SMALL WARS
Callwell, in his well-known work on this subject, defines the small war in the following terms: “It comprises the expeditions against savages and semi-civilised races by disciplined soldiers, it comprises campaigns undertaken to suppress rebellions and guerilla warfare in all parts of the world where organised armies are struggling against opponents who will not meet them in the open field, and it thus obviously covers operations very varying in their scope and in their conditions.”[50]
The British Empire, “upon which the sun never sets,” is seldom without its small war in some remote part of the globe, and it is safe to affirm that there is never a small war in which the machine gun does not play a prominent part.
Wars against savages or semi-civilised peoples differ fundamentally in principles and tactics from war against a civilised enemy, and the tactics adopted will be governed by the object of the expedition and the tactics and arms of the enemy to be dealt with. Callwell says: “The tactics of such opponents differ so greatly in various cases that it is essential that these be taken fully into consideration. The armament of the enemy is also a point of extreme importance.”
In dealing with machine-gun tactics in small wars, it is obviously impossible to treat with all the situations that may be met with or to attempt to lay down definite rules for their use under all the varying conditions of country, race, and arms before mentioned. It will therefore be sufficient for our purpose to show how machine guns may be used generally in warfare in uncivilised countries, and then to take a single typical campaign to illustrate their employment.
“Against an enemy who fights outside stockades, machine guns are very efficacious; and in any case against all uncivilised people a sudden burst of fire from these is often most paralysing.”[51]
After speaking of the jamming of non-automatic machine guns at Ulundi, Abu Klea, Dogali, and Tofreck, Callwell says: “On the other hand, Maxims, which can be easily handled and moved, have done excellent service in East Africa, in Matabililand, and in the campaigns on the North-West Frontier of India. There can be no doubt that machine guns of an easily portable and thoroughly trustworthy class may be most valuable in small wars, and they will probably be freely used in such operations in the future, especially when the enemy is inclined to attack in mass. In hill warfare these weapons scarcely get a proper chance, as they are not very well suited for picking off individuals and as it is dangerous to thrust them too far to the front with the small parties which are so much used in operations of this class. In bush warfare also the want of a fair target is unfavourable to them, and when the shooting is at short range the detachment is likely to be put hors de combat, as it offers such a good target; this happened at Owikokaro. An open field of fire and a well-defined object to aim at are almost more necessary to machine guns than to artillery. On the defensive, machine guns can hardly fail to be valuable. In laager, zarebas, and detached posts of all kinds they are always likely to be of service, and to a certain extent they may take the place of guns for such work. During the operations in Rhodesia in 1896 they were found very useful as a protection to the small laagers left behind by the columns when they moved out for a fight. Two of them did tremendous execution in Chakdara Fort during the siege of that post in 1897. It is interesting to note that at the fight on the Shangani River in Matabililand after the attempt to capture the king had failed, the troops, although they were in a bad position, could not move to a better one for a while, simply because the machine guns would have been thrown out of action during the change of position. Against rushes of Zulus, Ghazis, or other fanatics the effect of such weapons is tremendous, as long as the fire is well maintained. In the excitement of the moment the best infantry may fire unsteadily; but machine guns can be absolutely trusted to commit destructive havoc in the hostile throng, provided that their mechanism does not go out of order.”[52]
The above is interesting as showing the wide field for their use in small arms and yet how narrow the method of tactical employment. It may be summed up in a few words: a good target, a good field of fire, constant readiness for action, and sufficient protection to enable the gun to be handled with confidence.
Machine guns should form an integral part of the arm to which they are attached, and must be used with them to supplement their fire power. In attack they must seek positions from which to bring to bear a concentrated and overwhelming fire on the main body of the enemy, and against savages this must be from the flanks or rear to be successful, as the object is to prevent flight and insure decisive results. Their real value in small wars lies in their enormous defensive powers, which may be employed in clearing the way for columns in enclosed country, in stopping a charge of fanatics whether mounted or on foot, and in preventing small columns on the march from being overwhelmed by superior numbers.
It will be found that, although it is the invariable rule for the disciplined force in a small war to assume the initiative and attack with vigour on every possible occasion, the uncivilised enemy, by reason of his primitive arms and tactics, generally avoids the encounter until he is able to make an attack at a time and on ground of his own choosing. Thus we find the disciplined force thrown on the defensive in the early stages of the expedition and the very heavy losses inflicted then often directly lead to a speedy termination of the campaign. Callwell says: “The tactics adopted by the Zulus and Mahdists when flushed with confidence were best met at a halt in close formation, even on ground where arms of precision could not tell with full effect. In the jungles of Dahomey the sudden hostile attacks on flanks and rear could be confronted most satisfactorily by the troops on the spot acting on the defence until the edge was taken off the hostile appetite for combat.... Where a small force of regular troops is opposed to great hostile masses, no matter how ill-armed or how deficient in morale the masses may be, circumstances render it almost imperative to act on the defensive.”
For this reason alone machine guns form the most valuable arm in encounters of this nature, and their tremendous effect cannot be better illustrated than at Omdurman, where they literally mowed down the attacking masses in great swathes.
The first consideration when employing machine guns in a small war is the method of carrying the gun and its ammunition, which must be suited to the country in which the operations are to take place.
In the majority of cases it will be found that the usual transport of the country is the most suitable, and a tripod-mounted gun can be adapted to almost any form of carriage. In mountainous open country such as the North-West Frontier of India mules or ponies are suitable; in the desert the camel has been used; while in the forests of East Africa machine guns have been carried by porters on their heads, strapped on their backs, or slung beneath a pole by two men. Whatever method is adopted, it is essential that the gun can be brought into action easily and quickly, and that it is at least as mobile as the troops it accompanies.
The operations in Somaliland in 1901-4 are an excellent example of one of our typical small wars, and will serve to illustrate the use of machine guns against a savage enemy in a bush country.
The camel is the transport animal of the country and riding camels were used to carry the machine guns with the infantry of the force. In the first expedition, under Lieut.-Colonel Swayne, there were three Maxim guns—two of which were ·450 bore and one a ·303. On June 2nd, 1901, Captain McNeil, who was left in zareba at Smala to guard the live stock, was attacked by about 3,000 Somalis, who increased to about 5,000 on the 3rd. His force consisted of three British officers and 500 native troops, many of whom were native levies and only 370 of whom were armed with rifles. There were about 3,500 camels, 100 horses, and some cattle and goats in a separate zareba from the men who were above and able to command it. The Maxim, under Lieutenant Younghusband and served by Somalis, was placed on a cairn of stones at the top of the men’s zareba and commanded a good field of fire all round. The ground was fairly open all round, and clear of bushes for about 150 yards from the zareba. Before the camels could be driven in, the enemy’s horsemen appeared and threatened to capture a large head of camels, to prevent which a section under a Jemada was sent out to try to keep off the enemy until these camels could be driven in. Captain McNeil says: “I supported him by turning the Maxim on the nearest horseman.... Some of the horsemen had got round by now a good way out, but by keeping the Maxim on them, supported by long-range volleys from the Punjabis, we did much to check them.”[53]
On June 3rd at about 9 a.m. a very large force of footmen attacked in one long line several ranks deep and enveloped the south and west sides of both zarebas. They came on at a steady pace and opened fire at about 400 yards. Fire was reserved until the enemy were at about 500 yards range, when heavy fire was opened by both rifles and Maxim, with the result that no one got within 150 yards of the zareba, though they advanced most pluckily. 180 dead were found around the zareba, and the enemy’s loss was estimated at 500.
The danger of rushing machine guns up to the front while still mounted is shown in an incident that occurred on June 17th during a successful attack on the Mullah’s villages near Feriddin. During the reconnaissance the mounted corps became somewhat heavily engaged, and Colonel Swayne sent forward the reserve company and the Maxims to bring fire to bear from a commanding spur about two miles to the front. On reaching the spur they came under a heavy fire, and the Maxim camels and some ponies were shot down. The Somalis, however, were able to disentangle the Maxims from the dead camels and bring them into action on commanding ground.[54] Colonel Swayne, in his official report, said: “Mekometers were badly wanted for the Maxims.... The Maxims had a trick of jamming at critical moments, but were quickly set right again. The fault may have been due to the belts.”
When the Maxim gun jams without a breakage of the mechanism, the fault is usually want of experience on the part of the gunner.
During the third expedition the machine guns were increased to eleven and were carried by porters with the infantry.
The disaster to Colonel Plunkett’s force at Gumburu on April 17th was due to ammunition running short. The force, consisting of about 200 men with two machine guns, was attacked by a large force of horse and foot. They at once formed square, and took up a position in an open spot surrounded by dense bush at from 300 to 600 yards’ distance. For some two hours they were able to hold off the enemy, but on the ammunition being exhausted they were overwhelmed.
On April 22nd, 1903, Major Gough’s force of about 200 men with one machine gun was attacked in thick bush by a large force under very similar conditions to Colonel Plunkett. The attack began at 10.30 a.m. from all sides, and was continued with great determination until 2 p.m. Square was formed, and fire opened at very close range (20 to 50 yards), owing to the dense bush. “The Maxim, under Sergeant Gibb, was moved from place to place as occasion arose, the enemy always giving way when it opened fire.”[55]
In the fourth expedition, under General Egerton, the ammunition per machine gun was 30,200 rounds in garrison, 10,400 rounds with the brigade, and 2,200 rounds in second-line transport; 6,000 rounds with each gun was carried ready in belts.
During the action at Jidbali on January 10th, 1904, the force engaged, which consisted of about 2,500, including native levies, the infantry, about 1,299 strong, formed the usual hollow square round the transport. The enemy consisted of the pick of the Mullah’s fighting Dervishes, and were about 6,000 to 8,000 strong. The Dervishes advanced in regular skirmishing order, rushing from cover to cover, and lying down. A few got within 400 yards of the square, but were unable to face the heavy rifle and Maxim fire that met them, and this attack failed. Then two determined rushes were made on the front and right flank of the square, but they were met with such a terrific fire from rifles and Maxims that the charging enemy could not face it. At 10 a.m. the whole mass of the enemy broke and fled, followed by fire till it was masked by the pursuing mounted troops. Six hundred and sixty-eight dead were counted round the position two days later.[56]
“Much execution was done by the Maxim worked in the right corner of the square by Sergeant Gibbs, 1st Bn. King’s African Rifles, on the groups of Dervishes taking cover behind the scattered clumps of bushes surrounding the square. One entire group of nine men was wiped out in a moment by this Maxim.”[57]
It will be seen that machine guns are a very useful auxiliary in bush warfare, especially in holding posts and defending squares from the rush of fanatics. They must always march with the main body of the arm to which they are attached, and be used as circumstances require. A high state of efficiency in working the gun, a thorough knowledge of its mechanism, and ability to bring it into action with great rapidity are of more importance in bush warfare than tactical handling, which is usually of the simplest description.