In the mounted combat against cavalry, every effort must be directed
towards falling upon the enemy at full gallop in a serried mass, and
thus to overthrow him. It is not sufficient to succeed in coming to
blows with the enemy. His tactical formation must be destroyed, and
he must be rendered incapable either of evolution or battle. And this
must be done without losing cohesion or power of command. The material
damage done to the enemy is a matter for the mounted pursuit, which
need only be carried out by part of the troops, or, in default of this,
by shrapnel.
For the conduct of the purely cavalry fight we should, in my opinion,
rely upon men like Frederick the Great, Seydlitz, and the prominent
Napoleonic cavalry leaders. In the relations of cavalry to cavalry,
nothing has altered since their day, and the experiences of these men
are, in their lessons, just as applicable to-day as at the time in
which they lived. And what do they teach us?
It is the serried formation of the attack that is, above all else,
to be aimed at. Frederick the Great certainly changed his formation
from the three-rank to the two-rank line. This was owing to his desire
to render the troops more mobile, and in some way to compensate for
the numerical superiority of his opponent. The longer his experience
of war, however, the more did the king insist upon close formation
in the attack, and to the end that the attack should lead _not_ to a
mêlée, but to the breaking up of the enemy by the impact of the solid
mass. Napoleon, whose cavalry was not so proficient in the saddle,
sought to obtain this result by greater depth, while in the infrequent
cavalry fights of the present day it has become thoroughly apparent
that cohesion in the shock is the deciding factor. At Mars la Tour the
French Hussar Brigade of Montaigu was overthrown by the closely formed
13th Dragoons, after having made an easy prey of the 10th Hussars,
while the other attacks only led to long and indecisive mêlées.
Frederick the Great, in order to attain the greatest possible cohesion,
finally abolished all intervals between the tactical units and required
the knee-to-knee riding. As, however, he was perfectly well aware that,
in spite of all regulations, the ranks must open out while crossing
country, he would never allow the enemy's cavalry to be attacked
without a second line following the first, not in échelon, but directly
in rear of it, a measure which repeatedly proved itself necessary, if
not decisive. Napoleon's cavalry leaders held that a still greater
depth was necessary owing to the looser riding of the French squadrons.
As far as I know, there is no example of their attacking in large
masses without depth of formation. Peace experience teaches us, that
riding across country must loosen cohesion, while the modern firearm
obliges us to take refuge in broken country, where the closest touch
cannot always be kept, and to this end riding stirrup to stirrup has
been introduced. Is it, however, ordained that we should attack in
this formation and neglect the decisive factor of the charge in favour
of mobility, a proceeding which is almost always seen in charges at
manoeuvres?
The disadvantages of such methods are certainly not apparent in peace,
as the troops do not come into real collision, and rapidity and ability
to deploy receive therefore more attention than cohesion in the attack.
At inspections on the drill-ground such cohesion is certainly demanded,
but at manoeuvres it is generally conspicuous by its absence. In war I
am firmly convinced that such habits will be heavily punished.
I think, therefore, that we must return to the principles of Frederick
the Great, which up to now have been neglected. In approach and
deployment we must indeed ride stirrup to stirrup, and under certain
circumstances in even looser formation. But for the charge against
cavalry we need a closer formation, knee to knee as of old, which
can be effected on the move by word of command, as in France, where
the order "_Serrez les rangs!_" is still in use. Besides this, we
require always a second line in the Frederician sense, to assist,
when necessary, in maintaining cohesion, and to be ready to meet the
vicissitudes of the attack. This is a matter of experience which allows
of no misinterpretation.
Another point comes under consideration. Commanders always seem to
be particularly desirous of retaining close formation throughout the
attack, and of preventing the whole of the troops becoming involved
in a mêlée or pursuit. This originates from the necessity of having
to reckon with the enemy's reserves, which may appear suddenly on the
field at the decisive moment to extricate their beaten comrades. We
must always be in a position to meet them, and the rapid rally from the
mêlée is therefore to-day diligently practised, in the hope that the
troops may quickly be got in hand ready to be led against a fresh foe.
It is indeed astounding that we should give way to such self-deception.
Such rallies can only appear possible if we disregard all the moral
forces which the fight sets loose. Whoever has had experience of a
single charge in war knows what excitement possesses the men and what
time and trouble are required to tactically concentrate troops that
have once been launched to the attack, and render them capable of
evolution. In peace this is delightfully easy after a little practice;
in war it is an absolute impossibility.
We must therefore be perfectly clear in our minds that only those
troops which have not been engaged in the mêlée, those parts of the
first and second lines which have remained formed during the charge,
and the reserve which has been held in rear, will be available to meet
any hostile forces which may suddenly appear.
Up to now our Regulations have followed the teachings of military
history in so far as they provided for supporting squadrons behind the
front line in the attack against cavalry. The new Regulations, however,
not only retain the "stirrup feeling,"[18] even in the attack against
cavalry, but have also greatly limited the employment of supporting
squadrons, and rendered it exceptional. The Regulations practically
ignore the use of the second line in the attack against cavalry. To
preserve cohesion in the attack in spite of this, the men in the rear
rank are to advance into the front rank in order to fill the larger
gaps which may there occur (106).[19] This will lead under certain
circumstances to a loose, almost single-line attack against cavalry.
These measures give ground for some concern. They can scarcely lead to
any other end than to render steady riding to the charge impossible, to
create disorder, and to deprive the already thin line of its force of
impact.
It appears to me to be very questionable whether such directions
could be carried out at all in practice. They will most certainly not
attain the object which the Regulations apparently expect, that is to
say, of securing cohesion in the attack, and thereby a victory for
one thin attacking line. The necessity for a second line under such
circumstances appears all the more obvious. The Regulations in this
respect direct (200)[20] that, "if the situation demands it, even
single squadrons can follow in column formation," also as an exception.
This indicates a distinct divergence from the proven results of all
experience, and cannot, in my opinion, be even theoretically justified.
Such dispositions cannot therefore be regarded as _justifiable_. _I
consider it to be my unavoidable duty to express myself clearly upon
this point._ They in no wise alter the fact that to attack the enemy
successfully our cavalry must, where its comparative strength in any
way allows, be fundamentally formed in two lines, and be launched
to the charge in the closest attack formation, knee to knee. For it
was thus that the Prussian squadrons gained their laurels in all the
splendid victories of the Frederician and Napoleonic wars.
At Mars la Tour, also, the success of the cavalry fight was decided by
the 16th Dragoons, who threw themselves into the mêlée from the rear,
acting as a second line entirely in accordance with the Frederician
spirit. The 10th Hussars also attacked as a second line; and it was the
cohesion of the 13th Dragoons, as we have already seen, that allowed
them on two occasions rapidly to secure a victory.
If the conditions of the fight of cavalry against cavalry to-day have
remained practically unaltered as compared to those of the past, it is
a very different matter where the attack is against troops armed with
modern firearms, essentially infantry and artillery.
In the old days, where infantry fought in serried masses, standing up,
and were only able to cover a short distance to their front with a
comparatively slow fire, the cavalry were able, even as against their
own arm, to ride them down with shock action in close formation. They
were therefore justified in attacking infantry in the same formation
and with the same cohesion as they attacked cavalry. This has now
changed. Nowadays, when infantry can cover the ground to a distance
of 1,500 or even 2,000 yards with a hot and rapid fire, and offer in
their wide extension no sort of objective for shock action, an attack
on unshaken, steadily firing infantry, which has any sort of adequate
field of fire, is quite out of the question. Only infantry whose morale
has been shaken, or which can be surprised at quite close range, can
still be charged with a prospect of success. It is, then, no question
of attack in cohesion, but a matter of crossing as rapidly as possible
the zone swept by the enemy's fire in some formation which will allow a
portion at least of the cavalry to escape its full effect.
These conditions may be fulfilled by the formation in lines. The first
line must receive the fire, and will thereby provide cover to some
extent to the lines behind and the possibility of reaching the enemy
without suffering too severely. It will usually be no advantage to form
the first line in two ranks, as such a disposition would but increase
losses and the disorder caused by them. It will be better, generally,
that the leading line or lines should consist of one rank at quite
loose interval. This is principally on account of the ground, as the
horses, in order to rapidly cover the necessary distance, must have
room to gallop freely, and to avoid such obstacles as may lie in front
of them or may be caused by losses in the leading line.
It is obvious, in my opinion, that such attacks cannot be ridden
home according to the same principles that govern the attack against
cavalry. It is an arbitrary assumption that a line of cavalry 1,500
or 2,000 yards wide can cross country stirrup to stirrup at the
regulation pace of the charge,[21] as the Regulations demand. Not
only must the leading line ride at quite loose interval, but the main
attack must also have a looser formation than is here demanded. It is
therefore indicated that such extension should be laid down in the
Regulations. For it can in no case be avoided, but is the outcome of
the force of circumstances. In the formation in lines, however, there
is always room to open out, and troops or squadrons may be used in
single rank.
The same principles that govern the attack against infantry hold good
for that against artillery. Here also it is a matter of crossing the
zone of fire at a rapid pace in widely extended order, or drawing
the fire of the artillery by the advance of the leading line, and of
compelling it to repeatedly alter its elevation. To this end it may
perhaps at first be advisable to expose only weak portions of the
charging first line to the fire of the guns, in order to disturb it,
and to pave the way for the success of the main attack. This will have
to ride in line, or perhaps better still in squadron column, in order
to make full use of the unexposed portions of the ground. Thus in this
case, also, the leading lines in single rank extended and loose riding
in the changing formations of the main attacking line are advocated.
The new Regulations arrive partially at the conclusions inevitable from
these reflections. The attack in several lines, and the formation of a
first line in single rank for the attack against fire action have been
adopted by them (113 and 174).[22] In one point only according to my
view, they do not take sufficient account of the demands of reality,
and this is in the matter of extension. As before, the attack in close
formation against infantry which the Regulations advocate, will be
carried out and practised according to the same principles as against
cavalry. As before, infantry firing lying extended under cover,
as also artillery, are to be charged in the same method as cavalry
advancing in close formation.
I think we have proved that the attendant conditions of the two
cases differ widely. If the Regulations had but taken them into
consideration, the difference between the two methods of attack would
have thereby been made more intelligible to all officers from the first
than could be done by general instructions of this nature.
The cavalry has now a demand made upon it by Regulation which, although
it can be met on the drill-ground, will be impossible of fulfilment
in war. It will therefore be necessary to discard in war what we
have taken such pains to learn, a thing which frequently happens in
manoeuvres, and even on the exercise-ground.
In the formation for attack and the deployment, the Regulations follow
the logical sequence of their point of view that, in the attack upon
cavalry, no second line is necessary, and in this matter adhere to the
directions laid down in the old Regulations. From my point of view,
this does not seem to correspond at all with the necessities of the
fight.
In my "Reflections on the New Cavalry Drill Regulations" I laid
down "that it should always be possible for cavalry to change from
the manoeuvre column straightway into attack formation with flank
protection, without first forming line, as hitherto has been deemed
necessary." In opposition to the Regulations I still hold fast to this
principle.
We have seen that the formation in lines is the necessary one for
_all_ charges, and that an attack in _one_ line will only be possible
in exceptional cases where weakness forbids the formation of several
lines, or where the surprised and demoralised condition of the enemy
appears to render a second line superfluous.
The logical conclusions resulting from these reflections are that all
column formations employed in the approach march must keep in view
first and foremost the rapid adoption of the attack formation, and that
deployment must in principle lead to the formation in lines for attack.
The complete deployment in line of any units from the regiment upwards
can only be necessary in exceptional cases. It can be formed from the
attack formation or direct from column when specially ordered.
Taking into consideration the rapidity with which approach, deployment,
and attack will often follow each other, I would even advocate that
a trumpet-call, "_Form for attack!_" should be laid down in the
Regulations. The strength of the various lines will generally have to
be ordered according as the objective consists of cavalry or troops
using fire action. It will not always be possible to find time for
detailed arrangements, particularly during the rapid vicissitudes of a
cavalry combat. The trumpet-call would then justify itself, and the
lines would be formed by the independent action of squadron leaders,
according to the formation the troops were in and the expected breadth
of frontage of the enemy. It should be laid down as a guide that of
four squadrons one at least should form a second line, and that an
unprotected flank should, when possible, be covered by a squadron in
échelon. The squadrons nearest the enemy would form a first line, and
the remainder would act according to circumstances, and either follow
the first line, échelon themselves in rear of it, or, when necessary,
prolong it. For the deployment into one line a special call could be
used.
For the conduct of the fight on foot the same principles hold good as
for the infantry. The duties and conditions of the fight are similar,
and demand similar general tactical directions. The arrangements for
the led horses, however, render the introduction and the conduct of the
fight considerably more difficult. There is also a certain difference
according as the opponent is infantry or cavalry.
For, in the first case, there is generally no danger of a further
turning movement, or of threats against the led horses from the flank
or rear. In the greater number of cases when arranging for the position
and safety of the led horses, only small hostile patrols need be
expected. An action may therefore generally be conducted with more
boldness under these circumstances than when opposed to cavalry which
might seriously threaten the led horses by a mounted reserve.
These circumstances must be taken into consideration when dealing with
the principles for the conduct of the led horses.
In defence, the measures required are comparatively simple. The
conformation of the ground usually chosen with a view to the
peculiarities of defensive action will often allow of the led horses
being kept close to the firing-line, where it will also be possible
to mount out of the enemy's range and to withdraw from his fire under
cover of the ground. The led horses should only be left to the rear
if the position is to be maintained until the enemy comes to close
quarters, and then should be, if possible, behind some fresh position,
where it seems likely that resistance may be renewed. In defence, the
led horses will generally be left quite immobile,[23] though this
method should not be considered imperative. For even in defence the
led horses must be sometimes kept mobile; for instance, when it is
necessary to rapidly occupy on foot some locality in the neighbourhood
of which there is no suitable position for the led horses. In such a
case they will have to be sent behind cover, which can only be done
if they are mobile. The horses will only be kept in the immediate
neighbourhood when it is intended merely to bring off a fire surprise,
and not when carrying out an attack or making an obstinate resistance
(471-473).[24]
For the attack the conditions are different. The troops must then be
often completely separated from their horses. It is therefore all the
more necessary that the latter should be secured against all hostile
attack. If, for instance, hostile cavalry threatens, they must have
a special escort. The possibility of a reverse must be taken into
consideration when selecting the position for led horses, and the
retiring troops must be able not only to mount, but to withdraw under
cover.
It is of especial importance that the troops should regain their
mobility after an attack has been carried out. When the led horses
can be moved, this is an easy matter. Where, however, they are
immobile, as will generally be the case where full force has to be
put into the fight, there will be considerable loss of time unless it
be possible for the led horses to be brought up, part at a time, by
any mounted reserve that may have been left in the rear. In spite of
this disadvantage, the desire to render the led horses mobile should
not be allowed to lead to the undertaking of a dismounted action with
insufficient numbers.
This desire to regain the horses as rapidly as possible is frequently
to be observed at manoeuvres, and not only leads to dismounting and
leaving the led horses mobile, but is sometimes allowed to exercise too
much influence on the question of where the horses are to be left. In
war this consideration should never influence the conduct of the fight,
nor lead to the undertaking of a dismounted fight in a half-hearted
manner, or precipitately, and thus paralysing the energy of the attack.
It should never induce a commander to keep his horses too close to the
battlefield and thereby exposed to danger, in order that he may more
quickly regain them. If dismounted action has been determined on, the
main condition is that the attack should be successfully carried out,
and all other matters must be subordinated to this end.
The precepts of the new Regulations do not, to be sure, harmonise with
this view. According to them, even when led horses are not required
to be mobile, only three-quarters of the men dismount, and each man
will hold four horses (366).[25] The number of rifles will be greatly
diminished by these measures (by about a quarter); and it is not quite
clear, at least to me, what corresponding advantage is to be gained.
The measure is, however, so far-reaching that it merits special
criticism--the more so as the Regulations themselves lay stress upon
the rapid energetic conduct of the fight, and at the same time make
such action more difficult by weakening the numbers in the firing-line.
Will the horses thus retain a certain degree of mobility? This would be
a mischievous delusion. Even if such measures allow of short distances
being covered at a walk on the level drill-ground, such a thing is out
of the question in the field and in the proximity of a fight. How will
one man lead four horses, and at the same time carry four lances? A
practical impossibility.
The Regulations also give no clear directions as to how the lances are
to be carried during these evolutions. On the other hand, the number
of men formerly detailed fully sufficed for holding the horses when it
was not required to move them. There seems therefore to be some other
reason for this measure.
I have asked myself the question as to whether the fact that more men
are to be left with the horses than formerly will perhaps make it
possible to defend the led horses by dismounted patrols. The directions
contained in the Regulations (368)[26] that hostile patrols must be
kept at a distance by single sentries posted by the commander of the
led horses indicates that such was perhaps the intention. But it
appears to me that even _this_ object cannot be obtained in such a way.
The sentries, if they are to defend the led horses from long-range fire
in open country, must be pushed forward in considerable numbers, and
very far, almost at rifle range. With single sentries close at hand,
no proper protection is afforded, nor can posts be sent out 1,000
yards without giving them a strength which the force cannot afford.
If, however, the protection of the led horses in difficult country is
to be provided for, a few sentries will most assuredly not suffice to
prevent hostile patrols approaching unobserved.
In order to properly protect the led horses they must either be so
disposed that they are actually covered from the view and fire of the
enemy, or else secured by an escort strong enough to prevent hostile
action against them. There is no third course.
Taking these things into consideration I cannot regard the limitation
of the number of rifles in the firing-line imposed by the Regulations
as justifiable. It seems to me that here a sacrifice is made with no
corresponding advantage resulting.
This anxiety seems also to have influenced, to a certain degree, the
text of the Regulations. In paragraph 367[27] the attempt is made to
compensate in some measure for the danger created by the weakening of
the firing-line. That is to say, the squadron leader is allowed in
either method of dismounting (with half or three-quarters of the men)
to reinforce the firing-line, if the situation demands, by diminishing
the number of horse-holders. But it seems to me that this arrangement
is not quite practicable, and does not sufficiently take into account
the difficulties that will continually result therefrom in the conduct
of a real fight.
First of all, it must be regarded as extremely hazardous to leave such
measures altogether in the hands of squadron leaders. Only consider,
for example, the case of a brigade commander who dismounts half his men
in order to keep his led horses mobile, and during the attack makes the
discovery that the horses cannot follow because the squadron leaders
have reinforced the firing-line from the horse-holders! Throughout the
Regulations there are no sort of directions for limiting the initiative
of the squadron leader in such matters in the case of the larger bodies
of troops.
But if this is to be disregarded, what becomes of the whole measure? Is
it to be determined when dismounting that the number of horse-holders
is to be diminished, or are these men only to be brought up in the
course of the fight? Against the first method there is naturally
nothing to urge. But the second, also, is quite allowable according
to the letter of the Regulations. It will, however, result in grave
disadvantages.
If in defence the led horses are close to the firing-line, such
procedure is certainly possible, but only, it seems to me, in this
one case. If fighting a defensive action where the horses must be
left far to the rear, or indeed in an attack, how and when are these
reinforcements to be brought up? It is generally in the middle of a
fight that the discovery is made that the troops are insufficient. How
is the order then to be sent to the squadron leader that the few men
who can still be spared from the led horses are now to advance? How
will these men be led to the front, perhaps 1,000 or 1,500 yards, or
still farther? How long will the squadron wait for their arrival? And
in the end will it not only be a matter of comparatively few men for
each squadron which will dribble gradually into the fight? These cannot
be regarded as reserves, but, at best, weak supports far in rear, which
can only be employed in the fight with difficulty and loss of time, if
at all.
I think, therefore, that what the Regulations prescribe in this matter
is not suitable for real war, and that it would be better from the
commencement to employ all the men that are considered necessary, and
rather to dismount as before, and leave the led horses quite immobile,
than afterwards to allow single men to dribble into the fight. As
_reserves_, formed detachments must be directed against the decisive
points, and not a few troops brought up to reinforce the whole length
of the line at the discretion of the squadron leader.