FROM HORSES TO TANKS


How this happened has been studied for decades by military historians. Why? Because the transformation of the U.S. cavalry from horses to tanks still holds valuable lessons for today’s mili- tary as it continues to grapple with the challenges of effectively adapting to rapid technological advancement in the face of cultural resistance and the ever-changing nature of war.


BEATING A DEAD HORSE? Te road to mechanizing the cavalry was particularly difficult because change would ultimately require the wholesale replace- ment of centuries of tradition. Te horse cavalry wasn’t just a means to achieve certain types of combat functions; it was a culture and a way of life. Riding to battle was both an art form and a lifelong discipline, and it also involved a bond between horse and rider that was fundamental to mission success.


“To be one of the best riders in the American cavalry meant that you were one of the best riders in the world,” Elizabeth Letts noted in her book “Te Perfect Horse.”


Against this backdrop, the struggle to modernize began, and it involved a lot of opinions. Gen. George S. Patton Jr., who had the distinction of being both a cavalryman and a tankman during


World War I, famously said, “If everyone is thinking alike, then someone is not thinking.”


In the debate over the future of the cavalry, there would be much thinking and very little agreement.


According to Alexander Bielakowski, author of “From Horses to Horsepower: Te Mechanization and Demise of the U.S. Cavalry, 1916-1950,” there were four clear responses that emerged among cavalry officers dealing with “the evolving intellectual and cultural crisis caused by mechanization.”


Probably the most extreme, passionate and intransigent in their views were the traditionalists, led by Herr, who would advocate for the utility of the horse cavalry until his death in 1955.


While the idea of the horse cavalry might conjure images of thou- sands of horses and their riders recklessly racing across an open field into a barrage of artillery, the U.S. cavalry had developed its own unique style and doctrine based on its experience fight- ing battles on the plains of North America and in the jungles of Cuba and the Philippines.


BOOTS AND SADDLES


The U.S. cavalry had developed its own distinctive style that ensured “mobility, firepower and shock,” and cavalrymen would spend their days honing their riding, shooting and charging skills. (Photo courtesy of Library of Congress)


66


Army AL&T Magazine


Summer 2025


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100