Mary Lee Stubbs and Stanley Russell Connor

“ A factor bearing on the reluctance was that tanks were legally the responsibility of infantry. Although use of the tank by cavalry, as a supplement to achieve the utmost in mobility, had some support, cavalry clung to the horse as being indispensable to its type missions. Immediately after the war, the tank's slow speed was no minor consideration in the cavalry's reluctance to accept it. A few light mechanized vehicles were being used in cavalry units by the late 1920's, however, and the mechanized cavalry regiment, equipped with combat cars, came into being in the early 1930's. ”

“ Proponents of mechanization and motorization pointed to advances in the motor vehicle industry and to the corresponding decrease in the use of horses and mules. Furthermore, abundant oil resources gave the United States an enviable position of independence in fuel requirements for the machines. Although the horse was not yet claimed to be obsolete, his competition was gaining rapidly, and realistic cavalrymen, sensing possible extinction, looked to at least partial substitution of the faster machines for horses in cavalry units. ”

“ Infantry was to give attention to machines intended to increase its striking power against strongly held positions. Although General MacArthur further decreed that "no separate corps will be established in the vain hope that through a utilization of machines it can absorb the missions, and duplicate the capabilities of all others," increased emphasis was placed upon mechanization. Two years later General MacArthur set the stage for the coming complete mechanization of the cavalry, declaring, "The horse has no higher degree of mobility today than he had a thousand years ago. ”