The Russian Army and the Japanese War, Vol. 2 (of 2): Being Historical and Critical Comments on the Military Policy and Power of Russia and on the Campaign in the Far East — John Shaqi
The Russian Army and the Japanese War, Vol. 2 (of 2): Being Historical and Critical Comments on the Military Policy and Power of Russia and on the Campaign in the Far EastKuropatkin, A. N. (Alekseĭ Nikolaevich)
History
The Russian Army and the Japanese War, Vol. 2 (of 2): Being Historical and Critical Comments on the Military Policy and Power of Russia and on the Campaign in the Far East
Kuropatkin, A. N. (Alekseĭ Nikolaevich)
Russo-Japanese War, 1904-1905
that the country east of the line might be left to the cavalry, with a
few infantry units in support.[16]
General Count Keller was persistent in his demands that communication
should be maintained between his force and Liao-yang, but we had
neither the material, the means, nor the time to comply with his
wishes, which would have meant the laying of a light railway and the
strengthening of the road bridges. As I feared that the Japanese might
make a fresh forward movement on Hai-cheng, I ordered thirty-nine
battalions to concentrate near Hsi-mu-cheng on June 29. The short march
from Hai-cheng was accomplished on the 28th with great difficulty
through a sea of mud, and on the 29th Hsi-mu-cheng was temporarily
cut off by the mountain streams in flood. The feeding of the troops
collected there was found to be so difficult that as soon as it was
known that the enemy, instead of advancing, had retired towards the
Fen-shui Ling (Pass), certain units were ordered to return to the
railway. Taking advantage, on July 18, of the screen formed by a
portion of the 17th Army Corps, we attempted to advance against part
of Kuroki’s army in the hope of forcing our way forward and gaining
a partial success. For this Count Keller had under his command
forty-three battalions, but the attempt failed. He stopped the action
before any large number of our troops had become engaged. On the 29th
Oku’s army took the offensive; we had to evacuate Ta-shih-chiao and
Newchuang after a feeble resistance, and allowed Oku and Nodzu to
join hands. When on July 23 I inspected the units of the 10th Army
Corps, who were holding the position near Hu-chia-tzu, I found out
how absolutely incapable of operating in hilly country the troops
newly arrived from Russia were. Before sending them forward, it was
necessary to train them in hill fighting, and to provide them with
pack transport. On July 31 all three Japanese armies advanced, and we
concentrated after a series of battles round Liao-yang. Here, in spite
of our resistance, the three armies were able to join hands. Their
attacks on the left bank of the Tai-tzu Ho were repulsed, but owing
to the unfortunate nature of our operations on the right bank, the
conditions became so unfavourable to us that I was obliged to order a
retirement to Mukden. The withdrawal was conducted without the loss
of a single gun or transport cart, while the enemy lost in men more
heavily than we did. In the detailed accounts I have given in the first
three volumes of the operations at Liao-yang, on the Sha Ho and at
Mukden, our difficulties and the causes of our defeats are explained.
The course of events showed that our original scheme of operations was
quite a correct forecast, for in it the probable necessity of retiring
towards Harbin had been foreseen. Indeed, matters at Liao-yang, on the
Sha Ho, and especially at Mukden, might have been very much worse for
us than they were, and might have necessitated our retirement on Harbin
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