Nice find Haligonian.
The nexus of assault-flanking surprise-enemy casualties is probably another poorly understood concept by the profession, because it's something we just simply can't train or simulate in training very well, if at all. Victory isn't about killing the enemy, it's about convincing him he's beaten, and he'll run away or cower in his hole. There are so many case studies out there that indicate that when a key position is taken down, or a key leader killed, the defender just throws in the towel.
There are all kinds of ways to skin that cat. An article in an old edition of the Canadian Army Journal,
Morale in Battle: The Theories of Colonel Ardant du Picq spoke of crushing the enemy morale by advancing so quickly the troops in depth could see the collapse before they could react or contribute to the fight. Old Cold Warriors might remember the independent Tank Battalion actually trailed the Moror Rifle Regiment, it's role was to exploit any breach in the defence and attack the rear (this could be scaled down with a classic two up formation, the depth section or platoon moves into the breach to attack the depth and disorganize the enemy). I'm sure there are dozens of historical examples or modern TTPs by other armies which achieve the same ends.
The trick for us is to emphasize whatever parts of our training which can be used to "convince him he's beaten". I personally would suggest marksmanship, since being able to put down rapid and accurate fire with all weapons systems is applicable in every situation, and really doesn't require much change to anything else we do, except for a much more intensive training bit on the SAT, the known distance range and especially live fire section and platoon attack ranges.