  CAVALRY FRIEDRICH CAVALRY A POPULAR EDITION OF "CAVALRY IN WAR AND PEACE" BY GENERAL FRIEDRICH von BERNHARDI Author of "How Germany Makes War" WITH A PREFACE BY FIELD-MARSHAL SIR J.D.P. FRENCH G.C.B., G.C.V.O., K.C.M.G. THIS EDITION EDITED BY A. HILLIARD NEW YORK GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY Copyright, 1914, by GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY General von Bernhardi is best known in England as a writer of the "Jingo" School which has done so much to produce the war, but this is only one side of his literary activity. He is also a writer of recognised ability on the theory and practice of modern war. Sir John French's introduction to the present work is sufficient testimony to the value which is set upon his purely professional writings. General von Bernhardi is a distinguished cavalry officer, and he writes with remarkable independence on the special work of his own arm, never hesitating to criticise the regulations of the German Army, when he considers that they do not correspond to the actual conditions of war. The book, though written in the first instance for cavalry officers, will be found of interest to all who wish to understand what cavalry is called upon to do and how it does it in the war of to-day. It will be found to be full of useful instruction for not only officers of the regular cavalry and the yeomanry, but also for officers and non-commissioned officers of our cyclist battalions, whose work brings them into such close relation with our cavalry in war and manoeuvres, and who have to perform much the same work as that of the cavalry in reconnaissance, screening, and outpost duties. General von Bernhardi's work deals with cavalry in war and peace, but much of the second part, dealing with peace duties and training, is made up of a mass of detail on parade and riding-school work, as carried out in the German Army. This has been omitted, but his remarks on cavalry training at manoeuvres are included in an appendix. Sir John French's introduction gives us the views of the greatest of our own cavalry leaders, who is now commanding our Army in France. All British soldiers will welcome this excellent translation by Major Bridges of a new work by General von Bernhardi, whose intimate knowledge of cavalry and brilliant writings have won for him such a great European reputation. Some prominence has lately been given in England to erroneous views concerning the armament and tactics of cavalry. General von Bernhardi's book contains sound doctrine on this subject, and will show to every one who has an open mind and is capable of conviction by reasoned argument how great is the future rÔle of cavalry, and how determined are the efforts of the great cavalry leaders of Europe to keep abreast with the times, and to absorb, for the profit of the arm, every lesson taught by experience, both in peace and war. In all theories, whether expounded by so eminent an authority as General von Bernhardi or by others who have not his claims to our attention, there is, of course, a good deal that must remain a matter of opinion, and a question open for free and frank discussion. But I am convinced that some of the reactionary views recently aired in England concerning cavalry will, if accepted and adopted, lead first to the deterioration and then to the collapse of cavalry when next it is called upon to fulfil its mission in war. I therefore recommend not only cavalry officers, but officers of all arms and services, to read and ponder this book, which provides a strengthening tonic for weak minds which may have allowed themselves to be impressed by the dangerous heresies to which I have alluded. Is there such a thing as the cavalry spirit, and should it be our object to develop this spirit, if it exists, to the utmost, or to suppress it? General von Bernhardt thinks that this spirit exists and should be encouraged, and I agree with him. It is not only possible but necessary to preach the Army spirit, or, in other words, the close comradeship of all arms in battle, and at the same time to develop the highest qualities and the special attributes of each branch. The particular spirit which we seek to encourage is different for each arm. Were we to seek to endow cavalry with the tenacity and stiffness of infantry, or to take from the mounted arm the mobility and the cult of the offensive which are the breath of its life, we should ruin not only the cavalry, but the Army besides. Those who scoff at the spirit, whether of cavalry, of artillery, or of infantry, are people who have had no practical experience of the actual training of troops in peace, or of the personal leadership in war. Such men are blind guides indeed. Another reason why I welcome this book is because it supplies a timely answer to schoolmen who see in our South African experiences, some of which they distort and many of which they forget, the acme of all military wisdom. It is always a danger when any single campaign is picked out, at the fancy of some pedagogue, and its lessons recommended as a panacea. It is by study and meditation of the whole of the long history of war, and not by concentration upon single and special phases of it, that we obtain safe guidance to the principles and practices of an art which is as old as the world. It is not only the campaigns which we and others have fought which deserve reflection, but also the wars which may lie in front of us. General von Bernhardi does not neglect the lessons of past wars, but he gives the best of reasons for thinking that the wars in South Africa and Manchuria have little in common with the conditions of warfare in Europe. We notice, as we read his book, that he has constantly in his mind the enemies whom the German Army must be prepared to meet, their arms, their tactics, and their country, and that he urges his comrades to keep the conditions of probable wars constantly before their eyes. It passes comprehension that some critics in England should gravely assure us that the war in South Africa should be our chief source of inspiration and guidance, and that it was not abnormal. All wars are abnormal, because there is no such thing as normal war. In applying the lessons of South Africa to the training of cavalry, we should be very foolish if we did not recognise at this late hour that very few of the conditions of South Africa are likely to recur. I will name only a few of them. The composition and tactics of the Boer forces were as dissimilar from those of European armies as possible. Boer commandos made no difficulty about dispersing to the four winds when pressed, and re-uniting again some days or weeks later hundreds of miles from the scene of their last encounter. Such tactics in Europe would lead to the disruption and disbandment of any army that attempted them. Secondly, the war in South Africa was one for the conquest and annexation of immense districts, and no settlement was open to us except the complete submission of our gallant enemy. A campaign with such a serious object in view is the most difficult that can be confided to an army if the enemy is brave, enterprising, well-armed, numerous, and animated with unconquerable resolve to fight to the bitter end. I am not sure that people in England have ever fully grasped this distinctive feature of our war with the Dutch Republics. Let me quote the opinion of the late Colonel Count Yorck von Wartenburg on this subject. In his remarkable book "Napoleon as a General," Count Yorck declares that if, in the campaign of 1870-71, the absolute conquest and annexation of France had been desired, German procedure would not have been either logical or successful, and that the Germans would have failed as completely as Napoleon failed in Spain. But Count Yorck shows that when plans have a definite and limited object in view—namely, to obtain peace on given conditions—the situation is altered. Count Yorck shows that the German plans in 1870-71 were perfectly appropriate to this limited aim, and that they were therefore successful. The very serious task which British policy imposed upon British strategy in South Africa must never be forgotten. Thirdly, we did not possess any means for remounting our cavalry with trained horses, such as we are endeavouring to secure by our new system of cavalry depÔts and reserve regiments. After the capture, in rear of the army, of the great convoy by De Wet, our horses were on short commons, and consequently lost condition and never completely recovered it. Lastly, owing to the wholesale and repeated release of prisoners who had been captured and who subsequently appeared again in the field against us, we were called upon to fight, not, as is stated, 86,000 or 87,000 men, but something like double that number or more, with this additional disadvantage, that the enemy possessed on his second or third appearance against us considerable experience of our methods, and a certain additional seasoned fitness. Nevertheless we are now invited to throw away our cold steel as useless lumber owing to some alleged failures of the cavalry in South Africa. Were we to do so, we should invert the rÔle of cavalry, turn it into a defensive arm, and make it a prey to the first foreign cavalry that it meets, for good cavalry can always compel a dismounted force of mounted riflemen to mount and ride away, and when such riflemen are caught on their horses they have power neither of offence nor of defence and are lost. If, in European warfare, such mounted riflemen were to separate and scatter, the enemy would be well pleased, for he could then reconnoitre and report every movement and make his plans in all security. In South Africa the mounted riflemen were the hostile army itself, and when they had dispersed there was nothing left to reconnoitre; but when and where will these conditions recur? Even in South Africa, grave though were the disadvantages under which our cavalry laboured from short commons and overwork, the Boer mounted riflemen acknowledged on many occasions the moral force of the cold steel, and gave way before it. The action at Zand River in May, 1900, was a case in point, and I only quote a personal experience because the venerable maxim that an ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory has still a good deal to be said for it. The rÔle of the Cavalry Division on the day to which I refer was to bring pressure to bear on the right flank of the Boer army in order to enable Lord Roberts to advance across the river and attack the main Boer forces. Having crossed the river to the west of the Boers, we determined, with the inner or easterly brigade, to seize an important kopje lying on the right flank of the Boer position, and, pivoting upon this, to throw two brigades against the right flank and rear of the enemy. The Boers told off a strong force of picked mounted riflemen to oppose this movement, which they expected. The kopje was seized by the inner brigade, and the brigade next to it made some progress; but the Boer mounted riflemen attacked the flank brigade to the extreme west, and began to drive it back. I galloped from the kopje to the outer brigade with the thought that either every idea which I had ever formed in my life as to the efficacy of shock action against mounted riflemen was utterly erroneous, or that this was the moment to show that it was not. On reaching the outer brigade I ordered it to mount and form for attack. All ranks were at once electrified into extraordinary enthusiasm and energy. The Boers realised what was coming. Their fire became wild, and the bullets began to fly over our heads. Directly the advance began, the Boers hesitated, and many rushed to their horses. We pressed forward with all the very moderate speed of tired horses, whereupon the whole Boer force retired in the utmost confusion and disorder, losing in a quarter of an hour more ground than they had won during three or four hours of fighting. A cavalry which could perform service like this; which held back, against great numerical odds, the Dutch forces at Colesberg; which relieved Kimberley; which directly made possible the victory at Paardeberg by enclosing Kronje in his entrenchments; which captured Bloemfontein, Kroonstadt, and Barberton, and took part successfully in all the phases of the long guerilla war and in countless drives, can afford to regard with equanimity the attacks of those who have never led, trained, nor understood the arm to which I am proud to have belonged. I have already, in an introduction to another book by General von Bernhardi, expressed my high sense of the general soundness of his teaching. Were I to do full justice to the merits of this new work, I should be compelled to make long extracts and to repeat matter which every reader will perhaps do better to search for and select for himself. But I would invite particular attention to the General's remarks on the subjects of reconnaissance, the cavalry fight, the combination of fire and shock, the divisional cavalry, the rÔle of the strategical cavalry, training, and organisation. The masterly summary of the qualifications which should be possessed by squadron and patrol leaders is, in particular, an extremely valuable contribution to the study of a most important subject. The General does not always agree with the Regulations of his own Army, and he is specially in conflict with them when he recommends raids by cavalry corps against the enemy's communications. My opinion upon this point is that every plan should be subordinate to what I consider a primary necessity—namely, the absolute and complete overthrow of the hostile cavalry. So long as that cavalry remains intact with its morale unshaken, all our enterprises must of necessity be paralysed. The successful cavalry fight confers upon the victor the command of ground, just in the same way that successful naval action carries with it command at sea. For effective enterprises in either sphere command is absolutely necessary, and can only be obtained by successful battle, whether on land or sea. I agree generally with the German Regulations when they suggest that raids against communications should not divert cavalry from their true battle objective, and consequently I must venture to differ from the author on this point, though I do not approve of all that the German Regulations say concerning the employment of cavalry in battle. The opinion which I hold and have often expressed is that the true rÔle of cavalry on the battlefield is to reconnoitre, to deceive, and finally to support. If the enemy's cavalry has been overthrown, the rÔle of reconnaissance will have been rendered easier. In the rÔles of deception and support, such an immense and fruitful field of usefulness and enterprise is laid open to a cavalry division which has thought out and practised these rÔles in its peace training and is accustomed to act in large bodies dismounted, that I cannot bring myself to believe that any equivalent for such manifest advantages can be found even in the most successful raid against the enemy's communications by mounted troops. I entirely agree with General von Bernhardi's conclusion that very important duties will fall to the lot of the divisional cavalry in war, and that the fulfilment of these duties has become more difficult of late years. The necessity for, and the value of, divisional cavalry are often not properly appreciated. What the strategical cavalry is to the Army in the greater sphere, the divisional cavalry is to the division in the lesser. Most cavalry soldiers of good judgment will agree with the lucid arguments of the author on the subject of cavalry armament. It is suggested to us, by critics of the cavalry, that the lance is an impediment to dismounted action. If this difficulty ever existed, it has been overcome by the method of carrying the lance which has been adopted and practised with marked success for the past two years. It is also objected by the same critics that a thin bamboo pole, carried by the side of a mounted man, will hinder him in reconnaissance and reveal his position to the enemy. The mere statement of this argument absolves me from the duty of replying to it. General von Bernhardi very wisely says that it is not a question whether cavalrymen should fight mounted or dismounted, but whether they are prepared and determined to take their share in the decision of an encounter and to employ the whole of their strength and mobility to this end. In our training during the last few years I have endeavoured to impress upon all ranks that when the enemy's cavalry is overthrown, our cavalry will find more opportunities of using the rifle than the cold steel, and that dismounted attacks will be more frequent than charges with the arme blanche. By no means do I rule out as impossible, or even unlikely, attacks by great bodies of mounted men against other arms on the battlefield. But I believe that such opportunities will occur comparatively rarely, and that undue prominence should not be accorded to them in our peace training, to the detriment of much more solid advantages which may be gained by other means. I think that every one who reads this book will understand that the sphere of action of cavalry is steadily widening, and is, at the same time, making increased demands as the years go on upon all ranks of the arm. Those who wish to recall what cavalry has done in the past, should read and reread "The Achievements of Cavalry," by Field-Marshal Sir Evelyn Wood, one of the very few soldiers in the Army who has taken part as a combatant in European warfare. Sir Evelyn Wood's war record probably surpasses that of any other officer in the Army. His knowledge of horses and his horsemanship are second to none, and though seventy-two years of age, he is still one of the hardest and straightest riders to hounds in England. It should be a constant encouragement to the cavalry that such an experienced and sagacious leader should entertain such a firm faith in the destinies of an arm with which he is so thoroughly conversant. A few words in conclusion. We hear it said, and see it written, that we ought not to accept any guidance from military Europe, because our own experience of war has been so considerable that we can learn nothing from Europe which we do not know better ourselves. The truth is, that since the Crimean War we have had little or no experience of the kind of effort which will be required of us when next we meet the trained army of a European Power. In deluding ourselves with the false notion that our campaigns of the last fifty years represent the sum of military wisdom, we merely expose our ignorance and conceit, and do our utmost not only to cause disaster, but to invite it. The cavalry soldier must not be misled by these appeals of ignorance to vanity. Let him continue to study profoundly the training, tactics, and organisation of the best foreign cavalry. Let him reflect long and deeply upon the opinions of such acknowledged authorities as Field-Marshal Sir Evelyn Wood and General von Bernhardi. Let him keep himself abreast with every change in the tendencies of cavalry abroad, so that he may help us to assimilate the best of foreign customs to our own. Finally, let him realise the great intellectual and physical strain that modern war will impose upon the cavalry, and let him preserve the mens sana in corpore sano, that equable balance between study and action, which alone will enable him to rise superior to every difficulty in the great and honourable calling to which he belongs. J.D.P. French. In placing this translation of General von Bernhardi's work at the service of the officers of the Army, I take the opportunity of drawing attention to the educational value of the large quantity of military literature published abroad, particularly in France and Germany. Translations into English of works of this kind are rare, and often so belated as to have lost much of their value by the time they are produced. Modern developments in means of communication and intercourse are daily bringing us into closer touch with the Continent of Europe, and there can be no doubt that the rising generation of officers would do well to make themselves masters of the not over-difficult art of reading French and German, that they may be able to appreciate such works and keep themselves abreast of the times. They will find such knowledge of the greatest service, not only in the profession of arms, but in the course of everyday life. My thanks are due to Major W.H. Greenly, D.S.O. 12th Lancers, for his kind and able assistance in correcting proofs. T.B. CONTENTS
The great changes which have taken place in military science since the year 1866 have forced all arms to adopt new methods of fighting. It was, first and foremost, the improvement in the firearm which wrought the transformation of the battlefield and called forth an increased demand for cover against the murderous effect of fire. The infantry sought safety in sparser formations and in utilising the smallest accidents of the ground for cover, while the artillery adopted armoured shields, covered positions, and indirect methods of fire. It was only the cavalry that could not keep pace with these developments. Forming a conspicuous target, capable of being concealed only behind considerable inequalities of the ground, it could indeed seldom find cover within the range of the enemy's fire. As, at the same time, its strength in comparison to that of the great armies of the present day has sensibly diminished, it might be concluded that its particular value in battle had decreased considerably in possibility and importance. This conclusion is thoroughly justified, but not altogether in the way that one is inclined to assume. For one reason, the cavalry is now supplied with an excellent firearm, which its mobility enables it to employ against the most sensitive parts of an enemy's line of battle. For another, the composition of modern armies offers, as I have frequently said, many new possibilities of success. Newly raised levies, such as will often have to take their place in the great armies of the day, cannot possess the same steadiness as standing permanent troops. They are, according to experience, very sensitive to moral impressions, and will often enough, when shaken in battle, offer a tempting and suitable object of attack to the cavalry. At the same time, the fact remains that, by reason of its relative numerical weakness, cavalry can no longer retain its former importance in the battle, and that the manner of its intervention in the fight must often be of a very different nature from what it has been in the past. On the other hand, the duty of cavalry in the sphere of reconnaissance has increased in importance. For all strategical movements the main body of the modern army demands considerably more time and, generally also, comprehensive preparatory measures. If, therefore, intelligence as to the disposition of the enemy is to be of use in operations, it follows that it must be procured at the earliest possible moment. Whoever gets the earliest and best information possesses nowadays a far greater advantage than formerly, when, with the small armies of the day, movements and combinations of force could often be successfully carried out in the immediate presence of the enemy's army. These are indeed still possible in occasional cases and where sufficient depth of formation is maintained, and it is this circumstance that has made early and full intelligence, combined with successful screening of one's own movements, one of the most important factors of success. There are people who, in fancy, already see cavalry replaced in this rÔle by an air fleet. Such prophets cannot, however, be treated seriously. The air cruisers will not be designed for all the possibilities of war. In the period of concentration and in fortress warfare they would doubtless be able, even in their present condition, to render excellent service. Whether they can be adapted for use in a war of movement remains to be seen; but, even if they can in time be of more service for war than at present appears to be the case, their capabilities in this direction will always be limited. They can only observe at night under favourable conditions—such things, for example, as large detrainments of troops or bivouacs with fires burning. They are under all circumstances dependent upon the weather. By day the air fleet of the enemy will seek battle with them in order to hinder their reconnaissance. Hostile artillery will be particularly dangerous to them, and will be able, thanks to the developments in modern ordnance, to wage successful war against them. All detachments cannot possibly be supplied with airships, owing to the great cost and enormous apparatus entailed, and their usefulness will therefore only be realised with the larger formations. Finally, one or the other of the air fleets will be driven from the field, or rather from the air, and that side which meets with defeat will be deprived of all means of reconnoitring unless it can rely on its cavalry. So in the most modern war the cavalry remains the principal means of reconnaissance. Its activity may indeed be supplemented by airships, but will never be replaced by them.[1] These circumstances, however, necessitate a new rÔle for cavalry. It must drive the hostile cavalry from the field, a cavalry which will do all in its power to secure its own army against intrusion. It will find this cavalry reinforced not only by horse artillery and machine-guns, but also by cyclist battalions, mounted and other infantry, and will therefore have to be prepared, in order to properly carry out its service of exploration, to fight against detachments of all arms. But the same thing will also happen when it seeks to veil the movements of its own army, or to undertake some enterprise against the enemy's communications, or to defend its own against similar hostile raids. Our cavalry thus finds itself face to face with totally new duties of a most real kind, towards the carrying out of which it has no previous experience to help it. In the wars of Frederick the Great and of Napoleon, as well as in the German war of Unification, there is a total absence of analogy from which to draw conclusions that can be practically applied. The wars in South Africa and Manchuria, on the other hand, reveal conditions which have very little in common with those of a European war such as the German cavalry will have to fight. Nowhere can the few experiences of cavalry action gained in these wars be immediately applied, and there are but few bases for the formation of judgment as to what is practical and possible under modern conditions. The same may be said to hold good of the Russo-Turkish war. The most interesting and instructive campaigns for the service of modern cavalry appear to be those of the American War of Secession, which are, however, almost unknown in Germany, where there is a lack of opportunities to study them.[2] There is, therefore, for our cavalry a want of any sort of tradition for that rÔle which it will be expected to carry out in the next war, and this want will be the more felt as it will in the future be expected to deal with a number of technical methods of communication which are, as a whole, still almost unknown, and as to the actual war value of which no judgment can yet be formed. Up to now, also, cavalry training as carried out since the war of 1870-71 has been unable to create a sound foundation for preparation for war. Left far behind in the march of military progress, in tactics as well as reconnaissance, it has been led so far from the right way that it would have been unable to stand the test of serious war. Nor have we yet fully extricated ourselves from these trammels of the past. For the moment, therefore, our cavalry finds itself in a state of transition. The demands which modern war will make upon it have not yet penetrated into its flesh and blood, that is to say, their extent and range have not yet been clearly grasped by the arm, nor have we yet by any means succeeded in breaking loose from the fetters of the past. Views based on antiquated assumptions are often apt to survive and to influence training as well as leading. This is particularly the case as regards reconnaissance. In tactics, too, the cut-and-dried methods of bygone days are clearly not yet forgotten, while for enterprises against the enemy's communications there is a want both of practical training and theoretical instruction. This state of affairs must be regarded as a great evil, as at the outbreak of a war there will no longer be time to collect experiences. From the very first day onward the greatest demands will be made upon the cavalry, not only as regards intentions, but performances. On the achievements of the cavalry in the early days of the war will depend to a considerable extent the success of the first great decisive encounter. We must therefore be prepared to meet these great demands when war breaks out. Only a clear recognition of the necessities and the possibilities of manoeuvre and training can secure us this preparation. There remains, then, nothing for us—with no practical war experience to go on—but to create the groundwork of our methods of training from theoretical and speculative reflection. With all the means of intellect and foresight, we must endeavour to discern the probable course of the war of the future and regulate the methods of training accordingly. Peace exercises based upon such clearly defined principles must serve as a further guide to what is possible and practical. They cannot, it is true, afford realistic results, as they lack the effect of weapons, the hostile country, the thousand causes of friction, and the moral factors of serious war. They can, however, be regarded as practical guides in many directions and will help us to evolve methods unattainable by pure theory: for instance, in increasing the capabilities of the troops, improving the practical arrangements for communication, the transmission service, the patrol system, and the like. Only these peace experiences must not be overrated, but subjected to continual criticism by the light of what would be practical in war. It thus remains our chief duty to get a clear and just idea of the rÔle that cavalry will play in a future war, in order to clear the mind fully on this point, and so be able further to build upon the foundations of sound reasoning. The new Cavalry Drill Regulations,[3] in which I had the honour and pleasure of collaborating, have undertaken the creation of these fundamental principles of the independent rÔle of cavalry. Their teachings, however, have as yet by no means penetrated into the ranks. The new Drill Regulations have endeavoured to give new rules for the tactical employment of cavalry, which have not yet sufficiently established their value, even on the manoeuvre-ground. As yet the troops are only endeavouring to get accustomed to them. It is also obvious that practical drill instructions, at least for tactics, can only give general principles, and cannot be too definite, lest they should thereby tend to limit the independence of leaders in the thousand varied happenings of war. It is quite another matter for him who is not called on to make regulations, but whose task is rather to clear the understanding, to stimulate independent thought, and to encourage the troops themselves to form correct judgments. Thus will be moulded the efficiency which will enable the soldier to act in the presence of the enemy according to the Regulations, with full freedom of thought, not after the letter, but the spirit, and even perhaps, in many cases, the intention of them. From this point of view I have set forth my views and reflections. It seems to me, above all things, important to discuss those points which will be new to cavalry in a future war, and in so doing to touch on many matters of training which long years of experience have convinced me are practical. May I by these hints contribute towards the formation of fresh traditions for the training of the arm that will march with modern conditions, that will break away for good from all half-measures and obsolete views, and thereby clear the way towards a proper conduct of the cavalry in war, and to the winning of fresh and imperishable laurels! Where I have occasion to touch on views formerly expressed and set forth in my various writings, I find no reason to retract any of them. In certain directions they have naturally developed further, and have become more progressive under the impress of the whole of modern development and the latest experiences of war. On the whole, however, I adhere to my opinions, and only seek to supplement and develop them in order to suit them still better to the practical needs of the arm. I hope they may act as a stimulus and serve as a guide to many a comrade in difficulties. FOOTNOTES: [1] This was written five years ago, at a time when, though considerable progress had been made with airship work, the aeroplane was still in the pioneer stage of development, though BlÉriot had just made his record flight across the Channel. Since then flying corps provided with aeroplanes of improved construction have been introduced into every great army, and the flying men have proved in actual warfare (Tripoli, Morocco, the Balkans, France) the utility of the new means of reconnaissance. But though aerial reconnaissance can do much more than General von Bernhardi anticipated, it is still true that the aviators cannot entirely supersede the cavalry. The two arms have to work together. There are cases where the aviator can accomplish very little. Thus, for instance, we are told that during the French advance into the Vosges and Alsace in the present war, the wooded character of the country led to aerial reconnaissance giving very disappointing results.—Editor. [2] In England these campaigns have been very carefully studied and our cavalry have learned the lessons they suggest.—Editor. [3] "Exerzier-Reglement fÜr die Kavallerie," part of which has been translated and published by the General Staff, War Office. These Regulations are frequently referred to throughout this work.—Trans. EMPLOYMENT IN WAR THE BASIS FOR TRAINING There can be no doubt that the value and significance of cavalry in a future war will be chiefly demonstrated in the action of the army cavalry.[4] The army cavalry alone, by virtue of its fighting strength, will be able to carry out the larger services of reconnaissance, to operate against the enemy's communications, to take part in the tactical decision with a force commensurate with modern conditions, or to carry out a pursuit. Reconnaissance occupies a prominent position amongst these various duties. There will not be a battle every day. Not in every fight will considerations of ground and other circumstances allow of the cavalry taking part in a great decision as a mounted arm. Not always will an effective pursuit by the cavalry mass be possible. It must be remembered that in order not to render itself too weak to carry out its proper rÔle cavalry must not expose itself to heavy loss in battle without sufficient reason. Only the possibility of a very great success can justify the risk of staking the whole cavalry force in a decisive charge during the battle. It is true that efforts will have to be made to drive the hostile cavalry from the field to facilitate operations against the flank and rear of the enemy's line of battle. But such operations will generally be limited to fire action, and in a decisive battle the weakness of the cavalry would probably debar it from such undertakings. Engagements, also, that are fought with a view of opening a way for reconnaissance will not be of frequent occurrence, and must only be expected during occasional crises. They will, however, be of decisive value for the whole future conduct of the arm and its operative success. The same may be said of raids against the enemy's communications. Such undertakings may exercise the greatest influence on the course of a campaign, but can only be undertaken under specially favourable conditions. On the other hand, the everyday task of the cavalry which goes hand in hand with all these various engagements and enterprises is reconnaissance proper carried out by reconnoitring squadrons and patrols. This is the daily bread of the cavalry, a duty that throughout a war should never cease to be performed, even if the main body of the cavalry has been driven from the field by the enemy. It demands, therefore, the highest training, the wisest economy of force and systematic arrangement, if it is not to become ineffective or useless. In close and continual relation to the above is the further task of safeguarding and screening the army. Reconnaissance itself provides a measure of security, but it is always liable to miscarry, and can never secure the army against hostile observation. Reconnaissance must therefore be supplemented by a special system of security and screening which, however, demands the most careful organisation, and greatly increases the difficulty of husbanding limited forces and of keeping the troops fit by not overworking them. Intimately connected to the services of security and reconnaissance is that of communication, which, owing to the great distances to be traversed in modern war and the necessity of early transmission of intelligence, has become, at the same time, of the highest importance and of the greatest difficulty. Here also is a daily duty for the cavalry in which a thorough training is necessary. All these considerations must be kept in view in arranging the training, and a clear conception should be formed as to what is to be aimed at in great as well as small matters. Only thus will results be obtained which will stand the test of war. It is only natural that in our army the greatest stress is at present laid on the duties of the army cavalry. These are so obviously new and important for the arm that it is easy to understand how more time is devoted to them in peace training, and how the task of the divisional cavalry has come to appear of less importance. It might indeed be contended that the training which the latter has hitherto received in garrison and at manoeuvres would suffice for its needs. It is my opinion, on the other hand, that such a conception is faulty. The importance of the divisional cavalry has in no way diminished, and one is not justified in assuming that any lesser demands will be made upon its efficiency than on that of the larger independent formations. The exact contrary is the case, and I consider it opportune now, when all interest is centred in the army cavalry, to lay particular stress on the extraordinary importance of the divisional cavalry. As in the newest phases of military development, the general value of cavalry, according to my opinion, particularly in the organism of an army, has increased, so also has that of the divisional cavalry. Higher demands are made of it, and it must therefore be capable of greater performances. The circumstances of modern war demand that great masses of mounted men shall be used as army cavalry and concentrated in the decisive direction, thus weakening a great part of the front of the army in cavalry, in order to ensure superiority at the decisive point. It is in accordance with the universal law of military success that a concentration of force at the decisive point can, under most circumstances, only be ensured by a corresponding weakening of force in other places. The front of the army, therefore, can never be covered throughout its whole length by the army cavalry, but at the same time it will never be possible to entirely denude of cavalry that front or flank in front of which no army cavalry may lie. This would be simply impossible, for every body of troops, however disposed upon the strategic front, requires cavalry for the service of close reconnaissance, of security, and of screening against surprise or against hostile observation. Furthermore, even those bodies of troops in immediate advance of which the great cavalry masses are on the move require their own cavalry, not only for the purpose of ensuring and maintaining communication with the army cavalry, but also that they may not be entirely denuded of cavalry when, as the hostile armies approach each other, the cavalry masses clear the front and concentrate towards a flank. Finally, it will not always be possible to detail portions of the army cavalry to detached forces, because it has other duties to fulfil and other claims made upon it. Thus, for example, the army of Manteuffel in the campaign against Bourbaki had at its disposal none other but the divisional cavalry.[5] The weak divisional cavalry, therefore, must be prepared to carry out all the cavalry duties which may arise from these conditions. Amongst them particular mention must be made of the outpost service, which, although shared with the infantry, imposes a heavy burden on the divisional cavalry. Any one who has once been through manoeuvres knows how great the demands of this service are, even in peace, in the exertions involved and the time expended. In war these exertions become at times considerable, if less frequent, for the critical days do not follow each other so closely as in manoeuvres. If we consider, moreover, how every cavalry undertaking has increased in difficulty owing to the greater size of modern battlefields and the improvement in firearms, it will become clear that the sphere of usefulness of the divisional cavalry, even from the purely tactical point of view, which up to now we have alone considered, is a very extensive and important one. This tactical activity is closely dependent upon the whole interior economy of the division. These few squadrons must furnish orderlies and despatch-riders, which, in the case of the conduct of so large a force as an infantry division, must mean a considerable drain on their strength. They will often be deputed to collect supplies in villages away from the roads, when the supply columns fail and the places occupied do not afford sufficient for the troops. Although it is possible that other troops, such as infantry in carts and bicyclists, may be used for this service, it will never be possible to relieve the divisional cavalry entirely of it. The relay service also makes a greater demand on the strength than is generally supposed. In the campaign of 1870-71 this cause contributed largely to the weakening of the squadrons at the front. Nowadays every effort is made by means of technical apparatus to relieve the cavalry, at least partially, from this service. It would, however, be a mistake to assume that the relay service of cavalry can be everywhere replaced by telegraph, telephone, signalling, bicycles, or motor. Circumstances will occur in war in which all these methods of transmission, which are already in themselves partially unreliable, must fail us, especially where they are exposed to destruction from the hand of the enemy. The proper performance of these interior services must never, however, miscarry throughout the whole campaign, and imposes therefore still higher and more continuous demands on the efficiency of the troops. As the result of these reflections we may conclude that a series of very important duties will fall to the lot of the divisional cavalry in war, which cannot be carried out by any other troops or in any other manner than by the divisional cavalry. Further, that these duties have, on the whole, increased in importance, and that their fulfilment has become considerably more difficult by reason of the conditions of modern war. According to these conditions the importance of the divisional cavalry must be judged. If the decisive rÔle in war falls essentially to the lot of the army cavalry, yet must the duties of the divisional cavalry be regarded as just as necessary for the good of the army. Methods of training must be adopted with these points in view, and it must be quite clearly understood that in this direction modern conditions have to be reckoned with which demand thorough innovations. As to the rÔle of cavalry in the fight, we may conclude from the above that it may be sharply divided into two separate groups: firstly, in those encounters where cavalry is acting as an independent body, and will have to carry out reconnaissance, the service of security and raids; and secondly, where cavalry will take part in a battle in conjunction with the other arms. It is obvious, after what has been said, that the first group is by far the more important, and will require particular attention as regards training. We will endeavour in the course of this work to prove that this is the direction where the most friction is to be overcome, and where by far the most difficult part of our task will lie. The chief considerations for training are naturally evolved from the duties to be performed in war itself. The services of reconnaissance and security come first. The technique of these services and the method of fighting necessary for carrying them out must be fully mastered by the troops right down to the individual soldier. Next in importance come undertakings against the enemy's communications, and the participation in the battle which war will demand of our arm. These are the matters which must be studied by those who undertake to discuss methods of training. We must be perfectly clear in our minds what duties in the various spheres of action will fall to the lot of the arm as a whole, to its subdivisions, or to its single members. The relative importance of these duties must be our guide in considering the essentials of training. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|