CHAPTER VIIEMPLOYMENT IN FORTRESS WARFARE
The siege of Port Arthur by the Japanese and its defence by the Russians have thrown an entirely new light on Fortress Warfare. Although the main principles of the attack and defence remain unchanged and the primary armament of both is still the heavy artillery, the improvement of small-arms, their great range, and rapid fire have materially altered the nature of the fighting in the later stages and during the assault. The result of this has been to prolong the defence after the fortress has been dismantled by the bombardment, and to render the storming of a single breach an operation no longer possible in war. The machine gun is largely responsible for this; and when high-explosive shells have destroyed the fortifications and disabled the artillery, the stormers will be met by rifle fire and that of machine guns concealed among the ruins of the works. The intensity and accuracy of this fire will be such as to result frequently in the complete repulse of the assault, and even when the glacis of a work has been occupied it may be several weeks before the capture of the work itself is effected.
Machine guns are particularly suited to the defence of fortresses during this period, and Sir G. S. Clarke, in his bookFortification, says: “The fire of the Maxim gun, delivering about 700 bullets a minute,[38]can be directed by one man, who need not show more than his head (easily shielded) above the parapet, the feed being tended by another man completely under cover. In the special qualities of the machine gun there is a distinct advantage to the defence, arising from the fact thatan intense fire over a particular area can be suddenly developed by a few men occupying a small space. This, in the case of night attacks especially, is a valuable quality. At Port Arthur the Russians in some cases employed machine guns with good effect, concealing them so that their fire came as a surprise to the assaulting parties. Their portability renders them well suited for the defence of positions, and they will doubtless form an important element in the armament of fortresses.”
Speaking of the difficulty of “storming” the modern fortress, the same author says: “Thevive forceschool proposed therefore—on paper—to shell them heavily and then storm, trusting to incomplete organisation and general unpreparedness. There is little or nothing in military history to bear out the views of this school, and modern experience is entirely against them. Only one such attempt was made in 1870-1, against the indifferent provisional worksof Belfort, garrisoned mainly byGardes Mobiles—and this failed completely. The tremendous assaults on the defences of Port Arthur may have been partially inspired by the German teaching; but the results were discouraging, although the devoted and sustained gallantry of the Japanese could not be surpassed and probably would not be equalled by any European army.”
The machine guns of a fortress should be divided into two classes—the stationary and the mobile guns. To the former will be allotted the defence of distinct portions of the permanent works, and they will be provided with cone and parapet mountings,[39]the former being fixed and the latter capable of being moved within the work to which it is allotted.
The mobile guns should be mounted on a light tripod and carried in a low-wheeled handcart, or they may be mounted on a very light two-wheeled carriage capable of being drawn by one man and having wheels of small track, which can move over the narrowest roads in the fortress. These mobile guns should not be allotted to any particular work, but to the garrison other than those within the forts, for use in repelling assaults and making counter-attacks.
We will deal first with the stationary machine guns. It will not be necessary to provide a machine gun for each cone mounting, as the guns can be easily carried from one cone toanother as required. Shields should be used with all stationary mountings, but must be detachable, and should not be placed in position until required, as they indicate the situation of the gun and are easily destroyed by artillery.
The positions for machine-gun mountings in a fort must depend on the size and construction of the work, the nature of the outer defences, and particularly on the supporting works in the immediate vicinity. Positions commanding the glacis and the entanglements, on salients of works and enfilading ditches, and any dead ground where the enemy may effect a lodgment, are suitable. Counterscarp galleries at the angles of works flanking the ditch should invariably have machine-gun positions, with a special loophole, long and shallow, to enable them to sweep a wide area with fire.
The selection of the positions for machine guns in permanent works belongs to the art of the engineer, and there is little that can be said of their tactical employment. Fire should be reserved until the attack has reached close range, and then only opened when the target is large and vulnerable. Guns must be concealed by every possible device and all the loopholes must be blinded. By night all guns should be mounted and trained to sweep ground by which the enemy must approach; when search-lights are not in use, the elevation should be checked by the use of a clinometer and the amount of traverse may be shown by chalk lines on the parapet, or white stones placed in two rows.In this way accurate fire may be brought to bear on the assault on the darkest night, and many night attacks were repulsed with machine-gun fire by the Russians at Port Arthur. Sir G. S. Clarke says: “The front faces of the forts were retrenched in some cases by obstacles and a line of field parapet across theterre-plein.These, with the assistance of machine guns brought up at the last moment, enabled assaults of the breaches formed by the mines to be repulsed.” Again, “The Russians used machine guns with effect, frequently concealing them in light blindages, so that their positions could not be detected until they were brought to bear upon an attacking force.”
The war correspondent Mr. F. Villiers, in his bookThree Months with the Besiegers, speaking of the storming of West Panlung Redoubt,[40]says: “The death-dealing machine guns of the Russiansin the casemates of the fortare playing ghastly havoc—such havoc that only a score or more of Ouchi’s battalions reached the first ditch of the fence, where they threw themselves panting into the grateful cover of the pits their own artillery have torn.”
The number of machine guns allotted to the permanent works of Port Arthur is given as 38 by the United States Official Report, while Nojine, inThe Truth about Port Arthur, gives them in detail as 28, the distribution of which is shown in red figures on the map at theend of Chapter IX. The ten guns unaccounted for were probably mobile, and used for the defence of the harbour and the various landing-places in the neighbourhood of the fortress.
The mobile machine guns of the fortress will be used on the advanced line of defence with the mobile troops, and should be divided into two—those allotted to the outposts and those allotted to the local reserve.[41]Those allotted to the outposts must be placed in carefully selected positions commanding the approaches to the section of the defence to which they have been posted. These positions will usually be in minor works such as redoubts, emplacements, and lunettes, and they will be selected for their good field of fire, particular attention being paid to their command of dead ground in front of other works. Great care and trouble must be taken in concealing the guns and providing them with good cover, not only from rifle fire, but also from artillery. An endeavour should be made to command all wire entanglements along the front with machine guns, and the angles of traverse of each gun should be carefully laid off and marked in white paint or tape, so that they may be used in the dark accurately to sweep their area of ground. Too much stress cannot be laid on the importance of the accurate laying and sighting of machine guns by day for use at night, and it must be remembered that they are the only weapons which are capable of bringinga rapid and concentrated rifle fire on a particular spot in the dark, and are therefore invaluable to the defence during a night attack.
The detachments of guns on outpost duty at night should be told off into three watches of two men each, whose duty it will be to remain with the gun in readiness for instant action. The gun should be loaded and laid, and the men on duty should watch the front. Where the gun is in an emplacement or other loop-holed work, one man should watch through the loophole in turns of half an hour at a time. The strain of peering into the dark and listening for the sound of an approach at night is so great that no man should be required to do this duty for more than half an hour at a time, while the chance of a man dozing during a short spell is much reduced and the acuteness of the senses has not time to get dulled. Very strict orders must be given to insure that fire is not opened prematurely; and where infantry sentries are on duty near the gun, it may be advisable not to load the gun, but merely to insert the belt in the feed-block in readiness.
It is always advisable to have the gun ready for any emergency at night, and the following will be found an effective method of preparing the sights for aiming in the dark. Cut a piece of white paper, previously prepared with luminous paint, into the shape of a triangle, and paste it on the slide of the tangent sight so that the apex of the triangle touches the bottom of the V of the sight. Cut also a circular piece ofa size that will fit on the foresight just below the tip, and paste this on the foresight. On looking over the sights in the dark, when the luminous ball on the foresight is seen resting on the apex of the luminous triangle on the tangent sight, the gun will be truly laid for the range for which the sight is set.
Machine guns with the local reserves must be light and mobile; they will be used in a similar way to those with infantry, and to assist in counter-attacks, particularly against the advanced infantry positions and sap-heads of the besiegers. They may also have opportunities of enfilading a trench or firing into a work that has been captured by the enemy. When used for this purpose they must be brought up by hand under cover and open fire at close range from a position that commands the interior of the trench or work, and if possible enfilades it. Great risks are justified in bringing up machine guns for this purpose, as the results of a successful fire action will usually be decisive and far-reaching.
The following is an example of their use in this manner during the siege of Port Arthur:
“On the attack on 203-Metre Hill, machine guns on Akasakayama flanked the position and enfiladed the attackers. Four hundred Japanese were sheltered together in a parallel, where they were completely screened from fire from any part of 203-Metre Hill. Suddenly two machine guns,which had been concealed on Akasakayama, where they could fire directly into the parallel,opened fire. Within a few seconds it was turned into a veritable pandemonium, a seething mass of humanity, where men were wildly fighting to get away, trampling on the wounded, climbing over piles of corpses which blocked the entrance, and trying to escape down the coverless hillside. But the Maxims did their work as only Maxims can, and within a few moments practically the whole force was wiped out; a few men were shot dead as they ran down the hillside, but nearly all the others were killed in the narrow trench. It took the Japanese days to extricate and carry away the fearfully intermingled corpses.”[42]
There are so many instances of the successful use of machine guns in the defence of Port Arthur that it will be impossible to quote more than a few of the most striking to illustrate the principle on which they should be employed.
At the third general attack on November 26th, at 2 p.m., a large force of Japanese assaulted Sung-shu fort, and having crossed the moat through a bomb-proof passage, they gained the parapet of the rampart and swarmed over it. “Into this seething mass of humanity the machine guns of the forts and batteries on An-tzu Shan poured such a tremendous fire that the attackers were mowed down, crushed, dispersed, and sent head over heels to the moat again in less than half a minute, before a single man had reached the interior of the fort.Thesame fate befella fresh attempt undertaken at five o’clock.”[43]
Here we see the importance of machine guns being able to command the parapet of neighbouring works, and the necessity of reserving fire until the best possible target is presented, even though the enemy is permitted actually to scale the parapet. The same thing occurred at the storming of Erh-lung Fort. At midnight on November 26th the Japanese “made a desperate attempt to storm the upper battery, but the assailants were mown down by machine guns,as soon as they appeared on the parapet.”[44]
This is a good illustration of the use of machine guns at night, and no doubt these guns had been trained by day to sweep the parapet in anticipation of an attack after dark. “On January 28th, 1905, near Linchinpan at about 7 p.m. the Japanese attacked the forts of Vosnesenski and the trenches near by in which were posted two machine guns. These latter opened fire at 200 or 300 yards on a Japanese company in line.In one or two minutes they fired about 1,000 rounds and the Japanese company was annihilated.”[45]During the attack on North Chi-kuan Fort on December 19th, by the 38th Regiment under General Samayeda, which took place at 5 p.m., the men were sent over the parapet man by man from different points, to make it more difficult for the Russian machine gunners. “As soon as there was a little interval in the rattling of the machine guns, a man would jump up and run for his life, and seek shelter behind the débrispiled up in theterre-pleinafter the explosion, or in the holes which the big howitzer shells had made in the ground. Though many of the men were shot down in the short race, little by little a force of about 150 men were assembled in the front part of the fort, and the commander, Captain Iwamoto, then led them against the sandbag trenches at the rear.... The fighting was mostly hand-to-hand,but the Russian machine guns took an important part in the defence, their galling fire making fearful ravages amongst the attacking party. The Japanese, therefore, got a couple of mountain guns hauled up on the parapet, and with them succeeded in silencing the Maxims.”[46]
Speaking of the use of machine guns in the defence of Port Arthur, Norregaard says: “As an active means of defence the search-light andmachine gunsundoubtedly come in the first rank. The Japanese acknowledge the immense value of machine guns to the defence. The search-lights are stationary, they say, and the ground round Port Arthur is broken, so that they can avoid them; but the machine guns can be moved about anywhere and can easily be shifted from place to place by a couple of men. It is nearly impossible to detect them and put them out of action; their effect on the Japanese was most disastrous and time after time enabled the Russians to beat off their attacks, inflicting severe losses. Nothing can stand against them, and it is no wonder that the Japanese fear themand even the bravest have a chilly feeling creeping down their backs when the enemy’s machine guns beat their devil’s tattoo. They shoot with amazing precision even at very long range, and they were splendidly served.”
The U.S.A. Official Report on the siege of Port Arthur states: “Machine guns played an important part in the siege, being freely used by both sides.... The guns were used with telling effect against the Japanese in the numerous bloody assaults,being trained to cover all the approaches with murderous fire.” These last words condense into a single sentence their tactics in the defence of a fortress.
The Russians used the Maxim of ·312 calibre manufactured by Vickers, Sons & Maxim, of London, while the Japanese used the Hotchkiss of ·253 calibre made at the Arsenal at Tokyo. The Japanese had 72 of these weapons at Port Arthur, immediately under the command of the Divisional General, viz. 24 guns with each Division.
The use of machine guns in the siege of a fortress will cover a far wider field than in the defence, and much that has already been written of their employment both in the attack and defence, of positions will apply to the attack on a fortress. It cannot be claimed for machine guns that they are as vital to the success of the besiegers as they are to the garrison, but that they often afford material assistance during assaults, in holding sap-heads and repelling sorties, cannot be denied.
The details of their tactical employment with the besiegers will differ greatly in accordance with the nature of the operations, and particularly with the situation of the fortress and the surrounding country. In the case of Port Arthur the broken and mountainous nature of the terrain, the deep ravines, and rocky watercourses all lent themselves to the employment of machine guns, and consequently the Japanese were able to make greater use of them than would have been the case under less favourable conditions.
It will be impossible here to do more than briefly indicate how machine guns may be used to assist in siege operations generally, and then show how the Japanese used them before Port Arthur.
“When the enemy’s advanced troops have been driven in and the preliminary reconnaissance has enabled the line of investment to be fixed, this line will be divided into sections, to which commanders will be appointed and troops allotted.... Outposts will be established as closely as possible round the fortress in order to cut it off from outside communication and to protect the operations in rear.[47]Machine guns should be allotted to these sections in proportion to their importance in the line of investment. The commander of the section should use them according to the circumstances of the situation, but as a rule a large proportion of the guns should be distributed to the outposts.... The duties of outposts in siege operationsare even more important and exacting than they are in the field operations; in the case both of an investment and of a regular siege the brunt of the work throughout will fall upon the outposts.... They must therefore have greater power of resistance than outposts in field warfare in order to prevent the troops in rear from being disturbed by every skirmish. The outposts of a section which is maintaining a close investment should be about one quarter of the total infantry allotted to the section, together with a proportion of artillery,machine guns, and engineers.”[48]
The positions for the machine guns should be along theline of resistance, which will usually be the piquet line. It will be necessary to provide bomb-proof emplacements for the machine guns, and alternative emplacements should be made for each gun. The temptation to engage in the fire fight must be resisted, and the machine guns should be solely employed for resisting attacks and their fire reserved till close range. Once they have been unmasked, it will be advisable to move them to a fresh position, leaving a dummy gun in the old position.
In the second phase of the siege the machine guns not required for the outpost line should be allotted to the local reserves and the general reserve, and will be used as circumstances require in assisting attacks on outlying works and in repelling counter-attacks. In the third phase machine guns must be pushed up to securesap-heads and to assist the infantry in the assault; they will be found specially useful in covering the advance of assaulting infantry by sweeping parapets with fire and in securing captured works against counter-attacks. Sandbags should always be carried with machine guns supporting infantry in the assault, and the first consideration should be to secure the guns from fire on reaching a position. It must be remembered that machine guns in siege operations are always exposed to their worst enemy—artillery—and that their only hope of success is by concealment and cover. An example of their use in repulsing a counter-attack at Port Arthur is given by Nojine in his bookThe Truth about Port Arthur. Speaking of the attempt by the Russians to retake Chien-shan, he says: “The 13th Regiment took two-thirds of it, but could not advance further, as the Japanese threw in heavy reinforcementsand brought up a number of machine guns. On the night of the 5th we had to withdraw and abandon further attempts to retake the position, as one attack alone had cost us 500 men.”
The following account from the U.S.A. Official Report of the storming of Fort Erh-lung, one of the principal forts of Port Arthur, shows how machine guns can be used to assist in the final assault. “On December 28th the parapet of Fort Erh-lung was blown up at 10 a.m. by five mines being simultaneously sprung.... When the smoke cleared sufficiently, the exterior slope at the salient of the fort was seen to be filledwith a dense crowd of Japanese infantry, who closely hugged the ground.... It appears that the Russians had occupied the heavy gun line which lies in the interior of the fortand with machine gunsraked the front parapet and thus made it impossible for the Japanese infantry to leave their cover on the exterior slope. Meanwhile the Japanese brought upthree machine guns, and with these replied to the Russian fire from the heavy line.... The bombardment kept up without diminution until about 1 p.m., when it slackened perceptibly on both sides.... About 4 p.m. the Japanese infantry could be seen working along the flanks of the work on the outside of the parapet. The Russians retired to the gorge parapet which had been arranged to fire to the front, and maintained themselves for several hours longer. By 7.30 p.m. the Japanese had fully mastered the position, and the largest and strongest of the permanent works on the front of attack fell into their possession.... A large number of field and machine guns[49]were included in the spoils of Fort Erh-lung. The assault entailed a loss of about 1,000 men to the Japanese.”
During the attack on Wangtai Fort the Japanese used machine guns from the high ridge N.E. of the fort, and thus brought a heavy fire against the Russian interior line.
The Japanese invariably brought up their machine guns with the assault and lost no timein placing them in position to hold capturedworks. This is indeed their true rôle in the assault, as they will seldom be able to support the actual stormers with fire, but once a foothold is gained in a work, they may be invaluable for the purpose of holding it and thus set free the storming party for another advance.