The Armor Branch Historian promotes and preserves the history of the mounted branch, ensuring its availability to support current and future missions/operations, including training, doctrine development, force design, and combat development.  This mission includes three primary functional areas:

• Collection:  The collection of historical data related to Armor and its related organization and preservation within an archive.
• Interpretation:  The compilation of historical data and insights into an accessible medium for immediate use by the Armor Branch.  The most common examples of the interpretative function include publications, information papers, and special presentations.
• Instruction: The use of historical information and lessons learned to support ongoing training activities.

Robert S. Cameron attended Binghamton University from 1983-1987, graduating with a B.A. in both economics and history. He then studied modern military history under the tutelage of Dr. Russell F. Weigley at Temple University, earning his Ph.D. in the same subject area from that institute in 1994. He also served as a college instructor while earning his doctorate and afterward, teaching classes in American, European, and world history at Temple University and nearby junior colleges. In 1996, Dr. Cameron began work as the US Army’s branch historian for Armor, completing the Armor Officer Basic Course as a civilian the same year. He continues to serve in this capacity. His professional interests include armored warfare, combined arms development trends, the internal workings of military bureaucracies, and the Civil War in the Western Theater.

Published books:

• To Fight or Not to Fight? Organizational and Doctrinal Trends in Mounted Maneuver Reconnaissance from the Interwar Years to Operation IRAQI FREEDOM
  Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2010)
• Mobility, Shock, and Firepower: The Emergence of the U.S. Army’s Armor Branch, 1917-1945
  Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, 2008)
• Staff Ride Handbook for the Battle of Perryville, 8 October 1862
  (Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2005)

Published articles:

• "Scouts Out — But Not in HMMWVs! The Rise and Fall of the HMMWV-equipped Heavy Maneuver Battalion Scout Platoon"
  Armor (March-April 2007)
• "Fort Knox: Birthplace of Today’s Armor Branch"
  Armor (November-December 2006)
• "Armored Operations in Urban Environments: Anomaly or Natural Condition?"
  Armor (May-June 2006)
• Book review, "Organization and Markings of United States Armored Units 1918-1941"
  Armor (May-June 2005)
• "The Army Vision: The 4th AD in World War II"
  Military Review (November- December 2003)
• Fort Knox entry, Encyclopedia of Louisville (University Press of Kentucky, 2000)
• “Pushing the Envelope of Battlefield Superiority: American Tank Development from the 1970s to the Present,”
  Armor (November-December 1998)
• "American Tank Development: Maintaining the Edge Or Just Getting By?"
  Armor (July-August 1998)
• “It Takes a Village to Prepare for Urban Combat... and Fort Knox is Getting One,”
  Armor(November-December 1997)
• "Armor Combat Development 1917-1945"
  Armor (September-October 1997)
• “Knox Historian Shares Armor Officer Basic Experience,”
  Inside the Turret, August 15, 1996

THE HERITAGE OF ARMOR

Horse Cavalry Roots

In the colonial era America’s mounted force consisted of militia mounted on horses to cope with Indian raids or serve with the British in their conflicts with the French in North America. In this early period the continent’s heavily wooded terrain and small population limited the size of mounted units and the extent of their operations. During the Revolutionary War, a need emerged for permanent cavalry units to support the Continental Army. On 12 December 1776 the Continental Congress authorized the creation of the 1st Regiment of Light Dragoons. Authorization for an additional three regiments soon followed. Basic issue to each trooper included a coat, cap, leather breeches, and a pair of boots and spurs. Weapons consisted of a saber and flintlock pistol that each man provided for himself, while officers were further expected to supply their own mounts.

click here to read more