Machine-Gun Tactics

by R. V. K. Applin

“Is it, then, that those who advocate the substitution of mounted infantry for cavalry are in the right; that the lancer, hussar, and dragoon of picturesque memory have become obsolete in these days of the breechloading rifle? Almost it would seem so. But for two important considerations, the case for mounted infantry might well be deemed as proved. These considerations, however, are of such a nature as to lead the observer to directly opposite conclusions: to conclude actually that cavalry pure and simple is as useful to the army of to-day as it was to the army of Napoleon’s day; and that it is totally erroneous to suppose that mounted infantry can be an efficient substitute for cavalry. The cause of the effectiveness of Japanese cavalry is not far to seek. The men are the most intelligent of Japanese soldiers, and their many fine patrol performances are evidence of the sound methods in which they have been trained. Their weakness lies in the poor quality of the horses, and the fact that the Russian cavalry outnumbers them by six to one. Marked inferiority of force, in all forms of rivalry, is a fatal disadvantage, and it is for this reason that the Japanese have failed to shine in the rôle which experience has assigned to cavalry. The Russian cavalry, on the other hand, is estimated to number 30,000 sabres, a force of mounted men which, in the circumstances, ought to have made the lives of the Japanese commanders on the flank of the army a burden to them. Instead of which, life in the rear of the Japanese front has been a sinecure, a positive dolce far niente, undisturbed even by the distant flash of any of these sabres. Is this a proof that, if the sabres had been rifles, something could have been accomplished? Very far from it. It is because the Russian cavalry, armed as it is with rifle and—shade of Seydlitz!—bayonet, is trained to fight only on foot, thereby throwing away its most valuable weapon, mobility, that it has proved no more effective in the field than a flock of sheep. That the microscopic force of Japanese cavalry has held the Russian throughout the campaign—an exceedingly remarkable performance when it is remembered how indifferently the Japanese are mounted—testifies clearly enough that there must be something futile about the arming and training of the Russians.... They failed as cavalry and they failed as riflemen, and the reason of the failure was that they are neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor good red herring. They are organised as cavalry, but have been trained to dismount on service. In peace they are armed with lance and sword, and in war they are asked to fight with rifle and bayonet. Truly an absurdity, worthy of one of those nebulous units evolved by our own Parliamentary reformers. Last month Mishchenko, marching forty-five miles in four long summer days, again descended on the Japanese flank, accounted for a couple of companies and a field hospital, frightened a number of Chinese carters, and stopped before a thin line of infantry guarding the approaches to Hsin-minting, where Japanese supplies are stored sky-high. Had he known it, he was within an ace of picking up a number of distinguished British officers, besides newspaper correspondents, and a famous general whom the Emperor William has specially delighted to honour. But an inferior number of riflemen checked the advance, and no use was made of the mobility of the column, except to retire by a circuitous route.... So far as my information goes, the Russian cavalry west of Mukden never once took the offensive during the battle. Strapped up with rifle and bayonet, they are incapable of wielding the sword; their lances, except in the case of a small proportion of the Cossacks, have been left in Russia. So it was useless to contemplate old-fashioned cavalry work. But the Japanese communications were an easy mark, and it is one of the most singular features of Russian tactics that they did not avail themselves of so glaring an opportunity. Even as mounted infantry they should have been able to destroy Nogi’s communications. Yet they never made a single attempt at interference.

“The deduction is obvious: either the training or arming must be at fault. When a mounted man dismounts he sacrifices his mobility to become a weak infantryman. The Russian cavalry has been trained to fight dismounted, and the result is that the Russians have divested themselves of the one arm which, many keen observers believe, might have availed to turn the tide in their favour. The battle of Mukden was a great defeat, though not an overwhelming disaster. At one period the result hung in the balance, and it is no wild statement to say that if the Russian cavalry had been trained and armed in orthodox cavalry fashion, and handled in a manner consistent with cavalry tradition, Mukden would have proved a drawn battle. It is my firm belief—a belief shared with many others more competent to judge—that if French, with 10,000 British cavalry, had been given a free hand early in the war on the Russian side, there would have been no necessity for Kuropatkin to retire from his strong position at Liao-yang, and I have no less hesitation in saying that if the same able commander, with such a cavalry force as I have mentioned, had been attached to the Japanese side at Liao-yang or at Mukden, there would be no Russian army in Manchuria to-day. En passant it may be remarked that if the Japanese cavalry had been capable of pursuit at Mukden, it would have proved a terrible thorn in the already bleeding Russian side. As it was, the Japanese were out-numbered and hence completely ineffective.”

If the writer of this article is correct in his deduction of the lesson to be learned by cavalry from this war—and his opinion has since been confirmed by military opinion generally,—it would appear that the machine gun is just the one thing needed to give cavalry the fire power of infantry, while retaining mobility and their proper rôle in all the circumstances of the modern battlefield. It will therefore be instructive to study the possibilities of machine guns with cavalry in the various situations which may arise in the course of a campaign.

The use of machine guns in certain stages of an action is similar whatever the scale of the operations may be; and to avoid unnecessary repetition, such phases as the Pursuit, the Retreat, etc., have only been dealt with once. The tactics of the various bodies of cavalry are based on the principles laid down in the Training Manuals, the Independent cavalry being treated in this chapter, the Divisional and Protective in the next.

While the opposing armies are still at a considerable distance apart, the Independent Cavalry will gain touch with the enemy and endeavour to find out such information as may clear up the strategical situation and afford the main army strategical freedom of action; they may also carry out special missions such as cutting the enemy’s communications, carrying out raids, or seizing important strategical points. This can usually only be accomplished when the enemy’s cavalry has been defeated. It will therefore be the first duty of the Independent Cavalry to seek out and defeat the cavalry of the enemy in order to be free to carry out its mission.[8]

This Independent Cavalry will never be less than a Division, while it may consist of two or three Divisions in the case of a war between any of the Great Powers. The nation that is weak in cavalry will therefore do well to make up for this deficiency by the employment of great numbers of machine guns so organised and equipped that they will be able not only to accompany their cavalry anywhere, but, in addition, to operate and manœuvre as self-contained units. They will thus free the cavalry from the necessity of dismounted action when met by superior numbers, and from being compelled to detach squadrons to secure tactical positions to check the enemy, or strategical points of importance which it may be vital to possess. In addition to this, detached machine guns may be used in the place of mounted escorts to the Horse Artillery, and to enable single troops to be used in the place of contact squadrons without detracting from their offensive or defensive strength.

The Divisional General of Cavalry will have 24 machine guns under the present organisation, viz. two guns with each regiment; and it must be assumed that they have been organised and trained to work together, as suggested in Chapter I., in order to enable them to be used as fire units in co-operation with their brigades or the Division. It will depend upon the nature of the country, the tactical situation and the strength and morale of the opposing cavalry, whether the G.O.C. retains all four batteries in his own hands or gives one or more to the brigade commanders. Every situation requires its own special treatment, and the following is only given as one of many possible methods of using machine guns in the preliminary stages of the cavalry combat. We will assume that a Cavalry Division is acting as Independent Cavalry and is operating against an unknown but superior force of cavalry as yet unlocated, in country such as will be met with in a European campaign.

The formation for the march towards the enemy will of course depend on the roads available and the general nature of the country, but an advanced guard of one brigade would be sent out with orders to push forward tactical reconnoitring patrols supported by contact troops or squadrons. This brigade might be given two batteries of machine guns, while the G.O.C. retained two batteries with the main body, which would probably move as concentrated as possible in two wings with flank guards, and a battery of machine guns on each flank. The advanced guard commander would use one battery of machine guns to give each “contact squadron” a section of two guns and thus enable it to retain its mobility if held up by rifle fire. He would keep one battery intact to use in the manner to be indicated later with his main guard.

We will follow one of these “contact squadrons” and see how the machine guns may be employed to assist it. In the first place the squadron now possesses the fire power of an extra hundred rifles and can therefore afford to send out stronger patrols and give them more support. The contact squadron, having sent out its patrols and any detachments necessary for special services, will sooner or later be called upon to afford active support to one of its patrols when the latter come in touch with the enemy. Upon the information furnished by this patrol, as to the strength of the enemy and the nature of the country, will depend the action to be taken.

The necessity for brushing aside all opposition and pushing forward will probably cause the commander of the contact squadron to attack with vigour, and such a course will compel the enemy to accept the engagement mounted, or if inferior in strength or morale, to take up a position for dismounted action and hold the squadron by rifle fire.