Military Review English Edition November-December 2015 | Page 49

Volume XXX

January, 1921

Number 122

THE
CAVALRY JOURNAL
Comments on “Cavalry Tanks”
BY

Major GEORGE S. PATTON, Jr., Cavalry
(These comments are made at the request of the writer of the preceding article)

In response to a request for remarks on the foregoing article, I must

begin by a most vigorous dissent from the writer’s picture of a senile
and impotent cavalry, futilely butting it’s head against impregnable
strong points. I can agree only to the extent of admitting that a cavalry which so deported itself would certainly have no future; nor has it,
when well led, had any such past in history.
Cavalry, now as always, must advance by enveloping. When the
ground, as in France, was so limited as to prevent this, cavalry must
await the breakthrough made by the tanks. However, western Europe is the only country small enough and with sufficient population
and roads to render such a state of things possible. In other theaters of
war, the constant power of envelopment which the mobility of cavalry
makes possible will render strong points nothing but asylums for the
safe-keeping of the hostile idiots who infest them.
There are many cases, such as in raids, long turning movements,
screening, etc., where cavalry is and ever will be wholly self-sufficient
and where the addition of mechanical devices will be more of a hindrance than otherwise. Cavalry has lived off the country and can yet
do so. To it, lines of supply are unnecessary. Tanks, on the other hand,
depend wholly on lines of supply for the vast tonnage of gas, oil, and
spares. Without these they become merely inferior pill-boxes. Hence, to
attach them to cavalry on lengthy operations is to seriously demobilize
the latter.
In other cases, however, such as in short turning movements, advance and rear guard work of mixed commands, counter-attacks, etc.,
where lines of supply are not needed or already exist, tanks will be of
MILITARY REVIEW  November-December 2015

43