The Journal of Military History

Abstract

Historians have argued that Britain lost its early lead in developing mechanized formations in the interwar period due to financial pressures, inter-arm rivalry, poor tank design, and the misjudgments of tank enthusiasts. A systematic examination of armor doctrine, however, demonstrates that British approaches were coherent and innovative until 1935. Progress was derailed by the suppression of the “Tank Training” (1935) manual and the decision to mechanize the cavalry rather than expand the Royal Tank Corps. Coordination between manuals of arms of service and the field service regulations was abandoned, moreover, in favor of multiple training pamphlets. The result was the “Great Doctrine Disaster” caused by fallacious assumptions about tank design, tactics, and the future battlefield.

Vandervort Prize 2024

Read the full article

Members: read on EBSCO

Use the access code from this quarter's member email. Every issue since 1937 is online, with no embargo.

Open on EBSCO

Lost your code? Email jmhsmh@vmi.edu or sign in at the EBSCOhost member login.

Not a member? Buy this article

A PDF sent by email from the Journal office during business hours, $10.

Order the PDF

Through a library: sign in with your institution

Full text is in EBSCO's America: History and Life with Full Text and Historical Abstracts with Full Text, and through EBSCO Discovery.

Institutional sign-in

Join: read everything, every year

Membership includes the printed journal and full online access to the archive.

Join the Society

Cite this article

Alaric Searle, “’The Great Doctrine Disaster’: Reform, Reaction, and Mechanization in the British Army, 1919–1939,” The Journal of Military History 87, no. 3 (July 2023): 599–632.

RISBibTeX

Also in Vol. 87, No. 3