The Dominion. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1911. THE GERMAN ARMY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1276, 3 November 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1911. THE GERMAN ARMY.

A cable message yesterday informed us that the military expert of the London Times, after witnessing the French and German Army manoeuvres, has formed the conclusion that the German Army is much overrated. Also, that the German authorities are much mistaken as to its invincibility. These expressions of opinion are of very great interest, first of all because, if true, they go far towards relieving Europe of a nightmare belief in the overpowering might of Germany's land forces; and secondly because the military expert of the Times is recognised as a very high authority, and even if he should havo under-rated somewhat the fighting strength of tho German forces, it is fairly safe to assume that they are at least less formidable than is generally believed. At the same time the extracts from his articles on the subjcct dispatched by the Press Association's agent for the benefit of those at this end of the world arc not particularly convincing. "Apart from its numbers," the message runs, "its confidence in itself and its high organisation, it does not present any signs of superiority over the best foreign models."' If then, in these particular respects, it is superior to its rivals, surely _ this is a very great deal. The opinion is pretty generally held that latterly the French land forces have made a marked forward movement which brings them in some respects at least on equal terms with their formidable neighbours and rivals. For some little time past the idea has prevailed that the Frcnch field guns arc superior to the German. A great deal of secrecy has been observed concerning the field artillery of the Frcnch Army. The present gun, so far as it is known, is a 2.95-inch quick-firing shielded gun of a particularly powerful kind, capable, it is said, of firing 30 rounds a minute. The objection raised to it is that it is somewhat unwieldy; but report has it that this weakness docs not exist in the latest models. Germany has recently adopted a shielded quick-firing gun of an improved pattern, partly, it is believed, in imitation of the Frcnch field gun. The views expressed by the military expert of tho Times concerning the relative merits of the field guns are apparently held also by other high authorities.

Military service in Germany, as in Francs, Russia, and other European countries, is of course compulsory. In Germany liability to service begins at the ago of 17 years and ends at 45, but actual sorvicc begins at 20. The term of service in the first line, or active army, is seven years, the infantry serving two years in the ranks and five in the reserve, while the cavalry and horse artillery serve three years in the ranks and jour in the reserve. In France liability to service extends from the age of 20 to 45, but usually begins at 21. The term of service in the active ranks is two years, as in Germany, after which transfer is made to the reserve where the soldier has to_ undergo training for four weeks twice in 11 years. The French Army consists of two forces —the home forces, called the Metropolitan Army, and the Colonial Army. It is interest to note that on a peace footing there is very little difference between the French and German Armies. The Metropolitan Army of France totals 558,000 men,, with 80,500 in the Colon-

ial Army, making a total of 638,500; while the German forces total something like 022,000. This was the position at the end of 1910, and the proportion has been maintained. In time of war, however, it is estimated that with her reserves and colonial forces France would be able to muster a total of 1,300,000 combatants against 1,760,000 by Germany; and Germany would possess at least a similar advantage in the matter of partially-trained men to fill the gaps caused by the waste of war. Large as these forces are numerically Russia has still larger. Her three armies —those in European Russia, Central Russia, and in Asia—on a peace footing total 1,200,000 of all ranks, and according to the Statesman's Tear Book tho number of men available in war approaches four millions. For all practical purposes, however, it is estimated that the fighting strength of the Russian Army is not more than 1,850,000 men, while it would be difficult to assemble more than 1,200.000 at any given theatre of war. The Russian Army, of course, is not so highly trained as cither the German or the French Armies. Taken 011 a financial basis the military expenditure by Russia in 1910 was £55,000,000; by Germany, £40,000,000; by France, £36,000,000; and by Britain, £27,000,000. While it is very pleasant to hear from so high an authority as the Times military expert that the German Army, after all the tremendous efforts to make it not merely superior to all others, but overpoweringly so, is not what wo have for so long been led to believe it to be; the fact cannot be ignored that just such assertions as this were made before the FrancoPrussian war. And we know what happened on that occasion. That Franco has materially strengthened her army is undoubted—it is and has been her ambition for many years to make her position strong enough to enable her to offer defiance, should occasion arise, to her powerful neighbour. But to say that it, or any other army, is to-day single-handed the equal of the German Army is to say more than is likely to find very wide acceptance. It may_ be overrated, but there is very little doubt that Germany p6sscsses _ the most powerful military organisation in the world to-day.