[23] De Brack, Chapter on Charges, p. 252.
[24] Acrimonious discussion with officers of other branches of the service as to their relative powers is to be deprecated as not conducive to “the unison of arms.” Good cavalry will beat bad infantry, and vice versa. An officer of artillery or infantry should believe that he and his men cannot be ridden over so long as they keep steady and in good heart, whilst a cavalry officer should, on the contrary, believe that he and his men can ride over anything. These two propositions, speaking in a logical sense, it is impossible to bring into agreement. Officers on the staff and general officers have by their training risen superior to the petty jealousies between the various arms; but experience shows that this can never be the case throughout the army.
[25] Cavalry in Future Wars, Von Bernardi, page 115: “It is never permissible to wait until driven into action by superior commands, but one must always endeavour to reap, on one’s own initiative, the utmost possibilities the situation holds out.”
[26] Langlois, Lessons from Two Recent Wars, p. 97: “Let us consider them (mounted infantry) next in the fight. They attack like infantry and leave their horses some way behind them. How easily could these groups of horses, held by a few men, be scattered by some squadrons of cavalry. But the squadrons, it is said, will be checked by the fire of dismounted men. To begin with, this will mean so many less carbines in the firing line. But can these moderate or at most ordinary shots—for they are not Boers—stop a resolute charge? Will it not be sufficient in any case to dismount a few men with carbines and so contain the few dismounted men who have to defend these herds of horses? And if needs be, would not fire alone be good enough to disperse the troops of riderless animals and reduce the men who are fighting some way off on foot to infantry without valises, without food, and soon even without cartridges?” And on page 98: “Does this mean that cavalry are never to use their carbines? No one has, I believe, and no one ever will, uphold such a theory. Improvements in firearms have rendered this particular weapon more and more useful, one may even say indispensable. Its employment has become more frequent and more justified in every phase of the engagement.”
[27] In Germany it is held that mounted infantry cannot hold the field against a highly trained cavalry, for sooner or later they would be caught when in the saddle, and then before they had time to dismount and fire it would be all over with them (Elliot, p. 31).
[28] The sword in its scabbard may be put through the shoulder cord, and so down the back and through the belt.
[29] A lesson taught us by our South African experiences, of which there is a danger of our losing sight, is the possible result of bringing large bodies of troops in close formation under the effective fire of modern guns and rifles.
[30] I altogether disagree with General von Bernardi where he says, p. 157, Cavalry in War and Peace: “It is at the same time advisable that a specially detailed cavalry escort should be dismounted for this object.”
[31] This is still more applicable in the fight of the cavalry division, since two horse artillery brigades in action occupy a front of 475 yards, and once the guns are in position the direction in which this front faces can only be altered to any appreciable extent by limbering up.
[32] General Sir D. Haig’s 2nd Staff Ride, p. 11: “With a force of greater strength than half a squadron, defiles should never be passed at a faster pace than the trot in order that each unit of the force may keep well closed up and the column be not unduly lengthened. After passing through, deployment should be made at a gallop so as to make room for units in rear.”