The Russian Army and the Japanese War, Vol. 2 (of 2) Being Historical and Critical Comments on the Military Policy and Power of Russia and on the Campaign in the Far East

The insufficient tactical preparation of our troops—Measures taken to improve it.

I have touched upon the fact of how our want of tactical training was shown up in the Crimean and second Turkish Wars. Especially conspicuous was the inability of our senior commanders—relying as they usually did upon quite inadequate information as to the enemy’s strength and dispositions—to co-ordinate the operations of the different arms towards one end, and their ignorance of where to deliver the main attack. The minor part played by our cavalry and our comparatively great power of defence were also remarked. Finally, attention was drawn to the fact that our lack of the power of manœuvre compelled us to place superior numbers in the field against the Turks, a course which had not formerly been necessary.

After the war of 1877–78 we set to work to study our weak points, in order to eliminate our faults. Much must have been accomplished since then, for the tactical training of the army at the beginning of the recent war was undoubtedly of a higher standard than it was twenty-five years ago. Still, in some matters we had not progressed, while in others we had actually gone back. The duty of training the troops rests with commanding officers of all ranks, and the responsibility for this extends right up to those in command of military districts. Although the same drill-books and manuals are used by the whole army, there is considerable variety in the way that the tactical instruction is imparted, owing to the diverse views held by the district commanders. I have taken part in many manœuvres, and was in command of the army at the grand manœuvres at Kursk in 1902, and I noted down what I considered to be our principal failings in this respect. In October, 1903, I submitted a report on the subject to the Tsar, in which my conclusions on certain points were as follows:

“1. Staff Work with the Main Army and with Detached Columns at the Grand Manœuvres.

“Generally speaking, the staff work cannot be characterized as entirely satisfactory. The principal reasons for this were the somewhat unhappy selection of the officers appointed to be chiefs of the different staffs, the poor organization of the staffs themselves, due to a limited personnel and to an insufficient supply of the means of communication [telegraph and telephone equipment] for both the troops and staffs, and the neglect to arrange proper intercommunication between units by making use of mounted orderlies, automobiles, or cyclists. Intelligence of the enemy as well as of the disposition of other units was always received late by those whom it concerned, because the cavalry was badly organized, and could not carry out its orders properly.

“The amount of writing done by the various staff-officers was colossal. They worked the whole evening and all night; their effusions were lithographed or printed, and were sent off in all directions; but the orders were rarely received by the troops in proper time. At the manœuvres of the Warsaw Military District in 1899, cases came under my notice of general officers commanding divisions receiving the order to move in the morning two hours after the time appointed for them to start.

“In many instances staff-officers with troops seemed ignorant of how a reconnaissance should be carried out, and consequently did not gauge the dispositions of the enemy’s forces with sufficient accuracy. This reacted in turn on the dispositions made by the chief commanders, more particularly in their employment of the reserves (Kursk manœuvres and those at Pskoff and Vlodava). Similarly, they did not know how to arrange for the maintenance of touch along the front and to the rear, a defect which caused a delay in the receipt of orders and information which was quite avoidable.

“2. Work of the Cavalry at Manœuvres.

“The increased importance now attached to the strategic or independent duties of cavalry has, in my opinion, acted detrimentally upon the cavalry work with the troops. The spirit of the strategic rôle was in most cases not properly grasped, and the chief idea of the masses of mounted troops of both sides appeared to be to meet each other. They therefore neglected to furnish the commanders of their sides with the information of the enemy, so necessary before an action, and left the infantry without their co-operation during the actual combat; this was the same whether they were acting in attack or defence. Long-distance patrols often did useful work, but owing to the lack of proper means for the quick transmission of the information collected, it reached the troops to whom it might be useful after the enemy’s dispositions had been changed. The near patrols did not work in with the long-distance ones. Our mounted troops were frequently allowed to lose touch with the enemy at night under the pretext that the men and horses required rest, and the employment of a dozen troopers was grudged after dark, when by day whole divisions and corps were futilely marched and countermarched, and sent upon duties which were not always in accordance with the general idea of the operations.

“The cavalry work should be more strictly in co-operation with that of the other arms than it is at present, and all officers in command of mounted units should remember that their rôle is auxiliary, and largely consists in assisting the General in command to come to a proper decision by the completeness and accuracy of the information they send back; that the cavalry should help the commanders, firstly, to frame a plan of action, then to crush the enemy on the field of battle.

“3. Attack and the Defence.

“Here again information was wanting. When commanders made up their minds either to attack or to stand on the defensive, they were never able to feel, from their information of the enemy and the locality, that they thoroughly knew what they were doing, or that it really was in accordance with the spirit of the general idea. We were strong in the defence, but we rarely delivered a soundly conceived or executed attack. In the attack column commanders did not always take pains to obtain enough accurate information as to the dispositions and strength of the enemy, so as to be able to appreciate the situation properly and draw up a reasoned plan of battle, to select the direction of the main attack, to allot the troops for it, and take steps to deceive the enemy as to its precise direction. When they had massed sufficient first-line troops for the main attack, they did not also move up the reserves of all arms.

“In particular, we did not know how to conduct the advance, and then deliver the assault with proper preparation by artillery and rifle fire. Many commanders seem, unfortunately, to be wedded to the idea of carrying out a continuous advance without making any use of the rifle. If we ever encounter an enemy, such as the Germans, who systematically train their troops to advance under cover of their own heavy rifle-fire, we shall be worsted, for in peace we often advance almost without firing a rifle to a range of 1,000 or even 800 paces of the position.

“The guns also frequently ceased fire at the same critical period—_i.e._, when their attacking infantry are nearing the enemy. My inquiries as to the reason for this were usually met with the reply that their ammunition was expended. If the absolute necessity for keeping in hand a considerable number of rounds for the assistance of the decisive infantry attack is not realized now that we have quick-firing guns, our artillery will in war become useless at the very moment when its co-operation is most vital.

“In defence we are better than in the attack, and we know how to make the most of the fire effect of both guns and rifles. The ranges in front of a position are usually measured and clearly marked. But proper use is not made of reserves. We do not, as we should, throw them into the firing-line, so as to increase the volume of fire after the enemy’s main attack has developed, nor do we launch them in a fierce counter-attack after he has come within decisive range. The reserves are often kept in mass, and thrown against the attack without any supporting rifle-fire. Many regiments and brigades told off as reserves to a defensive position go through the whole manœuvres without firing a single round.

“4. The Revival of the Column Formation in the Attack.

“Other European armies are now doing everything possible to minimize the murderous effect of modern rifle and artillery fire on themselves, and are, at the same time, endeavouring to develop their own fire to the utmost, both in the attack and defence; indeed, the Germans, in their efforts to this end, have gone the extreme length of deploying all their troops—sometimes even to the sacrifice of their reserves—in long thin lines. We, on the other hand, judging by the last manœuvres, are going to the other extreme, for our decisive attack is delivered almost without any fire preparation, and with men massed in quarter column!

“If a stop is not put to the increasing density of our attack formations, we shall suffer for it heavily. It is all the more dangerous for us, as we do not assist our assaulting infantry properly with supporting gun and rifle fire.

“5. The Work of the Artillery.

“Artillery positions were in most cases skilfully chosen, but the fire discipline was often bad. As batteries can only carry a limited number of rounds in the field, it is vital that the gunners should be taught to economize every round; this is, of course, particularly important with quick-firing guns. But we often fired more rounds than were necessary: fire was opened too hurriedly, at quite unimportant targets, with the result that, at the critical moment of the attack, batteries had to signal that they were in action, for all their ammunition had been expended.[1]

“6. The Work of the Sappers.

“The bloody lessons of Plevna and Gora Dubniak put fresh life into our military engineering, which lasted for a certain time after the Turkish War. Our sappers became skilful at constructing trenches and redoubts, and the other troops were also trained in field-works, and began to like entrenching themselves. But a reaction soon set in. This was largely due to General Dragomiroff, who did much to bring about a return to the old order of things, when it was held that everything was decided by the bayonet. He was quite opposed to the use of cover, and carried his orders on this subject to the height of absurdity, even forbidding his men to lie down while advancing to attack!

“To dig oneself into the ground means labour, and takes much time. Moreover, instructions used to be issued that all trenches dug had to be filled in again, and all redoubts dismantled. This at once limited the scope of trench-work in the army. The entrenching tool, which after the Turkish War had been valued next to cartridges and biscuits, was relegated to the mobilization store, and never brought out for use or even for inspection. At many manœuvres the men were not practised at all in the fortification of positions; at others the alignment of trenches was traced only. While giving the sapper units full credit for their excellent training, I cannot but express my fear that they specialize far too much in a mass of detail, and ignore the fact that their main duty in war is to co-operate in every way with the infantry, both in strengthening defensive positions and in the attack of them.