Organization: How Armies are Formed for WarFoster, Hubert
History
Organization: How Armies are Formed for War
Foster, Hubert
Armies -- Organization
The strength of Head-Quarters of Commands, and of Administrative
Services, remains fairly constant during a campaign, as does the number
of guns. Mounted men waste less than Infantry, as they do not become
footsore, and do not carry the weight of their equipment, which rests
on the horse.
To remedy the wastage of war, the British organization provides for
each Unit proceeding to the theatre of operations a Reserve, extra to
its Establishment, amounting to 10 per cent. of its number of rank and
file. These men are at first retained at the Base, so as to be readily
available, and are called the “First Reinforcements.” It is calculated
that subsequent reinforcements, amounting to some 60 per cent. of the
total strength of the Force, but mainly required for the Infantry,
are likely to be sufficient to replace the wastage of the first year
of a war. For the British Expeditionary Force of 153,000 in the Field
the strength of First Reinforcements is 14,000 and that of subsequent
Reinforcements will probably be about 2,700 officers and 75,000 men.
EVILS OF IMPROVISED ORGANIZATIONS
It might be considered that the larger formations of all Arms need
not be permanently organized, but might be improvised for War. This
was formerly the system in all armies, and persisted in the British
Service until a few years ago; while in the United States there is even
now no higher unit than the Regiment. But improvised bodies of troops
are not so efficient as permanent formations. This could be shown by
many examples from history. The force defeated at Majuba was formed of
Companies of several Regiments, and in 1870 the working of the German
Cavalry Divisions, which were formed only on mobilization, left much to
be desired.
There are several advantages in assembling troops, in permanent
Commands. In the first place, the training together of all Arms, and
of their various units, creates confidence throughout the force. It
can be easily seen how they will learn to know each other’s methods of
action, and to rely on their mutual co-operation. For instance, it has
been found how much better Artillery supports the other troops of its
own Division, whom it has been accustomed to work with.
In the second place, where Staff Officers work constantly together, and
understand each other, their work will be better and more rapidly done.
Also, when troops are accustomed to work with the same Staff, Orders
can be short and concise, and therefore more quickly drafted, and
better understood. All this saves time, and much increases the mobility
on which depends success in manœuvring.
In the third place, it is most desirable that the Chief should know his
Staff and still more his Subordinate Commanders. He will thus be able
to apportion to each officer a task suited to his qualifications. This
tends to efficiency in Command.
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