Military dissidents pre-1914

[Gurkhal]

I don't know if this will interest more than me but here goes.

The main purpose of this thread is to discuss to which degree there was criticism of the "Cult of the Offensive" and to which degree such opinions were expressed or supressed within the military establishments prior to the outbreak of war in 1914?

*****

I will add an example of what I am thinking about and what made me intered in starting this thread.

A possibly little known but very interesting book I read some time ago is called "Cavalry in the Russo-Japanese War", written a bit after the Russo-Japanese War, by the Austrian officer Gustav Wrangel. When I read this book I was first struck by his divided stand on both calling for increased training for dismounted action, even calling for cavalry forces to spend time at infantry schools to get the proper take on dismounted action, but at the same time empathizing that the sword was the primary weapon and the glory of the cavalry charge.

At first I thought that he was, well, a product of a system that was with one foot in the Napoleonic Age and one foot in reality. But then I started to think about it and that perhaps Gustav had both his feet in reality but the, to my understanding, conservative and hierarchial nature of the Austro-Hungarian army, along with Von Hötzendorf's very chock oriented approch to tactics, could have meant that Wrangel felt that unless he ensured he also expressed the right conservative values of the traditional cavalry officer his calls for reform and change to cavalry would fall on def ears? And possibly harm or even end his career.

I also recall that in the British army Erskine Childers was very critical of the use of chock tactics and favored the rifle as the cavalryman's main weapon, although I haven't as of this date read anything written by him myself.

 

[Henry IX]

In the British army there was a long history of disputes in the cavalry arm between expedients of shock action and those that believed that they were best used as mounted infantry. British doctrine was heavily influenced by their experiences in the Boer war and their cavalry tactics were actually pretty good for small scale colonial engagements.

However, like all armies of the period they had an offensive mindset, although they did advocate massed rifle fire in preference to obsolete 'cold steel' tactics.

 

[Gurkhal]

In the British army there was a long history of disputes in the cavalry arm between expedients of shock action and those that believed that they were best used as mounted infantry. British doctrine was heavily influenced by their experiences in the Boer war and their cavalry tactics were actually pretty good for small scale colonial engagements.

However, like all armies of the period they had an offensive mindset, although they did advocate massed rifle fire in preference to obsolete 'cold steel' tactics.

I haven't studied it in detail although I have read Stephen Badsey's work on the British cavalry 1880-1918. And while he does get into some detail of the cavalry debate prior to the outbreak of the Great War I can't say that I am entirely familiar with it, especialyl as Badsey is kind of favorable to the part of the officers seeing value in chock tactics.

One thing I didn't like with his book was that I felt he was kind of belittling towards French and German cavalry in the Great War. When reading of the fight at Nery 1914, in the work by A. F. Becke, I found little reason to see the German cavalry as being so bad as having to "stick close to the infantry", as I believe that Badsey implies, due to being overmatched by the British cavalry. The German cavalry didn't seem, in my eyes, to be many parts worse than the British when the fighting started.

Still definitly a topic I need to read more on, especially if there's something to be found in English about the French cavalry.

 

[Henry IX]

I haven't studied it in detail although I have read Stephen Badsey's work on the British cavalry 1880-1918. And while he does get into some detail of the cavalry debate prior to the outbreak of the Great War I can't say that I am entirely familiar with it, especialyl as Badsey is kind of favorable to the part of the officers seeing value in chock tactics.

One thing I didn't like with his book was that I felt he was kind of belittling towards French and German cavalry in the Great War. When reading of the fight at Nery 1914, in the work by A. F. Becke, I found little reason to see the German cavalry as being so bad as having to "stick close to the infantry", as I believe that Badsey implies, due to being overmatched by the British cavalry. The German cavalry didn't seem, in my eyes, to be many parts worse than the British when the fighting started.

Still definitly a topic I need to read more on, especially if there's something to be found in English about the French cavalry.

I am not familiar with the details of the engagement at Nery, but I would say that in general the long service, professional British army was much better man for man than the continental conscript armies. The flip side to this is of course that it was much, much smaller and the model had to be abandoned within a few months of the war beginning.

 

[Gurkhal]

I am not familiar with the details of the engagement at Nery, but I would say that in general the long service, professional British army was much better man for man than the continental conscript armies. The flip side to this is of course that it was much, much smaller and the model had to be abandoned within a few months of the war beginning.

I agree that British cavalry would have been better man for man from the conscript mass armies, but also more vulnerable to losses. Still, I can't shake my feeling that Badsey engages in some trash talking of the Germans and French.

 

[Barsoom]

... engages in some trash talking of the Germans and French.

Standard fare in British historiography and particularly in military history.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Union Cavalry during the War of the Rebellion was essentially worthless until Phillip Sheridan equiped them with repeating rifles and turned them into mounted infantry - threatening to court martial anyone caught with a saber. It was a tactic that allowed the Union to set fire to the Shenandoah Valley and after the war allowed a few men to pacify a vast amount of territory for the United States after the war was over when Grant got elected and the railroad interests ran the (very corrupt) administration of the nation.

 

[Gurkhal]

Union Cavalry during the War of the Rebellion was essentially worthless until Phillip Sheridan equiped them with repeating rifles and turned them into mounted infantry - threatening to court martial anyone caught with a saber. It was a tactic that allowed the Union to set fire to the Shenandoah Valley and after the war allowed a few men to pacify a vast amount of territory for the United States after the war was over when Grant got elected and the railroad interests ran the (very corrupt) administration of the nation.

I've read contrary views to this but I know too little of the subject to judge
in any direction.

What I can refer to is once more Badsey and the works he reference. As well as one or two articles online.

I'll see if I can dig something up and post a link.

*****

@Andre Bolkonsky

I'm back home again and can provide this short article which makes the claim that cavalry charges were used and could be successful throughout the war. I found it very interesting.

Charge On: Re-examining Civil War Cavalry Tactics - Emerging Civil War

Emerging Civil War is pleased to welcome guest author Bill Backus A popular misconception of the American Civil War is the view that mounted charges against infantry were an outdated tactic. The image of charges being ordered by out-of-touch generals that did not comprehend that rifled muskets...

emergingcivilwar.com