To go on trying to prove that the duties devolving on depth and échelon cannot be met by one and the same detachment, is like carrying coals to Newcastle. The formation of a second line in the fight against cavalry, regarded as exceptional by the Regulations, should be made an _invariable rule_, from which departure is allowed only in exceptional cases, while safety for the flanks must be arranged for _independently_ of this. Here again we come into collision with paragraph 170 of the Regulations, which lays down that an offensive flank attack may be undertaken from a rearward échelon; as if such a manoeuvre could possibly be carried out! Detachments which are to turn the enemy's flank must, during the approach, advance into alignment with their own line separated from its flank by the necessary interval, or else must be _écheloned forwards_ from the commencement. Forward échelon will generally be found to correspond with the offensive spirit of cavalry better than the more defensive rearward échelon. It is usually more practical and protects the flank better, while at the same time threatening the enemy's flank and laying down the law to him. Forward échelon is a very useful tactical cavalry formation, and deserves more attention than the Regulations bestow upon it.[49] On its offensive importance I need scarcely enlarge. Troops in forward échelon are already in a position which can only be reached after an exhausting gallop by those in rearward échelon, the position prescribed by the Regulations. They will be in a position to frustrate any offensive intentions of the hostile reserves, and will obtain quicker and surer information as to the enemy than will ever be possible at such a time by patrols alone. That they may at times come in contact with hostile troops in rearward échelon is obvious. If the flank of these cannot be turned, they must be dealt with frontally. Local dispositions and a vanguard must provide security against the action of hostile reserves. Even in a _defensive_ sense the forward échelon will often be more useful than the rearward. The latter formation surrenders the initiative to the enemy, and confines itself to _parrying_ attacks, always a disadvantage in a cavalry fight. Forward échelon, on the contrary, seeks to forestall the enemy in the offence. As to how it may often be better adapted to warding off hostile attacks than the rearward échelon I will give an example.