On the Cavalry

Cavalry is another particular kind of military force, which many thought had no place in the WWII. Some regarded it as morally and tactically old to be used in the modern warfare where tanks and armored vehicles were the order of the day. I am really amazed at such claims! If you think of it closely, why would a cavalry be useless or worst means of warfare than the common infantry? Is the simple infantry man faster than a cavalry soldier? No. Can the infantry move swiftly through forest terrains, through smaller rivers, lakes or swamps? No. So why is it that some experts think otherwise?

The Red Army had the largest cavalry forces before and during the WWII. According to Stalin himself, “Cavalry has not lost its meaning in the modern war. She is important, especially when the enemy has been repulsed from their positions, in order to pursue it and disallow it the possibility to fortify itself on new positions.” (Stalin’s toast for the Red Army delivered in the Military Academy in the evening of May 5, 1941 as recorded by G. Dimitrov head of the Comintern, in his diary). The Soviet cavalry gained its fame by the numerous successful operations she executed during the war.

Yet, we take for example the book written by Steven J. Zaloga and Leland S. Ness Red Army Hand Book and we begin to wonder. Going through the pages, full of really nice pictures, we will notice this great picture of Soviet cavalry in action during training. The comment of the picture is to put it mildly a mockery one. The authors are tying to suggest that the Red Army was so far behind that they still used old methods of warfare. In fact the whole book has been written in the same manner, on one hand specific expert information and on the other mocking commentary of this information. Zaloga is renowned for his competence on weaponry, and is perhaps the top western specialist in this field, so I assume that his part was to provide the information, and Mr. Ness’s part was to go along and write completely unfounded and stupid comments, making sure that the reader does not get the idea that the Red Army was actually mighty, modern, and organized and thus question the established line of historiography by the professional historians. These commentaries really diminish the value of the book, and the otherwise interesting information gathered in it. But as I discussed earlier there is an image to be kept, a school of thought to be defended, and many careers to be saved. It is a petty that such an expert as Mr. Zaloga must also follow this ridiculous campaign set by few historians.