Then, again, what is our conception of such a hostile squadron breaking through? It may be expected to be accompanied by a simultaneous rearward movement of a corresponding portion of our own line, so that no clear objective for attack from the flank would be likely to offer itself. Such retirements of single portions of the line can only be met and counteracted by throwing in fresh forces from the rear; such has always been the experience in cavalry fights, as far as the teachings of history show.
But there are other matters for consideration. How can the squadron, écheloned, for instance, on the outer flank of a brigade, intervene when this so-called rupture of the line takes place on the inner flank? In the dust and excitement of a cavalry fight, will such a rupture, especially in undulating country, be even noticed? What if there is a simultaneous threatening of the other flank, which the échelon is obliged to meet? What if the échelon has advanced in an enveloping movement? Who is then to deal with the rupture of the line?
To go on trying to prove that the duties devolving on depth and échelon cannot be met by one and the same detachment, is like carrying coals to Newcastle. The formation of a second line in the fight against cavalry, regarded as exceptional by the Regulations, should be made an invariable rule, from which departure is allowed only in exceptional cases, while safety for the flanks must be arranged for independently of this.
Here again we come into collision with paragraph 170 of the Regulations, which lays down that an offensive flank attack may be undertaken from a rearward échelon; as if such a manœuvre could possibly be carried out! Detachments which are to turn the enemy's flank must, during the approach, advance into alignment with their own line separated from its flank by the necessary interval, or else must be écheloned forwards from the commencement.
Forward échelon will generally be found to correspond with the offensive spirit of cavalry better than the more defensive rearward échelon. It is usually more practical and protects the flank better, while at the same time threatening the enemy's flank and laying down the law to him. Forward échelon is a very useful tactical cavalry formation, and deserves more attention than the Regulations bestow upon it.[49]
On its offensive importance I need scarcely enlarge. Troops in forward échelon are already in a position which can only be reached after an exhausting gallop by those in rearward échelon, the position prescribed by the Regulations. They will be in a position to frustrate any offensive intentions of the hostile reserves, and will obtain quicker and surer information as to the enemy than will ever be possible at such a time by patrols alone. That they may at times come in contact with hostile troops in rearward échelon is obvious. If the flank of these cannot be turned, they must be dealt with frontally. Local dispositions and a vanguard must provide security against the action of hostile reserves.
Even in a defensive sense the forward échelon will often be more useful than the rearward. The latter formation surrenders the initiative to the enemy, and confines itself to parrying attacks, always a disadvantage in a cavalry fight. Forward échelon, on the contrary, seeks to forestall the enemy in the offence. As to how it may often be better adapted to warding off hostile attacks than the rearward échelon I will give an example.
A body of cavalry, in the approach formation, is advancing against the enemy, with blind ground on a flank, which would allow of the enemy's covered approach, and which perhaps it has been impossible to reconnoitre. Attack or fire surprise is feared from this quarter. How will the cavalry protect itself? The modern tactician would in most cases reply: "By an échelon to the rear." I do not think this would be suitable. How is such a formation to give safety from fire surprise, and to locate the enemy's advance and arrest it until the main body can take counter-measures? The forward échelon can here alone avail. It comes to close quarters with the enemy, attacks him before he can reach the flank of the main body, and thus gains time for defensive measures or retirement.
It is quite obvious that the cases for employment of the forward échelon do not allow of being formulated. I think, however, that we should make much more use of this formation than is at present the fashion. Properly applied, such methods will ensure to us considerable superiority over our opponents.
If we turn from this narrower tactical point of view to the formations on a large scale where échelon is to be found—namely, the divisions—here too the examination leads to no more favourable conclusions. I ask myself, when and under what circumstances will such a formation be advisable?