critical study of German tactics. De Pardieu.

Criticisms on solutions of map problems. Boyd.

Duties of the General Staff. Von Schellendorff.

Elements of strategy. Fiebeger.

Essays, studies and letters of Col. Maude of the British Army.
(5 volumes)

Estimating tactical situations and composing field orders. Fitch.

Examination and repair of simple highway bridges. Sherrill.

Field fortification. Fiebeger.

Fortification. Clark.

Lectures on cavalry. Hayne.

Letters on applied tactics. (with maps) Griepenkerl.

Letters on strategy and tactics. (4 volumes) Hohenlohe.

Map maneuvers and tactical rides. Sayre.

Military policy of the U. S. Upton.

Military topography. Sherrill.

Napoleon’s maxims of war. Burnod.

Nation in arms. Von der Goltz.

Notes on bridges and bridging. Spalding.

On war. Clausewitz.

Organization and operation of the lines of communication in war. Furse.

Patrols, advance guards and outposts. Morrison.

Selected division problems. Gizycki and Litzmann.

Service of security and information. Wagner.

Some notes on the solution of tactical problems. Fiske.

Studies in applied tactics. Von Alten.

Studies in minor tactics. Army School of the Line.

Studies in the leading of troops. Du Vernois.

Supply of Sherman’s army in Atlanta campaign. Major and Fitch.

Tactical decisions and orders. Buddecke.

Tactical principles and problems. Hanna.

Tactics. Infantry, Cavalry and Field Arty. Balck. Two volumes.

Tactical ride. Du Vernois.

The art of reconnaissance. Henderson.

The principles of land defense. Thuillier.

The provisioning of the modern army in the field. Sharpe.

The regimental war game. Immanuel.

The rifle in war. Eames.

Times of sunrise and sunset in U. S. Willson. (Published Harvard Co-operative Society)

Transportation of troops and materiel. Baker.

Troop leading and management of the sanitary service in war. Morrison and Munson.

Von Moltke’s tactical problems.