How American tank development stalled between the two World Wars

Wars & Conflicts · Published 9 October 2026 Swipe more like this →

In short: During the interwar years, the United States struggled to define the role of the tank. Caught between infantry doctrine and the vision of independent armored warfare, bureaucratic inertia and limited funding meant that the nation's armored capabilities faced significant setbacks before the next global conflict.

Following World War I, the United States faced a period of reduced development for war materials. This was driven by a non-interventionist policy and a difficult financial position. The 1920 National Defense Act further complicated progress by disbanding the Tank Corps as a separate entity and reassigning its tanks to the infantry branch. This decision was heavily influenced by senior officers who believed tanks should serve as direct infantry support rather than operating as an independent arm. This shift was supported by Congress, which also favored the infantry's viewpoint. Consequently, only a few heavy and light battalions survived the post-war demobilisation process.

The tension between different military branches created impossible engineering requirements. The War Department sought light tanks under 5 tons and medium tanks under 15 tons to ensure they could be transported by truck or railroad flatcars. However, attempting to meet these specific weight limits while satisfying infantry requirements proved technically unfeasible. By 1926, the General Staff reluctantly agreed to develop a 23-ton tank, but the focus on lighter vehicles contributed to a shortage of medium tanks when World War II eventually began. This technical struggle was exacerbated by the fact that the M1924 prototype failed to meet these strict criteria. Ultimately, this preoccupation with lighter models left the military unprepared for the scale of the next war.

Despite these setbacks, experimental efforts provided a foundation for future success. In 1928, Secretary of War Dwight F. Davis directed the development of a tank force, leading to an experimental mechanized force at Camp Meade. While many early designs were rejected for exceeding branch-specific standards, collaborations with engineers like J. Walter Christie eventually had a lasting impact on American tank tactics and unit organization. These maneuvers included various elements such as field artillery and the air corps. Furthermore, Patton's later work with Christie's suspension and power systems helped refine American armoured doctrine.

General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.

Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?

Related

• The American heavy tank that never saw a single battle
• How the stalemate of the Great War forced the invention of the tank
• How the main battle tank evolved to replace every other armored vehicle type
• The M47 Patton was the only American tank that never saw combat in U.S. service.
• The M10 tank destroyer was the most important American tank hunter of World War II
• How twisting metal bars revolutionized the movement of tanks and cars
• A British request that saved an American armored car from cancellation
• The tank designed to cross 84% of Japan's bridges
• The most widely used tank in the world has served over 50 countries
• The light tank that traded heavy armor for high-speed infantry support
• The Soviet tank that changed everything but never saw a single battle
• How China's VT-4 became a major player in the global arms market

More in Tanks & armoured vehicles · More in Wars & Conflicts · Latest · A–Z · All topics