Afghanistan and the Anglo-Russian DisputeRodenbough, Theophilus F. (Theophilus Francis)
History
Afghanistan and the Anglo-Russian Dispute
Rodenbough, Theophilus F. (Theophilus Francis)
Afghanistan; Eastern question (Central Asia); India -- Defenses; Russians -- Asia, Central
_Anglo-Afghan Operations_.--The observations of a participant
[Footnote: Lieut. Martin, R. E. (_Journal U. S. I. of India_).]
in the last British campaign in Afghanistan will be found of value
in the study of future operations in that country. Of the Afghan
tactics he says: "The enemy (generally speaking, a race of
Highlanders) vastly preferred the attack, and usually obtained the
advantage of superior numbers before risking an attack; . . . being
able to dispense (for the time) with lines of communication and
baggage and commissariat columns, the Afghan tribes were often able
to raise large gatherings on chosen ground. They could always attack
us; we were rarely able (except when they chose) to find them at
home." This observer says the regular troops of the Ameer were
not so formidable as the tribal gatherings. The presence of a
tactically immovable artillery hinders the action of an Asiatic
army. The mounted men are usually the first to leave when the
fight is going against their side in a general engagement. One of
the best specimens of their tactics was at Ahmed-Kheyl, on the
Ghazni-Kandahar road, when the British division was one hundred
miles from any support. The Afghans assembled a force outnumbering
the British ten to one. The attack was made in a series of rushes,
twice dispersing the British cavalry, and once driving back the
infantry. Exposed to a constant fire of field guns, the Afghans
stood their ground, although poorly armed with a variety of obsolete
weapons--from an Enfield to a handjar or a stick. Trouble may
always be expected from the night attacks of certain tribes like the
Alizais and Waziris.
The English infantry formation was an objectionably close one, and
Lieut. Martin says that the bayonets and rifle-barrels of the front
rank were sometimes struck and jammed _by bullets from the rear
rank_. The action of the English cavalry, as at Ahmed-Kheyl, was
suicidal in receiving the enemy's charge--practically at a halt.
Occasionally shelter trenches were used, but disapproved.
In the Kuram valley column, under General Roberts, the cavalry
(principally native, with one regular squadron and a battery of
horse artillery) formed a brigade, but was never used independently,
nor was it instructed (although well equipped) for modern cavalry
work. The opposition to dismounted cavalry duty is still so great,
in the British army, that the mounted arm is paralyzed for effective
service.
Very little was done by the horse artillery with the Kuram column.
In the case of the field artillery it was found necessary on two
occasions to transfer the ammunition boxes from the bullock-carts to
the backs of elephants, on account of the steepness of the hills.
The mountain artillery (native) was the most serviceable; a Gatling
battery, packed on ponies, and in charge of a detachment of
Highlanders, was never used however.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account