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.
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.
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.
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.
Join: read everything, every year
Membership includes the printed journal and full online access to the archive.
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.
