Military Review English Edition November-December 2015 | Page 50

The Cavalry Journal
great assistance to cavalry, combining, as they do, great mobility with
concentrated firepower.
The point as to the economic impossibility of building enough tanks
to constitute a mechanical army is well taken. In addition, however, to
this vital objection to the ubiquitous use of tanks should be mentioned
the restrictions due to unsuitable terrain and the difficulty of oversea
transport. I was, and believe that I still am, as enthusiastic a tanker as
ever caterpillared, yet I cannot bring myself to the point of picturing
tanks, present or future, real or imaginary, as ever operating in the
mountains of Mexico, the rice paddies of the Philippines, the forests of
Canada, or, in face of competent artillery, on the sandy and gully-infested plains of Texas. I cannot picture a large oversea force giving up that
priceless commodity, deck space, to large shipments of tanks; nor can I
imagine a sea-borne invasion so transporting them to our shores.
Tanks are a new and special weapon—newer than, as special, and
certainly as valuable as the airplane. Can one imagine infantry airplanes
manned by detailed doughboys; or artillery airplanes manned by wagon soldiers or cosmoline kids; or yet cavalry airplanes ridden by sturdy
troopers with the use of “lateral aids”? Hardly!
The tank is a special, technical, and vastly powerful weapon. It certainly is neither a cavalryman nor an infantryman. Yet, give it half a
chance, over suitable terrain and on proper missions, and it will mean
the difference between defeat and victory to the infantry or cavalry with
which it is cooperating.
What is wanted, then, is neither infantry tanks nor cavalry tanks, but a
TANK CORPS, a special mobile general headquarters reserve, to be detailed, as circumstances demand, with whichever arm it can best cooperate.

Editor’s note: The U.S. Army has a long history of internal discussion and debate among
junior and field grade officers on issues of contemporary military concern. Many important ideas surfaced in such discussions that incubated overtime and were later brought to
fruition as those officers ascended to higher rank and influence. Among the many venues
in which such important discussions took place was the The Cavalry Journal, which was
published from 1888 to 1946, after which it was superseded by The Armored Cavalry
Journal. As a prelude to a continuation of this heritage of internal Army debate over proposed innovations that appear in this issue of Military Review, an article written by then
Maj. George S. Patton Jr. has been republished here for reader interest with permission of
the U.S. Cavalry & Armor Association.

44

November-December 2015  MILITARY REVIEW