It is an astonishing fact that the échelon,[44] and especially
the rearward échelon, should have won for itself an importance in
our cavalry tactics which, in my opinion, is quite undeserved and
contradictory to the essence of cavalry action. It is the more
astounding when we consider that this principle of échelon formation is
said to be based on the tactics of Frederick the Great, which have no
connection whatever with the échelon in its present form.
Frederick the Great arranged his cavalry in two lines, and within these
lines the tactical units were on the same line of front. Detachments
destined to turn the enemy's flank were attached in column to the outer
flank of the leading line. As far as I know, a mention of échelon can
only be found in one place. In a sketch that accompanies one of the
Regulations of July 25, 1744, a squadron of the second line is shown
thrown forward at half the distance between the lines and écheloned on
the first line, with the obvious intention of securing the outer flank
of the first line against local turning movements. Out of this one
squadron the whole of our échelon system has grown. Here is the only
justification for claiming that the échelon of the second line is of
Frederician origin.
Nor, as far as I know, in the tactics of the Napoleonic cavalry is
there any trace of échelon in the modern sense. We would do well to
seek, in this period of experience in great cavalry battles instruction
for the conduct of cavalry against cavalry, and not to sacrifice its
lessons for imaginary advantages.
According to all appearances, our modern échelon is but the offspring
of peace requirements. The troops were required to be mobile and
capable of manoeuvre, and a division was required to perform the same
stereotyped evolutions as a regiment or a brigade. In the division the
échelon of brigades met this requirement admirably, favouring as it did
the change to line, a manoeuvre which, on its part, was well suited to
the necessities of drill in a limited area, and was regarded as the
_pièce de résistance_ of all cavalry divisional manoeuvres. Many a time
have I assisted at these tactical orgies!
We must not neglect the warning that, even in manoeuvres, as soon as
there is any kind of approach to service conditions, such necessity
for change of front never--literally never--occurs. Besides this,
the échelon formation has shown itself to be quite unpractical where
any real tactical deployment is required off the drill-ground. The
question, then, of the circumstances for which it is particularly
designed does not appear as yet to have been definitely asked or
answered. We have been content with general representations that
it increased the power of manoeuvre, and thus added to our beloved
stereotyped formations.
For years I have striven to clear up these views and to establish their
true worth. As long ago as 1903, in my book "Cavalry in Future Wars," I
wrote as follows: " ... It is obvious that the formations for approach
and attack prescribed by the (old) Regulations are as unpromising of
success as they well can be. While affording a possibility of quickly
presenting the same formation in any direction, a feat of no possible
advantage for war, they seriously impede any deployment to the front.
If it is required to launch the first line against the enemy's flank
because this is its shortest line, one at least of the following
brigades will be masked, and will be hampered in its movements. If,
again, it is desired to utilise one of the rear brigades for a flank
movement or any similar purpose, the first line has to be checked until
the others reach the required position, or else they will certainly
arrive too late to co-operate. Furthermore, the formations advocated
render it more difficult to derive full benefit from the configuration
of the ground."
These deductions have remained, up to now, uncontested. In spite
of this, however, the new Regulations uphold the point of view of
the old as regards échelon formation in every way, and even vest it
with increased importance by confiding to the échelon the duties of
the real second line, _i.e._ of the supporting squadrons of the old
Regulations. In the regiment, as in the brigade, depth is to consist
in échelon formation, and only exceptionally is a real second line to
be formed. The échelons are not only to protect the flank of their own
units, and turn against any portions of the enemy's line that may break
through, but are also to turn the enemy's flanks (170 and 200).[45]
In the division, also, during the advance to attack cavalry, échelon
formation will, "as a rule," be ordered. The transition formation thus
remains with us not only in name, but in fact, only with the difference
that brigades provide for their own depth and flank protection, thus,
in fact, being again in themselves écheloned (223, 424, 425).[46] Only
when a closer knowledge of the enemy is attained may the brigades come
into the same alignment from the commencement, and assume the requisite
frontage (426).[47]
In close connection with this modified transition formation, the
"change to lines" has also been retained in fact, though no longer
designated as such. That is to say, the possibility of a change of
front "to the complete flank," _i.e._ at right angles to the direction
of march, is still contemplated (220),[48] and to this end a fresh
formation of the division will generally be required, as well as a
fresh directing brigade, which takes up the new line of march, and to
which the remainder conform in the desired manner. It is apparently
a matter of indifference whether the brigades are called lines or
brigades. It is, and remains, a purely drill evolution of the division
in close formation, a complete change of front to a flank, and is
therefore something that would certainly not occur in war if any
reasonable sort of information were to hand. If it did occur, it would
presuppose the entire failure of reconnaissance and the corresponding
incapacity of the leader.
My cavalry instinct forbids me to share the tactical principles that
these views entail, and I will therefore again endeavour to make clear
that conception of the matter which I hold to be correct.
First, as regards the demands of the Regulations that échelon is to
replace depth. In my opinion, the conditions of reality have not in
this matter been taken into account. To be able to meet a hostile
squadron that has broken through the line, the écheloned squadron,
if still in column, must wheel into line, or if, as is probable,
already in line, must wheel, and then charge behind the front of its
own attacking-line. I consider this, of itself, to be impracticable
in the excitement of the fight, a manoeuvre that can only be carried
out on the drill-ground. We have only to consult any one who has had
experience of a cavalry attack to learn how difficult it is to perform
such evolutions immediately before the charge.
Then, again, what is our conception of such a hostile squadron breaking
through? It may be expected to be accompanied by a simultaneous
rearward movement of a corresponding portion of our own line, so that
no clear objective for attack from the flank would be likely to offer
itself. Such retirements of single portions of the line can only be met
and counteracted by throwing in fresh forces from the rear; such has
always been the experience in cavalry fights, as far as the teachings
of history show.
But there are other matters for consideration. How can the squadron,
écheloned, for instance, on the _outer_ flank of a brigade, intervene
when this so-called rupture of the line takes place on the _inner_
flank? In the dust and excitement of a cavalry fight, will such a
rupture, especially in undulating country, be even noticed? What if
there is a simultaneous threatening of the other flank, which the
échelon is obliged to meet? What if the échelon has advanced in an
enveloping movement? Who is then to deal with the rupture of the line?
To go on trying to prove that the duties devolving on depth and échelon
cannot be met by one and the same detachment, is like carrying coals
to Newcastle. The formation of a second line in the fight against
cavalry, regarded as exceptional by the Regulations, should be made an
_invariable rule_, from which departure is allowed only in exceptional
cases, while safety for the flanks must be arranged for _independently_
of this.
Here again we come into collision with paragraph 170 of the
Regulations, which lays down that an offensive flank attack may be
undertaken from a rearward échelon; as if such a manoeuvre could
possibly be carried out! Detachments which are to turn the enemy's
flank must, during the approach, advance into alignment with their own
line separated from its flank by the necessary interval, or else must
be _écheloned forwards_ from the commencement.
Forward échelon will generally be found to correspond with the
offensive spirit of cavalry better than the more defensive rearward
échelon. It is usually more practical and protects the flank better,
while at the same time threatening the enemy's flank and laying down
the law to him. Forward échelon is a very useful tactical cavalry
formation, and deserves more attention than the Regulations bestow
upon it.[49]
On its offensive importance I need scarcely enlarge. Troops in forward
échelon are already in a position which can only be reached after an
exhausting gallop by those in rearward échelon, the position prescribed
by the Regulations. They will be in a position to frustrate any
offensive intentions of the hostile reserves, and will obtain quicker
and surer information as to the enemy than will ever be possible at
such a time by patrols alone. That they may at times come in contact
with hostile troops in rearward échelon is obvious. If the flank of
these cannot be turned, they must be dealt with frontally. Local
dispositions and a vanguard must provide security against the action of
hostile reserves.
Even in a _defensive_ sense the forward échelon will often be more
useful than the rearward. The latter formation surrenders the
initiative to the enemy, and confines itself to _parrying_ attacks,
always a disadvantage in a cavalry fight. Forward échelon, on the
contrary, seeks to forestall the enemy in the offence. As to how it
may often be better adapted to warding off hostile attacks than the
rearward échelon I will give an example.
A body of cavalry, in the approach formation, is advancing against
the enemy, with blind ground on a flank, which would allow of the
enemy's covered approach, and which perhaps it has been impossible to
reconnoitre. Attack or fire surprise is feared from this quarter. How
will the cavalry protect itself? The modern tactician would in most
cases reply: "By an échelon to the rear." I do not think this would be
suitable. How is such a formation to give safety from fire surprise,
and to locate the enemy's advance and arrest it until the main body can
take counter-measures? The forward échelon can here alone avail. It
comes to close quarters with the enemy, attacks him before he can reach
the flank of the main body, and thus gains time for defensive measures
or retirement.
It is quite obvious that the cases for employment of the forward
échelon do not allow of being formulated. I think, however, that we
should make much more use of this formation than is at present the
fashion. Properly applied, such methods will ensure to us considerable
superiority over our opponents.
If we turn from this narrower tactical point of view to the
formations on a large scale where échelon is to be found--namely,
the divisions--here too the examination leads to no more favourable
conclusions. I ask myself, when and under what circumstances will such
a formation be advisable?
During the approach to the battle of encounter it is, as I have
endeavoured to prove, quite superfluous, and may even operate to
our disadvantage. In this case, when total uncertainty reigns as to
whether the combat will be carried out mounted or dismounted, or
both, there can be no question of any stereotyped tactical formation,
either of units as a whole or of smaller bodies within them. Here, as
we have seen, the battle will generally develop gradually, and the
fighting-line be fed from depth, until the necessary information as to
the enemy has been gained and the decisive attack can be embarked upon.
Under such circumstances the brigades advance according to the tasks
allotted them, and make their dispositions as circumstances dictate.
The depth that will be necessary can obviously not be laid down,
and can be attained by échelon neither in the division nor in its
subdivisions. If the division should advance under such circumstances
in close formation écheloned within itself, the unnecessary danger
would be run of offering an ideal target to the enemy's artillery
(which must always be taken into consideration), and at the same time
of hampering movement where circumstances demand the greatest freedom
in all directions.
If, on the other hand, the enemy's dispositions are known before a
collision occurs, the Regulations themselves (426, see p. 172) allow
that échelon formation is superfluous, and that the advance may be made
in the deployed formation desired, brigades being on the same frontage,
if the country and the character of the adversary offer the probability
of a charge.
And will it be different in the battle of all arms? In that case,
if the army cavalry advances from the wing of the army with the
intention of attacking the enemy's flank, what need will it have of
échelon formations? It is known that an attack must be made under any
circumstances. Further information as to the comparative strength of
the enemy cannot and must not be waited for. All available forces
will be engaged in order to wrest a victory, and must from the
beginning be so disposed that the enemy will be compelled as far as
possible to conform to our movements, and that we may prepare the most
favourable deployment for attack in the manner discussed above. Must
we, then, advance with the division in close formation, écheloned
within itself, in order to afford the greatest possible target for the
enemy's artillery? Are we to choose the pusillanimous formation of the
defensive échelon, that we may perhaps be obliged to approach and to
deploy under the enemy's eyes, incapable in this unwieldy formation of
turning the ground to account? I cannot think that this is practical
and believe that modern artillery fire of itself suffices to make the
écheloned division an impossibility and to banish it for ever from the
battlefield.
It must be added that should the unexpected appearance of the enemy
on a flank make it necessary, _rearward_ échelon is much easier to
assume from a formation of brigades on the same front than is the line
or attack formation from rearward échelon. It is only necessary for
that part of the line which is to be écheloned to halt or decrease the
pace, and the échelon is soon formed. To push forward units from depth
while on the move means, on the other hand, a considerable and indeed
unnecessary expenditure of force.