ARMY ORGANIZATION
I now turn to the discussion of some questions of organization, but it
is not my intention to ventilate all the needs and aims connected with
this subject that occupy our military circles at the present time. I
shall rather endeavour to work out the general considerations which, in
my opinion, must determine the further development of our army, if we
wish, by consistent energy, to attain a superiority in the directions
which will certainly prove to be all-important in the next war. It will
be necessary to go into details only on points which are especially
noteworthy or require some explanation. I shall obviously come into
opposition with the existing state of things, but nothing is further
from my purpose than to criticize them. My views are based on
theoretical requirements, while our army, from certain definitely
presented beginnings, and under the influence of most different men and
of changing views, in the midst of financial difficulties and political
disputes, has, by fits and starts, grown up into what it now is. It is,
in a certain sense, outside criticism; it must be taken as something
already existing, whose origin is only a subject for a subsequent
historical verdict. But the further expansion of our army belongs to the
future, and its course can be directed. It can follow well-defined
lines, in order to become efficient, and it is politically most
important that this object should be realized. Therefore I shall not
look back critically on the past, but shall try to serve the future.
The guiding principle of our preparations for war must be, as I have
already said, the development of the greatest fighting strength and the
greatest tactical efficiency, in order through them to be in a position
to carry on an offensive war successfully. What follows will, therefore,
fall naturally under these two heads. Fighting strength rests partly, as
already said, on the training (which will be discussed later), the
arming, and the _personnel_, partly on the composition of the troops,
and, therefore, in the case of line regiments, with which we chiefly
have to deal, since they are the real field troops, on the strength of
their peace establishment. It was shown in the previous chapter how
essential it is to have in the standing army not only the necessary
cadres ready for the new formations, but to make the separate branches
so strong that they can easily be brought up to full strength in
war-time.
The efficiency and character of the superiors, the officers and the
non-commissioned officers, are equally weighty factors in the value of
the troops. They are the professional supporters of discipline,
decision, and initiative, and, since they are the teachers of the
troops, they determine their intellectual standard. The number of
permanent officers on the establishment in peace is exceedingly small in
proportion to their duties in the training of the troops and to the
demands made of them on mobilization. If we reflect how many officers
and non-commissioned officers from the standing army must be transferred
to the new formations in order to vitalize them, and how the modern
tactical forms make it difficult for the superior officer to assert his
influence in battle, the numerical inadequacy of the existing
_personnel_ is clearly demonstrated. This applies mainly to the
infantry, and in their case, since they are the decisive arm, a
sufficient number of efficient officers is essential. All the more
important is it, on the one hand, to keep the establishment of officers
and non-commissioned officers in the infantry at full strength, and, on
the other hand, to raise the efficiency of the officers and
non-commissioned officers on leave or in the reserve. This latter is a
question of training, and does not come into the present discussion.
The task of keeping the establishments at adequate strength is, in a
sense, a financial question. The amount of the pay and the prospects
which the profession holds out for subsequent civil posts greatly affect
the body of non-commissioned officers, and therefore it is important to
keep step with the general increase in prices by improved pecuniary
advantages. Even for the building up of the corps of officers, the
financial question is all-important. The career of the officer offers
to-day so little prospect of success and exacts such efficiency and
self-devotion from the individual, that he will not long remain in the
service, attractive as it is, if the financial sacrifices are so high as
they now are. The infantry officer especially must have a better
position. Granted that the cavalry and mounted artillery officers incur
greater expenses for the keep of their horses than the infantry officer
has to pay, the military duties of the latter are by far the most
strenuous and require a very considerable outlay on clothing. It would
be, in my opinion, expedient to give the infantry officer more pay than
the cavalry and artillery officers, in order to make service in that arm
more attractive. There is a rush nowadays into the mounted arm, for
which there is a plethora of candidates. These arms will always be well
supplied with officers. Their greater attractiveness must be
counterbalanced by special advantages offered by the infantry service.
By no other means can we be sure of having sufficient officers in the
chief arm.
If the fighting strength in each detachment depends on its composition
and training, there are other elements besides the tactical value of the
troops which determine the effectiveness of their combined efforts in
action; these are first the leadership, which, however, depends on
conditions which are beyond calculation, and secondly the numerical
proportion of the arms to each other. Disregarding provisionally the
cavalry, who play a special role in battle, we must define the
proportion which artillery must bear to infantry.
With regard to machine guns, the idea that they can to some extent
replace infantry is quite erroneous. Machine guns are primarily weapons
of defence. In attack they can only be employed under very favourable
conditions, and then strengthen only one factor of a successful
attack--the fire-strength--while they may sometimes hinder that
impetuous forward rush which is the soul of every attack. Hence, this
auxiliary weapon should be given to the infantry in limited numbers, and
employed mainly on the defensive fronts, and should be often massed into
large units. Machine-gun detachments should not overburden the marching
columns.
The relation of infantry to artillery is of more importance.
Infantry is the decisive arm. Other arms are exclusively there to smooth
their road to victory, and support their action directly or indirectly.
This relation must not be merely theoretical; the needs of the infantry
must ultimately determine the importance of all other fighting
instruments in the whole army.
If we make this idea the basis of our argument, the following is the
result. Infantry has gained enormously in defensive power owing to
modern weapons. The attack requires, therefore, a far greater
superiority than ever before. In addition to this, the breadth of front
in action has greatly increased in consequence of the former close
tactical formations having been broken up through the increase of fire.
This refers only to the separate detachment, and does not justify the
conclusion that in the future fewer troops will cover the same spaces as
before. This assumption applies at the most to defence, and then only in
a limited sense. In attack the opposite will probably be the case. The
troops must therefore be placed more deeply _en échelon _than in the
last wars. Now, the average breadth of the front in attack must regulate
the allotment of artillery to infantry. No definite proportion can be
settled; but if the theoretical calculation be compared with the
experiences of the last wars, conclusions may be obtained which will
most probably prove appropriate. No more than this can be expected in
the domain of military science.
If we agree to the above-mentioned proportion of breadth and depth in an
infantry attack, we shall be driven to insist on a reduction of
artillery as compared with the past; but should we think that modern
artillery helps the attack, especially by indirect fire, we must
advocate, from the standpoint of offensive warfare, an increase of the
artillery. Actual war experiences alone can find the true middle path
between these two extremes.
If the frontal development of the artillery of a modern army corps, or,
better still, two divisions, be regarded from the point of view that the
guns cannot advance in connected line, but that only the specially
adapted parts of the field can be used for artillery development, the
conclusion is certain that by such frontal extension the infantry is
reduced to a covering line for the artillery. In forming this opinion we
must not assume the normal strength of the infantry, but take into
account that the strength of the infantry in war rapidly melts away. If
we estimate the companies on the average at two-thirds of their proper
strength, we shall be above rather than below the real figures. Such
infantry strength will, of course, be sufficient to defend the position
taken up by the artillery, but it is hardly enough to carry out, in that
section of the field, a decisive attack, which, under present conditions,
requires greater numbers and depth than before.
In this connection it is very instructive to study the second part of
the Franco-German War, and the Boer War, as well as the Manchurian
campaign.
Some of the German infantry had in the first-named period
extraordinarily diminished in numbers; companies of 120 men were not
rare. The artillery, on the contrary, had remained at its original
strength. The consequences naturally was that the powers of the Germans
on the offensive grew less and the battles and skirmishes were not so
decisive as in the first part of the war. This condition would have
shown up more distinctly against an enemy of equal class than in the
contest with the loosely-compacted, raw French levies. In the former
case the offensive would have been impracticable. The strong artillery,
under the existing conditions, no doubt gave great support to the weak
infantry; but an unbiassed opinion leads to the conclusion that, under
the then existing proportion of the arms to each other, the infantry was
too weak to adopt energetic offensive tactics against a well-matched
enemy. This is irresistibly proved if we consider what masses of
infantry were needed at Wörth and St. Privat, for instance, in spite of
the support of very superior artillery, in order to defeat a weaker
enemy of equal class.
Again, in South Africa, the overwhelming superiority of the English in
artillery was never able to force a victory. In Manchuria the state of
things was very instructive. Numerically the Russian artillery was
extraordinarily superior to the enemy's, and the range of the Russian
field guns was longer than that of the Japanese; nevertheless, the
Japanese succeeded in beating an enemy stronger in infantry also,
because, in the decisive directions of attack, they were able to unite
superior forces of infantry and artillery, while the Russian artillery
was scattered along the whole of their broad front.
The lesson of this war is that, apart from the close relation of the
arms to each other in the separate units, the co-operation of these
units must be looked at, if the strength of the two sister arms is to be
appropriately determined.
The requirement that each separate tactical unit should he made equal or
superior in artillery to the corresponding hostile unit is thoroughly
mechanical, as if in war division always fought against division and
corps against corps! Superiority at the decisive point is the crucial
test. This superiority is attained by means of an unexpected
concentration of forces for attack, and there is no reason why the
superiority in artillery should not also be brought about in this way.
If by superior tactical skill two army corps, each with 96 guns, combine
against a hostile army which brings 144 guns into action, that signifies
a superiority of 48 guns and a double superiority in infantry. If it is
assumed that on both sides the army corps is armed with 144 guns, and
that in consequence of this the tactical superiority has become so
slight that neither side can claim a superiority in one direction, then
equal forces meet, and chance decides the day. Since the Japanese were
tactically more efficient than their enemy and took the offensive, they
were enabled to unite the superior forces in the most decisive
directions, and this advantage proved far greater than the numerical
superiority of the Russian army as a whole.
If we look at the whole matter we shall come to the conclusion that the
artillery, if it is not a question of pure defence, need never occupy
within a line of battle so much ground that the concentration of a
considerably superior force of infantry for attack is rendered doubtful.
In this respect we have, in our present organization already exceeded
the expedient proportion between the two arms in favour of the
artillery. The conclusion is that this latter arm never need, within the
separate divisions, be made so strong that the attacking capacities of
the army are thereby prejudiced. This is the decisive point. Any excess
in artillery can be kept on the battlefield in reserve when space is
restricted; if the attacking efficiency of the troops is reduced, then
artillery becomes a dead weight on the army instead of an aid to
victory. It is far more important to be able to unite superior forces
for a decisive attack than to meet the enemy with equally matched forces
along the whole front. If we observe this principle, we shall often be
weaker than the enemy on the less important fronts; this disadvantage
may be partly counterbalanced by remaining on the defensive in such a
position. It becomes a positive advantage, if, owing to an overpowering
concentration of forces, victory is won at the decisive point. This
victory cancels all the failures which may have been recorded elsewhere.
The operative superiority of an enemy is determined by the greater
marching capacity of the troops, by the rapid and systematic working of
the communications with the rear, and, above all, by the length of the
columns of the operating troops. Under the modern system of colossal
armaments, an army, especially if in close formation, cannot possibly
live on the country; it is driven to trust to daily food-supplies from
the rear. Railways are used as far as possible to bring up the supplies;
but from the railhead the communication with the troops must be
maintained by columns of traction waggons and draught animals, which go
to and fro between the troops, the rearward magazines, and the railhead.
Since traction waggons are restricted to made roads, the direct
communication with the troops must be kept up by columns of draught
animals, which can move independently of the roads. The waggons of
provisions, therefore, which follow the troops, and are filled daily,
must come up with them the same day, or there will be a shortage of
food. This is only possible if the troop column does not exceed a
certain length and starts at early morning, so that the transport
waggons, which, at the end of the march, must be driven from the rear to
the head of the column, can reach this before the beginning of the
night's rest. The fitness of an army for attack can only be maintained
if these supplies are uninterrupted; there must also be a sufficient
quantity of tinned rations and provisions which the soldiers can carry
with them. If the length of the columns exceeds the limit here laid
down, the marches must be proportionately shortened. If unusually
lengthy marches are made, so that the provision carts cannot reach the
troops, days of rest must be interposed, to regulate the supply. Thus
the capacity of an army to march and to carry out operations is directly
dependent on the possibility of being fed from the rear. A careful
calculation, based on practical experiences, shows that, in order to
average 20 to 22 kilometres a day--the minimum distance required from an
army--no column on a road ought to exceed a length of about 25
kilometres This consideration determines the depth of the army corps on
the march, since in an important campaign and when massing for battle
troops seldom march in smaller bodies than a corps.
This calculation, by which the conditions of modern war are compulsorily
affected, makes it highly necessary that the system of supplies and
rations should be carefully organized. The restoration of any destroyed
railways, the construction of light railways, the organization of
columns of motor transport waggons and draught animals, must be prepared
by every conceivable means in time of peace, in order that in war-time
the railroads may follow as closely as possible on the track of the
troops, and that the columns may maintain without interruption
continuous communications between the troops and the railhead. In order
to keep this machinery permanently in working order, and to surmount any
crisis in bringing up supplies, it is highly advisable to have an ample
stock of tinned rations. This stock should, in consideration of the
necessary mass-concentration, be as large as possible. Care must be
taken, by the organization of trains and columns, that the stock of
tinned provisions can be quickly renewed. This would be best done by
special light columns, which are attached to the army corps outside the
organization of provision and transport columns, and follow it at such a
distance, that, if necessary, they could be soon pushed to the front by
forced or night marches. There is naturally some reluctance to increase
the trains of the army corps, but this necessity is unavoidable. It is
further to be observed that the columns in question would not be very
long, since they would mainly convey condensed foods and other
provisions compressed into the smallest space.
An immense apparatus of train formations, railway and telegraph corps,
and workmen must be got ready to secure the efficiency of a modern army
with its millions. This is absolutely necessary, since without it the
troops in modern warfare would be practically unable to move. It is far
more important to be ahead of the enemy in this respect than in any
other, for there lies the possibility of massing a superior force at the
decisive point, and of thus defeating a stronger opponent.
However careful the preparations, these advantages can only be attained
if the troop columns do not exceed the maximum strength which can be fed
from the rear, if the necessary forward movement is carried out.
Everything which an army corps requires for the war must be kept within
these limits.
Our modern army corps without the heavy artillery of the field army
corresponds roughly to this requirement. But should it be lengthened by
a heavy howitzer battalion, with the necessary ammunition columns, it
will considerably exceed the safe marching depth--if, that is, the
necessary advance-guard distance be included. Since, also, the infantry
is too weak in proportion to the space required by the artillery to
deploy, it becomes advisable in the interests both of powerful attack
and of operative efficiency, within the separate troop organizations to
strengthen the numbers of the infantry and reduce those of the
artillery.
In addition to the length of the column, the arrangement of the division
is very important for its tactical efficiency. This must be such as to
permit the most varied employment of the troops and the formation of
reserves without the preliminary necessity of breaking up all the units.
This requirement does not at all correspond to our traditional
organization, and the man to insist upon it vigorously has not yet
appeared, although there can be no doubt as to the inadequacy of the
existing tactical organization, and suitable schemes have already been
drawn up by competent officers.
The army corps is divided into two divisions, the division into two
infantry brigades. All the brigades consist of two regiments. The
formation of a reserve makes it very difficult for the commander to fix
the centre of gravity of the battle according to circumstances and his
own judgment. It is always necessary to break up some body when a
reserve has to be formed, and in most cases to reduce the officers of
some detachment to inactivity. Of course, a certain centre of gravity
for the battle may be obtained by assigning to one part of the troops a
wider and to the other a narrower space for deployment. But this
procedure in no way replaces a reserve, for it is not always possible,
even in the first dispositions for the engagement, to judge where the
brunt of the battle will be. That depends largely on the measures taken
by the enemy and the course of the battle.
Napoleon's saying, "_Je m'engage et puis je vois,"_ finds its
application, though to a lessened extent, even to-day. The division of
cavalry brigades into two regiments is simply a traditional institution
which has been thoughtlessly perpetuated. It has not been realized that
the duties of the cavalry have completely changed, and that brigades of
two regiments are, in addition to other disadvantages, too weak to carry
these duties out.
This bisecting system, by restricting the freedom of action, contradicts
the most generally accepted military principles.
The most natural formation is certainly a tripartition of the units, as
is found in an infantry regiment. This system permits the separate
divisions to fight near each other, and leaves room for the withdrawal
of a reserve, the formation of a detachment, or the employment of the
subdivisions in lines _(Treffen)_, for the principle of the wing attack
must not be allowed to remain merely a scheme. Finally, it is the best
formation for the offensive, since it allows the main body of the troops
to be employed at a single point in order to obtain a decisive result
there.
A special difficulty in the free handling of the troops is produced by
the quite mechanical division of the artillery, who bring into action
two kinds of ordnance--cannons and howitzers. These latter can, of
course, be used as cannons, but have special functions which are not
always required. Their place in the organization, however, is precisely
the same as that of the cannons, and it is thus very difficult to employ
them as their particular character demands.
The object in the whole of this organization has been to make corps and
divisions equal, and if possible superior, to the corresponding
formations of the enemy by distributing the batteries proportionately
according to numbers among the divisions. This secured, besides, the
undeniable advantage of placing the artillery directly under the orders
of the commanders of the troops. But, in return, it robbed the
commanding General of the last means secured by the organization of
enforcing his tactical aims. He is now forced to form a reserve for
himself out of the artillery of the division, and thus to deprive one
division at least of half its artillery. If he has the natural desire to
withdraw for himself the howitzer section, which is found in one
division only, the same division must always be subjected to this
reduction of its strength, and it is more than problematical whether
this result always fits in with the tactical position. It seems at least
worth while considering whether, under these circumstances, it would not
be a more appropriate arrangement to attach a howitzer section to each
division.
The distribution of the heavy field howitzers is another momentous
question. It would be in accordance with the principles that guide the
whole army to divide them equally among the army corps. This arrangement
would have much in its favour, for every corps may find itself in a
position where heavy howitzer batteries can be profitably employed. They
can also, however, be combined under the command of the
General-in-Chief, and attached to the second line of the army. The first
arrangement offers, as has been said, many advantages, but entails the
great disadvantage that the line of march of the army corps is
dangerously lengthened by several kilometres, so that no course is left
but either to weaken the other troops of the corps or to sacrifice the
indispensable property of tactical efficiency. Both alternatives are
inadmissible. On the other hand, since the employment of heavy howitzers
is by no means necessary in every engagement, but only when an attack is
planned against a strongly-posted enemy, it may be safely assumed that
the heavy howitzers could be brought up in time out of the second line
by a night march. Besides, their mobility renders it possible to detach
single batteries or sections, and on emergency to attach them to an army
corps temporarily.
There is a prevalent notion that the heavy howitzers are principally
used to fight the enemy's field artillery, and therefore must be on the
spot in every engagement. They have even been known to stray into the
advance guard. I do not approve of this idea. The enemy's field
artillery will fire indirectly from previously masked positions, and in
such case they cannot be very successfully attacked by heavy howitzers.
It seems to me quite unjustifiable, with the view of attaining this
problematic object, to burden the marching columns permanently with long
unwieldy trains of artillery and ammunition, and thus to render their
effectiveness doubtful.
No doubt the Japanese, who throughout the war continually increased
their heavy field howitzers, ultimately attached artillery of that sort
to every division. The experiences of that war must not, however, be
overestimated or generalized. The conditions were quite _sui generis_.
The Japanese fought on their whole front against fortified positions
strengthened by heavy artillery, and as they attacked the enemy's line
in its whole extension, they required on their side equally heavy guns.
It should be noticed that they did not distribute their very effective
12-centimetre field howitzers along the whole front, but, so far as I
can gather, assigned them all to the army of General Nogi, whose duty
was to carry out the decisive enveloping movement at Mukden. The
Japanese thus felt the need of concentrating the effect of their
howitzers, and as we hope we shall not imitate their frontal attack, but
break through the enemy's front, though in a different way from theirs,
the question of concentration seems to me very important for us.
Under these circumstances it will be most advantageous to unite the
heavy batteries in the hand of the Commander-in-Chief. They thus best
serve his scheme of offence. He can mass them at the place which he
wishes to make the decisive point in the battle, and will thus attain
that end most completely, whereas the distribution of them among the
army corps only dissipates their effectiveness. His heavy batteries will
be for him what the artillery reserves are for the divisional General.
There, where their mighty voice roars over the battlefield, will be the
deciding struggle of the day. Every man, down to the last private, knows
that.
I will only mention incidentally that the present organization of the
heavy artillery on a peace footing is unsatisfactory. The batteries
which in war are assigned to the field army must in peace also be placed
under the orders of the corps commanders _(Truppenführer)_ if they are
to become an organic part of the whole. At present the heavy artillery
of the field army is placed under the general-inspection of the foot
artillery, and attached to the troops only for purposes of manoeuvres.
It thus remains an isolated organism so far as the army goes, and does
not feel itself an integral part of the whole. A clear distinction
between field artillery and fortress artillery would be more practical.
This view seems at first sight to contradict the requirement that the
heavy batteries should form a reserve in the hands of the
Commander-in-Chief. As the armies do not exist in peace-time, and
manoeuvres are seldom carried out in army formation, the result of the
present organization is that the tactical relations of the heavy
artillery and the other troops are not sufficiently understood. This
disadvantage would be removed if heavy artillery were assigned
permanently to each army corps. This would not prevent it being united
in war-time in the hands of the army leaders. On the contrary, they
would be used in manoeuvres in relation to the army corps in precisely
the same sense as they would be in war-time in relation to the armies.
The operations of the army in the enemy's countries will be far more
effective if it has control of the railways and roads. That implies not
merely the restoration of railroads that may have been destroyed, but
the rapid capture of the barrier forts and fortresses which impede the
advance of the army by cutting off the railway communications. We were
taught the lesson in 1870-71 in France how far defective railway
communications hindered all operations. It is, therefore, of vital
importance that a corps should be available, whose main duty is the
discharge of these necessary functions.
Until recently we had only one united corps of pioneers, which was
organized alike for operations in the field and for siege operations,
but these latter have recently been so much developed that that system
can no longer supply an adequate technical training for them.
The demands made by this department of warfare, on the one hand, and by
the duties of pioneering in the field on the other, are so extensive and
so essentially different that it seems quite impracticable to train
adequately one and the same corps in both branches during two years'
service. The chief functions of the field pioneer are bridge-building,
fortifying positions, and supporting the infantry in the attack on
fortified places. The most important part of the fortress pioneer's
duties consists in sapping, and, above all, in mining, in preparing for
the storming of permanent works, and in supporting the infantry in the
actual storm. The army cannot be satisfied with a superficial training
for such service; it demands a most thorough going previous preparation.
Starting from this point of view, General v. Beseler, the late
Inspector-General of Fortresses and Pioneers, who has done inestimable
service to his country, laid the foundations of a new organization. This
follows the idea of the field pioneers and the fortress pioneers--a
rudimentary training in common, followed by separate special training
for their special duties. We must continue on these lines, and develop
more particularly the fortress pioneer branch of the service in better
proportion to its value.
In connection with the requirements already discussed, which are
directly concerned with securing and maintaining an increase of tactical
efficiency, we must finally mention two organizations which indirectly
serve the same purpose. These diminish the tactical efficiency of the
enemy, and so increase our own; while, by reconnoitring and by screening
movements, they help the attack and make it possible to take the enemy
unawares--an important condition of successful offensive warfare. I
refer to the cavalry and the air-fleet.
The cavalry's duties are twofold. On the one hand, they must carry out
reconnaissances and screening movements, on the other hand they must
operate against the enemy's communications, continually interrupt the
regular renewal of his supplies, and thus cripple his mobility.
Every military expert will admit that our cavalry, in proportion to the
war-footing of the army, and in view of the responsible duties assigned
them in war, is lamentably weak. This disproportion is clearly seen if
we look at the probable wastage on the march and in action, and realize
that it is virtually impossible to replace these losses adequately, and
that formations of cavalry reserves can only possess a very limited
efficiency. Popular opinion considers cavalry more or less superfluous,
because in our last wars they certainly achieved comparatively little
from the tactical point of view, and because they cost a great deal.
There is a general tendency to judge cavalry by the standard of 1866 and
1870-71. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that this standard is
misleading. On the one hand, the equipment was then so defective that it
crippled the powers of the mounted man in the most important points; on
the other hand, the employment of the cavalry was conducted on a wholly
antiquated system. It was, consequently, not armed for independent
movements. What they then did must not be compared with what will be
required from them in the future. In wars in which mounted forces were
really effective, and not hampered in their movements by preconceived
notions (as in the American War of Secession and the Boer War), their
employment has been continuously extended, since the great value of
their operative mobility was convincingly shown, especially in Africa,
notwithstanding all modern weapons. These are the wars which must be
studied in order to form a fair opinion. They will convince us that an
increase of our cavalry is absolutely imperative. It will, of course,
only be valuable when the divisions of the army cavalry are equipped
with columns and trains in such a way that they can operate
independently. The effectiveness of the cavalry depends entirely on the
fulfilment of this condition. It is also imperatively necessary, when
the measures of our opponents are considered, to strengthen the fighting
force of the cavalry by an adequate addition of cyclist sections. This
is the more requisite, as, on the one hand, the attack on the enemy's
communications must expect vigorous opposition, and, on the other hand,
the screening duties, which are even more important for the offensive
than the reconnaissances, are likely to be specially successful if
cavalry and cyclists combine. Again, an increased strength of cavalry is
undeniably required to meet the reconnoitring and screening troops of
the enemy.
Besides the strengthening of this arm and the addition of cyclists,
another organization is required if the cavalry are to do useful
service. Brigades of two regiments and divisions of six regiments are in
war-time, where all depends on decisive action, far too small, as I have
repeatedly demonstrated without being refuted.
The brigades must in war be three regiments strong. The strength of the
divisions and corps may vary according to the requirements of the time
being. Just because our cavalry is so weak, the organization must be in
a high degree elastic. There can, besides, be no doubt on the point that
the side which commands the services of the stronger cavalry, led on
modern lines, will have at the outset quite inestimable advantage over
the enemy, which must make itself felt in the ultimate issue.
I might remark incidentally that the mounted batteries which are
attached to the army cavalry must be formed with four guns each, so that
the division with its three parts would have the control of three
batteries, and, if necessary, a battery could be assigned to each
brigade. That is an old suggestion which the Emperor William I. once
made, but it has never yet been considered. It is not with cavalry
usually a question of protracted artillery engagements, but of utilizing
momentary opportunities; the greatest mobility is required together with
the most many-sided efficiency and adaptability. There can obviously,
therefore, be no question of a systematic combination with the
artillery. Such a thing can only be of value in the case of cavalry when
it is important to make a decisive attack.
The reconnaissance and screening duties of the cavalry must be completed
by the air-fleet. Here we are dealing with something which does not yet
exist, but we can foresee clearly the great part which this branch of
military science will play in future wars.[A] It is therefore necessary
to point out in good time those aspects of it which are of special
weight in a military sense, and therefore deserve peculiar consideration
from the technical side.
[Footnote A: The efficiency and success of the Italian aviators in
Tripoli are noteworthy, but must not be overvalued. There were no
opponents in the air.]
The first requirement is that airships, in addition to simplicity of
handling and independence of weather, should possess a superior fighting
strength, for it is impossible effectively to screen the movements of
the army and to open the road for reconnaissances without attacking
successfully the hostile flying-machines and air cruisers.
The power to fight and destroy the hostile airships must be the leading
idea in all constructions, and the tactics to be pursued must be at once
thought out in order that the airships may be built accordingly, since
tactics will be essentially dependent on the construction and the
technical effectiveness. These reciprocal relations must be borne in
mind from the first, so as to gain a distinct advantage over our
opponents.
If the preceding remarks are epitomized, we have, apart from the
necessity of enforcing universal service, quite a long list of proposed
changes in organization, the adoption of which will considerably improve
the efficiency of our army.
The whole organization must be such that the column length of the army
corps does not exceed the size which allows a rapid advance, though the
supplies are exclusively drawn from magazine depots.
In case of the larger formations, and especially of the army corps as
being the tactical and operative unit, the principle of tripartition
must be observed.
The infantry must be, in proportion to the artillery, substantially
strengthened.
The artillery must be organized in such a way that it is possible to
concentrate the fire of the howitzers where required without breaking up
the units.
The cavalry must be increased, strengthened by cyclist sections, and so
organized as to insure their efficiency in war.
The formation of reinforcements, especially for supplies, must be so
elaborated that, on a rapid advance, an efficient system of feeding the
troops entirely from magazine depots can be maintained.
The air-fleet must be energetically developed with the object of making
it a better fighting machine than that of the enemy.
Finally, and this is the most important thing, we must strain every
nerve to render our infantry tactically the best in the world, and to
take care that none but thoroughly efficient formations are employed in
the decisive field war.
The fulfilment of all these requirements on the basis of our present
organization offers naturally great difficulties and can hardly be
carried out. It is impossible to imagine a German Reichstag which,
without the most extreme pressure of circumstances, could resolve to
make for the army the sacrifices called for by our political condition.
The temptation to shut the eyes to existing dangers and to limit
political aims in order to repudiate the need of great sacrifices is so
strong that men are sure to succumb to it, especially at a period when
all political wisdom seems summed up in the maintenance of peace. They
comfort themselves with the hope that the worst will not happen,
although history shows that the misery produced by weakness has often
surpassed all expectations.
But even if the nation can hardly be expected to understand what is
necessary, yet the War Department must be asked to do their utmost to
achieve what is possible, and not to stop short out of deference to
public opinion. When the future of a great and noble nation is at stake
there is no room for cowardice or inaction. Nothing must be done, as
unhappily has too often been the case, which runs counter to the
principles of a sound military organization.
The threefold division of the larger formations could be effected in
various ways. Very divergent ideas may be entertained on this subject,
and the difficulties of carrying out the scheme need extensive
consideration. I will make a few proposals just by way of illustration.
One way would be to split up the army corps into three divisions of
three infantry regiments each, and to abolish the superfluous
intermediate system of brigades. Another proposal would be to form in
every corps one of the present divisions of three brigades, so that the
extra brigade combined with the light field howitzers and the Jäger
battalion would constitute in event of war a separate detachment in the
hands of the commanding General. This last arrangement could be carried
out comparatively easily under our present system, but entails the
drawback that the system of twofold division is still in force within
the brigades and divisions. The most sweeping reform, that of dividing
the corps into three divisions, would have the advantage of being
thorough and would allow the separate groups to be employed in many more
ways.
The relations between the infantry and the artillery can naturally only
be improved gradually by the strengthening of the infantry through the
enforcement of universal service. The assignment of a fifth brigade to
each army corps would produce better conditions than exist at present.
But so soon as the strengthening of the infantry has gone so far that
new army corps must be created, the artillery required for them can be
taken from existing formations, and these can be diminished by this
means. It will conduce to the general efficiency of the army if the
artillery destined for each army corps is to some degree limited,
without, however, reducing their total. Care must be taken that only the
quantity of ammunition necessary for the first stages of the battle
should be habitually carried by the columns of the troops engaged. All
that exceeds this must be kept in the rear behind the commissariat
waggons, and brought forward only on necessity--that is to say, when a
battle is in prospect. The certainty of being able to feed the troops
and thus maintain the rapidity of the advance is far more important than
the more or less theoretical advantage of having a large quantity of
ammunition close at hand during the advance. The soldiers will be
inclined to be sparing of ammunition in the critical stages of the
fight, and will not be disposed to engage with an unseen enemy, who can
only be attacked by scattered fire; the full fire strength will be
reserved for the deciding moments of the engagement. Then, however, the
required ammunition will be on the spot, in any event, if it is brought
forward by stages in good time.
A suitable organization of the artillery would insure that each division
had an equal number of batteries at its disposal. The light field
howitzers, however, must be attached to a division in such a way that
they may form an artillery corps, without necessarily breaking up the
formations of the division. The strength of the artillery must be
regulated according to that of the infantry, in such a way that the
entire marching depth does not exceed some 25 kilometres. The heavy
field howitzers, on the other hand, must in peace be placed under the
orders of the General commanding, and in event of war be combined as
"army" artillery.
It would, perhaps, be advisable if the cavalry were completely detached
from the corps formation, since the main body is absolutely independent
in war as "army" cavalry. The regiments necessary for service with the
infantry could be called out in turn during peace-time for manoeuvres
with mixed arms, in order to be trained in the work of divisional
cavalry, for which purpose garrison training can also be utilized. On
the other hand, it is, I know, often alleged that the _Truppenführer_
are better trained and learn much if the cavalry are under their orders;
but this objection does not seem very pertinent.
Another way to adapt the organization better to the efficiency of the
arm than at present would be that the four cavalry regiments belonging
to each army corps should be combined into a brigade and placed under
the commanding General. In event of mobilization, one regiment would be
withdrawn for the two divisions, while the brigade, now three regiments
strong, would pass over to the "army" cavalry. The regiment intended for
divisional cavalry would, on mobilization, form itself into six
squadrons and place three of them at the service of each division. If
the army corps was formed into three divisions, each division would only
be able to receive two squadrons.
In this way, of course, a very weak and inferior divisional cavalry
would be formed; the service in the field would suffer heavily under it;
but since it is still more important to have at hand a sufficient army
cavalry than a divisional cavalry, quite competent for their difficult
task, there is, for the time being, no course left than to raise the one
to its indispensable strength at the cost of the other. The blame for
such a makeshift, which seriously injures the army, falls upon those who
did not advocate an increase of the cavalry at the proper moment. The
whole discussion shows how absolutely necessary such an increase is. If
it were effected, it would naturally react upon the organization of the
arm. This would have to be adapted to the new conditions. There are
various ways in which a sound and suitable development of the cavalry
can be guaranteed.
The absolutely necessary cyclist sections must in any case be attached
to the cavalry in peace, in order that the two arms may be drilled in
co-operation, and that the cavalry commander may learn to make
appropriate use of this important arm. Since the cyclists are restricted
to fairly good roads, the co-operation presents difficulties which
require to be surmounted.
The views which I have here tried to sketch as aspects of the
organization of the army can be combated from several standpoints. In
military questions, particularly, different estimates of the individual
factors lead to very different results. I believe, however, that my
opinions result with a certain logical necessity from the whole aspect
of affairs. It is most essential, in preparing for war, to keep the main
leading idea fixed and firm, and not to allow it to be shaken by
question of detail. Each special requirement must be regarded as part of
that general combination of things which only really comes into view in
actual warfare. The special standpoint of a particular arm must be
rejected as unjustified, and the departmental spirit must be silenced.
Care must be taken not to overestimate the technical and material means
of power in spite of their undoubted importance, and to take sufficient
account of the spiritual and moral factors. Our age, which has made such
progress in the conquest of nature, is inclined to attach too much
importance to this dominion over natural forces; but in the last resort,
the forces that give victory are in the men and not in the means which
they employ.
A profound knowledge of generalship and a self-reliant personality are
essential to enable the war preparations to be suitably carried out;
under the shifting influence of different aims and ideas the "organizer
of victory" will often feel doubtful whether he ought to decide this way
or that. The only satisfactory solution of such doubts is to deduce from
a view of warfare in its entirety and its varied phases and demands the
importance of the separate co-operating factors.
"For he who grasps the problem as a whole
Has calmed the storm that rages in his soul"