The sustained bombardment of Schlosz Ladonchamps (situated on the Moselle flats north of Metz) with 12 cm. guns, which fired 200 shots per day from Oct. 9th to 10th, and 100 per day from Oct. 11th to 16th, 1870, was unsuccessful, because the percussion shells were ineffective. This will not be changed in the future by the adoption of high-explosive shells. According to DICK DE LONLAY, the garrison of the castle and its park lost only 5-10 men per day during this time. The defensibility of the castle was not impaired, although projectiles finally fell into the building itself during the sustained bombardment. According to the same author (IV, p. 556) 1,022 shells fell into the park and castle of Ladonchamps on October 7th, but only ten men were placed out of action. (b) Minimizing the Effect of Fire. Formations that increase the effect of artillery fire, as for example lines and columns, and positions in which a flank is refused, should be avoided. It is a good plan to increase the number of targets and to employ narrow columns (column of twos) that are not too deep. Supports must be far enough in rear (300-400 m.) to prevent two targets being struck by one and the same shrapnel. Of the close order formations used in the Russo-Japanese war, platoons or sections in columns of squads or twos,[116] separated by a maximum interval of 50 paces, were indeed found more suitable under fire than line formations, but the losses were nevertheless very serious except where cover screened the advancing troops from view or afforded them actual protection. [116] The advance against Beaumont and the height of Chancy during the battle of Beaumont. HOPFFGARTEN-HEIDLER, _Beaumont_, pp. 124 and 238. _Geschichte des Regiments, Nr. 93_, II, p. 97. At Gravelotte this formation was employed with advantage by the _Königin_ Regiment during its advance on Amanweiler, and later in the campaign during the assault on Le Bourget. _Geschichte des Regiments Königin_, pp. 9 and 132. During the Franco-German war, line of platoons in columns of twos was found advantageous on several occasions.[117] This formation has the following disadvantages, however: it is very susceptible to flanking fire; the influence of the officers is principally restricted to the leading elements; intervals are easily lost and on that account it becomes more difficult to form line. It would seem to be better, therefore, to advance in line of platoons (or sections) in columns of squads, or, under flanking fire, in line of squads in columns of twos or files. In the last-named formation the intervals between squads are easily lost, however, and the company then becomes a dense skirmish line of from four to six ranks. To echelon the platoons slightly has very little value on account of the depth of the beaten zone of modern shrapnel. [117] This formation is also well adapted for passing through woods. _Taktik_, VI, p. 108.