Mobility is that prominent characteristic of the cavalry on which the
justification of its existence is chiefly based. That it is able to
come into action rapidly at distant points, and to observe the enemy
while still afar off, makes it indispensable in the composition of
an army. Anything that hinders its free mobility militates against
its purpose and its characteristics. Nothing, therefore, is more
justifiable or more in accordance with its spirit than that it should
endeavour to preserve its mobility in the fight, and that mounted shock
action, therefore, should be regarded as its proper rôle in battle. In
this rôle, cavalry is able not only to force a decision quickly, but to
continue its movement mounted, even from the fight itself.
These advantages, inherent in the nature of the arm, must not be
expected in dismounted action. Such action always entails delay
and hampers the movements of the troops, not only by the method of
operation, but also by the separation of the men from their horses.
It is therefore natural that cavalry should only undertake an attack
on foot when there is no prospect of obtaining their object by shock
action, or when the latter would entail such sacrifice that it might
imperil the further successful action of the troops.
The more, however, the disadvantageous factors of dismounted action are
realised and appreciated, the more, in my opinion, will endeavours be
made to give it an offensive character, in order to remove as quickly
as possible obstacles which hinder the free movement of the cavalry.
All delay and hesitation are in opposition to the very spirit of the
arm. To preserve its peculiar element of mobility a rapid decision is
imperative in every situation.
Mounted, the cavalry knows only the charge and has no defensive power,
a circumstance which strengthens its action considerably in carrying
out its offensive principles, by relieving the leader of the onus
of choice. On foot it is a different matter. The application of the
firearm, under all tactical and topographical conditions, particularly
facilitates defence and enables it to appear, to a certain extent, the
stronger form of action. Herein lies the reason why defensive action
is continually sought. All the more, therefore, must it be kept in
view that it is the _offensive_ on foot that the cavalry will require.
To operate in combination with shock tactics to assist the offensive,
and pave the way for free movement is, however, the real object of
dismounted action.
It would perhaps have been better if the new Regulations had upheld
this principle a little more definitely. In them, however, it is the
defensive strength which cavalry has gained in dismounted action which
is chiefly emphasised (390),[15] and the attack is only dealt with as a
method of fighting from which the troops "need not shrink." Attention
is certainly drawn (455)[16] to various cases in which an attack upon
foot may be undertaken. That, however, does not alter the fundamental
utterance that the dismounted fight will chiefly be undertaken on
the defensive. This interpretation is strengthened on reading in the
directions for the action of the army cavalry during operations that
"Especial additions to the force (cyclist detachments, infantry in
wagons, etc.) are mainly intended for the duty of strengthening local
resistance, or of overcoming such resistance on the part of the enemy."
The thought involuntarily occurs to the reader that in the spirit of
the Regulations such additions to the force will be just as necessary
in face of a serious hostile resistance, in order to free the way for
the cavalry. We would, then, again find ourselves in just the same
state which the war of 1870-71 proved to be so undesirable, and the
cavalry would again find the wings of its mobility clipped.
The Regulations of course only intend to convey on this point that,
_if_ such special additions to the cavalry were forthcoming, the task
mentioned would be their principal duty. It is, however, a matter of
significance that it is here presupposed that infantry in wagons may
be detailed to accompany the strategic army cavalry. If it were but a
matter of cyclists, that would be a quite different matter. But there
cannot at present be any question of this, as there is no sufficient
number of them in the army.
If the Regulations discuss these kind of possibilities I fear that the
demand for infantry will very soon be heard from the army cavalry when
there is any question of a serious attack on foot, and herewith the
free action of the cavalry will be limited once and for all.
Military history and theoretical reflection teach us equally that
the great masses of the army cavalry must under all circumstances be
independent, at least for their offensive undertakings--that they
cannot rely, in any case for these, on the "_occasional_" support
of infantry. For they would thus find their mobility hampered, and
themselves tied to the very troops from which they expect support, and
would then be unable to carry out those important duties which fall to
their share. The army cavalry, then, can only preserve its necessary
independence if it can rely upon its own strength even in an attack on
foot. It must at any moment be prepared to throw all its force into
the conduct of a decisive attack. This is a method of fighting from
which not only should it not "shrink," but in which its dismounted
rôle essentially consists. When an attack on foot has been determined
on, it must, however, be first perfectly clear that the results will
justify the sacrifice which such an attack, under any circumstances,
must mean--that is to say, the expenditure not only in lives, but also
in time, which must both be regarded as lost in estimating the further
operative value of the force.
The new Regulations take this point of view also into consideration,
but in a manner that gives cause for serious reflection. They would
limit the time expended in an attack on foot, and during which the arm
is deprived of its free mobility, and therefore demand (456)[17] that,
if such an attack be found necessary, endeavour must be made to carry
it out _with the utmost rapidity_. Here is expressed a desire easy to
understand. But I do not think that the object will thus be attained of
limiting the time that a dismounted fight demands. To carry an attack
rapidly through under modern conditions demands the employment of
overwhelming fire power and numerical superiority.
In so far as the Regulations express the idea that an attack should
only be undertaken when this superiority is assured, there is great
justification for the definition laid down in paragraph 456. But the
cavalry must then generally confine itself to the attack of quite weak
hostile posts, for even the division contains but an insignificant
number of rifles. But such limitations, on the other hand, in no way
take into account the necessities of grave situations. The army cavalry
will often find itself in a situation where a difficult attack _must_
be carried through without any overwhelming superiority, unless it
means to renounce the accomplishment of the duties entrusted to it.
I do not think that we should interpret the wording of the Regulations
in this sense. Taken literally, great danger lies in them--the danger,
that is, of seeing in the wording of paragraph 456, a demand for the
hastening of the conduct of the attack. We should thus see ourselves
prevailed upon to carry out a necessary attack in a precipitate manner
without the necessary fire preparation in order to fulfil the demand
for haste. In peace manoeuvres such conduct is but too often seen.
In war it must inevitably lead to defeat. Under modern conditions
of weapons an attack does not allow of being accelerated by force.
It must take its own time. We must not therefore deceive ourselves
into thinking that voluntary acceleration of the offensive fight
is possible, but quite clear that every decision to attack on foot
signifies considerable loss in time as well as men.
After considering these circumstances it would almost seem advisable to
alter the wording of paragraph 456, to make it somewhat more precise,
and to eliminate the idea of acceleration of the attack. Every trooper
must be conscious that from the moment he dismounts for fire action he
is no longer a cavalryman, but a foot soldier. He must follow the laws
of fighting on foot, and can only reach his horse again by successful
action according to these laws. Then, certainly, the dismounted troops
must strive with all means in their power to reassume their mounted
rôle with the utmost celerity.
The same holds good for the defence.
Cavalry will only undertake this when absolutely obliged. It may be
that the conditions of force do not allow of the attack, or that
the maintenance of some locality is the chief object of the fight.
In the consciousness, however, that any hampering of initiative and
free movement is opposed to the spirit of cavalry action, so must the
defence--if circumstances in any way permit--be carried out with the
idea of emerging as soon as possible from the defensive rôle imposed,
to regain freedom of movement, and then to lay down the law to the
enemy. This can only be attained by conducting the defence in an
offensive spirit, that compels the opponent to a decision in accordance
with our will.
This point of view does not, according to my thinking, receive
sufficient attention in the new Regulations. Daring and initiative
carry in them the seeds of great success. The cavalry should
continually remember this, even in defence. On the other hand, however,
it must also be ready when occasion demands to defend itself with the
utmost obstinacy to the last man. The resolute defence of Sandepu
by a Japanese cavalry brigade against heavy odds gives us a good
example to follow. This action made the timely arrival of the Japanese
reinforcements possible.