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
Other things which contributed to the same result were the immense
development of the different staffs and administrations, the auxiliary
institutions, such as supply parks and hospitals, the congestion on
the roads caused by the masses of baggage which had collected, and
the fact that both our wheeled and pack transport carried less than
it was supposed to owing to the hilly country and the all-prevailing
mud. After heavy fighting our army corps, especially those consisting
of three-battalion regiments, amounted to less than 10,000 to 15,000
rifles, and yet the immense organization, military parks, baggage, and
transport, etc., for a full corps had still to be guarded. Even the
regimental standards, which should have been a source of strength and
encouragement in the fight, were in many cases prematurely taken to the
rear under a guard of a company or half a company, the troops at the
front being weakened by this number at the most important moment of an
action. I was obliged to make a ruling that in action the standards
should be kept with the regimental reserves, and that steps should be
taken that they should be a symbol of victory in the most critical
phases of a fight (as used to be the case in former wars), and a source
of strength instead of weakness to the units which possessed them.
In September and October, 1905, instead of one Manchurian army,
three were formed (the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd); they were all intended
for operations in the Mukden area, and were based on the one railway
which constituted their common line of communications. The powers
of the army commanders were as laid down by regulation. Officers in
command of armies were given (Field Service Regulations, 1890) almost
all the powers formerly vested in the Commander-in-Chief. As regards
fighting, it was laid down that “in conducting military operations the
officer commanding an army should be guided by the instructions of
the Commander-in-Chief, but should act independently.” This latitude
would be very convenient in operating in Europe, where each army
would have its own independent line of communications; but in the
conditions which existed at Mukden—one common position and one line of
communications for all—and with a difference of views existing between
the army commanders as regards the conduct of affairs, the arrangement
was, to say the least of it, extremely unsuitable. A difference of
opinion upon some vital matter might easily arise, when it might be
necessary either to order the army commander to carry out an operation
which he thought unnecessary, inopportune, or even dangerous, or
else to ask for him to be replaced. For instance, a fortnight before
we assumed the offensive on January 25, after everything had been
settled and all plans drawn up, General Grippenberg suddenly surprised
me by his opinion—that the campaign was lost; that we should retire
towards Harbin, hold that point and Vladivostok, and thence move with
two armies in other directions.
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