Figure 1.--The British and the Germans at the onset of World War II were the only countries that had tank forces with radio communications. Unfortunately, the British did not have the all important Blitzkrieg tactical doctrine that proved so effective for the Germans. This phoyograph comes from the Western Desert (1942). We are not sure just which British tank this was. Our primary contributing tanbk expert tells us, "Well I finally can't ID a pic of yours. It does not look like any British tank that I have seen from World War II. The closest one would be a version of the Cromwell but the front of the turret with all those bolts across the top front does not match up to any image I have ever seen. The indented area with the main cannon and achine gun is similar to the Cromwell. And it is defiantly not a captured Italian tank."

Tank history despite Leonardo's drawings began in World War I. The British built and effectively used tanks in World War I. The tank was developed as the sollution to the trenches that snaked across northern France and the small area of Belgium left in Belgian hands. After the invading German Army was stopped at the Marne, flanking efforts spread out the battlefield. And both armies because of the lethality of World War I weapons began to dig. The result was two trench systems streaching from Switzerland to the Channel. Both sides, especially the Allies tested them and sustained massive casualties in doing so. It was the Allies that were most motivated to attack because the Germans had occupied so much Allied territory and the Russians were hard-pressed in the East. The result was disaster--most prominently on the Somme (1916). Machine gun fired mowed down advancing infantry. The answer was the tank. It could shield advncing infantry, knicked down barbed wire, and move heavy machine guns, even small small artillery pieces forward. The British tank effort was strongly promoted by Winston Churchill. Along with the American infantry, the British tanks were a primary reason for the Allied success in cracking the Sigfriend Line on the Western Front wide open and forcing the Germans to ask for an armistice ending the War. As a result of World War I, the tank was viewed as a specialized infantry-support weapon for piercing fortified lines. The inability of the infantry to keep up with the tanks helped to cemebnt thiscbasic view. The thinking of many within the Royal Tank Corps envisioned a much more important for tanks and mechanized organizations. The leading figure in British mechanized warfare was Colonel J.F.C. Fuller. He was the father of tank doctrine. He used German infiltration tactics as part of his planning for Plan 1919, his vision for a large-scale armoured offensive to end World War I in 1919. Of course it never occurred because the Germans asked for an armistic (November 1918). The British worked extensively on tank design during the inter-War era, focusing primrily on light tanks. The British incorporate the Christie suspension system in their tanks begining in the mid-30s. Budget contraints severly limited production during the inter-War years. While the inter-War British tanks were not very impressive, the early German tanks were not much better. The British commanders did not give as much attention to tank tactics as the German did. And there was virtully no consideration to closely coordinating ground opeerations with aeril support--the esence of Blitzkrieg. Nor did they develop an effective anti-tank gun. It would be German tactical doctrine rather than superior or more numerous tanks that would doom the BEF in France. The British were the only country to enter World War II with a fully mechanized army. With the advent of World War II, major improvements had been realized in tank designs. Unlike World War I, the Allies now faced a German that had given great attention to mechanized warfare. The tanks deployed by the British in France like the German and French tanks were far more effective combat weapons and all-terrain vehicles in a way that the World War I tanks were not. The Allied combat dctrine, both the British and French, was to use the tanks as an infantry support weapon as had been the case in World War II. As the infantry would be attacking on foot, high speed was not a requirement. This was even more true of the French who were intent on remaining behind the protection of the Maginot Line. Surprisingly the British did not have an effective tank at the onset of the War, but the German tanks were not much better. What both the Bristish and French lacked was well conceived tank tactics. And neither fully appreciated the importance of anti-tank guns. Surprisingly, the British failed to develop a superior tank that could be deployed in significant numbers during the war. Given the effectiveness of British weapons development, and the importance of the tank, this is rather surprising. The British after Dunkirk began rebuilding their tank force. They never, hiwever, came up with a tank equal to the improved tanks produced by the Germans. It was not due to lack of effort. Many designs were produced. Most can not be classified as failures. They for the most part, however, did not match the German tanks. A factor here was the War Cabinet's decvision to focus British industry on the strategic bombing campaign. Instead of matching German production, the British turned to American Lend Lease. The British equipped much of their Army and supporting Commonwealth divisions with American tanks, especially the M-4 Sherman. The Sherman also did not march the German tanks, but were highly manueravle, fast, anbd availble in numbers. With artillery and air support it proved effective in North Africa, France, the Bulge, and the invasion of Germany.

World War I (1914-18)

Tanks did not exist before World War I. The British built and effectively used tanks in World War I. The tank was developed as the sollution to the trenches that snaked across northern France and the small area of Belgium left in Belgian hands. After the invading German Army was stopped at the Marne, flanking efforts spread out the battlefield. And both armies because of the lethality of World War I weapons began to dig. The result was two trench systems streaching from Switzerland to the Channel. Both sides, especially the Allies tested them and sustained massive casualties in doing so. It was the Allies that were most motivated to attack because the Germans had occupied so much Allied territory and the Russians were hard-pressed in the East. The result was disaster--most priominently on the Somme (1916). Machine gun fired mowed down advancing infantry. The answer was the tank. It could shield advncing infantry, knicked down barbed wire, and move heavy machine guns, even small small artillery pieces forward. The British tank effort was strongly promoted by Winston Churchill. The French also worked with tanks. Along with the American infantry, the British tanks were a primary reason for the Allied success in cracking the Sigfriend Line on the Western Front wide open and forcing the Germans to ask for an armistice ending the War. The first British tanks were large, heavy, slow, and ungainly. But they were capable of not advancing in the face og German fire, but in going over the top of the oposing enemy trenches. And the advancing infantry was not only shiekded, but thetanks could take out the German machine gun emplacemebts. The British Army began building them in secret. Part of the secrecy was to describe the first ones, which could niot be hidden, as large water carriers or tanks. The name contunues to be used today. The first deployment was not very sucessful because of the mud. And the Germans concluded that they were not a threat. The Germans in contrast made little effort to organize a tank force. They did not have the industrial capacity to do so or the needed fuel to power them. America did not design any tanks during the war, but the French provided a few to the Americans, the Renault FT light tank. Leading the Amricans working with the tanks was a young major, George S. Patton. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel (April 3, 1918) and and attended the Army General Staff College in Langres. He was then given command of the U.S. 1st Provisional Tank Brigade (August 1918) just as Britain and America launched the war-winning 100 Days Campign (August 1918). The Brigade was re-designated the 304th Tank Brigade (November 6, 1918). Patton's Light Tank Brigade was part of Colonel Samuel Rockenbach's Tank Corps of the First United States Army.

Inter-War Era (1918-39)

As a result of World War I, the tank was viewed as a specialized infantry-support weapon for piercing fortified lines. The inability of the infantry to keep up with the tanks helped to cemebnt thiscbasic view. The thinking of many within the Royal Tank Corps envisioned a much more important for tanks and mechanized organizations. The leading figure in British mechanized warfare was Colonel J.F.C. Fuller. He was the father of tank doctrine. He used German infiltration tactics as part of his planning for Plan 1919, his vision for a large-scale armoured offensive to end World War I in 1919. Of course it never occurred because the Germans asked for an armistic (November 1918). The British worked extensively on tank design during the inter-War era, focusing primrily on light tanks. The Infantry Tank came about as a result of a 1934 mandate the General Staff for a tank that could support an infantry attack. Armament was to consist of a machine gun and an overall speed of a walking man when moving. Vickers designed an inexpensive (cost was a serious consideration) pilot which was delivered and accepted in 1936. Although heavily armoured it was slow and under-armed. The British incorporated the Christie suspension system in their tanks begining in the mid-30s. Budget contraints severly limited production during the inter-War years. This 1937 photograph taken before the Warshows the Vickers-Armstrong Light Mk II tank (figure 1). It was the forerunner of the Cruiser MK 1 used by the BEF in France and Belgium (May 1940). While not very impressive, the early German tanks were not much better. The British commanders did not give as much attention to tank tactics as the German did. And there was virtully no consideration to closely coordinating ground opeerations with aerial support--the esence of Blitzkrieg. Nor did they develop an effective anti-tank gun. It would be German tactical doctrine rather than superior or more numerous tanks that would doom the BEF in France. Most would be destroyed or abandoined in France.

World War II (1939-45)

The British were the only country to enter World War II with a fully mechanized army. With the advent of World War II, major improvements had been realized in tank designs. Unlike World War I, the Allies now faced a Germany that had given great attention to mechanized warfare. The tanks deployed by the British in France like the German and French tanks were far more effective combat weapons and all-terrain vehicles in a way that the World War I tanks were not. The British like the Germans hadcradios in their tanks, but the French fdid not. The Allied combat doctrine, both the British and French, was to use the tanks as an infantry support weapon as had been the case in World War II. As the infantry would be attacking on foot, high speed was not a requirement. This was even more true of the French who were intent on remaining behind the protection of the Maginot Line. Surprisingly the British did not have an effective tank at the onset of the War, but the German tanks were not much better. What both the Bristish and French lacked was well conceived tank tactics. And neither fully appreciated the importance of anti-tank guns. Surprisingly, the British failed to develop a superior tank that could be deployed in significant numbers during the war. Given the effectiveness of British weapons development, and the importance of the tank, this is rather surprising. The British after Dunkirk began rebuilding their tank force. They never, however, came up with a tank equal to the improved tanks produced by the Germans. It was not due to lack of effort. Many designs were produced. Most can not be classified as failures. They for the most part, however, did not match up well with the German tanks. None of the British tanks are among the ones commonly suggested as the most effective tanks of the War. A factor here was the War Cabinet's decvision to focus British industry on the strategic bombing campaign. Instead of matching German production, the British turned to American Lend Lease. The British equipped much of their Army and supporting Commonwealth divisions with American tanks, especially the M-4 Sherman. The Sherman also did not march the German tanks, but were highly manueravle, fast, and availble in numbers. They also had the most advanced radios of the War. With artillery and air support it proved effective in North Africa, France, the Bulge, and the invasion of Germany.

Created: 6:09 PM 6/22/2018
Last updated: 6:09 PM 6/22/2018