Fore-armed

In event of a great war the United States would suffer the same military experience as England. The positions and policy of the two countries are somewhat analogous and our military course has been shaped along lines that closely follow the English system. For this reason, the change brought about in military matters in the British Empire, under pressure of war, is of especial interest to Americans.

I do not hesitate to say the First Hundred Thousand, as they are now designated—the expeditionary army England sent to Flanders and France in August, 1914—as a fighting force—has never been excelled. The battalions were professional soldiers. Their training had been practical. Their equipment was excellent. Their physical condition superb. What added highly to the effectiveness of these battalions was the standard of marksmanship maintained in the English army. The splendid shooting ability of the British soldiers saved them from annihilation. The discipline that had become part of their nervous reactions made it possible for them to carry out with small loss, a retreat that has since become historic. Superior numbers overwhelmed the British at Mons and Le Cateau. Yet, despite two severe defeats, the army was extricated from an almost impossible situation and suffered no deterioration in morale. In the same predicament, any save highly trained and efficient units would have probably repeated the famous maneuver of the Northern army at the battle of Bull Run.

The fact that stands out in this initial campaign is, the finest type of professional soldiers were defeated by superior numbers of trained citizen battalions. Man for man, I do not consider that the German troops of the first line equaled, in soldierly qualities, the British army forced back in Belgium. German officers are more professional than English and the invaders had a smoothly working staff—a factor lacking with their opponents—but in the rank and file, the Englishman outclassed the Prussian. Nevertheless, the professional soldier went down to defeat before the trained citizen in superior numbers. From this circumstance we draw the lesson that the day of the mercenary soldier is over. Under the policy of the nation, in arms, which has been forced on the world by Germany and her allies, it is impossible for any country to pay enough professional soldiers to take the entire responsibility for the protection of the nation. Such an arrangement would also be highly detrimental to moral standards.

In England, as would be the case in the United States, the regular army was but a stop-gap. When the real test of battle came, the nation had to fall back on the citizens to furnish fighting material. Additional forces were supplied under two heads, territorials, who are militia in its strictest sense, and volunteers.

It would be a tedious technical discussion to go into the reasons why the army formed from this material failed of its object. What is of importance is the fact that the English people—the most reluctant in the world to break with tradition—realized the necessity of compulsory service.

Had the measure of conscription been put into effect at the very outbreak of war, who can say how many useful lives might have been saved? Who can reckon how the conflict might have been shortened?

Unlike England, the United States has no “Grand Fleet” equal to the task of guarding its coasts. Should an invader disembark in the numbers that sifted through Belgium in 1914, the American regular army could be counted upon to make as heroic a stand as the First Hundred Thousand, but it would, in the end, be swept away.

Until the opening of hostilities the organization of the British army was divided into the regular army and a territorial army. A large part of the regular army was stationed in British dominions oversea. The territorial army serves at home in peace time, but in event of war, becomes an auxiliary reserve. Recruits for all forces are obtained by voluntary enlistment.

In time of peace the regular army embraces the standing army, the army reserve and a special reserve. In the standing army and army reserve the period of enlistment is for twelve years, with the permission to extend to twenty-one years under certain circumstances. Of the original twelve years, from three to nine are spent with the colors—that is on active service—the remainder of the enlistment is passed in the army reserve. As a rule, the majority of men serve seven years in the permanent force and five years in the reserve. Thus the English recruit for the regular army chooses soldiering as his lifework. Men enlist between eighteen and twenty-five years of age.

In peace time the establishment is never kept up to full strength and, upon the outbreak of the European war, difficulty was experienced in bringing the units up to the requirements, from the army and the special reserve forces.

Including all ranks, the peace total of the regular army is about 250,000. Roughly, these are divided as follows: 135,000 for service in the British Isles, 45,000 stationed in Egypt and the Colonies, with 75,000 English troops in India. The native army in India, at peace strength, numbers 159,000. The war strength of the English army, on paper, exclusive of all auxiliary and territorial forces, is 391,000. The territorial army in 1914 was 312,000. In the army estimates of 1914-15, before the outbreak of war, the total of the English home and colonial military establishments was reckoned at the high figure of 727,000. And this did not include the regular troops in India (75,000).

After the standing army (regular troops) England relies first on the special reserve, which might be classified under the convenient German term, Landwehr.

The special reserve consists in the main of troops not permanently embodied in the standing army, but its units act as regular depot battalions. Special reservists enlist for six years. The recruits, with certain exceptions, are put through five months’ preliminary training. The trained men of this force are called out annually for three weeks, with an additional six days’ musketry practice for infantry.

Officers are for the most part non-professional, and although the enlisted force includes some ex-regular army men, the special reserve still retains the flavor of militiaism, out of which it was created in 1907. In 1914 it was 80,000 strong. These numbers have been largely augmented and the reserve has been used to supply drafts both of officers and men for the regular army serving in the field.

The home defense force of the British Empire is the territorial army. This corresponds in purpose to the German Landsturm, although in composition it is entirely different. While an engagement in this body only involves duty in the British Isles, over 20,000 officers and men accepted liability for service abroad. The term of enlistment is for four years. Recruits must be from seventeen to thirty-five years old.

The training of the territorials consists in two weeks in camp annually, a certain number of prescribed drills varying with the branch, and a course in rifle shooting. Unless the soldier spends at least eight days in camp and passes an efficiency test, he is fined $25. All officers in the territorial army are non-professional, except certain generals and the staff.

While the establishment of the territorial army, on paper, in 1914 was 312,000 officers and men, the actual strength did not exceed 250,000. At once the original establishment was doubled. Although, as stated, the force was destined for home defense alone, as the war progressed, an overwhelming preponderance of the territorial army volunteered for foreign service. Immediately a number of battalions were sent to India to replace regular forces. During the first year of the war they continued relieving troops stationed in the various British possessions. Lately territorials have been sent directly to the theater of operations.

According to the budget, previous to the war, the cost of the English army in 1914-15 was $143,321,000.

It is very informing to review these figures, in the light of subsequent events. They show most forcibly how, during long periods of peace, the establishments of the military forces are allowed to shrink. The special reserve and the territorial army consisted of mere skeleton battalions, in no way fit to take the field. So, when the test came, the country had to rely alone on the regular army. Soon it was discovered that the volunteer system of recruiting—in time of peace—had not kept the units up to full quota. The plan of the English general staff decreed that on mobilization for war, the bulk of the regular army stationed in England would be organized into an “expeditionary force” consisting of a cavalry division, six infantry divisions with certain train and communication troops, making in all an aggregate of 165,000 officers and men. Service regulations put the infantry divisions at about 18,000 strong, with the cavalry division numbering under 10,000.

Yet when the British Isles were raked and scraped for soldiers, in August, 1914, the aggregate available for service was between 60,000 and 80,000, the estimated strength of the first British army sent to Flanders. Possibly a support of 20,000 followed the first contingents.

So, of the regular army, when the note of war sounded, not half were present for duty. But before we criticize the English military authorities, let us ask ourselves how many of the units of the American army would be available in emergency, and how near their paper strength would these units be? It is safe to assume that the United States would find itself in a much more serious predicament than Britain did under similar conditions.

While the “expeditionary force” was as fine a body of fighting men as the world will see, they, as I have indicated, could not hope to accomplish the task set before them. And it was found—as will always be the case where a military establishment must depend upon the grace of a legislative body for its maintenance—that the standing army was far below the required standard of enlistment.

Under war conditions the territorial army organizations broke down. What might have been the consequences if England were compelled to rely upon this force in case of invasion, is appalling to contemplate. Luckily, it was possible to reorganize the whole of the territorial establishment and—though for a long time many units were without rifles and equipment—it was possible to mobilize and stiffen them through preliminary training. As for taking the field, few, if any, of the battalions were fit for active service when war broke.

It is only fair to state that prevailing conditions were not wholly the fault of territorial officers and soldiers. The substitute for a citizen army was a good deal scoffed at in former times in England, and Punch leveled many of its jokes at the ignorance of the territorials. In time of stress the British press and public were glad to turn to these despised “toy soldiers” for aid.

The lessons from the experience of our mother country are obvious.

First, it is seen a country that relies on a limited—although highly trained—professional army cannot cope in combat with a state that follows the “nation in arms” principle.

The English army served an excellent purpose. Without it a large part of the British Empire would have had to depend upon local forces for protection. In brief, the function of the regular army in Great Britain, as in the United States, was primarily to garrison distant possessions. It was a sort of sublimated police. To expect such a force to meet any other hostile menace, successfully, is outside military reason. Mobilization is the first activity of defense, and it is obviously impossible to concentrate quickly, troops scattered over a large area of the earth’s surface.

Second, reserves cannot be improvised.

With the best will and spirit in the world, the English people could not throw into the field a proper supporting force for the first line. It was clearly demonstrated that the training of supplementary forces cannot be left to the moment of the outbreak of hostilities without entailing heavy and unnecessary losses in the first line. That the organization of new forces under the stress of war is always a difficult and demoralizing process was sharply shown. In this connection it was discovered that a haphazard system of second-line training in time of peace gave the minimum of efficiency in time of war.

Third, universal liability to service, certainly in event of war, is the only just and efficient system of defense organization.

Only after the bitterest lessons did England and the English people consent to conscription. It cannot be said the nation embraced the change in its military ideals, save in a spirit of resentment against Germany for making the measure necessary. But the government and the people realized it was no longer an abstract discussion between the principles of volunteering and conscription. Opposed as the body of the populace were to any measure in the smallest degree tainted with Prussianism, yet under the soul-testing ordeal of battle they took their lesson from the enemy and prepared to meet him on nearly equal terms.

How much of the material resources of England and how many of the lives of her gallant sons were lost because these pregnant lessons were not learned in time of peace, will never be computed. Today Great Britain is laboring heart and soul to remedy the military sins of the past. With characteristic doggedness Britannia is welding into being an army worthy of the nation. But present activity will not bring back the dead from the fields of Flanders. As we sow, so must we reap. It were well if the United States took the experience of England to heart and pondered deeply thereon.