Like Langlois, [German General Heinrich von] Rohne maintained that the artillery duel would rarely prove decisive, particularly with the use of weapon shields and the adoption of the principle of firing from covered positions. Nonetheless, he did not advocate abandoning the duel. "A very great advantage is obtained in silencing the hostile artillery, even for a few moments." He pointed out that the French artillery regulations made it the "first duty of the artillery to crush the hostile guns in as short a time as possible" and to continue searching for other guns that had not yet entered the fight. He explained that the French practice differed from the German, in that the former used only as many guns as necessary to achieve the desired effect, whereas the latter "attached a particular importance to productions of a /mass effect/," not by massing guns but by massing rounds on the target. German doctrine, therefore, emphasized destroying the target rather than suppressing it. The idea of mass effect took into account the greater survivability of modern guns equipped with shields and probably occupying covered positions. The French, in contrast, seemed to believe that the enhanced effectiveness of modern artillery fire would suffice to neutralize the target. If not, it would at least suppress the hostile guns enough to facilitate the forward movement of the infantry, which would eventually force the opponent's artillery to move, thereby making it easier to destroy.