STRATEGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE CAVALRY
We have seen in the previous chapter that the principal duties which
can fall to the lot of Cavalry in modern War will require its
employment in considerable force; hence it follows that the greatest
economy in the use of detachments for secondary purposes must be
practised.
This leads us to the consideration of the question in what manner we
can group our available means to meet these requirements in the best
possible way.
Primarily we must start from this axiom--that no portion of the Army
can do without Cavalry altogether; hence it follows that we must
maintain both Divisional and independent Cavalry.
The former remains permanently attached to each portion of the Army
whose composition, by reason of this addition of Cavalry, permits of
independent action. The latter is set aside for the great strategical
missions that may be assigned to that Arm, for execution. The question
now arises, In what proportion is this distribution to take place?
The greater number of Infantry Divisions can, in my opinion, meet all
demands upon them with a very small allotment of mounted men, as long
as they are acting in combination with the rest of the Army.
The circulation of intelligence and orders within the columns and
their outposts can generally be entrusted to cyclists. Where
independent Cavalry is deployed to cover the front of an army, the
field of activity for the Divisional Cavalry in actual outpost duties
and reconnaissance is of necessity very much limited. All they are
really required to accomplish is to maintain the connection with the
former, and for this duty the cyclist detachments above referred to
will generally suffice.
There remains, therefore, for the Divisional Cavalry only the service
with the most advanced sections of the Infantry outposts (orderly
duties with the Infantry piquets in cases where the ground precludes
the use of the cycle), duties connected with requisitioning; and
reconnaissance only during those periods in which the mass of the
independent Cavalry has been drawn away towards the wings of the Army
to clear its front for battle, carrying messages during the combat,
and actual reconnaissance during the progress of the engagement
itself. All these requirements can, I think, be met with a very small
amount of force, all the more so because reconnaissance under fire in
modern War seems to me practically impossible, and can generally only
be initiated by those Divisions which form the wings of the Army, but
even then their field would be a very limited one.
Modern firearms compel us to remain at such a distance from the enemy
that observation is rendered much more difficult, and the distances to
be traversed are so great that before any reports from the wings can
get round to the position of Headquarters, and suitable orders based
on these reports can reach their destination, the whole situation may
have changed again and again. We have only to remember the cases
which occurred in the last War (1870).
In the majority of these instances it was quite impossible that
Cavalry patrols could have sent timely information of what was going
on within the limits of the enemy's positions, and in the future the
difficulties will be even greater.
In no case, however, can such information during the progress of an
action be obtained by the actual employment of the fighting power of
the Divisional Cavalry.
If it is to be done at all, then a few well-led officers patrols will
suffice, and therefore no considerable numerical strength in the
Divisional Cavalry is required. The lines of approach of the enemy and
points on which his wings are resting must certainly be kept under
observation, but this observation cannot in principle be initiated by
the Infantry Divisions, but it is the province of the Army
Headquarters to provide, for it will be precisely the wings and the
flanks which the enemy will himself seek to protect by the massing of
his own Cavalry.
If the prospect of achieving anything by observation during the combat
through the action of the Divisional Cavalry may be considered as
well-nigh impossible, then any tactical action may also be considered
as precluded, unless it takes place in combination with the
independent Cavalry.
Occasions may certainly even nowadays occur in which a few squadrons
may achieve results by taking part in a combat between the other Arms,
but such cases are too few and unimportant to be taken into account in
a distribution of the Cavalry as a matter of organization.
In Armies deprived of the screen of independent Cavalry the want of
Divisional Cavalry will certainly be more markedly felt even in those
Army Corps which form the flanks of Armies, and in the cases of
detached expeditions, and in similar exceptional circumstances. In all
these instances more Cavalry must be sent up to the outposts, and it
will have both to screen and reconnoitre.
The demands on its fighting efficiency can, under such circumstances,
become of importance, and in these smaller operations, reconnaissance
during action is more possible than with extended battle-fronts. But
to demand for the Divisional Cavalry on these grounds a larger
proportion of sabres, and thus to paralyze a great portion of the Arm
by its inclusion in the long columns of march of the whole Army, is
not justifiable. The scale on which we must decide the apportionment
of Divisional Cavalry must depend on the fact that the Infantry does
not generally operate in small detachments, but works in large masses,
and it is the necessities of these large masses which fix the
standard.
To apportion to single columns or Divisions for particular
circumstances an increased force of Cavalry, to be taken from the
available mass of independent Cavalry Divisions, ought not in general
to occasion unusual friction; but it is most difficult and troublesome
to take away from the Infantry the squadrons definitely assigned to it
by peace-time organization, and unite these in independent Cavalry
Commands.
We must not allow ourselves to be misled in this matter by the
practice followed in peace manoeuvres. Even the largest concentration
of troops for these purposes is, in proportion to the masses to be
employed in our future War, on a most limited scale.
Our smaller Brigade and Divisional manoeuvres are restricted within
limits which can only be considered nowadays as exceptional. They are
only too well adapted to give rise to entirely false conceptions as to
the true character of the Cavalry service in these great struggles for
national survival, unless we keep steadily in mind that they apply
only to exceptional circumstances.
We must, therefore, lay down as a principle that as much Cavalry as
possible is to be organized for strategical independence, and as
little as is expedient retained for the Infantry Divisions.
My opinion is that, if we make fullest use of the bicycle, and, with
this object in view, reorganize our system of conveying orders and
intelligence, then two well-trained and effective squadrons should
amply suffice for the ordinary duties with an Infantry Division.
As to the allotment of the independent Cavalry Divisions, it follows
from all that has been said above, that to divide them in equal
proportions among the several Armies, according to their numerical
strength, can only be considered as an obstacle to the full
utilization of their potential fighting capacity. It would be better
to arrange this distribution at the beginning of each War, in
accordance with the conditions which the situation imposes. Where it
appears expedient, we should not hesitate to form Divisions of
different strength, and to group several of these to constitute
Cavalry Corps, even to unite several of such Corps for employment in a
particular strategical direction--_i.e._, in a particular portion of
the theatre of operation--whilst leaving only individual brigades, or
even regiments, to those fractions of the Army which for the moment
can best dispense with Cavalry support.
Of course, an Army taking the field with a great superiority of
Cavalry can afford to deal less sparingly with it for secondary
purposes; on the other hand, the numerically weaker side is driven to
the utmost economy of its forces, and the utmost energy in its
employment at the decisive moment. It will therefore be essential for
the latter to concentrate at the commencement of the campaign the bulk
of its Cavalry upon the decisive line of operations--that is to say,
on that line on which, from the general strategical situation, one can
expect to penetrate into the chief district of concentration of the
enemy's Armies, and hence to find out what it is of the greatest
importance for us to know, or, on the other hand, when it is to our
interests to conceal our own operations, and hence to beat the enemy's
Cavalry as thoroughly as possible wherever it shows itself. On the
remaining portion of the front we must endeavour to employ as little
Cavalry as possible, and to supplement it in the duties of security by
Infantry, whilst leaving reconnaissance to be dealt with by patrols.
If we thus gain the victory on the principal line, the results will
soon be apparent in a reduction of pressure on the adjacent sections
of the front, and then the Cavalry will find its opportunity for
increased activity in offensive enterprises. For, once the enemy's
horsemen are beaten, either he will concentrate his remaining Cavalry,
from every direction, towards the threatened points, or the victor
will be in a position to utilize the superiority he has acquired to
support any portion of his force which may have got into temporary
difficulties.
If, thus, it is the necessity of beating the enemy's Cavalry out of
the field at the very commencement of the campaign which compels the
concentration of important numbers in the decisive direction, it
follows naturally that this point of view must be fully considered in
the plan of strategical deployment.
In the further stages of Cavalry activity--_i.e._, after it has
defeated the mass of the enemy's Cavalry--the tasks which can confront
the Arm make the employment of considerable forces essential, unless,
as so often happened in 1870, its operations are to be interfered
with, if not altogether stopped, by weak Infantry detachments, or even
by an insurgent population. Against this concentration of large masses
of Cavalry many objections will naturally be raised; hence we must
consider how these are to be met, and whether, as a fact, they are of
sufficient importance to cause us to surrender the advantages they
offer.
First comes the difficulty of feeding large numbers. But military
history, from the time of Frederick the Great and Napoleon down to the
American Civil War, the unusual conditions of which latter must not be
left out of account, show conclusively that it was possible to keep
masses of 5,000 men and more together, and in full mobility, even in
poor and almost roadless districts.
If it was possible then, how much more will it be so now, with our
modern means of communication, if proper arrangements are made in
advance!
It has been further objected that the rapid circulation of information
from the front to Army Headquarters will be jeopardized by the
insertion of an additional collecting station--viz., the Corps
Command, between the two ends of the chain. But this fear can be shown
to be groundless, for in any case where at all large bodies of
Cavalry are sent out in advance, the service of intelligence must be
organized in such a manner that all really important information will
be transmitted direct to Headquarters, as well as through the usual
channels. Since this is already necessary with Cavalry Divisions,
there can be no objection to applying it to yet higher commands.
More important than this question of intelligence is the consideration
that the command of Cavalry 'Masses' which exceed more than the
present Division of six regiments involves exceptional difficulties,
and this must be granted to a certain extent as long as the question
is limited to the actual tactical handling (execution of manoeuvres)
of the Division on the battle-field.
It is, in fact, no longer possible to handle a force of six
regiments according to any set scheme, such as that known as the
'Dreitreffentaktik'--at any rate, not in hilly or difficult country. The
transition from one formation to another, the deployment of the whole
unit for attack, or the interchange of the duties between the separate
lines, are certainly hardly possible on ground over which it is
difficult to manoeuvre. It appears, however, to me that the conduct of
great Cavalry 'Masses' by ordinary drill methods is not necessary to
meet the condition of modern warfare.
When once the Cavalry Corps Commander grasps the idea of handling the
units at his disposal as the Infantry Corps Commander handles his
Divisions, sending in first one Division, and then, according to
circumstances, reinforcing it or prolonging the fighting line by
drawing on the second one, or by employing the Divisions side by side,
assigning to each a definite share in the attainment of the purpose,
which he himself keeps steadily in view, there seems no reason why
the leadership of such bodies should not be perfectly practicable.
Indeed, one may safely say that the result will be all the more
certain of attainment the more the final responsibility is
concentrated on the one head; for there is obviously a greater
possibility of a single mind pursuing consistently a given purpose
than of two or more Divisional Commanders following out the same idea
independently along the same lines.
If, then, when the Corps is united for tactical action, the
maintenance of a single Command is quite conceivable, this will be all
the more the case in matters of Strategy. It is not so much a question
then of handling the corps as a closed unit, for instance, on a single
road, but of assigning within a certain sphere a united impulse to the
constituent parts of the Command in such directions that in all cases
they should reach the ground in force superior to anything the enemy
can oppose to them. According to circumstances, different tasks may be
assigned to the several Divisions. They may march on different roads,
some of them extended, some closed, the only condition being that they
all pursue a common strategic purpose, assigned to them by the Corps
Commander, according to the same fundamental principles, and are
prevented by this higher control from flying out in eccentric
directions.
Objections based on the alleged difficulties of the conduct of such
masses are therefore untenable. On the contrary, the demand must be
made on the Chief Command that, always in accordance with the
strategical situation, it must clearly determine what it requires of
the Cavalry, and group them in a suitable manner and in sufficient
numerical strength under a single Leader, even if in the meanwhile
there may be a deficiency of the Arm at less important points. This
fundamental principle must be adhered to at all costs if full
advantages are to be derived from the employment of our Arm, for with
none other can the consequences of a dispersal of force exact more
terrible retribution than with the Cavalry.
Nevertheless, though the principle must be held inviolate, its
application must not degenerate into hide-bound rigidity. 'Strategy is
founded on a system of expedients' (Moltke), and hence expediency
remains always our highest ideal.
The essential point, however, is that our organization must be made so
elastic that we can alter the strength of our units to meet the
varying circumstances which may confront us, so that forces may not
remain unutilized in one place whilst they may be most urgently
required at another.
It is no way essential that the units combined for the express
purposes apparent at the commencement of the campaign should remain
intact throughout the War. One should be able to detach from or
reinforce them, as circumstances require; break up Corps and
Divisions, to reform them elsewhere; and employ their Leaders and
Staff first with one, then with the other.
As an example of what I have just said, I would cite the manner in
which the German Headquarters Command dealt with the Armies during the
war of 1870-1871. According to the demands of the moment, the
individual Corps or Divisions were grouped in manifold proportions to
constitute such units, and the adaptability of this organization
proved sufficient to cope with every eventuality.
As an almost ideal type we can take the manner in which Napoleon
dealt with his Cavalry Corps for the same purpose. At one moment his
bodies of horsemen unite into Divisions and Corps; at another they
dissolve into independent Brigades or regiments, operating singly,
only once more to be united into formidable 'Masses,' as circumstances
dictate. Here we see no rigid adherence to any rules, nothing pedantic
in the method of employment, and the leader and troops deftly adapt
themselves to the ever-changing conditions.
This is the ideal to which we Germans should strive to attain, and all
the more so in proportion as we are threatened by superior numbers.