Organization.
In my opinion, our experiences in the recent war have shown the necessity for such an organization in our army as I will now describe:
Infantry Regiment: To consist of 4 battalions, each of 4 companies. Each company to have a strength of 250 combatants. In addition to the 16 combatant companies per regiment, there should be scout sections (mounted and dismounted), and machine-gun sections with 16 portable guns. Strength of regiment, 5,000 men.
Cavalry and Cossack Regiments: As at present.
Infantry Brigade: 2 regiments, 8 battalions.
Cavalry Brigade: 2 regiments, 12 squadrons or sotnias.
All brigades should be capable of acting independently.
Infantry Division: To consist of 2 infantry brigades, 1 regiment of artillery,[47] 1 sapper battalion, 1 telegraph company, 2 squadrons or sotnias of cavalry, transport company, parks, bakeries, hospitals. Total, 17 battalions, 48 guns, and 2 squadrons or sotnias.
Cavalry Division: To consist of 3 separate brigades, 1 horse artillery battery. Total, 36 squadrons or sotnias, and 12 guns.
Army Corps: To consist of 3 infantry divisions, 1 artillery brigade, including a regiment of howitzers, 1 cavalry brigade,[48] 1 sapper brigade,[49] 1 transport battalion, 1 battalion for camps on the line of communication. Total, 48 battalions, 169 guns, 12 squadrons or sotnias, and 3 sapper battalions.
Reserve Troops: To be formed into independent brigades, to which the reserve units of artillery, cavalry, and sappers should be attached. Each brigade to consist of 8 battalions, 2 batteries (24 guns), 1 squadron or sotnia, 2 sapper companies, half a company of telegraphists, transport, hospitals, and bakeries. These brigades, being organized on an independent footing, would be attached to the armies; they would be detailed either as part of the army reserve or for independent work in guarding the flanks and rear, or be joined to corps, according to circumstances.
This, I think, will give great independence to all units, and the creation of independent reserve brigades, outside of the divisional and corps organization, would often prevent the breaking up of this organization when a battle was in progress. To organize reserve field troops beforehand in field formations, such as divisions of three brigades, or corps, is not a convenient or suitable arrangement, as they will not be ready to take part in the fighting as soon as the regulars.
Amongst steps which will raise the status of regimental service, and so attract the best men to it, I consider it necessary, in addition to providing an attractive uniform, to establish ranks distinct from those borne by officers on the staff, in administrative offices, and in departments. According to the scale of our military hierarchy, the various commands (exclusive of the Cossack troops) carry ranks as follows:
Sub-Lieutenant, Cornet, Lieutenant, and Staff-Captain in the different Arms are the ranks given to the junior officers in companies, squadrons, and batteries.
A Captain commands a company or a squadron.
A Lieutenant-Colonel commands a battalion, a battery, and a cavalry division.[50]
A Colonel commands a regiment and a division of artillery.
A Major-General commands a brigade.
A Lieutenant-General commands a division.
A Lieutenant-General or a full General commands an army corps or a military district.
All these ranks are also conferred on officers serving on the staff and in departments. Thus, the rank of Colonel, which ought only to be given to men in command of regiments, is also borne by those on the administrative and police staffs, while generals of all grades, who have never held command of troops or even of small units, fill up our Generals list. At the time I framed the regulation to limit the number of promotions to General’s rank of men not actually in the army I was much bothered by numerous officers who feared that their further promotion might be blocked. The present large number of ranks amongst the officer class is not required. It is quite possible to reduce them, and to give to these their old Russian names (to which the Cossack[51] troops still adhere), for officers of all Arms doing regimental service—namely, Khorunji, Sotnik, and Esaoul. The rank of Pod-esaoul, which was adopted later, might be excluded. Esaouls would command companies, squadrons, sotnias, and companies (of artillery); Sotniks would command half-companies, half-squadrons; and Khorunjis would command sections. The normal establishment of a company would be one Esaoul, two Sotniks, and four Khorunjis. The same should be done in the cavalry. For those not serving regimentally the ranks of Ensign, Lieutenant, and Captain might be maintained, those of Sub-Lieutenant and Staff-Captain being abolished. The present ranks of field-officers might be conferred on those officers not doing regimental service, and the titles of Voiskovoi Starshina and Colonel on those with regiments. The first would command a battalion, a division of cavalry or artillery; the second, regiments of all Arms. The rank of Lieutenant-Colonel to be kept for staff and departmental officers, and the rank of Major should be introduced instead of that of Colonel. The names of the ranks of those serving with troops to correspond generally to the nature of the appointment; thus, officers commanding brigades should be called Brigadiers, those in charge of divisions, Divisional Generals, of an army corps, Corps Generals. The latter rank should also be given to commanders of military districts and their assistants. The only officers not actually serving with troops who should be allowed to have the title of Corps General should be three: the War Minister and the chiefs of the General and Headquarter Staffs. For service away from troops only two ranks of General should be maintained—Major-General and Lieutenant-General. The titles Generals of Infantry and Cavalry, etc., should be abolished. The grading would then be as follows:
A.—FOR REGIMENTAL SERVICE.
| Commander of section | … | Khorunji. |
| Commander of half-company, half-squadron, | ||
| half-sotnia | … | Sotnik. |
| Commander of company, squadron, sotnia, | ||
| artillery company | … | Esaoul. |
| Commanding battalion, battery, | ||
| division of cavalry | … | Voiskovoi Starshina. |
| Commanding regiment | … | Colonel. |
| Commander of brigade | … | Brigadier. |
| Commander of division | … | Divisional General. |
| Commander of corps | … | Corps General. |
B.—FOR EXTRA REGIMENTAL SERVICE.
Ensign, Lieutenant, Captain, Lieutenant-Colonel, Major,
Major-General, and Lieutenant-General.
Except in the case of the chief staff-officers of districts, the transfer of general officers not with troops to service with troops should be forbidden. The appointments of Corps Chief Staff-officers and Quartermaster-Generals on the staffs of districts should carry the rank of Major. Officers going into other departments should take purely civil rank, and promotion on retirement should be abolished. To accelerate the advancement of specially distinguished colonels, it should be possible to appoint them to brigades with the rank of Brigadier. There is at present great confusion in this matter of accelerated promotion in deserving cases, for colonels can be given the command of independent brigades, and yet not of non-independent ones.
As war is a greater strain on the officers than on the men, it is important, when granting special privileges for regimental service to the latter, that great care should be taken to insure their physical fitness. A particularly bad form of unfitness is that caused by corpulence, and, unfortunately, many even of our company officers suffered from this in Manchuria. One of our regimental commanders was so stout that he was practically helpless, and was taken prisoner at Te-li-ssu, though unwounded! As to the rank and file, hill-climbing with an 80-pound equipment makes campaigning very arduous for those of forty years of age or over. Company and field officers can well serve up to fifty, but commanding officers of cavalry should not be over fifty, and of infantry regiments over fifty-five. The age-limit for generals in command of brigades and divisions should be sixty, and of corps sixty-three. The necessity for the age regulations we now have became apparent during the war, for as a result of them our field-officers were relatively young; but our experience proves that the limit should be still further lowered in the direction I have mentioned.
The proposals set forth above, which it is thought would tend to increase our fighting efficiency, are, after all, only details of organization and of preparation. The main factors contributing to insure victory are the same as they always have been—a high moral and the power of rapid concentration in superior strength. Diplomacy must prepare for the struggle so as to enable all the armed forces of the Empire to be put into the field if necessary, and we must have numerous efficient railways to facilitate the rapid massing of superior numbers. On these two most important factors will depend the plan of campaign. The ability to assume the offensive bestows an immense superiority, for it gives the initiative to the side which undertakes it. The defender’s leading troops are compelled to fall back, his less prepared troops are perhaps crushed, while his reinforcements are destroyed piecemeal. The result is that the moral of the attacker increases, while that of the enemy inevitably diminishes. To re-establish a balance under such conditions is not only a matter of time, but is extremely difficult. With a defensive plan of operations, unshakeable belief in eventual success and immense patience are necessary in order to overcome all difficulties, and to defeat the foe with a final assumption of the offensive.
From the short sketch I have given of what was accomplished by the Russian armed forces in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it is seen that we took the offensive in the majority of the wars we were engaged in. Without railways, but with a large peace standing army (period of service twenty-five years with the colours), with equality and often a superiority[52] in armament and training, Russia was able to commence operations, and to force her will upon the enemy—i.e., to assume the offensive. Nowadays we have been left behind by our Western neighbours in readiness for hostilities, and the recent war disclosed the fact that we had been outdistanced by our Eastern neighbour also. Russia will, no doubt, in time find the strength and means once more to take her former place amongst other Powers as regards fighting efficiency; but it will take years of unceasing effort, for rapid concentration and an offensive strategy are impossible without great developments in our railway system. No one can say whether we shall be allowed to wait for everything to be perfected, or whether we shall again be drawn into war before we are ready. It is therefore absolutely necessary to prepare without loss of time to make war under conditions as unfavourable as those of the recent conflict.
Without referring here to the necessity for diplomatic preparation for hostilities, and the proper attitude of all grades of Russian society during war, I will comment in the most general lines on those measures which should, in my opinion, be taken for the more useful employment of resources already at our disposal. The principle which is of such importance in field operations, that troops once engaged will not be relieved, must be finally accepted. Therefore, every unit going into action should know that it will be supported, but not replaced. The principle in its broadest sense applies without distinction to all ranks who join the field army, and till victory has been attained not a soul should be able to return home or receive another appointment outside the theatre of operations. Those who prove themselves unfit for their appointments at the actual front should be given other employments for which their bodily and mental qualifications are fitted. In such a serious business as war in defence of country no personal ambition should or can have place, and the removal of a person from the field army should be considered the greatest possible disgrace—a stain which the service of a lifetime cannot efface. Officers thus removed should be deprived of their military rank, dismissed the Service, and should forfeit all rights and privileges gained in the Service, and officers and men so removed should be deprived of the right to hold any Government post whatever, whether under the War Department or not.
The punishment for cowardice should be death.
I have touched upon the question of accelerated promotion for good service in the field, and the converse applies. Senior commanders who show themselves unfit for their appointments ought to be at once removed from their commands and given posts corresponding to their capabilities. Commanders of corps and divisions considered unfit may, in order to guard their military honour, request to be allowed to remain in the army in command of divisions or brigades. Only one kind of seniority can be acknowledged in war—namely, the ability to gain the victory. General officers incompetent for field service can do very useful work on the lines of communications, in the direction and training of the reserve troops, the management of hospitals, the administration of the inhabitants of the country, etc. If we ever mean to be capable of defeating a powerful enemy, we must not allow an army corps commander who is struck off from the command of his corps, and who does not even display personal courage, to become a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence; nor must we allow junior commanders who fail when tested by war to receive appointments in non-mobilized units, nor permit hundreds of officers who leave the front on account of ill-health, and under various pretexts, to remain away and not return. I say nothing of the case where an army commander leaves his army during active hostilities without even reporting his departure to the Commander-in-Chief.
If courts of honour are found to be a necessity in peace-time, how much more are they necessary in war? In addition to being formed in regiments, they should be formed in corps and armies to adjudicate upon the conduct in action of senior commanders up to the rank of Divisional General. It is vital that the existing immunity of men who show cowardice in action, or who are guilty of disgraceful conduct out of action, should at once cease. For this purpose I consider we should form soldiers’ courts of honour in every company and independent unit, as a means for suppressing the worst elements found in the ranks. For, with the lack of moral development of the modern man in the street, it is absolutely necessary to have some such tribunals upon whose verdict corporal punishment can be awarded to private soldiers. To leave the field under the pretext of assisting or carrying away the wounded—except for the men specially detailed for this duty—should be punished with the utmost rigour. And to fight an action to a finish, officers must not hesitate to sacrifice their last reserves, if necessary, and also themselves. It is necessary to draw attention to this, as instances occurred in the war where officers, having given orders for a retirement, were themselves the first to go. Such an example is always infectious, and leads to disorganization of units and loss of confidence in the commander. Commanders of forces who do not in battle support neighbouring units when able to do so should be deprived of their appointments, tried, and, if necessary, punished by death. Commanders of all ranks should be thoroughly alive to the value of every man in the ranks. Therefore, every endeavour should be made to keep units as strong as possible during an action.
Finally, I will touch briefly on several points. I will permit myself to express the opinion that the existing regulations as to rewards in war require revision and considerable alteration. At present far too many honours are bestowed. Another point that demands attention is that of malingering. As we have seen, sickness was more prevalent amongst the officers, in spite of their better living, than among the men. Unfortunately, also, the medical officers more than once called my attention, when I was inspecting hospitals, to cases of malingering amongst officers as well as men. The great majority of patients, of course, were really ill, but much of the sickness was due to the individual not taking proper care of himself. Officers must realize that, however honourable a thing it is to be wounded, it is as dishonourable to remain in hospital when their comrades are fighting. It should be ruled for all ranks that in such cases the period of sickness should not count as service, and that during it pay should be forfeited. All officers and officials absenting themselves for more than two months should be removed from their appointments, and appointed to the reserve or depôt troops. Amongst the many regrettable things to be noted in the late war was the disgraceful conditions under which both men and officers were often taken prisoner. The existing regulations, which lay down that all the circumstances of a case of capture should be investigated, were not complied with. Officers who returned straight to Russia from being prisoners in Japan were appointed by the War Department even to the command of divisions. There is only one thing which justifies capture—the fact of being wounded. All those who surrender when they have not been wounded should be tried by court-martial for not fighting to the last.
The regulations regarding fortresses should be revised, and the occasions upon which a fortress is allowed to surrender should be absolutely cut out, for fortresses may be taken, but should never, under any circumstances, surrender. Commandants of fortresses who surrender them, captains who surrender their ships, officers in command of units that lay down their arms, should be considered as forfeiting all rights, and should be condemned to be shot without trial, and all those not in command who surrender unwounded should be deprived of their military rank from the day of their surrender. During the war the Press did much to undermine the authority of officers in command, and to lower the moral of the men, by indiscriminate revelations. In the next war only such events should be allowed to appear in the newspapers as may help to encourage the men. When active operations are over, the circumstances are changed, and it is then essential for the good of the Service to have a thorough investigation into all shortcomings.
But it is not sufficient that all ranks of the army should be imbued with the spirit of fighting on till victory is won; it is necessary that the whole nation should have the same feeling, and to the best of their ability assist towards a happy issue of the struggle being carried on by the army. In our state of backwardness (especially as regards railways) we are doomed in our next war to a slow concentration, and therefore to a protracted campaign. Being unable at once to put large forces into the field, and to seize the initiative, we may again be compelled to bear the consequences of our unreadiness—frequent reverses, and retirement; but we must, without wavering, firmly believe in eventual success, however unfavourable the conditions at the start. The moral and material resources of Russia are immense, and the fixed determination on the part of the army and the whole nation to win is our principal guarantee of victory.
CHAPTER XII
SUMMARY OF THE WAR
I have already reviewed[53] (in Chapters [VIII.], [IX.], [X.], and [XI.]) the causes of our failure. They can be summarized in three groups:
1. Those causes independent of the War Ministry.
2. Those dependent on the War Ministry, for which officers in the field had no responsibility.
3. Those for which officers in the field were alone responsible.
The first group comprises—
(a) The absence of any diplomatic arrangement which would have enabled us to despatch and distribute our whole army freely as circumstances dictated (similar to that which in 1870–71 made it possible for the Prussians to move the whole of their armed forces against France).
(b) The subordinate part played by the fleet during the war.
(c) The inferiority of the Siberian and Eastern Chinese Railways.
(d) The internal disorders in Russia, which affected the spirit of the army.
The second group comprises—
(a) The delay in mobilizing the reinforcements for the Far East.
(b) The transfer into the reserve during the war of well-trained soldiers—men who were still liable for colour service—from the military districts in European Russia, while untrained elderly reservists were being sent to the front.
(c) The belated despatch of drafts to the front. (The reason of this was also the inefficiency of the railways.)
(d) The delay in promoting those who particularly distinguished themselves in the field. (Many recommendations were ignored.)
(e) The deficiencies in our technical equipment.
(f) The faults of organization (absence of troops for protecting communications, dearth of transport, unwieldiness of the army and corps organizations).
(g) Deficiencies in the personnel both of officers and men.
The third group comprises—
(a) The absence of a true military feeling among the troops.
(b) The poor spirit in action shown by some of them.
(c) The lack of determination on the part of commanders of all degrees to carry out the tasks entrusted to them.
(d) The breakdown of the organization under the stress of war.
The weak points of our forces, which were so noticeable in the wars waged in the second half of the last century, had not been entirely eliminated during the fifty years which intervened since the Crimea, and were again evident in the recent struggle—namely:
1. We were inferior to our enemy in technical troops and equipment.
2. The “command” was unsatisfactory.
3. The army was insufficiently trained tactically.
4. We did not insure victory by having considerable superiority in numbers.
We did not have before us any clear idea of our object, and consequently did not show sufficient determination in its prosecution.
So many different reasons have been advanced for our failure that the question naturally arises as to what foundation there really is for my opinion—shared by the greater part of the army in the field—that if we had not concluded peace so hastily victory would have crowned our arms.
My belief that we could, and ought to, have issued victorious from the struggle is based upon—
- The steady growth of our material forces.
- The growth of our moral forces.
- The gradual deterioration of the enemy in both respects.