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

by A. N. Kuropatkin

In Manchuria, just as in the wars of the second half of last century, the great value of the infantry brigade as an independent fighting unit came out strongly in all the large battles; as also did the great influence of its commander on the result of the fight.

The advance and rear guards of army corps generally consisted of brigades. A brigade commander usually began the attack; a brigade commander usually finished it (by commanding the rearguard). And yet the post of Brigadier is not considered one of importance; his powers are insignificant, and his position does not allow him sufficient independence to enable him to train either himself or his unit. Divisional commanders and their chief staff-officers in peace-time often ignore the brigadiers as if they were not wanted, and were fifth wheels to the coach; and their absence for whole years, building barracks and roads, etc., is not considered to have any adverse effect on the successful training of the regiments under them. In such circumstances even the zealous ones, and those anxious to do their duty, become dulled, slack, and lose capacity for work. There can be only one way out of this unnatural state of things, which, from a military point of view, is most harmful: brigade commanders must in peace-time be given independent command of those units which they will have to command independently in war. This applies to cavalry as well as to infantry. Every brigade should have a small staff such as exists in independent brigades—namely, two adjutants, one an officer of the General Staff for operations, and one for administration. Each brigade commander should have powers in both these branches of their duty equal to that now delegated to divisional commanders, while their disciplinary powers should remain as at present.

III.

Our divisional commanders are independent and in direct touch with troops; but they also are overburdened with routine correspondence, and as they are frequently appointed to command the summer camps, it happens that they are more often present at the exercises of the troops as spectators than actually in command. In field operations where there are two sides, the divisional general rarely finds it possible to take command of one, partly owing to an exaggerated idea of his own abilities, and partly to the scarcity of officers of sufficient seniority to be umpires. Consequently, he only gets practice in commanding troops in the field during concentrations of large bodies of men. This is not enough. Commanders of infantry divisions, in particular, do not know nearly enough about the other arms, owing to the little practice they get in commanding mixed forces. So, while giving greater powers to brigade commanders, it will be also advisable to delegate to divisional generals the powers now exercised by corps commanders (with the exception of disciplinary powers). Divisional commanders should always remember that the 16,000 rifles which they command are a number that can decide the fate of any action. With the inclusion, in divisions, of artillery, sapper, and cavalry units, exceedingly instructive exercises can be arranged within these units both in summer and winter, and the troops and their commanders thereby trained for war under modern war conditions. The four[32] officers of the General Staff who would be with each division should be relieved of all routine, except that relating to operations, and they should devote the whole of their time and energies to preparing work for the brigade and divisional commanders in the training of the troops for battle.

IV.

Army corps commanders are quite independent, but, like the divisional commanders, are overburdened with routine correspondence, etc., and do not get sufficient practice in commanding troops in the field. Some, during a tour of duty of several years, have never commanded troops on manœuvres; and it is impossible for all of them to have sufficient acquaintance with cavalry, as some corps do not include this arm. They and their staff, especially the General Staff officers, have no practice at all, or else very little, in the use of technical equipment and the modern aids to warfare (telegraphs, telephones, mines, motors, balloons, etc.). The experience of the late war showed up the necessity of increasing the establishment of the army corps, and the actions of their commanders will have such an important, and in many cases deciding, influence, that extremely careful selection is necessary for these posts; the men appointed must be capable of teaching others as well as of learning themselves. As with the divisional generals, so should the powers of corps commanders be extended at the expense of those now exercised by officers in command of military districts.

V.

The commanders of military districts are the senior officers actually in charge of troops, and have at the same time important duties as administrative heads of districts. Here again administrative work, together with correspondence connected with the troops, occupies the greater part of their time, and only in exceptionally favourable circumstances (the large manœuvres with concentrations of troops from different districts) can they get any practice in commanding in the field. But as they also have to perform the duties of Governor-General, they are not able to devote sufficient time to the troops, even in inspecting them, or to improving themselves. I am absolutely convinced that, however much such a combination of two appointments—each of which requires a man of exceptional ability and character—may be desirable from the political point of view, it has the gravest disadvantages for the army. There is a limit to human power. As our governor-generals devote the greater part of their time and energies to civil matters, they entrust a large part of their military duties to the chief staff-officers of the districts. It can easily be understood that such an arrangement is not in the interests of the army. For instance, the most important military district—that of Warsaw—was, as far as the army was concerned, neglected in the time of several governor-generals. Indeed, at one time, much to the subversion of the authority of officers in command of districts and corps, the troops in this area were controlled by the chief of the district staff! Therefore, if we wish that the commanders of military districts—our most natural selections for the command of armies in war—should have time to prepare themselves for this important duty, we should free them from civil duties; otherwise we shall get no improvement. They must also be relieved of the numerous and responsible cares with respect to all those questions which in war mainly fall to the officer in command of the communications.

The inspection of hospitals, of supply depôts, engineer and artillery units, of parks, of offices—everything that takes too much time from the exercises for the actual training of the troops and of themselves—should be eliminated from their duties. These have become so heavy with the complications of modern war, and are fraught with such importance to army and country, that the men who will have to perform them must unceasingly prepare themselves in peace; but, for the reasons I have already given, few officers have time to follow up the developments in their profession. That is why in the recent war we were left behind in knowledge of the employment of artillery, of the utility of the various technical means of intercommunication, in appreciating relative value of different attack formations, etc. Our senior officers must be given sufficient leisure, while improving the troops under them, at the same time to improve themselves.