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
The theatre of war in Manchuria presented many peculiarities of
climate, topography, and inhabitants. It was unlike any of the
“probable” theatres of operations we had studied, and was, therefore,
quite new to the troops who came from European Russia. The Japanese
were not only new and practically unknown foes, but the nature of the
information that we did possess about them tended to show our great
superiority, and therefore incited us to contempt. The existing edition
of our “Field Service Regulations” was obsolete, and the revised
edition was still in the Press. Special instructions, therefore, had to
be issued, in order to assist our troops to grapple with the entirely
strange conditions under which they were placed. These were compiled
and printed under my direction, and distributed to officers in command
of all units, from companies and squadrons upwards, and to all chief
staff-officers. In them I emphasized the necessity of getting to know
something about the enemy, enumerated their strong and weak points,
and drew attention to their patriotism and traditional indifference to
death. I stated that their strong points predominated, and that in the
Japanese we should find a very powerful opponent, even when reckoned by
European standards. I continued:
“It is most important that in the first engagements, in which
they will certainly be in superior strength, we should not give
the Japanese the satisfaction of victory, for that will only
still further elevate their spirit.
“No particular or new tactics need be adopted against our
present enemy, but we must not repeat the mistakes in
manœuvring which cost us so dear in the Turkish War of 1877–78.”
I then mentioned the causes of our reverses at Plevna, and commented
in detail on the most important. After capturing Nicopolis, our troops
moved on Plevna in ignorance of the strength and dispositions of the
enemy. As far as obtaining this information was concerned, our cavalry
was not well handled. In the first fight at Plevna (July 20, 1877)
we attacked with too few men and in detail. We did the same in the
fights of July 31 and September 12, but to an even greater extent,
and the attacks were carried out in too dense a formation, were not
sufficiently prepared by fire-effect, and our own numerous cavalry
and that of the Roumanians did practically nothing. The attacks on
September 10 and 11, 1877, failed because our troops were badly
distributed and untrained. I attached an appreciation of the work of
our troops in the Turkish War as follows:
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