Strategy and Tactics
DEFINITIONS.—Strategy and Tactics have often been treated by non-military writers as if they were independent branches of the soldier’s profession, but while they may indeed be separately defined it will be found in practice that they cannot be separately considered. The theatre of operations is the kingdom of Strategy, the province of Tactics is the field of battle, but when the battlefield is reached it so far transcends in importance every other point in the theatre of operations that no tactical end is worth aiming at in preference to striking with all available strength at the field force of the enemy, and this, it will be seen, is the goal of all strategical combinations. “Strategy must ever be striving for Tactical success; Tactics must ever keep in mind the Strategical situation and must constantly aim at creating fresh Strategical opportunities. Tactics without Strategy resembles a man without legs; Strategy without Tactics is like a man without arms” (General Sir E. B. Hamley). “To seek out the enemy’s armies—the centre of the adversary’s power—in order to beat and destroy them; to adopt, with this sole end in view, the direction and tactics which will lead to it in the quickest and safest way: such is the whole mental attitude of modern war. No Strategy can henceforth prevail over that which aims at ensuring Tactical results, victory by fighting” (Marshal Foch).
Local successes on the field of battle often have effects that are felt throughout the theatre of operations. Lord Roberts’s advance on Pretoria relieved the pressure on Kimberley in the west and on Ladysmith in the east, and these centres are upwards of 300 miles apart. The First Battle of the Somme (July 1, 1916) not only relieved the pressure on Verdun but held in position large enemy forces which would otherwise have been employed against our Allies in the East. General Byng’s surprise attack at Cambrai (November 20, 1917) was followed by a determined counter-attack by the Germans on November 30, which appeared to nullify the results achieved from November 20 to 25; but “there is evidence that German divisions intended for the Italian theatre were diverted to the Cambrai front, and it is probable that the further concentration of German forces against Italy was suspended for at least two weeks at a most critical period, when our Allies were making their first stand on the Piave Line” (Sir D. Haig’s Dispatches).
A tactical defeat may sometimes be risked to serve a strategic end. In June, 1864, General Hunter was operating with a Federal army in the Shenandoah Valley, and owing to shortage of supplies was forced to fall back. In so doing he uncovered the National Capital, and General Early was sent by the Confederate Commander-in-Chief to capture Washington. General Grant took immediate steps to protect the capital by the dispatch of troops, and to further this end, General Lew Wallace,[1] on his own initiative, confronted Early’s corps at the Monocacy on July 8, 1864. He met the enemy and was defeated, but he delayed Early’s corps until the troops sent by Grant were in position. “If Early had been but one day earlier he might have entered the capital before the arrival of the reinforcements I had sent. General Wallace contributed on this occasion, by the defeat of the troops under him, a greater benefit to the cause than often falls to the lot of a commander of an equal force to render by means of a victory” (Grant’s “Memoirs”). A tactical success may be not only useless, but actually inopportune, if it is out of accord with the plans of the higher command. On the morning of June 18, 1815, Marshal Grouchy was in pursuit of the Prussians whom Napoleon had defeated on June 16 at Ligny. Although urged “to march to the sound of the cannon” (at Waterloo), Grouchy pushed on eastwards, where he found Thielmann’s Prussian Corps of 16,000 men holding the passage across the Dyle at Wavre. The Battle of Wavre was begun at 4 p.m. on June 18, and by 11 a.m. on the next day Grouchy was victorious. But his victory was barren. His tactical achievement was useless to the higher command and had exposed his own force to considerable danger. As he sat down to pen a vainglorious dispatch to the Emperor, he received the news that Napoleon was a fugitive and the Imperial Army defeated and scattered. Grouchy’s feeble and false manoeuvres had permitted Blücher to join forces with Wellington. To the Emperor’s dismay it was the Prussians who came from the eastward to the sound of the cannon: “C’est les Prussiens qui viennent!”
MORAL.—It is seen that Strategy may be defined as the art of concentrating troops at the required strength, at the required time, at the required place, for the purpose of overthrowing the enemy’s main armies; while Tactics may be defined as the art of arranging and handling troops so concentrated for the purpose of defeating the enemy when encountered. But although Strategy may be considered as the art of bringing an opponent to battle, and Tactics as the art of defeating him in action, there are excluded from these definitions many considerations which influence a commander in the field.
The art of war does not commence with a strategical reconnaissance from the air, or the saddle, to ascertain whether, and if so in what locality and in what strength, hostile troops are being concentrated. From information so obtained, the physical force of an enemy may indeed be determined; but “in war (said Napoleon) moral force is to the physical (that is, to numbers and armament) as three to one,” and upwards of a hundred years later the same idea has again been expressed. “To understand war you must go beyond its instruments and materials; you must study in the book of history, conscientiously analysed, armies, troops in movement and in action, with their needs, their passions, their devotions, their capacities of all kinds. That is the essence of the subject, that is the point of departure for a reasonable study of the art of war” (Marshal Foch). And while dealing with moral force it must be remembered that the moral force of opposing leaders of nations or of armies is at least as important as that of the nations or armies themselves, for a war is a struggle between human intelligences rather than between masses of men. “There have been soldiers’ battles but never a soldiers’ campaign” (“The Science of War”). “It was not the Roman legions which conquered Gaul, it was Caesar. It was not the French Army which reached the Weser and the Inn, it was Turenne” (Napoleon). A commander must, therefore, take into account the character, the moral fibre, as well as the ability and the means at the disposal of his adversary. He must project his mind to his adversary’s council chamber, and putting himself in his place must conjecture how a man of that character and of that ability will act under the given circumstances.
History supplies many examples of mental activity of this kind.[2] Napoleon predicted the impetuous onset of the Russian left wing against his right at Austerlitz, Dec. 2, 1805, because he knew the temperament of the Tsar Alexander. At Austerlitz, the most brilliant of all his battles, Napoleon had 70,000 troops and was confronted by 80,000 Austrians and Russians drawn up on the Heights of Pratzen. His plan was to draw the weight of the Russian attack against his right—which was so disposed as to invite the headstrong and self-confident Tsar “to administer a lesson in generalship to Napoleon”—and then to launch a superior attack against the Heights, which contained a village and a knoll, the key to the position; and finally to hurl his General Reserve in a decisive counter-attack on the Russians when they were involved in battle with his right wing. When the rattle of musketry and booming of the guns showed that his right was engaged, Napoleon launched Murat, Bernadotte, and Soult against the allied centre; when Soult was master of the village and the knoll, and as the broken remnants of the enemy’s centre were streaming down the reverse slopes of the Pratzen Ridge, the French centre wheeled round to the right and threw itself upon the flank and rear of the Russians, who were still heavily engaged in their original attack. These operations were completely successful and over 40,000 of the opposing armies were accounted for. Wellington defeated Soult at Sauroren in the Pyrenees (July 28, 1813) by taking advantage of a minor incident. He had ridden forward to see the disposition of the French forces, and as his men cheered him all along the line, he turned to his staff and said, “Soult is a very cautious commander. He will delay his attack to find out what those cheers mean; that will give time for the Sixth Division to arrive and I shall beat him”—and the event turned out exactly as he had predicted. Generals R. E. Lee and T. J. Jackson frequently played upon the nervousness of President Lincoln for the safety of Washington, and by threatening to cross the Potomac induced him to withdraw troops that were advancing against Richmond.
NATIONAL MORAL.—The moral fibre of the nation and of the troops must also be taken into consideration. “The common theory that, in order to win, an army must have superiority of rifles and cannon, better bases, more wisely chosen positions, is radically false. For it leaves out of account the most important part of the problem, that which animates it and makes it live, man—with his moral, intellectual, and physical qualities” (Marshal Foch).
DISCIPLINE AND MORALITY.—The discipline, courage, and endurance of the troops, as well as the cause for which they are fighting, are at least of equal importance to their armament and numbers. “If their discipline and leading be defective, Providence seldom sides with the big battalions... and troops that cannot march are untrustworthy auxiliaries” (“The Science of War”). “An army which cannot march well is almost certain to be outmanoeuvred. A general whose strategy is based upon time calculations that are rendered inaccurate by the breakdown of the marching power of his troops runs grave risk of disaster. It is therefore necessary that the question of marching should be studied, not only by generals and staff officers, but by regimental officers and men. It is on the latter that the hardships and exertions fall, and their cheerful endurance can best be ensured by teaching them the great results attainable by an army which can move faster and further than its adversary, as well as the dangers incurred by an army which allows itself to be out-marched.... Superior mobility alone enabled Frederick the Great to move ‘like a panther round an ox’ so as to place his army across the enemy’s flank. The discipline of his troops enabled him to apply the principles of combination” (General Sir E. B. Hamley). “Nothing compensates for absence of discipline; and the constant watchfulness that is necessary in war, even when danger seems remote, can only be secured by discipline, which makes of duty a habit” (General R. Taylor, C.S. Army). At the Battle of Hastings (Oct. 14, 1066) lack of discipline and disobedience of orders changed the fate of the English nation and brought about the Norman Conquest. Harold, the English king, had defeated the forces of Harold Hadraade, King of Norway, at Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire (Sept. 25, 1066). Four days later, Duke William of Normandy landed in Pevensey Bay, with 60,000 horse and foot. Harold hastened south to meet him with troops exhausted by battle and marching. After halting six days in London to collect reinforcements, the English force entrenched itself on the hill of Sautlache and awaited attack. The Normans were unable to penetrate the abattis, but they gained the victory which changed the whole history of the English race by the stratagem of a feigned retreat. Harold’s undisciplined auxiliaries, contrary to direct orders (which were obeyed by the “regular” troops in the centre), swarmed out of the palisades in pursuit of the fleeing Normans, who suddenly turned about and penetrated the English lines mingled with the discomfited auxiliaries. Had the “irregulars” shown the same sense of discipline as the “regulars” there had been no Norman Conquest.
With regard to marching, General T. J. Jackson once observed, in reply to an allusion to his severe marching, that “it is better to lose one man in marching than five in fighting.” Acting on this principle he invariably surprised his enemy, the most notable instances being his surprise of Milroy at McDowell, of Banks and Fremont in the Valley, of McClellan’s right at Gaines’s Mill, of Pope at the Second Manassas, and his last and greatest of Hooker at Chancellorsville.
TIME.—Time is often a supreme factor in warfare, and the superior mobility of troops will gain for their commander a great strategical advantage. Reserves are of little value if they cannot be concentrated at the right spot at the right moment, and steamships, railways, and mechanical transport thus play an important part in war. The mobility of infantry is often the deciding factor in battle, and campaigns have been won by the legs of soldiers as much as by their arms.
WEATHER.—The weather is an important factor in war, and its influence appears to have increased in modern times. Mists and fogs militate against observation by aircraft, and poor visibility interferes with the work of artillery. Roads are broken up by the weight of modern traffic, and in a shelled area the craters become impassable after a few days rain, making the supply of food, stores and ammunition a serious problem. Such conditions multiply the difficulties of attack, as the ground of the encounter consists principally of hastily dug trenches which become running streams of mud; and they assist the defence, as the pursuit is delayed, while the ground behind the defending force is less liable to be churned up by shell fire. The bad weather of September, 1916, caused a delay in the Allied advance against Sailly-Saillesel and Le Transloy and made it necessary to abandon the plan at the moment when previous successes seemed to have brought it within the grasp of the commanders. As the season advanced and the bad weather continued the plans of the Allies had to be reduced, and the brilliant successes already achieved afforded some indication of what might have been accomplished had the weather permitted the plans to be carried out as originally intended.
HEALTH.—“Wars may be won or lost by the standard of health and moral of the opposing forces. Moral depends to a very large extent upon the feeding and general well-being of the troops. Badly supplied troops will invariably be low in moral, and an army ravaged by disease ceases to be a fighting force. The feeding and health of the fighting forces are dependent upon the rearward services, and so it may be argued that with the rearward services rests victory or defeat” (Marshal Haig).
HUMAN NATURE.—Human nature is affected by discipline, fear, hunger, confidence in or distrust of leaders, and by a variety of other influences, and human nature is more important than armament and numbers. “No great deeds have ever been performed by an army in which the qualities of courage and steadfast endurance are wanting” (General Sir E. B. Hamley), and the steadfast endurance of a nation and of its leaders is also a factor of supreme importance. Time occupied in preparation for battle, or in manoeuvring for the “weather gauge,” is seldom wasted; but it involves the risk of a weak-kneed executive yielding to popular clamour. Against the strategical and tactical genius of Hannibal, Quintus Fabius Maximus invoked the aid of time to afford him opportunities to strike. His “Fabian Tactics” have become proverbial, and earned for him at the time the opprobrious epithet “Cunctator,” which the epigram[3] of Ennius has immortalised in his honour. Popular clamour led to a division of authority with Varro, and to the disaster of Cannae (B.C. 216). General G. B. McClellan was recalled from the Army of the Potomac on account of his failure to convert the drawn battle of the Antietam (Sept. 17, 1862) into a victory, and the army was handed over to General Burnside, who suffered defeat at Fredericksburg (Dec. 13, 1862) with terrible slaughter. “But the stout heart of the American nation quickly rallied, and inspired by the loyal determination of Abraham Lincoln the United States turned once more to their apparently hopeless task” (Colonel G. F. R. Henderson). McClellan’s forte was organisation, and although at first slow in the field, he had assembled and trained a magnificent fighting force, with which he was “feeling his way to victory.” He suffered defeat indeed at Gaines’s Mill (June 27, 1862), the first act in the drama of the Seven Days’ Battle around Richmond. Day after day he fell back through swamp and forest, battling with Lee’s victorious troops. But there was no further disaster. Under the most adverse and dispiriting circumstances the Army of the Potomac fairly held their own until they reached the impregnable position of Malvern Hill. There McClellan turned at bay and repulsed with heavy slaughter the disjointed attacks of the Army of Northern Virginia. He had withdrawn his army intact and had effected a change of base, unknown to the Confederate General Staff, from the York River to the James. This proved his strategic power, as did the dispositions at Malvern Hill (July 1, 1862) his tactical ability, and his work was accomplished in spite of the intrigues of politicians and the opposition of the executive, and in face of the military genius of Generals R. E. Lee and T. J. Jackson. At the Antietam he forced the Confederates to give battle, and although tactically indecisive, the engagement caused the withdrawal of Lee’s army into Virginia. McClellan’s successors were far less competent, and the magnificent Army of the Potomac met with frequent disasters, until it formed the solid nucleus of the forces of General Meade, which inflicted upon Lee his first defeat and saved the Union at Gettysburg (July 1-3, 1863), and finally under Grant, in conjunction with the Armies of the West, crushed the life out of the Confederacy at Appomattox.
General G. H. Thomas, in command of the U.S. Army of the Cumberland, refused battle with the Confederates in Nashville until he had prepared cavalry and made every other arrangement for pursuit. Constancy of purpose was the salient feature of Thomas’s military character. He would not fight until he was ready. The civil authorities urgently demanded that he should advance. So great was the tension that Grant finally sent General J. A. Logan to supersede Thomas; but before Logan arrived Thomas had won the Battle of Nashville (Dec. 15-16, 1864), the most crushing victory of the war.
Lord Roberts landed in Cape Town on Jan. 10, 1900, and popular expectation was degenerating into impatience when a co-ordinated advance of French’s cavalry and the Sixth and Ninth Infantry Divisions resulted in the relief of beleagured cities distant from the field of battle, and in the surrender on the field of Cronje’s force at Paardeberg (Feb. 27, 1900), on the anniversary of Majuba.
THE SPIRIT OF FRANCE.—In all calculations on which a declaration of war is based the moral fibre of the actual and potential enemy nations is fully considered. It is difficult to imagine that the Headquarters Staff of the German and Austrian Armies failed to bring under review the moral of the nations against whom their armies were to be launched in July, 1914. The Spirit of France had shown no signs of deterioration, but was to be quelled by a rapid advance through neutral territories, to bring about a bewildered collapse, as in 1870, before the Russian mobilisation was complete, and “Nous sommes trahis” was again to be heard from the disheartened troops. But the calm determination of the commander and his generals in the dark days of August, 1914, prevented the bewildered collapse, and the Defence of Verdun from February to August, 1916, and the cheers of the poilus, as they recaptured the Chemin des Dames in April-July, 1917, replaced the capitulation of Sedan and of Metz and the “Nous sommes trahis” of 1870.
GREAT BRITAIN.—Britain was not expected to take an active part in the struggle, and if she did the affairs of Ireland, the Suffragette movement, and the general decadence of the nation would prevent a whole-hearted prosecution of the war. A small force only could be sent to Europe; it would be swallowed up in the “bewildered collapse,” and no reinforcements could be spared. The extent of the miscalculation is shown in Mr. Lloyd George’s speech in the House of Commons on July 3, 1919, in which the Prime Minister stated that the British Empire had put 7,700,000 men under arms, had raised 9,500,000,000 pounds in taxes and loans, and had suffered upwards of 8,000,000 casualties on land and sea. It was also shown that during the last two years of the war the British armies had borne the brunt of the heaviest fighting on the Western Front in France and at the same time had destroyed the armed forces of the Turkish Empire in the East. The risk of compelling Britain to take part was undertaken, and the first great strategical blunder of the war was committed.
AMERICA.—In the third year of the War America had gradually been brought into the arena, and a further miscalculation arrayed the hundred millions of a free and united nation against the autocracies of Central Europe.
LORD ROBERTS.—Other brains than German had considered the possibility of an armed conflict in Europe. For many years Lord Roberts had advocated universal military service in the United Kingdom, as a procedure beneficial in itself, and imperative on account of the clear intentions of the Headquarters Staff of the German Army. “Germany strikes when Germany’s hour has struck,” was his warning note, and although apparently unheeded by the nation, his warning was not without effect upon the training of the Regular Army.
COLONEL HENDERSON.—Military writers in the United Kingdom had also considered the possibility of a conflict with the armed forces of Germany, and in all their treatises the moral of the nation was passed under review. Colonel G. F. R. Henderson, in “The Science of War,” had even envisaged a struggle in which not only the troops of Britain and the Overseas Dominions but those of the United States would take part, and his estimate of the moral of the race on both sides of the Atlantic, and in both hemispheres, was fully justified by the events of the War. Colonel Henderson found in the race something more than toughness in its moral fibre, for he adds, “Tactical ability is the birthright of our race.... In a conflict on the vastest scale (the American Civil War) the tactics of the American troops, at a very early period, were superior to those of the Prussians in 1866. In Strategy, controlled as it was on both sides by the civil governments and not by the military chiefs, grave errors were committed, but on the field of battle the racial instinct asserted itself. Nor were the larger tactical manoeuvres even of 1870 an improvement on those of the American campaigns.... But in 1878, Skobeleff, the first of European generals to master the problem of the offensive, knew the American War ‘by heart,’ and in his successful assaults on the Turkish redoubts he followed the plan of the American generals on both sides, when attempting to carry such positions; to follow up the assaulting columns with fresh troops, without waiting for the first column to be repulsed.” After the Civil War, General Forrest, a cavalry leader of the Confederate States Army, was asked to what he attributed his success in so many actions. He replied: “Well, I reckon I got there first with the most men,” thereby stating in a nutshell the key to the Art of War. “At Nachod, the Austrian commander had numbers on his side, yet he sent into action part only of his forces, and it was by numbers that he was beaten” (Marshal Foch). With regard to the moral of the race Colonel Henderson makes this emphatic statement: “In the last nine months of the American Civil War, time and again, according to all precedent, one side or the other ought to have been whipped, but it declined to be anything of the sort. The losses show this. This was due in no small measure to the quality which the troops on both sides inherited from the stock that furnished his infantry to the Duke of Wellington. Never to know when they were beaten was a characteristic of both North and South.”
THE CONTEMPTIBLE LITTLE ARMY.—In place of the general decadence of the British race, upon which the German Staff appear to have relied, this characteristic quality of endurance was exhibited by French’s “Contemptible Little Army” during the Retreat from Mons in August, 1914, at the First Battle of Ypres (October 20, 1914), and at the Second Battle of Ypres (April 22, 1915). Of his “Contemptible Little Army” Marshal French writes in his book, “1914”: “The British Army had indeed suffered severely, and had performed a herculean task in reaching its present position in such fighting form, and its moral had withstood the ordeal. I think the Germans were probably justified in doubting our offensive powers, but the thing they forgot was the nation from which we spring.”
THE NEW ARMIES.—From 1915 to 1918 the New Armies, raised, equipped, and trained during the War, and representing the Empire in arms, displayed the same inherent quality, and disproved for ever the charge of decadence that had been brought against the British race. “That these troops should have accomplished so much under such conditions, and against an army and a nation whose chief concern for so many years had been preparation for war, constitutes a feat of which the history of our nation records no equal.... Troops from every part of the British Isles and from every Dominion and quarter of the Empire, whether Regulars, Territorials, or men of the New Armies, have borne a share in the battle.... Among all the long roll of victories borne on the colours of our regiments, there has never been a higher test of the endurance and resolution of our Infantry. They have shown themselves worthy of the highest traditions of our race, and of the proud records of former wars” (Sir D. Haig’s Dispatch, December 23, 1916).
“Our new and hastily trained armies have shown once again that they are capable of meeting and beating the enemy’s best troops, even under conditions which favoured his defence to a degree which it required the greatest endurance, determination, and heroism to overcome” (Sir D. Haig’s Dispatch, December 25, 1917). “It is no disparagement of the gallant deeds performed on other fronts to say that, in the stubborn struggle for the line of hills which stretches from Wytschaete to Passchendaele, the great armies that to-day are shouldering the burden of our Empire have shown themselves worthy of the regiments which, in October and November of 1914, made Ypres take rank for ever amongst the most glorious of British battles” (Sir D. Haig’s Dispatch, December 25, 1917). “The British infantryman has always had the reputation of fighting his best in an uphill battle, and time and again in the history of our country, by sheer tenacity and determination of purpose, has won victory from a numerically superior foe. Thrown once more upon the defensive by circumstances over which he had no control, but which will not persist, he has shown himself to possess in full measure the traditional qualities of his race” (Sir D. Haig’s Dispatch, July 20, 1918). “Throughout this long period of incessant fighting against greatly superior numbers the behaviour of all arms of the British forces engaged was magnificent. What they achieved is best described in the words of the French General (Maistre) under whose orders they came, who wrote of them: ‘They have enabled us to establish a barrier against which the hostile waves have beaten and shattered themselves. Cela aucun des témoins français ne l’oubliera’” (Sir D. Haig’s Dispatch, December 21, 1918).
After four years of fighting, at the close of a defensive campaign of the utmost severity, protracted by the efforts of the enemy from March 21-July 17, 1918, the New Armies passed from the guard to the thrust. They were everywhere victorious, and in nine pitched battles they captured upwards of 175,000 prisoners and 2,600 guns.
“In order to estimate the ardour and endurance of these troops during this final stage, it will be enough to mention the dates and importance of the main events—
“Battle of Amiens (Aug. 8-13) in which the IV. Army took 22,000 prisoners and more than 400 guns.
“Battle of Bapaume (Aug. 21-Sept. 1) III. Army and Left Wing of IV. Army: 34,000 prisoners, 270 guns.
“Battle of the Scarpe (Aug. 26-Sept. 3) I. Army: 16,000 prisoners, 200 guns.
“Battle of Haerincourt and Epéhy (Sept. 12-18) IV. and III. Armies: 12,000 prisoners, 100 guns.
“Battle of Cambrai and the Hindenburg Line (Sept. 27-Oct. 5) IV., III., and I. Armies. Ended in the breaking of the Hindenburg Line and in the capture of 35,000 prisoners and 380 guns.
“Battle of Flanders (Sept. 28-Oct. 14) II. Army: 5,000 prisoners, 100 guns.
“Battle of Le Cateau (Oct. 6-12) IV., III., and I. Armies: 12,000 prisoners, 250 guns.
“Battle of the Selle (Oct. 17-25) IV. and III. Armies: 20,000 prisoners, 475 guns.
“Battle of the Sambre (Nov. 1-11) IV., III., and I. Armies: 19,000 prisoners, 450 guns.”
(Marshal Foch.)
CHANGES IN METHOD.—The principles which underlie the Art of War would thus appear to be based on constant factors, but the methods of their application are susceptible to change, for in their application the principles are subject to the influence of successive inventions. Gunpowder abolished the bow and arrow and the knight in armour; the bayonet affixed to the musket superseded the pike; the rifle outranged the musket; the breech-loader and the magazine attachment progressively increased the rate of fire; smokeless powder rendered a firing line almost invisible; the flat trajectory of the small-arms bullet increased the danger-zone in an advance; the increased power, mobility, and accuracy of the field gun[4] rendered certain formations obsolete in the attack; the general advance in the rate and accuracy of fire from rifles, machine guns, and artillery made attack on a strongly organised position possible only when surprise in the time and place of the thrust neutralises the advantages of the defence, or when an overwhelming barrage of shells and bullets covers the advance and smothers the enemy’s resistance. The advent of a third service, by the addition of the Air to the Sea and Land Services, increased the facilities for reconnaissance[5] and added to the difficulties of concealing movement during the hours of daylight. These and similar influences have brought about changes in certain respects, amongst which the most pronounced is the increased use of field entrenchments, and tactical methods have been evolved to meet the necessities of the case, or modified to suit the new requirements.[6]
But no inventions can shift the burden of war from the shoulders of the infantryman. “Despite the enormous development of mechanical invention in every phase of warfare, the place which the infantryman has always held as the main substance and foundation of an army is as secure to-day as in any period of history. The infantryman remains the backbone of defence and the spearhead of the attack. At no time has the reputation of the British infantryman been higher, or his achievement more worthy of his renown.... Immense as the influence of mechanical devices may be, they cannot by themselves decide a campaign. Their true rôle is that of assisting the infantryman.... They cannot replace him. Only by the rifle and bayonet of the infantryman can the decisive victory be won” (Sir D. Haig’s Dispatches).
THE TEXT-BOOKS.—Changes in tactical methods are recorded from time to time in circulars issued by the General Staff, to be embodied eventually in the official text-books. These text-books (“Infantry Training” and “Field Service Regulations”) are the foundation upon which the study of Infantry Tactics should be based, and of these books Colonel G. F. R. Henderson has left behind him the following opinion: “That portion of our own text-books which refers to Infantry in Attack and Defence is merely the essence of Tactics. There is no single sentence that is not of primary importance, no single principle laid down that can be violated with impunity, no single instruction that should not be practised over and over again.” After four years of warfare, in which the principles enunciated in the text-books had been put to the most searching of all tests (i.e. practical application in War), the General Staff of the Army was able to preface a list of its recent publications with the following exhortation: “It must be remembered that the principles laid down in Field Service Regulations and in Infantry Training are still the basis of all sound knowledge.”
At the close of the final victorious campaign, Marshal Haig emphasised the truth of this claim: “The longer the war lasted the more emphatically has it been realised that our original organisation and training were based on correct principles. The danger of altering them too much, to deal with some temporary phase, has been greater than the risk of adjusting them too little.... The experience gained in this war alone, without the study and practice of lessons learned from other campaigns, could not have sufficed to meet the ever-changing tactics which have characterised the fighting. There was required also the sound basis of military knowledge supplied by our Training Manuals and Staff Colleges.”