COST OF RETREAT

Wairarapa Times-Age, 10 December 1941, Page 8

COST OF RETREAT

RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN TRENDS. The Russians were right to retire, when the only alternative was the destruction of their armies, writes “Scrutator” in the "Sunday Times. But it must not be forgotten that retirement is always a costly proceeding. A moment's thought will show why. When any large force moves in any direction there is always a certain amount of dropping out. Motor engines break down; wheels or caterpillars get bogged; men are footsore; units lose their way at night; and so on. These things happen even on manoeuvres; but in actual war, when both machines and men are strained to the utmost and their progress is constantly harassed by bombs and shells, they happen on a much larger scale. Now, when an army is going forward the left-behinds are not lost. But when it is retreating fast with an enemy at its heels they are. [ Prisoners, guns, vehicles, munitions,! stores of every kind—the pursuers arej bound to capture masses of them. A retreating force can capture but few. For this reason, although the Germans would naturally have more often to launch costly attacks on prepared positions—and have unquestionably suffered heavy losses in doing so —there cannot be much doubt that over the campaign as a whole the Russians have lost more and that numerical odds have been altered in the enSmy’s favour. 1