Except that attacking was often good strategic sense, and required troops to keep going in spite of enemy fire. E.g., the French were able to win the Franco-Austrian War partly due to their ability to advance rapidly and drive the Austrians back at bayonet point. If your troops are incapable of moving under fire, then not only do are your tactical options circumscribed, you also make it easy for your enemies to pin you in place and then attack or outflank you at leisure.
Sorry, but you (and seemingly not only you) are completely missing the point. The problem was not an attack per se. The problem was an attack in the columns. Standard tactics since Napoleonic times was to send ahead a chain of the skirmishers followed by the main mass of infantry marching (*) in the dense columns of battalion or half battalion size maintaining formation regardless the losses (this is of course an idealized picture). It was more or less OK all the way to the FPW during which the Prussian columns started disintegrating into the loose attacking formations with the soldiers running ahead, falling on a ground then running ahead again. Not because they were ordered to do so (actually at St-Privat the officers had been trying to prevent this from happening) but because soldiers figured out that marching ahead in the dense formations against very intensive fire is too suicidal.
(*) At some point the French started using marching in the fast step ("gymnastic step") but it was not universally picked up.
Last edited: