STRATEGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE CAVALRY

We have seen in the previous chapter that the principal duties which can fall to the lot of Cavalry in modern War will require its employment in considerable force; hence it follows that the greatest economy in the use of detachments for secondary purposes must be practised.

This leads us to the consideration of the question in what manner we can group our available means to meet these requirements in the best possible way.

Primarily we must start from this axiom—that no portion of the Army can do without Cavalry altogether; hence it follows that we must maintain both Divisional and independent Cavalry.

The former remains permanently attached to each portion of the Army whose composition, by reason of this addition of Cavalry, permits of independent action. The latter is set aside for the great strategical missions that may be assigned to that Arm, for execution. The question now arises, In what proportion is this distribution to take place?

The greater number of Infantry Divisions can, in my opinion, meet all demands upon them with a very small allotment of mounted men, as long as they are acting in combination with the rest of the Army. The circulation of intelligence and orders within the columns and their outposts can generally be entrusted to cyclists. Where independent Cavalry is deployed to cover the front of an army, the field of activity for the Divisional Cavalry in actual outpost duties and reconnaissance is of necessity very much limited. All they are really required to accomplish is to maintain the connection with the former, and for this duty the cyclist detachments above referred to will generally suffice.

There remains, therefore, for the Divisional Cavalry only the service with the most advanced sections of the Infantry outposts (orderly duties with the Infantry piquets in cases where the ground precludes the use of the cycle), duties connected with requisitioning; and reconnaissance only during those periods in which the mass of the independent Cavalry has been drawn away towards the wings of the Army to clear its front for battle, carrying messages during the combat, and actual reconnaissance during the progress of the engagement itself. All these requirements can, I think, be met with a very small amount of force, all the more so because reconnaissance under fire in modern War seems to me practically impossible, and can generally only be initiated by those Divisions which form the wings of the Army, but even then their field would be a very limited one.

Modern firearms compel us to remain at such a distance from the enemy that observation is rendered much more difficult, and the distances to be traversed are so great that before any reports from the wings can get round to the position of Headquarters, and suitable orders based on these reports can reach their destination, the whole situation may have changed again and again. We have only to remember the cases which occurred in the last War (1870).

In the majority of these instances it was quite impossible that Cavalry patrols could have sent timely information of what was going on within the limits of the enemy's positions, and in the future the difficulties will be even greater.

In no case, however, can such information during the progress of an action be obtained by the actual employment of the fighting power of the Divisional Cavalry.

If it is to be done at all, then a few well-led officers patrols will suffice, and therefore no considerable numerical strength in the Divisional Cavalry is required. The lines of approach of the enemy and points on which his wings are resting must certainly be kept under observation, but this observation cannot in principle be initiated by the Infantry Divisions, but it is the province of the Army Headquarters to provide, for it will be precisely the wings and the flanks which the enemy will himself seek to protect by the massing of his own Cavalry.

If the prospect of achieving anything by observation during the combat through the action of the Divisional Cavalry may be considered as well-nigh impossible, then any tactical action may also be considered as precluded, unless it takes place in combination with the independent Cavalry.

Occasions may certainly even nowadays occur in which a few squadrons may achieve results by taking part in a combat between the other Arms, but such cases are too few and unimportant to be taken into account in a distribution of the Cavalry as a matter of organization.

In Armies deprived of the screen of independent Cavalry the want of Divisional Cavalry will certainly be more markedly felt even in those Army Corps which form the flanks of Armies, and in the cases of detached expeditions, and in similar exceptional circumstances. In all these instances more Cavalry must be sent up to the outposts, and it will have both to screen and reconnoitre.

The demands on its fighting efficiency can, under such circumstances, become of importance, and in these smaller operations, reconnaissance during action is more possible than with extended battle-fronts. But to demand for the Divisional Cavalry on these grounds a larger proportion of sabres, and thus to paralyze a great portion of the Arm by its inclusion in the long columns of march of the whole Army, is not justifiable. The scale on which we must decide the apportionment of Divisional Cavalry must depend on the fact that the Infantry does not generally operate in small detachments, but works in large masses, and it is the necessities of these large masses which fix the standard.

To apportion to single columns or Divisions for particular circumstances an increased force of Cavalry, to be taken from the available mass of independent Cavalry Divisions, ought not in general to occasion unusual friction; but it is most difficult and troublesome to take away from the Infantry the squadrons definitely assigned to it by peace-time organization, and unite these in independent Cavalry Commands.

We must not allow ourselves to be misled in this matter by the practice followed in peace manoeuvres. Even the largest concentration of troops for these purposes is, in proportion to the masses to be employed in our future War, on a most limited scale. Our smaller Brigade and Divisional manoeuvres are restricted within limits which can only be considered nowadays as exceptional. They are only too well adapted to give rise to entirely false conceptions as to the true character of the Cavalry service in these great struggles for national survival, unless we keep steadily in mind that they apply only to exceptional circumstances.

We must, therefore, lay down as a principle that as much Cavalry as possible is to be organized for strategical independence, and as little as is expedient retained for the Infantry Divisions.

My opinion is that, if we make fullest use of the bicycle, and, with this object in view, reorganize our system of conveying orders and intelligence, then two well-trained and effective squadrons should amply suffice for the ordinary duties with an Infantry Division.

As to the allotment of the independent Cavalry Divisions, it follows from all that has been said above, that to divide them in equal proportions among the several Armies, according to their numerical strength, can only be considered as an obstacle to the full utilization of their potential fighting capacity. It would be better to arrange this distribution at the beginning of each War, in accordance with the conditions which the situation imposes. Where it appears expedient, we should not hesitate to form Divisions of different strength, and to group several of these to constitute Cavalry Corps, even to unite several of such Corps for employment in a particular strategical direction—i.e., in a particular portion of the theatre of operation—whilst leaving only individual brigades, or even regiments, to those fractions of the Army which for the moment can best dispense with Cavalry support.

Of course, an Army taking the field with a great superiority of Cavalry can afford to deal less sparingly with it for secondary purposes; on the other hand, the numerically weaker side is driven to the utmost economy of its forces, and the utmost energy in its employment at the decisive moment. It will therefore be essential for the latter to concentrate at the commencement of the campaign the bulk of its Cavalry upon the decisive line of operations—that is to say, on that line on which, from the general strategical situation, one can expect to penetrate into the chief district of concentration of the enemy's Armies, and hence to find out what it is of the greatest importance for us to know, or, on the other hand, when it is to our interests to conceal our own operations, and hence to beat the enemy's Cavalry as thoroughly as possible wherever it shows itself. On the remaining portion of the front we must endeavour to employ as little Cavalry as possible, and to supplement it in the duties of security by Infantry, whilst leaving reconnaissance to be dealt with by patrols. If we thus gain the victory on the principal line, the results will soon be apparent in a reduction of pressure on the adjacent sections of the front, and then the Cavalry will find its opportunity for increased activity in offensive enterprises. For, once the enemy's horsemen are beaten, either he will concentrate his remaining Cavalry, from every direction, towards the threatened points, or the victor will be in a position to utilize the superiority he has acquired to support any portion of his force which may have got into temporary difficulties.

If, thus, it is the necessity of beating the enemy's Cavalry out of the field at the very commencement of the campaign which compels the concentration of important numbers in the decisive direction, it follows naturally that this point of view must be fully considered in the plan of strategical deployment.

In the further stages of Cavalry activity—i.e., after it has defeated the mass of the enemy's Cavalry—the tasks which can confront the Arm make the employment of considerable forces essential, unless, as so often happened in 1870, its operations are to be interfered with, if not altogether stopped, by weak Infantry detachments, or even by an insurgent population. Against this concentration of large masses of Cavalry many objections will naturally be raised; hence we must consider how these are to be met, and whether, as a fact, they are of sufficient importance to cause us to surrender the advantages they offer.

First comes the difficulty of feeding large numbers. But military history, from the time of Frederick the Great and Napoleon down to the American Civil War, the unusual conditions of which latter must not be left out of account, show conclusively that it was possible to keep masses of 5,000 men and more together, and in full mobility, even in poor and almost roadless districts.

If it was possible then, how much more will it be so now, with our modern means of communication, if proper arrangements are made in advance!

It has been further objected that the rapid circulation of information from the front to Army Headquarters will be jeopardized by the insertion of an additional collecting station—viz., the Corps Command, between the two ends of the chain. But this fear can be shown to be groundless, for in any case where at all large bodies of Cavalry are sent out in advance, the service of intelligence must be organized in such a manner that all really important information will be transmitted direct to Headquarters, as well as through the usual channels. Since this is already necessary with Cavalry Divisions, there can be no objection to applying it to yet higher commands.

More important than this question of intelligence is the consideration that the command of Cavalry 'Masses' which exceed more than the present Division of six regiments involves exceptional difficulties, and this must be granted to a certain extent as long as the question is limited to the actual tactical handling (execution of manoeuvres) of the Division on the battle-field.

It is, in fact, no longer possible to handle a force of six regiments according to any set scheme, such as that known as the 'Dreitreffentaktik'—at any rate, not in hilly or difficult country. The transition from one formation to another, the deployment of the whole unit for attack, or the interchange of the duties between the separate lines, are certainly hardly possible on ground over which it is difficult to manoeuvre. It appears, however, to me that the conduct of great Cavalry 'Masses' by ordinary drill methods is not necessary to meet the condition of modern warfare.

When once the Cavalry Corps Commander grasps the idea of handling the units at his disposal as the Infantry Corps Commander handles his Divisions, sending in first one Division, and then, according to circumstances, reinforcing it or prolonging the fighting line by drawing on the second one, or by employing the Divisions side by side, assigning to each a definite share in the attainment of the purpose, which he himself keeps steadily in view, there seems no reason why the leadership of such bodies should not be perfectly practicable. Indeed, one may safely say that the result will be all the more certain of attainment the more the final responsibility is concentrated on the one head; for there is obviously a greater possibility of a single mind pursuing consistently a given purpose than of two or more Divisional Commanders following out the same idea independently along the same lines.

If, then, when the Corps is united for tactical action, the maintenance of a single Command is quite conceivable, this will be all the more the case in matters of Strategy. It is not so much a question then of handling the corps as a closed unit, for instance, on a single road, but of assigning within a certain sphere a united impulse to the constituent parts of the Command in such directions that in all cases they should reach the ground in force superior to anything the enemy can oppose to them. According to circumstances, different tasks may be assigned to the several Divisions. They may march on different roads, some of them extended, some closed, the only condition being that they all pursue a common strategic purpose, assigned to them by the Corps Commander, according to the same fundamental principles, and are prevented by this higher control from flying out in eccentric directions.

Objections based on the alleged difficulties of the conduct of such masses are therefore untenable. On the contrary, the demand must be made on the Chief Command that, always in accordance with the strategical situation, it must clearly determine what it requires of the Cavalry, and group them in a suitable manner and in sufficient numerical strength under a single Leader, even if in the meanwhile there may be a deficiency of the Arm at less important points. This fundamental principle must be adhered to at all costs if full advantages are to be derived from the employment of our Arm, for with none other can the consequences of a dispersal of force exact more terrible retribution than with the Cavalry.

Nevertheless, though the principle must be held inviolate, its application must not degenerate into hide-bound rigidity. 'Strategy is founded on a system of expedients' (Moltke), and hence expediency remains always our highest ideal.

The essential point, however, is that our organization must be made so elastic that we can alter the strength of our units to meet the varying circumstances which may confront us, so that forces may not remain unutilized in one place whilst they may be most urgently required at another.

It is no way essential that the units combined for the express purposes apparent at the commencement of the campaign should remain intact throughout the War. One should be able to detach from or reinforce them, as circumstances require; break up Corps and Divisions, to reform them elsewhere; and employ their Leaders and Staff first with one, then with the other.

As an example of what I have just said, I would cite the manner in which the German Headquarters Command dealt with the Armies during the war of 1870-1871. According to the demands of the moment, the individual Corps or Divisions were grouped in manifold proportions to constitute such units, and the adaptability of this organization proved sufficient to cope with every eventuality.

As an almost ideal type we can take the manner in which Napoleon dealt with his Cavalry Corps for the same purpose. At one moment his bodies of horsemen unite into Divisions and Corps; at another they dissolve into independent Brigades or regiments, operating singly, only once more to be united into formidable 'Masses,' as circumstances dictate. Here we see no rigid adherence to any rules, nothing pedantic in the method of employment, and the leader and troops deftly adapt themselves to the ever-changing conditions.

This is the ideal to which we Germans should strive to attain, and all the more so in proportion as we are threatened by superior numbers.[Back to Contents]