US Armored Doctrine 1919-1942, Part 1.

Continuing on this series of videos supporting the WW2 Channel, this is part one of a two-part look at how the US Army ended up with the armored force with which it entered combat in North Africa.

Sources include:
Forging the Thunderbolt (Gillie)
Men on Iron Ponies (Morton)
Greasy Automatons and the Horsey Set (Tedesco)
A number of Center of Military History documents to include
A few other things I've forgotten about, but the above will get you 90% of the way there.

Public facebook page:

Improved-Computer-And-Scout Car Fund:

Christie Tank Video
1930 Cavalry Journal.
1939 Cavalry Journal
Soviet doctrine video.
Interview with Ken Estes on USMC tank history
Assessment of USMC light tanks.

[robertcogan]

Very good video Nick, but I'm sad the only mention of Sereno Brett is from the poorly resourced Mechanized Force days. In the 1920s and 30s Brett and other Infantry Tank service officers, namely Major Ralph Jones, called for modernization and for more armor-centric units in the same tone as Parsons. In the early 1930s, Brett and Jones wrote several Infantry Jounral articles together that became so vocal that the Infantry Chief, Major General Fuqua, considered it a near mutinity. Fuqua's response was the move the tank school from Meade to Benning, send Sereno Brett to tank over a light infantry battalion all the way in Hawaii (Brett's first pure infantry assignment since 1917), and reassigned Jones to Nebrask and eventual highly encouraged retirement. Brett would only stay in Hawaii for a litte bit until he was brought back to be Chaffee's Chief of Staff of the 7th Mechanized Cavalry Brigade. When Chaffee went to D.C. for the Congressional authorization of the Armored Force, Brett was along to support the briefings. Brett, who was already in pretty bad shape for tanking for over 20 years by this point, would transition to the Chief of Staff of the 1st Armored Division, then Chief of Staff of the Armored Force/Fort Knox. After calling in some favors, Brett was transferred to help organize the 5th Armored Division but was seriously injured in a tank rollover at the Desert Training Center. Brett was finally medically retired but continued to advise his long time friend, Dwight Eisenhower, during the war. The two had met on the 1919 transcontinental motor convoy.

[WildBillCox]

"I agree that the horse seems irreplaceable in the forward line of troops. After all, if your logistical tail is interdicted and you're out of supply . . . you can't eat a tank." -Friedrich Paulus (just kidding)

[VJTedescoIII]

Well done, Chieftain! I'm honored that you used and cited my old thesis, "Greasy Automatons and the Horsey Set." I look forward to Part II.

[dmcarpenter]

30 odd years ago, I, too, was shocked to discover, my beloved "E-tool" was, in fact, on the books as Intrenching. No, I did not begin calling it an I-tool.

[ErichTheRead]

The difficulty American producers had with European drawings and plans was not due to units, it was due to a different style. Americans used datum points or lines and dimensioned drawings with tolerances. Europeans used scale drawings without dimensions. The American system was good for mass production and quality control with (relatively) lower skilled workers, whereas the European system required skilled craftsmen to custom fit every part. This is why Americans had to build a prototype from plans and fix that unit, take it all apart again, and then make new drawings before entering into full scale production.

[norad_clips]

Inject that military history directly into my veins!

The discussion videos on WW2 armor doctrine are always great, and this is no exception.

[tacticalmanatee]

I'm always glad to see more Chieftain content.

[luisnunes]

For those tempted to scoff at cavalry as a reconaissance tool in low intensity conflict, remember Portugal and South Africa used it to very good effect in the 1970's. Against large forces, bad idea. To just occupy and patrol terrain in remote areas, great.

[kyle]

I have been waiting for this for so long! I just rewatched the Soviet and Italian videos last night! Thank you for all of the great content.

[domhardiman]

Wonderfully engaging and thoughtful content as always.

[megatherium]

Being a native of Chihuahua, I can understand why would the top brass in the american army would have been very skeptical about the capabilities of mechanized units given the terrain they had operate in during the Punitive expedition, we´re talking about very mountainous terrain couple with huge canyons and the like, confronting an enemy that was for the most part operating with guerrilla tactics, it would have been seen like a huge waste and their experience with the few armored cars they brought for the fighting, it seems they didn´t come with a good impression regarding armored units, understandable given the context.

[richards]

Finally what we all have been waiting for!!!! Thanks Chieftain. Smashed the like button immediately.

[ogscarlt]

Holy hell finally it's here ! I'm actually genuinely excited to watch this cheers from Australia Chief 👍

[tacomas]

Nick, I am extremely grateful to have access to such quality content at basically no cost. I am also a wee bit thrilled inside to know you visited the DEBOSSgarage Frankenstein truck/tank thing. Anyway, thank you sir. And thank you for your military service.

[MASherman]

I really enjoy these videos. I’ve been waiting for the U.S. doctrine one! It is certainly interesting seeing how the U.S. was planning to fight the war. Also, I love the “Bizarre metric system to Freedom Units” joke!

[macqnj]

Always look forward to your talks. At first I was skeptical; how much could one guy know? But every time I listen I am more impressed with what I see and hear. I’ve made the study of US Army history and equipment my life’s work, coupled with 32 years in tanks – crewing on M47s, various M48s and M60s, and finally early M1IPs; not to mention Master Gunner qualifications. Very rarely do you mention something I disagree with, but when you do you always back it up and satisfy my concerns. For instance, my father was a horse CAV trooper (bugler) pre-WW2 and everything you said today is spot-on with his and his friends’ stories and what I’ve read. And in the past when you’ve used my friends and acquaintances as your subject matter experts, it really set you apart.

Nice job! Always looking forward to your next talk; getting in to why we had “Tank Destroyers” is going to be interesting!

[simonrook]

Your description of the exercise between the army and national guard and how the ‘combat cars’ and mechanised infantry worked on the flank could have been written about the cavalry and light infantry in Napoleonic time!

[ExUSSailor]

"US Armored Doctrine 1919-1942", or, How many machine guns will fit?

[Sabertooth-lh]

Great video i really enjoy the honesty and the work you put into researching the subject. Was in the 82nd Airborne Division as a Combat Engineer i layer alot of wire for tank traps but i was a light engineer and worked with the Infantry most of the time. 86-89. But again love the content always! I live in North Texas.

[tibour]

Great video, I really like the way that you placed emphasis on the scale of distances between US forces and most Europeans.