JAPANESE GUNS AND HORSES.
In all respects, save one, the Japanese field guns are inferior to the
Russian. They have a shorter range; their projectiles are lighter; they
are less mobile, and they are not quick firers. Their one claim to
superiority is the high explosive used in the common shell. The battle
of the Yalu is, perhaps, responsible for the extravagant estimate
of the Japanese artillery. But it must be borne in mind that in the
bombardment of April 30th it was howitzers, and not field guns, that
wrought havoc with the Russian positions, and that on May 1st the
Russian guns fired only six shots.
[Illustration: Horse-shoeing extraordinary.]
The Japanese are a practical people, and acknowledge their inferiority
in this arm. In the Japanese army there are nineteen regiments of
artillery, each under a colonel. Five of these are mountain and
fourteen field, and their combined strength is one hundred and fourteen
batteries of six hundred and eighty-four guns. Each battery is armed
with the seven-and-a-half centimètre steel gun made at the Osaka
Arsenal. Field and mountain guns are of the same calibre and take
the same shell, though the difference in length, charge, and range
is considerable. The tangent sight of the field gun is graduated up
to 6,200 metrès, and that of the mountain gun to 4,300 metrès. The
projectile of each gun weighs about eleven pounds, and the guns are
not quick firers, though the recoil is reduced to a minimum by means
of drag-shoes under each wheel. The time fuse in field and mountain
guns can be set up to a range of 4,800 metèrs; the ammunition is
not “fixed,” but the cartridges are contained in brass cases, with
percussion caps in the base.
So much for the gun which may be described as inferior--except as
to the time and use--to the gun used by us in South Africa at the
beginning of the war.
The mobility of the field artillery is seriously affected by the
inferior quality of the draught horses. As we saw on July 31st one
division was able to bring into action only thirteen field guns,
notwithstanding the use of double teams. The horses are small and badly
trained, and the march of the artillery in mountainous country is slow.
These defects in material are not altogether neutralised by the skill
and coolness of the gunners, who handle their weapons with the utmost
confidence, and are clever in selecting a target as well as in aiming
and laying the guns.
In the use of common shell the Japanese have departed from the usual
practice of European artillery. There have, it is true, been occasions
when they were forced to employ common shell instead of shrapnel,
because of the limitations of the time fuse. But experience in
Manchuria, as in South Africa, has shown that the effect of shrapnel
is over-estimated, and that common shell with an explosive as powerful
as that invented by the Japanese is often more destructive, even under
conditions that would suggest shrapnel to a European gunner.
At the battle of the Yalu the combination of common shell with shrapnel
proved irresistible against trenches and troops scattered as well as
massed. In the opinion of men qualified to pass judgment we ought
to pay more attention to the use of common shell, and should add a
considerable proportion of such shells to our field battery equipment.
This, I believe, will now be done, seeing that a new high explosive for
field use has been invented.
On the other hand, the Japanese might learn from us the advantage of
indirect laying of telescopic sights, of avoiding sky-line positions,
of not always waiting for the enemy’s fire, and of moving their guns
in action so as to give the infantry their full support at critical
moments of attack.
Many censures have been passed on the Japanese cavalry. It is only
fair to admit that these judgments are based on observation of a few
isolated units. No foreign _attaché_, and no foreign correspondent
has seen even a troop of cavalry in action or on patrol. This is not
a country for cavalry, as the Cossacks have found. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that
the Japanese cavalry horse--like the artillery horse--is poor and
weak and badly trained; that his equipment is not made on scientific
principles, and that the Japanese are bad horsemen and worse horse
masters. Most of the horses that we see are stallions, and are noisy
and disorderly; the saddles are ill-fitting, and are often on the
withers of the horse; the seat of the rider is not well balanced; the
curb and snaffle are in constant use, even at a walk. The result of
these defects was a very large percentage of saddle galls and fistulous
withers.
Having said this much in condemnation, let me give the opinion of a
Japanese cavalry officer. There is, as we in Great Britain have long
known, no more conservative soldier than the cavalryman--none more
tenacious in upholding the traditions of the horse, the carbine, the
lance, and the sabre in war.
“You condemn our cavalry,” said the officer, “because they look poor
and small by the side of your European horses. Well, our infantry
soldiers are darker and smaller than the soldiers of Europe, yet they
do very well, don’t they?”
I had to admit this dangerous argument by analogy.
“Let me begin with the reputed defects,” he continued. “Our cavalry
horse averages between fourteen and fifteen hands, and weighs about
one thousand pounds. The average weight of a cavalry soldier, apart
from his equipment, is one hundred and twenty pounds. He can march
twenty-five miles a day, and on a good road can trot seven-and-a-half
miles an hour--a little quicker than the Russian horse, and a trifle
slower than the German. Judging by camps, the speed of the Russian
cavalry is not greater than that of our cavalry. Horses enter the
service when two years old; in the third year they are gelded, and
do not go into the ranks until the fifth year. They have, therefore,
three years training before they become troop horses. The object of
this preparation is to develop their speed, endurance, and carrying
capacity, to improve their physique, and to teach them habits of
obedience. In the ranks they are neither quarrelsome nor noisy, and one
dismounted man can easily control twelve or thirteen horses. I admit
that there is a large percentage of sore backs, but in that respect
we are not alone. In the Boxer Expedition I noticed that the British
and German cavalry horses suffered from sore backs. At the same time
I acknowledge that our twenty per cent sore backs is very high. This
is due partly to the structure of the Japanese horse, partly to the
seat of the rider, to the shape of the saddle, to the bad roads, and
to the constant changes of speed. Our saddle is not well made and is
still ill-fitting. The Russian saddle is much better; it is lighter and
more convenient; the numnah is attached to the saddle, and there is
comparatively little weight thrown on the withers of the horse. In the
Russian cavalry there are few sore backs. The Japanese soldier is said
to be always tugging at the reins. This is, no doubt, true, but our
horses do not hold up their heads like foreign horses.”
I ventured to suggest that this self abasement might be cured by not
tying up the horses’ heads between their legs as the habit is in Japan.
“As to our horses and the possibilities of improving the breed. Our
original stock came from Korea.”
Having had some personal experience of the vicious little brutes that
pass for horses in that Peninsula, I am not altogether surprised at
their descendants in Japan.
“The first attempt at improvement was made in Hokaido, where we
introduced the American trotter and French horses from Anam, as
well as a few Hungarians. The American and French horses proved
failures. The breeding of horses for the army is under the control
of the Agricultural Department--a great mistake, in my opinion, for
that Department is apt to judge a horse by a standard other than the
military. The Imperial Household Department has two stud farms--one
in Shimosa and the other in Sendai. The Agricultural Department also
has two stud farms in Kyushu and Osher, and has introduced the English
hackney, the English thoroughbred, and the Anglo-Arab--a breed of pure
Arab improved in England. These horses are distributed among the stud
farms with mares from the several localities. To prevent deterioration
of the stock, regulations have been made as to gelding, but owing
to the outbreak of war these regulations have not been rigorously
enforced, nor has proper care been taken in the selection of brood
mares.
“The organisation for the supply of military horses is simple. There
is a central depôt, with branches in Nokaido, Sanbogi, Rokurhara,
Kaijiyasawa, Shirakawa, Taisen and Takahara. At these branch depôts the
horses are trained and prepared for service. There is, of course, some
difference of opinion as to the best horses for improving our stock,
but the judgment of the majority is in favour of the English hackney,
the English thoroughbred and the Anglo-Arab for cavalry, and the
Anglo-Norman for artillery.
“Our horses remain in the ranks for eight years. Their feed is ten
pounds of barley and five pounds of grass, or failing grass, three
extra pounds of barley. In camp they are fed three times a day and on
the march twice a day. The diseases from which they suffer are anthrax,
pneumonia, and indigestion. In one division fifteen horses died from
eating poisonous grass, and two hundred from indigestion, due no doubt
to the hard barley diet. I forgot to say that it is estimated that in
Japan--which as you know is a mountainous country cut up into paddy
fields and therefore not adapted to horse exercise--there are 1,280,000
horses, of which, perhaps 300,000 are stallions, and that the yearly
product is about 100,000.”
“My deliberate opinion,” added the Japanese colonel, “is that comparing
one squadron with another the Japanese cavalry will not be found
inferior to the Russian. Hitherto we have had no opportunity of
testing our capacity in actual conflict. Here among these mountains
we can fulfil none of the duties assigned to cavalry except those
of reconnaissance and of guarding the flanks. When the army was
concentrating at Anju, we acted as a screen through which the enemy
could not penetrate to discover our force. Again at Wiju we covered the
army from Yongampho to many miles East, so that the Russians were never
sure of the point of attack. At Chonju the Russians had a big force of
cavalry, yet they did not even attempt to reconnoitre.”
Whatever may be my private opinion of the Japanese horse and his rider,
I am sure that, had a real occasion presented itself, there would
have been no lack of daring. The Japanese cavalrymen are very skilful
swordsmen; but they are wise enough to recognise that the rifle or even
the carbine is a more reliable weapon than the lance or the sabre. As
to the Russian use of the lance. The circumstantial report of a French
correspondent describing the annihilation of a Japanese squadron by the
lances of Cossacks was a pure invention. No incident of the kind has
happened. Only two Russian European regiments carry the lance, except
on parade, and even they appear to have left it carefully at home, for
not a single lance has been seen save in a General Officer’s escort.
As a matter of fact the only regiment that ever carries the lance in
Asia is the Cossack regiment in Turkistan. However deeply regretted
by Lancer and Hussar, this picturesque weapon may be relegated to the
museum of military antiquities, and take its place by the side of the
jingal and the halberd.