FRENCH AND GERMAN ARMIES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9348, 18 January 1909, Page 7

FRENCH AND GERMAN ARMIES.

AN ENGLISHMANS’ ORITIOSIMS

A free criticism of the Frenoii and Gorman armies as they were observed during the recent manoeuvres, appears in the United Service Magazine from the pen of Mr Howard Heneman. On the whole, for efficiency on modern lines it awards the palm to the French. “The French General Staff, ’ ’ says the writer, “may not be so highly trained as that of Germany—though this is a subject, that invites debate—but the men it controls are more intelligent, and consequently better soldiers. 5 ' It sounds strange after what w’as written by German critics of British ih South Africa, but Mr Hensman remarks:— “Because of the brilliant successes of German arms in the three campaigns between 1864 and 1871. the Germany military leaders seem to think that the* same methods would prevail to-day against a determined foe armed with quick-firing guns and magazine rifles. Again and again during the manoeuvres dense masses of infantry were moved forward without any regard for the pounding they were receiving from both artillery and entrenched infantry, and with a supreme disregard for the fact that they were often being assailed on both - flanas and their front at once. Relentlessly the leaders hurled the regiments and the brigades forward, caring nothing for the fire of the opposing guns. Had these been shotted the men would have been mowed down like a field of corn ; but they were secure in the knowledge that there were almost unlimited reserves at their, disposal to make good all losses, and, as it was hoped, eventually win the day by tiring down their opponents, 5 ’ ILanything like it had taken place in English manoeuvres, says Mr Hensman, the umpires would have quickly intervened. Things are described as being very different in the French army “Here all the ranks displayed on every occasion an almost instinctive knowledge of the great value of cover, and brigadiers and divisional generals kept their men hidden very effectively until the last moment, when they were suddenly launched for a very rapid dash, in greatly extended order, over the open ground. The contrast between the methods employed by the two armies was however, most marked, and so far as conducting an attack upon an entrenched position is concerned, the advantage lies undoubtedly with the French. 55

la the French army, it is stated, much better care la taken of the men, this probably being due to the enhanced value ‘of an army drawn from a smaller population. The French boots are ranch better than the German. French “casualties” from injured feet from marching were only 2 per cent, of the entire infantry, while in Germany they were over 20 per cent, though they marched shorter disiances.

Mr Hensman also remarks upon the relations of officers and men in the two countries. In Germany, he says, the old iron discipline is maintained, to the detriment, as some foreign observers thought, of military efficiency. In the French Army, there is a tendency to loosen the bonds of discipline, and certainly there is a familiarity between officers and men that is not seen in the British Army, much less in that of Germany. If this is a bad or a good thing is debatable, bnt the general impression is that it has haade for a greater efficiency in the field, with more intelligence and flexibility, whereas Germany, adds Mr Hensman, still clings to the system of Rook and Moltke.