El Paso daily herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1881-1901, 1897-02-16

| Probably Fail.
| WASHINGTON, Feb. To- Special. l-One
! of the most important bills pending in the
! house, and one which great majority of
! the members would be glad to vote for if
| they could only get the chance, is a meas
| ure for the reorganization of the army. 1t
| is u singular fact that Persia, China and the
| United States are the only nations adher-
| ing to the ten company regiment idea, a
| form of organization which long ago be-
| came obsolete among the best armies OF
| the world. A commission of our army
J officers was sent abroad some years ago to
| study foreign military methods, and on
their return they reported unanimously in
favor of subdivision of the regiment I'M
| der field leaders. They said no officer could
| properly handle ten company regiment
in the field. The plan embodied in the
pending bill is not to reduce, but rather
| to increase the size of the regiments, in
| creaSing the number of companies from 10
to IL. But the II companies are divided
into three battaliOnS of four companies
each, making three tactical units where
there was one before, each battalion hay
ing n major at the head of it.
Modern Formation.
This change was recommended very
strongly by General Sherman, by General
Grant and by General Sheridan. 1t has
been commended by all the secretaries of
and by nearly all the prominent mill
tary authorities of our time L inquired
at the war department for information as
to the advantages to be gained by the pro-
posed subdivision of the regiment and was
given the following very interesting reply:
''All who have participated in Il modern
battle and all students of military science
agree that in order to push home an attack
against an enemy who use weapon that
can kill at 2, 800 yards successive lines or
waves to fill the losses of the leading troops
are necessary, as well as the distribution OF
the attacking front into groups deplOyed
in lines, so that advantage can be taken OF
every foot of the ground that offers cover
and protection. Necessarily this greatly
increases the difficulty of the control of
body of men and their proper leading into
hot fight when all armed with repeat
ing breechloaders, this owing to the dis
tribution and great increase in the depth
of the zone covered by the enemies fire,
which has to be passed over
War with the single battalion forma
ton would be national suicide,'' says a
prominent authority. The United States
cavalry and artillery now have the modern
formation. 1t is much more important
that the infantry should be put upon a
modern basis, for it is the infantry which
wins battles and saves nations. a leading
officer of the British army said that infan-
try was and must always be the mainstay
and backbone of any army. Its fire is
more deadly than that of artillery. Its &C
ton is sure, while that of cavalry is fitful
Upon the infantry the brunt of battle falls
Examples of Progress.
General Miles tells me that, in the opin-
ion of our army officers, the infantry
branch of the United States army is now,
so far as organization is concerned 100
years behind the times. 1t is back where
it was when armed with the flintlock mus
kCt, carrying the buck and ball cartridge,
instead of the springfield breechloader,
with its deadly missile.
In quarter of a century we have pro-
greSSCd from the muZZIe loading, smooth
bore musket to the breechloading rifle.
The muzzle loader meant at most two, and
usually one, shot a minute, with unccr
tainty of aim, execution at not exceeding
400 yards and no assurance of a death
dealing shot at over zoo yards The brCcch
loader means firing six times minute,
with accuracy of aim, carrying the deadly
missile :, 900 yards. The increase of effect
i've range is, therefore, fivefold 1t would
take an advancing line minutes to pass
through the range of fire from the muzZle
loader and 90 minutes to pass through the
deadly fire of the brccchloaders. The rev
-
breechloador is one great reason why the
method of formation must be changed.
In these times of arbitration treaties and
talk of universal peace it may sound strange
to discuss the efficiency of arms and armies.
But the millennium is not yet here. There
will be wars and ruIEOrs of wars. Nations
must meet conditions as they find them
and be prepared for offensive and defensive
operations. 1 was told by a military man
that in the same tactical formation of in
fantry which we have employed in the past
probably 10 men would be killed by the
breechloaders where one was killed by the
muZZle muSketS. Add to this the power
full machine guns, such as the gatling and
the hotchkiss, and the rate of death among
the closed files of double ranks under our
present system would be simple suicide.
This is the reason why all civilized ma
lions, except the United States, China and
Persia, have abandoned the single battal-
ion, double rank formation.
The Length of Line.
When one of our present regiments goes
into action, it presents IL close line in dou-
BILE rank about 300 yards long. There are
no intervals between the men. Every
bullet fired with accuracy takes Il man
Every regimental commander of our late
war between the states will appreciate the |
difficulty of commanding this length OF
line. In the din of battle neither voice nor |
bugle call can be easily heard. The noise |
of battle has been greatly intensified by |
the introduction Of the rapid fire breech- |
leaders.
If the single line be heightened by |
spreading of companies, as is nearly al |
ways the case in actual War, the regimental |
commander cannot control his regiment |
He cannot reach them. They are too far |
away. He could not even control one bat |
TALON in person and direct the movements |
of the others. For these reasons u division |
of the regiment into three bartalions, each |
with its commander, is imperative. The |
old line of battle formation used during |
the civil war, in the language of IL military
officer, ''Lclongs to the past, with the Mace
DOMAIN phalanx, and the general who |
would use it would simply invite the |
slaughter of his army and sacrifice the
cause of his country upon the altar of i'm
beetle conservatism.
Yet it is almost impossible to get this
bill for reorganization of the army through
congress. Why? Because il would cost
81, 800, 600 a year. WALTER WELLMAN.