HORSE ARTILLERY
_Command._--Of all the matters concerning the employment of horse
artillery which came under discussion during the campaign, none was
more important than the vexed question of command.
The cavalry brigadier is naturally eager to have a battery attached to
him permanently, and considered as part of his brigade. Apart from the
conviction that a battery always on hand and under his own orders will
be of more value to him than one over which he has no direct control,
there is the feeling that the battery rounds off his command, and makes
it, in effect, a miniature army, complete with all modern conveniences.
If the powers that be would only throw in a couple of armoured cars and
a private aeroplane, the cavalry brigadier would be the happiest man on
earth!
Most R.H.A. battery commanders will agree with the brigadiers. Attached
to a brigade, the battery commander is freer and more independent, and
gets, perhaps, more of the 'fun of the fair' and less of the drudgery
than he does when acting as a divisional unit.
In spite of these opinions, however, the hard facts of this campaign
go to prove that our guns invariably rendered more efficient aid to
the cavalry they were supporting when employed under the orders of the
divisional commander than when attached to brigades. The divisional
commander must always know more of the fortunes of the battle than
any of his brigadiers, and is thus generally in the better position
to decide where artillery support is most needed. Moreover, if each
battery is attached to a brigade, and acting under the orders of a
brigadier, each brigade can only receive the support of one battery.
But there are occasions, in most engagements, when one brigade needs
all the artillery support available, while another, in reserve, or not
yet heavily engaged, requires none. If the control of the artillery is
left to one individual, fire can be concentrated quickly in support of
those brigades or regiments that are most in need of it, and no gun
is ever idle. There were one or two lamentable instances, in the 1917
operations, of a brigade remaining in reserve all day with its attached
battery sleeping peacefully beside it.
The actions of Summeil in the 1917 operations and of Kaukab in 1918
may be taken as fair illustrations of the employment of artillery as a
divisional unit. That of Jisr Benat Yakub in 1918 was an example of the
principle of attaching each battery to a brigade.
With the small, three-brigade cavalry division of the present day the
former arrangement will practically always yield better results than
the latter. Direct artillery _liaison_ should, of course, be maintained
between the divisional artillery commander and each brigade, if it is
at all possible to do so.
_Reserves._--There were, in the early days of the campaign, indications
of an idea on the part of some commanders that a certain proportion
of the artillery should be held in reserve, in the same way as a
brigade or regiment. This idea probably arose from the fact that one
of the essential differences between artillery and other arms had been
overlooked. When once a brigade or regiment has been committed to an
attack, in a moving battle, and is in contact with the enemy, it can
seldom be easily withdrawn in order to be transferred to another part
of the field. Guns, on the other hand, do not come into direct contact
with the enemy--at least the gunners try their best to avoid doing so!
They can, therefore, as a rule, be withdrawn without difficulty, if
their services are required elsewhere. All guns in action may thus,
in a sense, be said to be in reserve, since they can readily be moved
to another part of the field if required. Except, therefore, for the
purposes of conserving ammunition, guns should rarely be unemployed
during the progress of an action.
_Artillery with Advance and Rearguards._--At the beginning of the
campaign, most divisional commanders, when moving with one brigade
as advance guard, allotted one battery to it. As the operations
progressed, however, the view that a larger force of artillery might
profitably accompany the advance guard began to gain ground. The
experience of the whole campaign points to the conclusion that, in view
of the small number of guns available in a cavalry division, two of the
three batteries should normally accompany the advance guard brigade.
The practice may be open to the objections that it makes the advance
guard column unduly long, and that some risk is involved in leaving the
main body so short of artillery. Both these objections appear, however,
to be outweighed by the advantages of having a large proportion of
the artillery in front. Whether the enemy's resistance is stubborn or
feeble, artillery fire can assist in breaking it, and the greater the
number of guns available, the quicker will that object be achieved, and
the less delay will there be to the advance of the main body.
The battery or batteries with the advance guard should, of course,
march as far forward as is compatible with safety. Guns must always
take longer than cavalry to move a given distance, and, if they are
well to the front, no time will be lost in getting them into the only
formation in which they are of any use, _i.e._ in action.
The divisional artillery commander should accompany the vanguard
commander. When contact is established with the enemy, he is then on
the spot, and able to make a personal reconnaissance at once, and
decide, subject to the orders of the advance guard commander, how
his guns can best and most quickly assist the cavalry. No time will
then be lost in getting the guns into action. In the final series of
operations, the enemy was in too demoralised a state for his action
to form a very reliable guide in future wars, but it was found that
vigorous artillery fire, _delivered immediately after the first
contact_ of our cavalry with his rearguards, invariably exercised a
powerfully adverse effect on his _morale_. The little action of Kaukab
well exemplifies this fact.
The above remarks as to artillery with the advance guard apply with
equal force, _mutatis mutandis_, to the artillery of a rearguard during
a retirement.
_Escorts._--The campaign afforded few opportunities on our side to
test the efficacy of artillery escorts. The action at Huj, however,
in November 1917, was an excellent example of bad escort work on the
part of the enemy. Our gunners have always maintained that the rôle of
an escort is to obtain information rather than to afford protection.
Guns on the march are vulnerable to a sudden attack, especially from
cavalry; in action they are, or should be, well able to take care of
themselves. If this contention is right, it follows that escorts need
not be large, and should not be kept near the guns, but should patrol
the country in any quarter from which attack may be expected, search
dead ground, woods, etc., and give early information to the guns of the
approach of the enemy.
At Huj the enemy had two battalions of infantry and several machine
guns disposed about his batteries, but he had not a single patrol
pushed out to the east. Our cavalry were thus able to approach to
within 800 yards of the position of the guns unseen and unsuspected.
The result of the Turks' negligence was a severe disaster, and it
is to be hoped that the lesson will not be thrown away on future
commanders of artillery escorts in the British Army. The escort work
in our cavalry in Palestine and Syria was almost invariably very good,
especially amongst the Australians.
_R.H.A. Howitzers._--Most officers, both of the R.H.A. and the cavalry,
who served in Syria, agreed as to the desirability of having a few
light howitzers attached to each cavalry division. Such a gun as the
3·7-inch mountain howitzer, if it could be mounted on a suitable field
carriage, would be admirably adapted for use with cavalry. Had a few
howitzers been available during the attack on Beersheba, the stone
block-houses and the rocky sangars of Tel el Saba would soon have been
rendered untenable by the enemy, and would not have delayed our advance
as they did.
As to whether two guns in each six-gun battery should be replaced
by howitzers, or a separate battery of four howitzers should be
provided for each division, opinion varied amongst the gunners on the
spot. The writer is strongly in favour of the latter alternative, as
being simpler, and in conformity with the existing practice in field
artillery.
_Shrapnel and H.E._--The question of the best proportions of shrapnel
and high explosive shell to be carried in a horse artillery battery
came under discussion at various times during the campaign, and
opinions varied according to the nature of fighting in progress at the
time. Amongst the rocks of the hill country, most battery commanders
preferred a large preponderance of H.E., while, in open country, they
wanted more shrapnel. One thing certain is that the Turks themselves
dreaded the former far more than the latter. On several occasions
enemy officer prisoners told the writer that they always had greater
difficulty in getting their men to attack through H.E. shell fire than
through shrapnel, even though, as they averred, the latter invariably
caused them more casualties than the former. As before remarked, the
behaviour of the Turks was not a very reliable guide for future wars,
but it is to be noted that the same aversion to H.E. shell was observed
amongst the Germans, and even amongst our own troops.
There seems little doubt, therefore, that the moral effect of H.E. is
much greater than that of shrapnel. If this be so, R.H.A. 13-pounder
guns, whose lethal effect is so comparatively small, should be provided
with a large proportion of it. The writer suggests, on the experience
of this campaign, that the due proportion lies somewhere between 50 and
75 per cent. of the total ammunition carried.
_General._--The batteries serving with the Desert Mounted Corps, being
Territorial units, had each only four guns. There is no doubt that
cavalry divisions with four-gun batteries are seriously under-gunned,
and it is satisfactory to note that, under the new Territorial War
Establishments, all R.H.A. batteries are to have six guns.
Before leaving the subject of artillery, the writer would draw
attention to a fact that is often overlooked by cavalrymen. It is
that, with the best will in the world, and the best of horsemanship
and driving, guns cannot move as fast as cavalry. There were several
instances during the campaign where a brigade, detached with a battery
on some special duty, pushed along very fast for several miles, clashed
with the enemy, and then reproached the gunners for not being on the
spot to help. It is often forgotten that the artillery draught horse
has to carry nearly the same weight as a cavalryman's and, at the same
time, do his share in dragging along, 'over hill over dale, thorough
bush, thorough briar,' a clumsy mass of steel weighing a ton and a half.
A consideration of this fact leads to the conclusion that, if guns are
to keep up with cavalry when moving fast and far, certain advantages
must be allowed them.
In the first place orders should reach the artillery early, in order
to enable it to get on the move before the cavalry start, when the
situation allows.
On the move, guns should march close to the head of the column. This
order of march is also desirable from the fighting point of view, as
has been pointed out above. The advisability of keeping the guns well
to the front was generally recognised towards the end of the campaign,
but, in the early days, there was a tendency to keep them too far back.
If there is a shortage of water or forage, the artillery horses should
be the last to suffer from it.
Though the writer happens to be a gunner, these remarks are not set
down as a special appeal on behalf of the artillery, but in the belief
that, only by giving to the guns some such special privileges, will
they be able to do the work that is required of them. Horse guns are
the servants of cavalry as field guns are of infantry, but, unless the
servant is adequately fed and looked after, he cannot serve his master
properly.
Needless to say, if a cavalry commander considers that he can carry
out the task assigned to him without the help of his guns, and time
presses, he is perfectly justified in pushing on at once with his
cavalry, and leaving the guns to follow as best they can, as was done,
quite properly, by the 5th Cavalry Division when crossing the Carmel
Range in September 1918.