I would like to ask a series of questions about Zuber’s sources. I do not have the book yet as it will not be available in the USA until April. This is something that David said before his unfortunate departure.
That said Zuber's first chapter is probably the best overview of of what he accepts as (generally?) followed German doctrine I have seen. Was it followed? Often I suspect not. It never works that way - the trained officers and splendid ncos get wounded killed. Then it starts to fall apart. (plans never survive contact with enemy). Overall the analysis of the German military formations is valuable too. But is the doctrine - if more detailed in Germany (and if it truly generally accepted and emplyed) actually very different from that of the British.
While I have already cast questions about the operational and strategic levels it seems to me that the author is generally accepted as having portrayed the tactical doctrine of the Imperial German side correctly. While he has definitely stirred the pot I wonder if in this new book he actually uses some of the references at the tactical level that I would think essential. In particular the presentation of British tactics and lessons learned by Lt. Col. v. Lindenau.
Kriegsministerium. Exerzir-Reglement für die Infanterie 1889. Berlin: E.S. Mittler, 1889.
Kriegsministerium. Exerzier-Reglement für die Infanterie D.V.E. Nr. 130,. Berlin: E.S. Mittler & Sohn, 1906.
Lindenau, Oberstleutnant. "Was lehrt uns der Burenkrieg für unseren Infanterieangriff?" Beiheft zum Militär-Wochenblatt Heft 3, 1902: 1-174.
Did he use any more modern German language secondary sources? Such as:
Storz, Deiter. Kriegsbild und Rüstung vor 1914. Herford et. Al. : E.S. Mittler & Sohn, 1992.
It is pretty obvious from photographic evidence of the 1913 maneuvers
that not much changed in all units between the 1889 doctrine and the start of the war. Does he discuss the use of 1889 doctrine versus the 1906 doctrine? Does he discuss the differences in theory between the writings of the traditionalists v. Boguslawski and v. Scherff and the reformer General-Lieutenant v. Schlichting?
I don’t know as I do not have the book. However, before I accept his interpretation of generally followed German doctrine I would like to know which lens he looked through or are we just rushing out to congratulate an author who addressed the subject in English.