The question of economising strength is often entirely neglected, especially in the case of reconnoitring squadrons, just as it is with forces of all arms during manœuvres. The force is unwarrantably weakened by making too many detachments, and is then called upon to perform tactical evolutions which it cannot possibly carry out satisfactorily. The commander must learn to husband his force, even though his sphere of reconnaissance may be large. He must arrange the strength of his distant patrols according to the importance of the mission upon which they are despatched, and must reduce the number of close patrols to a minimum, while being particularly careful to draw in his patrols at the right time. He must, on the other hand, realise the value of fighting as a means to the attainment of his object. It appears to me that there is some confusion of thought as to the use of engagements, particularly in reconnaissance work.
Formerly, the idea prevailed that cunning and speed were the important features of reconnaissance, and that the enemy's scouts should, if possible, be avoided. Now, however, the new "Field Service Manual" enunciates the principle that even patrols should attack the enemy's cavalry wherever met with. It is rightly represented that by pushing back the enemy's patrols and other reconnoitring organs his reconnaissance is hampered, whilst our own service of transmission is assisted, and that only by a ubiquitous offensive can an appreciable moral superiority be attained.
I should certainly be the last to oppose the idea of bold, self-confident, offensive tactics; but the question is whether such tactics would always be sound policy. In reconnaissance work, the first object of an engagement is to facilitate scouting; the second, to inflict losses on the enemy. Although the "Field Service Manual" is undoubtedly correct in principle, it should not be taken too literally, especially when the attainment of the object in view—viz. to obtain information regarding the enemy—might depend on the result of a fight. If any doubt exists regarding the result, it may be better to abstain from attack; while, if it is evident that a victory can only be gained at so heavy a loss as to adversely affect further reconnaissance, an engagement should, if possible, be avoided. Every effort should be made to render the tactical conditions as favourable as possible. A fight on foot is to be avoided, as entailing waste of time and considerable loss. A defensive action dismounted should only be undertaken when there is a defile to be held that cannot be turned. Mobility, on the other hand, must be exploited in every possible way, in order that, if a fight is to be brought on, it may take place under the most favourable circumstances. In such a case, if an enemy is encountered who is either weaker or only slightly superior in strength, and who is known to be without support, he should always be boldly attacked. Stratagems, or creeping up to the enemy and avoiding his outposts and patrols, should only be resorted to when it is necessary to avoid discovery in order to attain the object in view. During training great stress should be laid on a proper appreciation of these principles, as our cavalry still lacks sound traditions with regard to reconnaissance work.
Thus no greater error could be made during reconnaissance exercises than to attach the most importance to encounters between the main bodies, but this mistake is unfortunately frequently committed. It is on the exercise grounds that these mass engagements can and should be learnt. During reconnaissance exercises, however, the strategical conduct of detached columns, and, above all, the handling of reconnaissance organs, should receive most attention. These matters would, of course, be largely influenced by the result of the main action between the masses of the cavalry on either side, and this should be made clear to all concerned; but the manner in which such an engagement is actually conducted by the main bodies is of lesser moment, and all attention should not be centred in it.
It is, however, essential that the exercises should be so planned that the mass of cavalry does not advance in close formation in one group, and that the reconnoitring organs are not obliged to carry on the prescribed reconnaissances throughout the manœuvres within the area originally allotted to them, as would usually be the case where the armies, or their cavalry divisions, advance directly towards one another. This entails but a very elementary form of reconnaissance, and is mainly of use as an exercise in co-operation between the different units. The real difficulties only commence when, during the course of the manœuvres, the detached columns of the cavalry have to act in concert; when they endeavour to co-operate after one of them has come into collision with the enemy; when, perhaps, the areas allotted to reconnoitring squadrons have been changed; or a success achieved by the cavalry of one side or the other produces entirely new conditions, to which the reconnaissance organs have to adapt themselves independently. These are moments that call for great powers of judgment on the part of the officers, and for skill and resourcefulness on the part of the men, and they are consequently very valuable for instructional purposes. The relief of the reconnaissance organs, hitherto never practised, but highly important, also presents many difficulties of a practical nature. An attempt should be made when arranging exercises to bring about situations of this nature, which will be of great service to the troops, and afford an opportunity of bringing to light cavalry talent among the officers. Though such talent is often to be found amongst the best horsemen or instructors, such is not always the case, and every effort must be made to discover and foster it.
The cavalry service is no place for mediocrities, and it is important that the directors of the exercises should be fully qualified to carry out their task, and be free from all dependence upon Regulation or prejudice. The personal equation plays a greater part in the cavalry than in any other arm, yet in no other arm is it, as a rule, so indifferently solved.
I should like, in conclusion, to draw attention to two more points.
First, I would insist on not more maps being distributed among the troops at these exercises than would actually be available in an enemy's country. The fact of being the whole time in one's own country, where the inhabitants are ready to give any information required, renders the work very much easier, and if, perhaps, in addition, every man has a map, the difficulties that would crop up in time of war are not adequately represented.
The second point is of equal importance, though of quite a different nature. The movement of large bodies of cavalry in time of war entails considerable difficulties in the way of transport, and it would be well if these could, somehow, be made apparent during the exercises. The expense might certainly be heavy, but would be well justified, for it is in the cavalry, more than any other troops, that the drag of a transport column is most felt.
END