A Century of Tank Warfare: Part 2 — From Trenches to Blitzkrieg: The Rise of Armored Warfare
This is the second installment of our three-part exploration into the history of tank doctrines in the 20th century. Building on the groundwork laid in the first part, we now move forward from the trenches of World War I to the dramatic transformation of tank warfare tactics during the interwar period and World War II. ‘From Trenches to Blitzkrieg: The Rise of Armored Warfare’ highlights the innovative developments and the major paradigm shifts that marked this pivotal era in military history.
Building on the narrative of our previous entry, we now transition from the birth of tanks during World War I to the rapid advancements and transformations of the interwar period and the Second World War. The evolution of tank warfare during these years was marked by technological innovations, varied doctrines, and practical lessons learned from the theater of war. This period was characterized by trial and error, strategic rethinking, and a series of shifts in the perceived role of tanks on the battlefield. As we delve deeper into this fascinating era, we will uncover how the lessons from World War I shaped the development of tank doctrines, leading to the rise of armored warfare that would come to define the second half of the 20th century.
During the interwar years, numerous technical, mechanical, and electronic innovations fundamentally reshaped tank development. Chief among them was the introduction of the torsion bar suspension system. Torsion bars provided tanks with increased off-road speed and ride quality, which in turn allowed for improved accuracy while moving. Radio technology also improved dramatically, facilitating better communication between tanks and command units. This was a crucial enhancement as it allowed for more coordinated and effective tank maneuvers. Improvements in armor technology led to the development of sloped armor, which significantly increased protection without adding excessive weight. Lastly, advancements in engine technology led to more powerful and reliable engines, which allowed tanks to be larger, faster, and carry heavier armor and weapons. These innovations and others set the stage for a new generation of tanks, capable of changing the course of battles and even entire wars.
Light, Medium & Heavy tanks
Light tanks were a vital component of interwar and World War II armies. Designed for rapid maneuvers and reconnaissance, their lightweight structure and speed were often prioritized over firepower and heavy armor. Examples include the German Panzer I and Panzer II, the Soviet T-26, and various Vickers designs. For instance, the Panzer II weighed around 9.5 tons, had a 20mm main gun and had armor up to 30mm thick.
Medium tanks served as the mainstay of armored divisions. They were engineered to strike a balance between the agility of light tanks and the firepower and armor of heavy tanks. The American M4 Sherman, the Soviet T-34, and the German Panzer IV exemplify this category. A T-34, for example, weighed approximately 26 tons, was armed with a 76.2mm gun, and had armor as thick as 90mm.
Heavy tanks, such as the German Tiger and King Tiger tanks, the Soviet IS series, and the American M26 Pershing, came into prominence during World War II. They were designed to be veritable fortresses on tracks, focusing on firepower and protection at the expense of mobility. The formidable King Tiger, for example, weighed a whopping 69.8 tons, was armed with a devastating 88mm main gun, and its armor reached thicknesses up to 185mm. Despite the logistical challenges associated with deploying these massive vehicles, their battlefield presence was impactful and could sway the tide of a battle.
British approach: Infantry & Cruiser Tanks
The British military, during the interwar period, adopted a two-pronged approach to tank development that eschewed the common classification of light, medium, and heavy tanks. Instead, they put forth the concept of ‘Infantry Tanks,’ designed to support infantry assaults. These slow-moving vehicles, like the Matilda and Churchill tanks, were heavily armored and capable of traversing difficult terrain, aligning with the slower pace of the infantry. This emphasis on armor was intended to allow these tanks to survive on heavily defended battlefields, bristling with anti-tank guns.
On the other hand, ‘Cruiser Tanks’ were developed to exploit breakthroughs and perform rapid maneuvers. These vehicles, including the Crusader and Cromwell tanks, were intended to be fast and relatively well-armed but often sacrificed armor for improved mobility. They embodied a philosophy akin to the role of cavalry in traditional warfare, operating independently of infantry to conduct deep operations into enemy territory, disrupting supply lines, and targeting softer rear-echelon units. This dichotomy of roles led to distinct design principles and shaped British armored warfare doctrine of the time.
The Mechanisation of Infantry and Artillery
As tanks evolved to become faster and more maneuverable, the challenge of keeping pace fell to the infantry. Early attempts to solve this problem saw soldiers riding on the tanks themselves, an approach fraught with danger. A more practical solution lay in the development of Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs). These were essentially armored trucks or buses that could safely transport infantry under fire. The Germans, notably, integrated mechanized infantry into their Panzer divisions, using half-tracks like the Sd.Kfz. 251 to enable infantry to keep pace with tanks. These developments transformed the traditional foot soldier into a motorized force capable of rapid movement and deployment, mirroring the increased speed and mobility of tanks.
Artillery, too, had to evolve to keep up with the fast pace of armored warfare. Towed artillery, while effective, was slow to deploy and vulnerable to enemy fire. The solution to these problems came in the form of Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs), essentially large-caliber guns mounted on a motorized platform. Early developments in SPGs can be traced back to vehicles like the German Sturmgeschütz III. As the war progressed, SPGs evolved into more refined and purpose-built designs, including the American M7 Priest, the Soviet SU-152, and the German Wespe and Hummel. These later models provided artillery with much-needed mobility and protection for the crew, playing various roles from providing indirect fire support to direct involvement in frontline combat. The development of SPGs thus symbolizes the mechanization of the armed forces, a necessary evolution in response to the rise of armored warfare.
Tank Destroyers
The rise of armored warfare naturally necessitated countermeasures, and this led to the birth of the tank destroyer class. While tanks were designed to engage a variety of targets, tank destroyers were purpose-built to efficiently eliminate enemy tanks. Key to this task were high-velocity guns, which were significantly more powerful than the ones found on earlier tank models. Notable examples include the British 17-pounder, the German 88mm gun, both of which demonstrated their effectiveness during World War II. During World War II, different nations adopted distinct approaches to the design of tank destroyers, broadly divided into two categories: casemate-style and those with fully rotating turrets.
Casemate-style tank destroyers, characterized by their fixed superstructures, featured the gun mounted directly onto the hull. This design choice reduced the vehicle’s height and weight, allowing for better concealment, improved mobility, and the accommodation of larger, more powerful guns. The lack of a rotating turret meant that the entire vehicle had to shift to aim, which could limit flexibility in rapidly evolving combat scenarios. The German Jagdpanther and Soviet SU-85 are notable examples of this approach. Another variant of turretless design was lightly armored and open-top tank destroyers, like the German Marder and Nashorn, which further maximized mobility and firepower at the expense of protection.
On the other hand, American tank destroyer designs favored fully rotating, open-top turrets. The key advantage of this approach was the 360-degree field of fire, significantly enhancing flexibility during combat. However, these benefits came with trade-offs: a larger vehicle profile and increased weight. The American military employed a variety of these tank destroyers during World War II, including the M10 Wolverine, M18 Hellcat, and M36 Jackson. Each of these models epitomized the balance struck between firepower, mobility, and protection in the pursuit of a versatile anti-tank platform. The success of these tank destroyers varied significantly, influenced by a host of factors such as the tactical scenario, terrain, and crew skill.
Tank Battles
World War II saw numerous significant tank battles that served as testing grounds for various tank doctrines and technologies. The German blitzkrieg or ‘lightning war’ was first truly showcased during the Invasion of Poland and later in the Battle of France. Here, fast-moving panzer divisions, supported by motorized infantry and close air support, rapidly penetrated enemy lines, disrupting communications and supplies. On the Eastern Front, the titanic battles of Kursk and Prokhorovka highlighted the effectiveness of deep defense, combined arms, and sheer numbers, with the Soviets turning the tide against the initially dominant German forces. The North African Campaign, notably the Battle of El Alamein, underscored the importance of logistics and the adaptability of tank warfare in different terrains. Meanwhile, in the Pacific theater, the dense jungle and island-hopping nature of warfare necessitated a different approach to tank combat, emphasizing infantry support and close coordination. These battles painted a varied and complex picture of tank warfare during WWII, with doctrine and tactics continuously evolving in response to emerging challenges and lessons learned.
Each major participant in World War II developed and refined their tank doctrines based on their unique strategic needs, resources, and experiences. German blitzkrieg relied heavily on tanks to achieve quick breakthroughs, emphasizing speed, communications, and coordination with airpower and mechanized infantry. This stood in stark contrast to the British who initially focused on infantry and cruiser tanks, designed to support infantry actions or exploit breaches in enemy lines respectively. Meanwhile, the Soviets, faced with vast distances and harsh climates, prioritized ruggedness, reliability, and numerical superiority with tanks like the T-34 leading the charge. For the United States, the focus was on versatility and mass-production with tanks like the M4 Sherman being used in various roles on all fronts. Lastly, the Japanese, fighting largely in island and jungle conditions, had limited use for large tank formations, thus their tank designs often reflected a more infantry support-oriented role. This comparative analysis not only provides a snapshot of different national approaches to tank warfare but also underscores how these differences were shaped by — and in turn influenced — the broader course of the war.
In conclusion, the period from the end of World War I through World War II was one of intense innovation and evolution in tank design and doctrine. The global battlefield saw varied and evolving approaches to armored warfare, as nations grappled with changes in technology and combat strategy. We witnessed the advent of different classes of tanks, specialized roles, and an evolving balance between mobility, armor, and firepower. But perhaps the most critical lesson was the necessity of combined arms warfare, underlining the interdependence of tanks, infantry, and artillery. As the war closed, these lessons would set the stage for further developments in tank warfare during the second half of the 20th century, the focus of our upcoming final installment in this series. From trenches to blitzkrieg, tanks had proven themselves as a definitive factor in modern warfare. The repercussions of this period continue to resonate in our understanding and application of armored warfare today.
Note: All images used in this blog post are sourced from Wikimedia Commons.
