The Leavenworth Way of War

History Discussion at CGSC

Tanks for the mechanized memories

The title of H202 is “Interwar Mechanization.”  BUT, mechanization was a very uneven and in most countries incomplete process.  Was mechanization even the most important ground warfare innovation?    Would mechanization have mattered if it was married to flawed doctrine?  How do you account for the fact that the French and British developed more technically capable tanks but are generally considered to have “flubbed” the mechanization of their armies?  Who “mechanized” best?  Was it more important to “mechanize” and create great combined arms panzer divisions but have most of your army rely on horse drawn transport; or more important, as the Americans did, to fully motorized all your artillery and logistics and lag behind in creating armor formations?  How do you rate the importance of the radio and motorization as innovations compared to the idea of creating tank formations through “mechanization?”

Advertisements

December 7, 2010 Posted by | cavalry, H200, military history | , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments