Cavalry / A Popular Edition of "Cavalry in War and Peace"

by Friedrich von Bernhardi

Such dispositions cannot therefore be regarded as justifiable. I consider it to be my unavoidable duty to express myself clearly upon this point. They in no wise alter the fact that to attack the enemy successfully our cavalry must, where its comparative strength in any way allows, be fundamentally formed in two lines, and be launched to the charge in the closest attack formation, knee to knee. For it was thus that the Prussian squadrons gained their laurels in all the splendid victories of the Frederician and Napoleonic wars.

At Mars la Tour, also, the success of the cavalry fight was decided by the 16th Dragoons, who threw themselves into the mêlée from the rear, acting as a second line entirely in accordance with the Frederician spirit. The 10th Hussars also attacked as a second line; and it was the cohesion of the 13th Dragoons, as we have already seen, that allowed them on two occasions rapidly to secure a victory.

If the conditions of the fight of cavalry against cavalry to-day have remained practically unaltered as compared to those of the past, it is a very different matter where the attack is against troops armed with modern firearms, essentially infantry and artillery.

In the old days, where infantry fought in serried masses, standing up, and were only able to cover a short distance to their front with a comparatively slow fire, the cavalry were able, even as against their own arm, to ride them down with shock action in close formation. They were therefore justified in attacking infantry in the same formation and with the same cohesion as they attacked cavalry. This has now changed. Nowadays, when infantry can cover the ground to a distance of 1,500 or even 2,000 yards with a hot and rapid fire, and offer in their wide extension no sort of objective for shock action, an attack on unshaken, steadily firing infantry, which has any sort of adequate field of fire, is quite out of the question. Only infantry whose morale has been shaken, or which can be surprised at quite close range, can still be charged with a prospect of success. It is, then, no question of attack in cohesion, but a matter of crossing as rapidly as possible the zone swept by the enemy's fire in some formation which will allow a portion at least of the cavalry to escape its full effect.

These conditions may be fulfilled by the formation in lines. The first line must receive the fire, and will thereby provide cover to some extent to the lines behind and the possibility of reaching the enemy without suffering too severely. It will usually be no advantage to form the first line in two ranks, as such a disposition would but increase losses and the disorder caused by them. It will be better, generally, that the leading line or lines should consist of one rank at quite loose interval. This is principally on account of the ground, as the horses, in order to rapidly cover the necessary distance, must have room to gallop freely, and to avoid such obstacles as may lie in front of them or may be caused by losses in the leading line.

It is obvious, in my opinion, that such attacks cannot be ridden home according to the same principles that govern the attack against cavalry. It is an arbitrary assumption that a line of cavalry 1,500 or 2,000 yards wide can cross country stirrup to stirrup at the regulation pace of the charge,[21] as the Regulations demand. Not only must the leading line ride at quite loose interval, but the main attack must also have a looser formation than is here demanded. It is therefore indicated that such extension should be laid down in the Regulations. For it can in no case be avoided, but is the outcome of the force of circumstances. In the formation in lines, however, there is always room to open out, and troops or squadrons may be used in single rank.

The same principles that govern the attack against infantry hold good for that against artillery. Here also it is a matter of crossing the zone of fire at a rapid pace in widely extended order, or drawing the fire of the artillery by the advance of the leading line, and of compelling it to repeatedly alter its elevation. To this end it may perhaps at first be advisable to expose only weak portions of the charging first line to the fire of the guns, in order to disturb it, and to pave the way for the success of the main attack. This will have to ride in line, or perhaps better still in squadron column, in order to make full use of the unexposed portions of the ground. Thus in this case, also, the leading lines in single rank extended and loose riding in the changing formations of the main attacking line are advocated.

The new Regulations arrive partially at the conclusions inevitable from these reflections. The attack in several lines, and the formation of a first line in single rank for the attack against fire action have been adopted by them (113 and 174).[22] In one point only according to my view, they do not take sufficient account of the demands of reality, and this is in the matter of extension. As before, the attack in close formation against infantry which the Regulations advocate, will be carried out and practised according to the same principles as against cavalry. As before, infantry firing lying extended under cover, as also artillery, are to be charged in the same method as cavalry advancing in close formation.

I think we have proved that the attendant conditions of the two cases differ widely. If the Regulations had but taken them into consideration, the difference between the two methods of attack would have thereby been made more intelligible to all officers from the first than could be done by general instructions of this nature.

The cavalry has now a demand made upon it by Regulation which, although it can be met on the drill-ground, will be impossible of fulfilment in war. It will therefore be necessary to discard in war what we have taken such pains to learn, a thing which frequently happens in manœuvres, and even on the exercise-ground.