1920 National Defense Act, Tank Developments, and World War II (Why U.S. WW II tanks kind of sucked)

One of the unusual stories from the interwar period (1919 - 1941 for the United States) is the passing of the National Defense Act of 1920.  Sponsored by Julius Kahn this piece of legislation reorganized the United States Army and modified the rules on procurement and acquisitions, aiming to decentralize the process.  The National Defense Act of 1920, to my eye, has its greatest impact in how it influenced the development of tanks in the United States between World War I and World War II, due to a key technical requirement of the bill, that tanks were to be subordinated to the needs of the Army.  During World War I the United States had played with the idea of a separate Tanks Corps but after the war decided to focus in on tanks serving in an infantry support roll.

This, frankly, annoyed two leading United States military figures, Patton and Eisenhower, because it would strip tanks of their mobility potential and instead put them on the path of being rolling infantry support vehicles.  Congress however was firm on this point and also reduced the available budget for tank development to a bare minimum, forcing the army to pour its development dollars in the 1920s into vehicles like the one pictured above, the M2, a slow, under armed, mobile gun platform with an emphasis on machine guns to cut down advancing infantry over heavy cannons to destroy other tanks.

However Douglas MacArthur was made Chief of Staff of the United States Army and MacArthur wanted the United States Army to focus on being a faster, more mobile, and more nimble force.  He also wanted to develop tanks that focused on mobility and anti-tank capacity over lumbering along behind the infantry with a wad of machine guns.  But Congress had forbidden any development of tanks except by the Army, so what was a newly appointed general to do?

As it turns out, engage in some legal trickery.  The top image, and the one just above, are of respectively the T7 Combat Car and the M1 Combat Car.  Nearly identical to tanks they were developed by the United States Cavalry and use of development dollars was permitted because MacArthur told the Congress, with a straight face, that these weren't tanks.  No, these were "combat cars" - use they had armor, they had treads, and they had guns, but they were "cars" not tanks.  In fact the T7 Combat Car pictured at the top was built so it could be converted from treads to rubber tires, so it could flexibly roll along paved roads and then switch to an off-road tracked configuration.

This focus by Congress on cost-savings, and pinching military development funds during the interwar period, did help reduce the federal budget but it also led to the United States entering World War II with some, speaking frankly, really shitty tanks.  What you see above is the M3 Medium Tank, the Grant, which was obsolete at the start of the war and featured the terrible design flaw of many western tanks of the period, putting the heavy armament in a fixed side turret because fully rotating top turrets were hard to make work well.  The problem with this design is if your enemy happens to have a tank with a moving turret they have a better chance of lining up your non-cannon side for a kill shot.  (Note the awesome side mounted machine guns though.)

The United States did eventually hammer the issues out, with the design of the M4 Sherman, but it was made under pressure of war.  The United States also never really got into the business of real heavy tanks until World War II was nearly over, leading to some very lopsided tank engagements in 1944 through 1945 with the German army.

But I remain convinced it all hinges on the 1920 National Defense Act and how Congress shifted the focus of the United States military towards a fun-sized cost-saving military plan.

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on U.S. Tank Development History, the 1920 National Defense Act, the T7 Combat Car, the M1 Combat Car, and U.S. Army Military history journal entry on the Birth of the Armored Forces

The Habsburg Bid For Mastery

The Habsburg Bid For Mastery
France was an early leader in applying the new military technology in Europe, Spain and Portugal led the way it exporting it abroad.

By the mid sixteenth century the Portuguese has established forts and trading stations along the coasts of Africa, India, China and the East Indies and South America and the Spanish had carved out a large empire in the New World.

These outposts, which return great wealth to the Iberian Peninsula, would not have been possible without some vital military innovations.

The Portuguese and Spanish reached the Americas, Asia and Africa by utilizing oceangoing, sail-driven galleons; they never could have made it in the oar-driven galleys of old.

Once they arrived, steel blades, crossbows cannons and arquebuses allowed the Iberians to make short work of native opposition.

Even after half a millennium, the feats of the conquistadors defy belief. Hernan Cortes conquered the Aztec empire with eight hundred men and eighty horses.

Francisco Pizarro defeated the Inca Empire with just 180 men and eighty horses. Native allies and the spread of European disease helped a great deal, but it was the Spaniards’ military technology that made the difference – otherwise the Aztec and Inca Empires would have been overthrown long before their native enemies.

The Spanish infantry proved almost as effective on the battlefields of Europe. In 1525 they inflicted a crushing defeat on the French at the Battle of Pavia (near Milan), ensuring that the Habsburg, not the Valois, would dominate Italy.

The head of the House of Habsburg was an Emperor Charles V. He had no conscious design to dominate Europe but his web of inheritances and acquisitions was pushing him in the same directions as those latter-day conquerors.

His domains encompass Spain, Germany Austria, Alsace, France-Comte, Bohemia, Hungary, the Netherlands, much of Italy, and the Americas.

Like his father, King Philip II saw himself as “God’s standard bearer,” defender of Christendom against “infidels” without and “heretics” within.

The battle pitting Reformation vs. Counter-Reformation was only one of many that convulsed Europe during the early modern era.

Religious rivalries melded with dynastic ones to produce a particularly bellicose age.

Between 1480 and 1700 England was involved in 29 wars, France in 34, Spain in 36 and the Holy Roman Empire in 25.

As their names imply – the Eighty Years’ War, the The Thirty Years’ War – many of these struggles were quite protracted.

All this fighting also led to the development and deployment of new tools of wars, especially cannons, muskets and galleons.

By the mid-sixteenth the Habsburg had seized for the French the early advantage in utilizing these innovations, but their lead and with it their empire – would be challenged by increasingly assertive competitors such as England, Holland and Sweden.

The ensuing battle for control of Europe and eventually the entire world would be decided in substantial measure by mastery of the tactics and technology of the Gunpowder Age.
The Habsburg Bid For Mastery