Most of all, however, will the fighting man obtain his from reconnaissance—the work of gathering information in the field. From the moment of entering the theatre of operations to that of abandoning it, there is necessary a constant quest of knowledge of the enemy’s composition, morale, material, disposition, and activities. No leader can act intelligently without this information, and, since he cannot hope to get it in person, he must depend for its acquisition upon certain reconnaissance units, chief of which is the patrol. Our concern with these reconnaissance units lies in the fact that the information which they gather must be sent to the commander by messages. If no one in the patrol is capable of sending back accurate and timely written information, the reconnaissance has failed, and the patrol might as well have remained in camp. The good field message is the strong link between the reconnoitering party and the main body. The poor field message is a gap which no amount of courageous effort in ferreting out facts from a wary enemy will bridge. The ideal reconnaissance, then, is one which keeps a constant stream of accurate and reliable messages flowing back to the proper recipient. The main factors which go to make up accuracy and reliability of field messages are keen observation and faithful expression. Both of these faculties can be cultivated, and indeed are so closely allied that they ought to be considered together. It is quite difficult at times to tell where one leaves off and the other begins. If a man puts in his message, “The enemy was seen over the hill,” and another, witnessing the same occurrence, states that “seven hostile infantrymen lay down on the military crest of hill 307 at 4-17 p. m.,” which one has keenly observed? Which one has faithfully expressed himself? Is it possible that the first man did not see any of the details of the second message? Or did he fail to put them down faithfully? In whatever way we answer these questions, we are brought to the realization that the second man applied both faculties to an equal extent. And, therefore, we are led to the conclusion that from the standpoint of complete expression we must take things quickly, precisely, and accurately, and put them out certainly, specifically, concretely, unmistakably, and faithfully. The field message is not used by the reconnaissance unit exclusively. An exchange of communications might be necessary between commanders to tell of changing conditions. The enemy has developed an unexpected attack, reinforcements are urgently needed, etc. This message will differ slightly in form from the ordinary field message which will be analysed below, but it will be of the same essential type, and will make the same demands upon brevity and clearness. FORMS FOR FIELD MESSAGES