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
With the exception of those who had volunteered for the front, the
officers of the reserve were not nearly so well qualified as those of
the regulars; they were much behind them in tactical training, and did
not always perform their duties with the zeal which should be shown on
active service. Many ensigns of the reserve turned out unsatisfactory,
having accepted this rank purely to escape becoming private soldiers
upon mobilization; they had no sympathy with the military profession,
and hated soldiering. They were absolutely without training, and some
of them had no authority whatever over the men. The ensigns and
acting ensigns[23] promoted from the ranks for distinguished service
were excellent in every respect. Having been selected from the rank
and file, they usually appreciated their rank, and had considerable
authority amongst the men; they got on well with the officers, and
proved efficient and hard-working assistants to the company commanders.
The extent to which the acting ensigns sacrificed themselves to duty
is evinced by the fact that of 680 in the 1st Army in February, 192
were killed and wounded in the Mukden battle—_i.e._, more than 28 per
cent. The moral tone of the officers was quite satisfactory; during the
whole period of the war only nineteen were dismissed for unbecoming
conduct. In reporting on the work done by the officers of the General
Staff, the majority of the senior officers in command of troops
expressed the opinion that their theoretical training and intelligence
stood very high, and that their work was unselfish, but that they were
not sufficiently in touch with the troops, and lacked the personal,
practical knowledge required to enable them to judge properly how much
might be expected of men, and in what way an order would be carried
out—a knowledge which is necessary if small errors are to be avoided in
the transmission of orders, etc. They recommended that, to give these
staff-officers the necessary practical training, they should do most
of their service with troops of all three Arms, and only a part of
their service on the staff; while, to prevent them being looked upon
by the troops as mere clerks, they should be relieved of the mass of
clerical work that now falls to the General Staff. As in other bodies
of men, so amongst these officers are to be found some specially fitted
for field-work, and others, again, who prefer purely staff duties, and
in my opinion the two classes should be separated. Generally speaking,
the General Staff officers in the 1st Army did everything that was
required of them. From November, 1904, to September, 1905, their losses
in killed and wounded amounted to 12 per cent. of their strength; if
the casualties which occurred before the formation of the 1st Army are
taken into account, the percentage works out as much as 25·7. During
the whole of the above time only four were sent back to Russia on
account of sickness, while the majority of the wounded returned to the
front.
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