Artillery

We have learnt by experience that skill in the employment of guns is more important than their number. Under modern battle conditions, when the position of a battery cannot be seen, a great deal of ammunition is fired during the artillery duel without any result. Two to four well-concealed guns cleverly moved from one position to another can hold their own with a brigade of artillery, and, if they can only range on the enemy’s guns first, rapid fire gives them the power of inflicting heavy loss. Our keenest and most experienced gunners got on to the enemy on many occasions with great effect, but as a rule our artillery did little damage. One occasion when very ineffective results were obtained by us was at Hei-kou-tai, where, in our endeavour to get possession of San-de-pu, we fired 70,000 rounds into every square,[46] except the one which actually contained the village. Our immense expenditure of ammunition also emphasized how carefully the question of the right proportion of guns in a force must be considered. In this war, owing to the great delay in sending up drafts to repair wastage, we were often actually handicapped by having too many guns! We frequently had to fight with divisions containing only some 6,000 to 8,000 men in the four regiments and the full forty-eight guns—a proportion of six to eight guns per 1,000 rifles, which is far too many. And our guns were literally an embarrassment, especially when they had run out of ammunition. Even assuming that we shall be able (as I have suggested) to place in the field regiments with a strength of 4,000 rifles, I consider it will be quite sufficient if we maintain the proportion of guns at forty-eight per division, or three guns per 1,000 rifles. The fire from quick-firing guns is nowadays quite powerful and effective enough for four guns to be considered a tactically independent fighting unit; but the formation of batteries of such a size is expensive, and requires too many men. It appears to be preferable, therefore, to abandon the artillery divisional organization, and return to the former twelve-gun battery, dividing it into three companies, each of which would be in a tactical sense independent. The 48 guns—i.e., four batteries—with an infantry division, would then be organized into an artillery regiment under the command of the divisional general. Each company would be commanded by a captain, the battery by a lieutenant-colonel, the regiment by a colonel.

We found that for mutual and smooth co-operation in battle it is most important that batteries should operate as far as possible with the same regiments of infantry. Close touch is established, and each arm unselfishly supports the other. I often heard the expression, “our battery,” “our regiment,” and in these simple words a deep, underlying sentiment was expressed. Each battery should be capable of acting independently of the artillery regiment to which it belongs. For hill warfare mountain artillery should be allotted to infantry in the same proportion as I have suggested for field artillery.

Our gun proved an excellent weapon; but our shrapnel, which was very effective against objects and troops in the open, was of no use against invisible targets, earthworks, and mud walls. Our artillery fire against villages held by the enemy, therefore, produced very little result. I consider that a new pattern of shell should be introduced with thicker walls and a heavier bursting charge; but even then the effect of such light projectiles as our field-guns fire will not be great against the earthworks which are nowadays so quickly thrown up on positions. To prepare the way for the assault on such fortifications, and to obtain any speedy result in attacking defended localities, we must have field howitzers of a modern type. They should be organized in regiments of two batteries (twenty-four howitzers), and attached to a corps as corps artillery. Finally, it is essential that every army should have a light siege-train to assist in the capture of strongly defended posts and heavy works.

The organization of park units was well conceived, but the vehicles were unsuited to the Manchurian roads. I am afraid to express an opinion in favour of a further increase of mobile parks, because we were so overburdened with baggage of different kinds. I think it is preferable to improvise local parks at railway-stations and junctions, as we did in Manchuria.

Small-arm ammunition rarely ran short, but there was often a great lack of gun ammunition, and after the battles of Liao-yang, the Sha Ho, and Mukden, our reserves for filling up battery and park stocks were exhausted. The average expenditure of rifle ammunition worked out as follows: For a whole-day battle for one battalion, 21,000 rounds, with a maximum of 400,000; an hour’s fighting for one battalion, 1,700, with a maximum of 67,000. The total reserve taken with a four-battalion infantry regiment was 800,000. The average expenditure per quick-firing field-gun in a one-day battle worked out at 55 rounds, with a maximum of 522; an hour’s fighting, 10 rounds, with a maximum of 210.

In the earlier fights the work of the artillery varied a good deal, and was not very successful; but as they gained experience, many batteries fought splendidly, not only against guns, but against rifle-fire. Compared with the work of our artillery in 1877–78 (in the European theatre of operations), we have made considerable progress in skill, and the very heavy losses in killed and wounded in many batteries prove that our gunners know how to die. The horse artillery work depended entirely on the commanders of the cavalry units to which the batteries were attached, and when these commanders really meant fighting the batteries did good work. As a proof of this, it is enough to recall the gallant conduct of the 1st Trans-Baikal Cossack Horse Artillery Battery attached to Mischenko’s Trans-Baikal Cossack Brigade. This battery and its young commander were known to the whole army; more than once it successfully fought several of the enemy’s batteries, and yet its losses were insignificant. Sometimes our cavalry leaders were unnecessarily anxious to retire, as was the case in the cavalry of the 2nd Army at the battle of Mukden, when the two batteries which were with it lost only two men wounded and one missing in eleven days’ fighting. One six-gun battery was sufficient for four mounted regiments of such strength as we had. As said above, there should be one artillery regiment of four batteries (48 guns) with each infantry division, or a total of 144 guns for the three divisions. These three regiments would be organized in a brigade. There should also be one regiment of 24 howitzers with each corps.

Cavalry.

Though our cavalry was numerous, its work hardly came up to our expectations, but where it was properly commanded it did well enough. In my opinion, the main reform that is necessary in the cavalry is to improve their training. Till it is educated to feel that it should fight as obstinately as infantry, the money expended on our mounted Arm will be thrown away. If infantry can still continue fighting after losing 50 per cent. of their strength, cavalry should be able to do the same. In action we nursed the cavalry too much; out of action we did not take sufficient care of it. Though they had not lost a man, whole regiments were moved to the rear as soon as the first shrapnel began bursting near them. The four regiments of cavalry—two dragoon and two Cossack—on whom fell the most difficult but the most honourable duty of obtaining information and opposing the leading units of Nogi’s enveloping forces at the battle of Mukden, lost in killed and wounded:

Which works out at less than one man per squadron and sotnia. The casualties in almost every company of infantry were more than in these twenty-four squadrons and sotnias. It is quite plain that these units did not fight, but merely avoided the enemy; and it is equally plain that, by avoiding battle, the cavalry neither checked the enemy’s movement nor got any information about him. The material of which our cavalry was composed was excellent, but everything depended on those in command. In the battle of Te-li-ssu the infantry of the 1st Siberian Corps lost 2,500 men; the Primorsk Dragoon Regiment, belonging to the same corps, lost one!

But I repeat that where their leaders meant fighting the cavalry did their duty and suffered heavily. Take, for example, the Trans-Baikal Cossacks, which did so well under Mischenko, and the Caucasian Brigade. The Siberian Cossacks, under Samsonoff, fought at Liao-yang and the Yen-tai Mines with greater bravery than was displayed by some of Orloff’s infantry, while the independent sotnias of the Don and Orenburg Voiskos, and the dragoons under Stakhovitch, were no whit behind them. Indeed, the men of the Primorsk Dragoon Regiment were good enough; it was the officers who failed in not getting the best out of them. The independent units of all the Cossacks did well, but it was out of the question to expect martial ardour or a keen desire to perform feats of gallantry in old men such as formed the 3rd Category Cossack regiments. But even these 3rd Category regiments could do good work when skilfully handled. The Cossack horses generally, and the Trans-Baikal horses in particular, were too small; while those of the Don regiments were sturdy, but rather soft. The Trans-Baikal Cossacks on their shaggy little ponies reminded one more of mounted infantry than cavalry. On the whole, however, our cavalry worked far better than in the Russo-Turkish War under Generals Kuiloff and Loshkareff at Plevna. The great difficulty now is to find and train cavalry leaders; in Manchuria, according to most accounts, the juniors were good, the field officers moderate, and the general officers, with few exceptions, bad.

The personality of the officer in command of a regiment of cavalry is a very important factor, as his merits and weak points are very quickly known, and as soon as a man in such a post shows himself unsuitable he should be removed. (This also applies to the general officers.) But I rarely found a divisional or corps commander who would report on the unsuitability of senior commanders under them; they even concealed cases of cowardice. It was only at the conclusion of hostilities that it transpired that several had not only shown a lack of keenness, but even of personal courage. Some of the regimental commanders were very old; at fifty-five a man is too old for the command of a regiment. As in the infantry, the post of cavalry brigadier should be improved, and made a more important appointment. To it should be given the executive and administrative powers now wielded by divisional generals.

Three brigades should be formed into a division, the divisional general being given the powers of an army corps commander. There is no necessity for a higher organization. To the division of three brigades should be allotted a twelve-gun battery of horse artillery (three companies of four guns each). To every three-division army corps should be added one cavalry or Cossack brigade. One of the regiments of this brigade should act as divisional cavalry, two squadrons or sotnias with each division. If it is thought desirable that commanders of infantry divisions become acquainted with cavalry in peace-time, then two squadrons should be stationed in the area of the divisions under them.

Infantry.

As in former wars, so in Manchuria was the heat and burden of the day borne by our infantry, and there is no doubt that, in the future, infantry will retain its name as the principal Arm. The importance of other Arms depends entirely on the extent to which they assist infantry to defeat the enemy, for the latter is the final arbiter of victory or defeat. But infantry cannot work alone, and nowadays, if it is not assisted in action by artillery, cavalry, and sappers, if every resource of modern science is not brought into play to lighten its heavy task, it will either fail or will buy victory at too high a price. It is to infantry, as the principal Arm, that we must pay our chief attention. And yet with us service in the Line is not considered so honourable as service in the other branches! From the moment of the selection of its recruits we do everything to weaken it. Even the pattern of uniform worn by our Line infantryman is particularly ugly. In his old-fashioned, badly fitting tunic, overburdened with haversacks and equipment of all sorts, he is anything but a martial sight. This is an aspect of the case which cannot be ignored, and it is almost as important that a man’s uniform should be comfortable and attractive as that it should meet all the purely military requirements. All ranks should be enabled to admire their own dress and be proud of it. Up to the present, the majority of Line officers have not been given a good enough general or military education. Officers of all arms should receive a general education not lower than the intermediate standard of the national educational establishments, and a military education not lower than that of the military schools. We should teach the line officer to have a love and respect for the Arm in which he serves, as well as a knowledge of its particular rôle in battle, and must therefore raise his social position so that he may be a welcome guest in any society. We must provide him with a comfortable, inexpensive, and smart uniform. We must protect him from being abused by his seniors in the presence of his juniors, and in every possible manner encourage the development in him of an independent spirit. Bravery alone is not sufficient nowadays to attain victory; knowledge, initiative, and willingness to accept responsibility are also required. Infantry have always had a hard part in action, and have always suffered great loss, but the modern battle which lasts for days makes greater demands upon their mental and physical endurance than ever before. With a large proportion of reservists and short-service men, we cannot rely on perfection in the soldier; it is therefore all the more necessary that we should take steps to obtain it in our officers, and for this purpose we are lucky in having excellent and responsive material. Under all the arduous conditions under which the majority of our regiments had to fight, the greatest trials fell to the infantry officer, and right well he did his duty. It is quite enough to compare the casualties amongst those officers with those of their brothers in the cavalry, artillery, and sappers to see on whom fell the chief hardships and dangers. In some regiments the whole set of officers was changed several times. The following figures serve as an illustration of how they suffered:

It is impossible to recall the gallant war services of these and of the officers of many other regiments without profound respect and emotion.

It must always be borne in mind that the infantry of the Line is the backbone of our Service in peace as well as in war. Consequently, we should make much more of those who serve in it than we do, and give them a better chance. At present the list of regimental commanding officers includes far too many Guardsmen or officers of the General Staff. I am convinced that if the importance of service in the Line is to be maintained, we must put an end to the present unfair acceleration of promotion amongst Guards and General Staff officers as compared with that of their brothers. The latter produce a great many men capable of being good regimental commanders; all that is wanted is to know how to select them. Since the last Turkish War they have undoubtedly made considerable progress, and it is for us to arrange that this improvement is continued by fostering it in every way.

Owing to casualties, the company commanders were changed too often for efficiency, but they generally performed good service, lack of initiative being, as usual, their chief fault. It is most important for the good of the Service that captains (of all arms) displaying distinguished military qualifications should be quickly promoted to field rank. Yet recommendations sent to St. Petersburg were not acted on for a very long time, if ever. In such a matter some discretion should be allowed the Commander-in-Chief, and he should be empowered to promote junior officers to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel for distinguished service in the field. Special men would thus arrive at the command of independent units and regiments, posts where the personality of the man in command is so important. It often happened that a regiment which had done badly absolutely changed its character with a change of commanding officers. Seniority should not be the only guide for promotion, and the establishment of field-officers in Manchuria constituted a quite adequate number from which good regimental commanders could have been liberally selected. During the period when we were occupying the Hsi-ping-kai positions, many of the regimental commanders in all the armies were good men, and the 1st Army was particularly lucky in this respect. Though many of the infantry brigadiers who came out to the war proved failures, amongst the regimental commanders were many capable field-officers, whose advancement to the rank of General gave us some first-class brigade commanders. In the 1st Army alone were Major-Generals Lechitski, Stelnitski, Dushkevitch, Lesha, Riedko, Dobotin, etc. Thus, even under the unfavourable conditions under which they served, we found enough good material amongst our infantry officers to give us some confidence for the future. Had the war been continued, many of the colonels promoted to generals for distinguished service would have commanded divisions. This is as it should be, for it ought to be possible for a regimental commander to rise within a year to the command even of an army corps, if he be sufficiently brilliant.

I repeat that the tasks which fall upon infantry in battle nowadays are of such exceptional difficulty that the promotion of its officers for distinguished field service should be made exceptionally rapid. I am aware that even a good regimental commander may make a bad divisional general; but I also maintain that a regimental commander who has successfully commanded in several fights, has shown a knowledge of his work, keenness, enterprise, and personal bravery, and has won the confidence of his men, should be promoted as quickly as possible. He may find it difficult at first to get his bearings under the new and more complicated conditions of a high command, where he has to rely upon maps and the reports of others instead of upon the direct evidence of his own eyes and ears, but still he will grapple with the situation, even of an army corps commander, far better than some general whose experience has been confined to office-work and peace manœuvres.

Finally, in order to give due importance to the principal Arm—infantry (infantry of the Line in particular)—I consider the following measures necessary:

1. To give a better education to the officers entering it.

2. To improve their material and social position.

3. To provide officers and men with a smarter uniform.

4. To accelerate their promotion and put an end to the system by which Guardsmen and officers of the General Staff get more rapid advancement, and so block the way of their unfortunate brothers to regimental and divisional commands.

5. To facilitate as much as possible the special promotion in war of distinguished company officers to field rank.

6. To award regimental commanders who display particular merit on service rapid advancement to the rank of General, without regard to their seniority or the speed of their promotion.

The two last of these recommendations also obviously apply to officers of the other Arms.

Organization.

In my opinion, our experiences in the recent war have shown the necessity for such an organization in our army as I will now describe:

Infantry Regiment: To consist of 4 battalions, each of 4 companies. Each company to have a strength of 250 combatants. In addition to the 16 combatant companies per regiment, there should be scout sections (mounted and dismounted), and machine-gun sections with 16 portable guns. Strength of regiment, 5,000 men.

Cavalry and Cossack Regiments: As at present.

Infantry Brigade: 2 regiments, 8 battalions.

Cavalry Brigade: 2 regiments, 12 squadrons or sotnias.

All brigades should be capable of acting independently.

Infantry Division: To consist of 2 infantry brigades, 1 regiment of artillery,[47] 1 sapper battalion, 1 telegraph company, 2 squadrons or sotnias of cavalry, transport company, parks, bakeries, hospitals. Total, 17 battalions, 48 guns, and 2 squadrons or sotnias.

Cavalry Division: To consist of 3 separate brigades, 1 horse artillery battery. Total, 36 squadrons or sotnias, and 12 guns.

Army Corps: To consist of 3 infantry divisions, 1 artillery brigade, including a regiment of howitzers, 1 cavalry brigade,[48] 1 sapper brigade,[49] 1 transport battalion, 1 battalion for camps on the line of communication. Total, 48 battalions, 169 guns, 12 squadrons or sotnias, and 3 sapper battalions.

Reserve Troops: To be formed into independent brigades, to which the reserve units of artillery, cavalry, and sappers should be attached. Each brigade to consist of 8 battalions, 2 batteries (24 guns), 1 squadron or sotnia, 2 sapper companies, half a company of telegraphists, transport, hospitals, and bakeries. These brigades, being organized on an independent footing, would be attached to the armies; they would be detailed either as part of the army reserve or for independent work in guarding the flanks and rear, or be joined to corps, according to circumstances.

This, I think, will give great independence to all units, and the creation of independent reserve brigades, outside of the divisional and corps organization, would often prevent the breaking up of this organization when a battle was in progress. To organize reserve field troops beforehand in field formations, such as divisions of three brigades, or corps, is not a convenient or suitable arrangement, as they will not be ready to take part in the fighting as soon as the regulars.

Amongst steps which will raise the status of regimental service, and so attract the best men to it, I consider it necessary, in addition to providing an attractive uniform, to establish ranks distinct from those borne by officers on the staff, in administrative offices, and in departments. According to the scale of our military hierarchy, the various commands (exclusive of the Cossack troops) carry ranks as follows:

Sub-Lieutenant, Cornet, Lieutenant, and Staff-Captain in the different Arms are the ranks given to the junior officers in companies, squadrons, and batteries.

A Captain commands a company or a squadron.

A Lieutenant-Colonel commands a battalion, a battery, and a cavalry division.[50]

A Colonel commands a regiment and a division of artillery.

A Major-General commands a brigade.

A Lieutenant-General commands a division.

A Lieutenant-General or a full General commands an army corps or a military district.

All these ranks are also conferred on officers serving on the staff and in departments. Thus, the rank of Colonel, which ought only to be given to men in command of regiments, is also borne by those on the administrative and police staffs, while generals of all grades, who have never held command of troops or even of small units, fill up our Generals list. At the time I framed the regulation to limit the number of promotions to General’s rank of men not actually in the army I was much bothered by numerous officers who feared that their further promotion might be blocked. The present large number of ranks amongst the officer class is not required. It is quite possible to reduce them, and to give to these their old Russian names (to which the Cossack[51] troops still adhere), for officers of all Arms doing regimental service—namely, Khorunji, Sotnik, and Esaoul. The rank of Pod-esaoul, which was adopted later, might be excluded. Esaouls would command companies, squadrons, sotnias, and companies (of artillery); Sotniks would command half-companies, half-squadrons; and Khorunjis would command sections. The normal establishment of a company would be one Esaoul, two Sotniks, and four Khorunjis. The same should be done in the cavalry. For those not serving regimentally the ranks of Ensign, Lieutenant, and Captain might be maintained, those of Sub-Lieutenant and Staff-Captain being abolished. The present ranks of field-officers might be conferred on those officers not doing regimental service, and the titles of Voiskovoi Starshina and Colonel on those with regiments. The first would command a battalion, a division of cavalry or artillery; the second, regiments of all Arms. The rank of Lieutenant-Colonel to be kept for staff and departmental officers, and the rank of Major should be introduced instead of that of Colonel. The names of the ranks of those serving with troops to correspond generally to the nature of the appointment; thus, officers commanding brigades should be called Brigadiers, those in charge of divisions, Divisional Generals, of an army corps, Corps Generals. The latter rank should also be given to commanders of military districts and their assistants. The only officers not actually serving with troops who should be allowed to have the title of Corps General should be three: the War Minister and the chiefs of the General and Headquarter Staffs. For service away from troops only two ranks of General should be maintained—Major-General and Lieutenant-General. The titles Generals of Infantry and Cavalry, etc., should be abolished. The grading would then be as follows:

A.—FOR REGIMENTAL SERVICE.

B.—FOR EXTRA REGIMENTAL SERVICE.

Ensign, Lieutenant, Captain, Lieutenant-Colonel, Major,
Major-General, and Lieutenant-General.

Except in the case of the chief staff-officers of districts, the transfer of general officers not with troops to service with troops should be forbidden. The appointments of Corps Chief Staff-officers and Quartermaster-Generals on the staffs of districts should carry the rank of Major. Officers going into other departments should take purely civil rank, and promotion on retirement should be abolished. To accelerate the advancement of specially distinguished colonels, it should be possible to appoint them to brigades with the rank of Brigadier. There is at present great confusion in this matter of accelerated promotion in deserving cases, for colonels can be given the command of independent brigades, and yet not of non-independent ones.

As war is a greater strain on the officers than on the men, it is important, when granting special privileges for regimental service to the latter, that great care should be taken to insure their physical fitness. A particularly bad form of unfitness is that caused by corpulence, and, unfortunately, many even of our company officers suffered from this in Manchuria. One of our regimental commanders was so stout that he was practically helpless, and was taken prisoner at Te-li-ssu, though unwounded! As to the rank and file, hill-climbing with an 80-pound equipment makes campaigning very arduous for those of forty years of age or over. Company and field officers can well serve up to fifty, but commanding officers of cavalry should not be over fifty, and of infantry regiments over fifty-five. The age-limit for generals in command of brigades and divisions should be sixty, and of corps sixty-three. The necessity for the age regulations we now have became apparent during the war, for as a result of them our field-officers were relatively young; but our experience proves that the limit should be still further lowered in the direction I have mentioned.

The proposals set forth above, which it is thought would tend to increase our fighting efficiency, are, after all, only details of organization and of preparation. The main factors contributing to insure victory are the same as they always have been—a high moral and the power of rapid concentration in superior strength. Diplomacy must prepare for the struggle so as to enable all the armed forces of the Empire to be put into the field if necessary, and we must have numerous efficient railways to facilitate the rapid massing of superior numbers. On these two most important factors will depend the plan of campaign. The ability to assume the offensive bestows an immense superiority, for it gives the initiative to the side which undertakes it. The defender’s leading troops are compelled to fall back, his less prepared troops are perhaps crushed, while his reinforcements are destroyed piecemeal. The result is that the moral of the attacker increases, while that of the enemy inevitably diminishes. To re-establish a balance under such conditions is not only a matter of time, but is extremely difficult. With a defensive plan of operations, unshakeable belief in eventual success and immense patience are necessary in order to overcome all difficulties, and to defeat the foe with a final assumption of the offensive.

From the short sketch I have given of what was accomplished by the Russian armed forces in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it is seen that we took the offensive in the majority of the wars we were engaged in. Without railways, but with a large peace standing army (period of service twenty-five years with the colours), with equality and often a superiority[52] in armament and training, Russia was able to commence operations, and to force her will upon the enemy—i.e., to assume the offensive. Nowadays we have been left behind by our Western neighbours in readiness for hostilities, and the recent war disclosed the fact that we had been outdistanced by our Eastern neighbour also. Russia will, no doubt, in time find the strength and means once more to take her former place amongst other Powers as regards fighting efficiency; but it will take years of unceasing effort, for rapid concentration and an offensive strategy are impossible without great developments in our railway system. No one can say whether we shall be allowed to wait for everything to be perfected, or whether we shall again be drawn into war before we are ready. It is therefore absolutely necessary to prepare without loss of time to make war under conditions as unfavourable as those of the recent conflict.

Without referring here to the necessity for diplomatic preparation for hostilities, and the proper attitude of all grades of Russian society during war, I will comment in the most general lines on those measures which should, in my opinion, be taken for the more useful employment of resources already at our disposal. The principle which is of such importance in field operations, that troops once engaged will not be relieved, must be finally accepted. Therefore, every unit going into action should know that it will be supported, but not replaced. The principle in its broadest sense applies without distinction to all ranks who join the field army, and till victory has been attained not a soul should be able to return home or receive another appointment outside the theatre of operations. Those who prove themselves unfit for their appointments at the actual front should be given other employments for which their bodily and mental qualifications are fitted. In such a serious business as war in defence of country no personal ambition should or can have place, and the removal of a person from the field army should be considered the greatest possible disgrace—a stain which the service of a lifetime cannot efface. Officers thus removed should be deprived of their military rank, dismissed the Service, and should forfeit all rights and privileges gained in the Service, and officers and men so removed should be deprived of the right to hold any Government post whatever, whether under the War Department or not.

The punishment for cowardice should be death.

I have touched upon the question of accelerated promotion for good service in the field, and the converse applies. Senior commanders who show themselves unfit for their appointments ought to be at once removed from their commands and given posts corresponding to their capabilities. Commanders of corps and divisions considered unfit may, in order to guard their military honour, request to be allowed to remain in the army in command of divisions or brigades. Only one kind of seniority can be acknowledged in war—namely, the ability to gain the victory. General officers incompetent for field service can do very useful work on the lines of communications, in the direction and training of the reserve troops, the management of hospitals, the administration of the inhabitants of the country, etc. If we ever mean to be capable of defeating a powerful enemy, we must not allow an army corps commander who is struck off from the command of his corps, and who does not even display personal courage, to become a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence; nor must we allow junior commanders who fail when tested by war to receive appointments in non-mobilized units, nor permit hundreds of officers who leave the front on account of ill-health, and under various pretexts, to remain away and not return. I say nothing of the case where an army commander leaves his army during active hostilities without even reporting his departure to the Commander-in-Chief.

If courts of honour are found to be a necessity in peace-time, how much more are they necessary in war? In addition to being formed in regiments, they should be formed in corps and armies to adjudicate upon the conduct in action of senior commanders up to the rank of Divisional General. It is vital that the existing immunity of men who show cowardice in action, or who are guilty of disgraceful conduct out of action, should at once cease. For this purpose I consider we should form soldiers’ courts of honour in every company and independent unit, as a means for suppressing the worst elements found in the ranks. For, with the lack of moral development of the modern man in the street, it is absolutely necessary to have some such tribunals upon whose verdict corporal punishment can be awarded to private soldiers. To leave the field under the pretext of assisting or carrying away the wounded—except for the men specially detailed for this duty—should be punished with the utmost rigour. And to fight an action to a finish, officers must not hesitate to sacrifice their last reserves, if necessary, and also themselves. It is necessary to draw attention to this, as instances occurred in the war where officers, having given orders for a retirement, were themselves the first to go. Such an example is always infectious, and leads to disorganization of units and loss of confidence in the commander. Commanders of forces who do not in battle support neighbouring units when able to do so should be deprived of their appointments, tried, and, if necessary, punished by death. Commanders of all ranks should be thoroughly alive to the value of every man in the ranks. Therefore, every endeavour should be made to keep units as strong as possible during an action.

Finally, I will touch briefly on several points. I will permit myself to express the opinion that the existing regulations as to rewards in war require revision and considerable alteration. At present far too many honours are bestowed. Another point that demands attention is that of malingering. As we have seen, sickness was more prevalent amongst the officers, in spite of their better living, than among the men. Unfortunately, also, the medical officers more than once called my attention, when I was inspecting hospitals, to cases of malingering amongst officers as well as men. The great majority of patients, of course, were really ill, but much of the sickness was due to the individual not taking proper care of himself. Officers must realize that, however honourable a thing it is to be wounded, it is as dishonourable to remain in hospital when their comrades are fighting. It should be ruled for all ranks that in such cases the period of sickness should not count as service, and that during it pay should be forfeited. All officers and officials absenting themselves for more than two months should be removed from their appointments, and appointed to the reserve or depôt troops. Amongst the many regrettable things to be noted in the late war was the disgraceful conditions under which both men and officers were often taken prisoner. The existing regulations, which lay down that all the circumstances of a case of capture should be investigated, were not complied with. Officers who returned straight to Russia from being prisoners in Japan were appointed by the War Department even to the command of divisions. There is only one thing which justifies capture—the fact of being wounded. All those who surrender when they have not been wounded should be tried by court-martial for not fighting to the last.

The regulations regarding fortresses should be revised, and the occasions upon which a fortress is allowed to surrender should be absolutely cut out, for fortresses may be taken, but should never, under any circumstances, surrender. Commandants of fortresses who surrender them, captains who surrender their ships, officers in command of units that lay down their arms, should be considered as forfeiting all rights, and should be condemned to be shot without trial, and all those not in command who surrender unwounded should be deprived of their military rank from the day of their surrender. During the war the Press did much to undermine the authority of officers in command, and to lower the moral of the men, by indiscriminate revelations. In the next war only such events should be allowed to appear in the newspapers as may help to encourage the men. When active operations are over, the circumstances are changed, and it is then essential for the good of the Service to have a thorough investigation into all shortcomings.

But it is not sufficient that all ranks of the army should be imbued with the spirit of fighting on till victory is won; it is necessary that the whole nation should have the same feeling, and to the best of their ability assist towards a happy issue of the struggle being carried on by the army. In our state of backwardness (especially as regards railways) we are doomed in our next war to a slow concentration, and therefore to a protracted campaign. Being unable at once to put large forces into the field, and to seize the initiative, we may again be compelled to bear the consequences of our unreadiness—frequent reverses, and retirement; but we must, without wavering, firmly believe in eventual success, however unfavourable the conditions at the start. The moral and material resources of Russia are immense, and the fixed determination on the part of the army and the whole nation to win is our principal guarantee of victory.