Chapter XLIV

JAPANESE GUNS AND HORSES.

In all respects, save one, the Japanese field guns are inferior to the Russian. They have a shorter range; their projectiles are lighter; they are less mobile, and they are not quick firers. Their one claim to superiority is the high explosive used in the common shell. The battle of the Yalu is, perhaps, responsible for the extravagant estimate of the Japanese artillery. But it must be borne in mind that in the bombardment of April 30th it was howitzers, and not field guns, that wrought havoc with the Russian positions, and that on May 1st the Russian guns fired only six shots.

[Illustration: Horse-shoeing extraordinary.]

The Japanese are a practical people, and acknowledge their inferiority in this arm. In the Japanese army there are nineteen regiments of artillery, each under a colonel. Five of these are mountain and fourteen field, and their combined strength is one hundred and fourteen batteries of six hundred and eighty-four guns. Each battery is armed with the seven-and-a-half centimètre steel gun made at the Osaka Arsenal. Field and mountain guns are of the same calibre and take the same shell, though the difference in length, charge, and range is considerable. The tangent sight of the field gun is graduated up to 6,200 metrès, and that of the mountain gun to 4,300 metrès. The projectile of each gun weighs about eleven pounds, and the guns are not quick firers, though the recoil is reduced to a minimum by means of drag-shoes under each wheel. The time fuse in field and mountain guns can be set up to a range of 4,800 metèrs; the ammunition is not “fixed,” but the cartridges are contained in brass cases, with percussion caps in the base.

So much for the gun which may be described as inferior--except as to the time and use--to the gun used by us in South Africa at the beginning of the war.

The mobility of the field artillery is seriously affected by the inferior quality of the draught horses. As we saw on July 31st one division was able to bring into action only thirteen field guns, notwithstanding the use of double teams. The horses are small and badly trained, and the march of the artillery in mountainous country is slow. These defects in material are not altogether neutralised by the skill and coolness of the gunners, who handle their weapons with the utmost confidence, and are clever in selecting a target as well as in aiming and laying the guns.

In the use of common shell the Japanese have departed from the usual practice of European artillery. There have, it is true, been occasions when they were forced to employ common shell instead of shrapnel, because of the limitations of the time fuse. But experience in Manchuria, as in South Africa, has shown that the effect of shrapnel is over-estimated, and that common shell with an explosive as powerful as that invented by the Japanese is often more destructive, even under conditions that would suggest shrapnel to a European gunner.

At the battle of the Yalu the combination of common shell with shrapnel proved irresistible against trenches and troops scattered as well as massed. In the opinion of men qualified to pass judgment we ought to pay more attention to the use of common shell, and should add a considerable proportion of such shells to our field battery equipment. This, I believe, will now be done, seeing that a new high explosive for field use has been invented.

On the other hand, the Japanese might learn from us the advantage of indirect laying of telescopic sights, of avoiding sky-line positions, of not always waiting for the enemy’s fire, and of moving their guns in action so as to give the infantry their full support at critical moments of attack.

Many censures have been passed on the Japanese cavalry. It is only fair to admit that these judgments are based on observation of a few isolated units. No foreign _attaché_, and no foreign correspondent has seen even a troop of cavalry in action or on patrol. This is not a country for cavalry, as the Cossacks have found. In the absence of evidence to the contrary it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Japanese cavalry horse--like the artillery horse--is poor and weak and badly trained; that his equipment is not made on scientific principles, and that the Japanese are bad horsemen and worse horse masters. Most of the horses that we see are stallions, and are noisy and disorderly; the saddles are ill-fitting, and are often on the withers of the horse; the seat of the rider is not well balanced; the curb and snaffle are in constant use, even at a walk. The result of these defects was a very large percentage of saddle galls and fistulous withers.

Having said this much in condemnation, let me give the opinion of a Japanese cavalry officer. There is, as we in Great Britain have long known, no more conservative soldier than the cavalryman--none more tenacious in upholding the traditions of the horse, the carbine, the lance, and the sabre in war.

“You condemn our cavalry,” said the officer, “because they look poor and small by the side of your European horses. Well, our infantry soldiers are darker and smaller than the soldiers of Europe, yet they do very well, don’t they?”

I had to admit this dangerous argument by analogy.

“Let me begin with the reputed defects,” he continued. “Our cavalry horse averages between fourteen and fifteen hands, and weighs about one thousand pounds. The average weight of a cavalry soldier, apart from his equipment, is one hundred and twenty pounds. He can march twenty-five miles a day, and on a good road can trot seven-and-a-half miles an hour--a little quicker than the Russian horse, and a trifle slower than the German. Judging by camps, the speed of the Russian cavalry is not greater than that of our cavalry. Horses enter the service when two years old; in the third year they are gelded, and do not go into the ranks until the fifth year. They have, therefore, three years training before they become troop horses. The object of this preparation is to develop their speed, endurance, and carrying capacity, to improve their physique, and to teach them habits of obedience. In the ranks they are neither quarrelsome nor noisy, and one dismounted man can easily control twelve or thirteen horses. I admit that there is a large percentage of sore backs, but in that respect we are not alone. In the Boxer Expedition I noticed that the British and German cavalry horses suffered from sore backs. At the same time I acknowledge that our twenty per cent sore backs is very high. This is due partly to the structure of the Japanese horse, partly to the seat of the rider, to the shape of the saddle, to the bad roads, and to the constant changes of speed. Our saddle is not well made and is still ill-fitting. The Russian saddle is much better; it is lighter and more convenient; the numnah is attached to the saddle, and there is comparatively little weight thrown on the withers of the horse. In the Russian cavalry there are few sore backs. The Japanese soldier is said to be always tugging at the reins. This is, no doubt, true, but our horses do not hold up their heads like foreign horses.”

I ventured to suggest that this self abasement might be cured by not tying up the horses’ heads between their legs as the habit is in Japan.

“As to our horses and the possibilities of improving the breed. Our original stock came from Korea.”

Having had some personal experience of the vicious little brutes that pass for horses in that Peninsula, I am not altogether surprised at their descendants in Japan.

“The first attempt at improvement was made in Hokaido, where we introduced the American trotter and French horses from Anam, as well as a few Hungarians. The American and French horses proved failures. The breeding of horses for the army is under the control of the Agricultural Department--a great mistake, in my opinion, for that Department is apt to judge a horse by a standard other than the military. The Imperial Household Department has two stud farms--one in Shimosa and the other in Sendai. The Agricultural Department also has two stud farms in Kyushu and Osher, and has introduced the English hackney, the English thoroughbred, and the Anglo-Arab--a breed of pure Arab improved in England. These horses are distributed among the stud farms with mares from the several localities. To prevent deterioration of the stock, regulations have been made as to gelding, but owing to the outbreak of war these regulations have not been rigorously enforced, nor has proper care been taken in the selection of brood mares.

“The organisation for the supply of military horses is simple. There is a central depôt, with branches in Nokaido, Sanbogi, Rokurhara, Kaijiyasawa, Shirakawa, Taisen and Takahara. At these branch depôts the horses are trained and prepared for service. There is, of course, some difference of opinion as to the best horses for improving our stock, but the judgment of the majority is in favour of the English hackney, the English thoroughbred and the Anglo-Arab for cavalry, and the Anglo-Norman for artillery.

“Our horses remain in the ranks for eight years. Their feed is ten pounds of barley and five pounds of grass, or failing grass, three extra pounds of barley. In camp they are fed three times a day and on the march twice a day. The diseases from which they suffer are anthrax, pneumonia, and indigestion. In one division fifteen horses died from eating poisonous grass, and two hundred from indigestion, due no doubt to the hard barley diet. I forgot to say that it is estimated that in Japan--which as you know is a mountainous country cut up into paddy fields and therefore not adapted to horse exercise--there are 1,280,000 horses, of which, perhaps 300,000 are stallions, and that the yearly product is about 100,000.”

“My deliberate opinion,” added the Japanese colonel, “is that comparing one squadron with another the Japanese cavalry will not be found inferior to the Russian. Hitherto we have had no opportunity of testing our capacity in actual conflict. Here among these mountains we can fulfil none of the duties assigned to cavalry except those of reconnaissance and of guarding the flanks. When the army was concentrating at Anju, we acted as a screen through which the enemy could not penetrate to discover our force. Again at Wiju we covered the army from Yongampho to many miles East, so that the Russians were never sure of the point of attack. At Chonju the Russians had a big force of cavalry, yet they did not even attempt to reconnoitre.”

Whatever may be my private opinion of the Japanese horse and his rider, I am sure that, had a real occasion presented itself, there would have been no lack of daring. The Japanese cavalrymen are very skilful swordsmen; but they are wise enough to recognise that the rifle or even the carbine is a more reliable weapon than the lance or the sabre. As to the Russian use of the lance. The circumstantial report of a French correspondent describing the annihilation of a Japanese squadron by the lances of Cossacks was a pure invention. No incident of the kind has happened. Only two Russian European regiments carry the lance, except on parade, and even they appear to have left it carefully at home, for not a single lance has been seen save in a General Officer’s escort. As a matter of fact the only regiment that ever carries the lance in Asia is the Cossack regiment in Turkistan. However deeply regretted by Lancer and Hussar, this picturesque weapon may be relegated to the museum of military antiquities, and take its place by the side of the jingal and the halberd.