How British Tactics made Blitzkrieg

When fast moving columns of German tanks smash through the frontier defences of France, everyone is asking “How did this happen?”

Blitzkrieg – Germany’s new form of armoured warfare.

Many legends are made as a result of Blitzkrieg, but many more names have been left in relative obscurity during the development of this doctrine. This includes British commanders such as Lt Col. ‘Boney’ Fuller and Cpt Liddell Hart, two leaders in experimental British tactics during the Interwar period.

Whilst strategy was beginning to look forward, attention was turned to the current armoured vehicles in the British Army which could not cope with the speeds required for this mobile kind of warfare. Innovations in speed included the revolutionary snake track, which allowed for vehicles to reach an unprecedented 30 miles per hour.

Many of these news ideas were trialled by the Experimental Mechanised Force, with manoeuvres carried out by combined arms units in the south of England. Unfortunately, due to restricted budgets and confusion regarding what tanks should do, development of British armour becomes a low priority in the 1930s.

The work of Fuller and the EMF are, however, recognised by German Army as they begin to remilitarise, and become influential in the development of the doctrine that would later become known as Blitzkrieg. When viewing the Wehrmacht’s first armoured maneuvers in 1935, Fuller was asked by Hitler “Well, what do you think of your children?”

His reply was “Excellency, they have grown up so fast, I hardly recognize them”.

If you're seeing this, why not leave a comment telling us what you think of the influence of British tactics on Blitzkrieg? Or, if you loved the video, give us a like!

Interested in learning about tanks? Subscribe to The Tank Museum and enjoy hours of FREE tank content at your fingertips.

00:00 | Intro
02:14 | A New Form of Warfare
04:12 | Plan 1919
07:54 | New Technology - Better Tanks
14:01 | Trials and Tribulations
17:10 | Partly There
20:12 | Fuller's Children

In this film, Chris Copson investigates the roots of the famed German doctrine of ‘Blitzkrieg’. Whilst names like Guderian and Rommel are closely associated with this form of warfare, its less well known that many of these tactics were originally thought up by British commanders such as Fuller and Liddel-Hart. The ingenuity of these men, as well as the rise of new technologies end up overlooked by the British War Office. But their efforts are not unnoticed by the resurging German Wehrmacht.

This video features archive footage courtesy of British Pathé.

Support The Tank Museum!

#tankmuseum

[thetankmuseum]

Hey Tank Nuts! We hope you enjoyed our latest video. What do you think of Fuller's ideas - did they really influence Blitzkrieg? Let us know your thoughts below

[mcmoose]

You might want to look at the battle of Hamel on the 4th of July 1918. A combined arms attack, under the command of Australian general John Monash.
It involved the coordinated use of tanks, infantry, artillery, and aircraft in both direct support of troops and arial resupply.

[PalleRasmussen]

Blitzkrieg was the invention of an English journalist in Warzaw. The Germans called it Bewegungskrieg, and practiced it since The Great Elector, Friedrich der Große or Molkte d. Elter depending on your definition.

[theemissary]

I've heard others use it as a criticism of Rommel being an insubordinate maverick when he 'went for it' in France. One apocryphal tale says he was told there was enough fuel to do it, but not enough for reserves, to which he replied if it works, we won't need reserves. I think that was taken from a biography that may have embellished it a touch. But, yes, a great example of theory put into practice to great effect!

[Alex-cwrz]

I think one thing that is often forgot from the german "Blitzkrieg" (called bewegungskrieg at the time) is the most important element, the entire point of it which is encirclement, the reason for example France fell so quickly is because the coast meant natural encirclement aided the effort.

[michaelfischer]

Maybe the British invented a high mobile doctrin especially for tanks but high mobile warfare with big encirclements is an old Prussian doctrin and the new weapon tank fits very well. I think a lot of German officers in ww2 even didn't like the word "Blitzkrieg" because it was a new word introduced by the press for an old doctrine. So I think there where two ways with one result.

[EndertheWeek]

Very enjoyable video. It is amazing that so much happens in just 25 years.

[Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

As well as the Western front, there was also Edmund Allenby in the Middle East who successfully pioneered the combined use of infantry, cavalry, tanks, artillery and aeroplanes at the Battle of Megiddo.

[robingallagher]

Combined arms were used in1918 by General Monash, an Australian general.

[benelliott]

Excellent video
Interwar tanks and doctrine are fascinating.

[BespokeBandit]

I recently visited the Tank Museum and absolutely loved it. How do the museum film these videos in the museum without people getting in the way, must be before opening or after closing time?

[johnfisk]

It has been said that it is merely an extension of existing cavalry practice but cavalry never really had all arms support in breakthroughs. Heavy cavalry supported the other arms in a formed battle. Light cavalry did their thing in isolation. I acknowledge that cavalry had been transitioning to mounted infantry before this time.
What might have been mention more is control and communications together with an aggressive general staff. The French army, whilst seeking a defensive war, the ‘methodical battle’ that worked in 1918, was not destroyed by the German blitzkreig but rather lost any direction due to the lack of hands on command and control due to general staff dithering and simple lack of timely communications. The blitzkreig advances well outstripped the Napoleonic pace of the mass horse drawn/foot marching German army which was an ideal opportunity to cut off and isolate the mechanised armoured thrust from its conventional support. Once isolated they could be dealt with piecemeal. Doubtless doing much damage in the meantime. The German armoured formation were a mobile (for the moment) version of a strongpoint that should be by passed. 
It has been said that, if the French had even the radio communications of four years later a vigorous French general staff could have defeated the German army in the field. They had the means to do the task but were incapable of wielding them.

[Yuzral]

I thought it more a case of a lot of people in the interwar years independently realising that, after a couple of decades where the machine gun and the artillery piece had slowed war down, the armoured fighting vehicle now meant that cavalry-style rapid manoeuvre was back on the cards. You've got Fuller and Liddel Hart in Britain, Rommel and Guderian in Germany, Tukhachevsky et al in the USSR (at least, until Stalin had them shot or gulaged) and the US Army probably had a few advocates as well.

But there was definitely cross-pollination of ideas - notably the Russian/German tank school in...Kuban, I think it was?, plus foreign observers at British exercises.

[Ganiscol]

Mobile warfare is centuries old, despite the stalemate of WW1. As a result of that, the first challenge was the mechanization of it, the second challenge was the development of workable tactics for it and the third challenge was providing the logistics to sustain it.

[wbertie]

We have gotten into the fashion of talking of
cavalry tactics, artillery tactics, and infantry
tactics. This distinction is nothing but a mere
abstraction. There is but one art, and that is the
tactics of the combined arms. The tactics of a body
of mounted troops composed of the three arms is
subject to the same established principles as is
that of a mixed force in which foot soldiers bulk
largely. The only difference is one of mobility.
-Major Gerald Gilbert, British Army, 1907

[billballbuster]

Britain was a hotbed of tank development, theory and tactics during the inter-war years. Fuller, Liddell-Hart and Percy Hobart all played a vital role. Geneal Heinz Guderian actually had books written by Fuller and Liddell-Hart printed in Germany and were widely read by German officers. The main issue going into WW2 was was numbers, from 1936 to 1940, Britain produced only 200 Cruiser and 20 A12 Infantry tanks! Compared to the thousands of tanks produced, by France, Russia and Germany. This "slow start" hampered British tank production until 1943, but by 1945 Britain had cought up.

[panzerknackerpaul]

The German "Art of War" exists since the Great Elector in 17th century. :D It is the result of the "Mittellage" (being in the middle of Europe), what made it necessary to be prepaired to fight several armies and uses Schwerpunkt and mobility, long before tanks have been developed.

[Spartan]

First which is a first for me. lol Great stuff again guys. They just went around the main defences.

[Idahoguy]

I’d have thought Percy Hobart would get as much credit as Fuller. As Hobart put Fuller’s ideas into a practical unit and did the training of soldiers and officers.😊

[robertthweatt]

IIRC, in Panzer Leader, Guederian described his crucial contribution as holding Berlin's hand as Rommel plunged forward, to allay their anxiety and keep them from interfering.
He said his confidence in success lay in his expectation that by the time the Allies assessed, planned, and acted, 'I would be 60 miles farther down the road', or rather, Rommel would be. Not insisting on central control was thus essential to the success of manuever warfare, armored or not.
ISTM Germany had a longstanding preference for manuever warfare, since Prussia was not in position to successfully fight attritional warfare, as a relatively small state surrounded by potential enemies. Thus they were very open to British ideas about how to use armored and air forces.