THE DEFENCE FORCES.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2157, 13 August 1907, Page 2

THE DEFENCE FORCES.

THE QUESTION OF EFFICIENCY (Special to Times.) AVELLINGTON, August IT.

In the first report of the Defence Council of New Zealand some interesting remarks are made by Colonel Davies, Inspector-General of the Forces, regarding tlie general state of efficiency of officers and men. Hi dealing with this subject generally he says: —“I desir© to make it quite clear that I am sure tlie spirit which animates all ranks of the forces is excellent. If it were not so, they would not he giving up their time willingly and cheerfully to the sacred duty of trying to become fit to protect their country, their horiies, their mothers, sisters, wife, and children, while the enormous majority of the able-bodied manhood of the country is merely looking on, and sometimes I regret to say trying to discourage them.

“As far as drill and discipline go, the state of things is generally very satisfactory, but something further is required before it can be honestly said that a force is prepared for war. Without doubt the vital thing is to train the officers to command theiT troops in the field over any country they may find themselves in and under any conditions that may arise. To accomplish this they must be instructed in field and in daylight practical tactics, a knowledge of and an eye for country, and the jiower of making the best military use of all sorts of ground that can no more be taught in a drill hall than swimming can he taught without getting into water. The excellent material of which this country is composed demands higher training and qualifications in its officers than ordinary, firstly, because the rank and file under existing conditions can only get a partial training, and the less training the rank and file have the more training and intelligence the officers must havo to cope with the situation, and, secondly, the rank and file being of a much higher standard of intelligence than is usual in forces demands a higher standard still in the officers. The standard of intelligence we have, and the training must be got. If means can be devised whereby the officers oan be trained in the field and trained first apart from their men (as it will readily be seen that it is subservise to discipline and does not tend to regard or respeot to train aud correct them together) then I feel sure it will do more not only to popularise but to make the force fit to fight than anything else. “Theory of course is most necessary and should be mastered before or together with practice, but theory alone is of little use, and I am convinced that if officers and men can be taken out and shown what they are trying to work up to they will be much more content to go back and work up their drill and theory in order that they may bo botcr fitted to wovk in the field next time. No one would be content to go on for ever practising scales if they never heard a tune played, and volunteers soon get tired of mere drill if they cannot see what it leads to or the use of it. In conclusion, if any argument is necessary in support of such a self-evident statement as that, i.t is that the heads of any business (in this caso the officers) must first be made efficient. I

beg to be allowed to quote from two such distinguished soldiers as Lord Roberts and the late Colonel Henderson. Lord Roberts says: ‘lt must not be overlooked that while soldiers oan bo made fit for active service with comparatively short training, officers cannot be improvised,’ and in his ‘Science of War’ Colonel Henderson points out that with good officers and a certain amount of previous training ‘there is no reason why bodies of infantry, artillery, or mounted infantry, composed entirely of unprofessional soldiers should not do excellent service in the field.’ ”