The Inter-war period between World War I and World War II was a time that governments relied on treaties and pacts to maintain peace rather than wage war. Some of these treaties and pacts did more to instigate war than to help deter it. Some examples of these are the Versailles Treaty, which basically all but dismantled the German military structure, another example is that of the Paris Peace Act of 1928, which was " a voluntary renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy". Because treaties such as these, the reciprocal effect of any deviation caused tensions which eventually resulted in global conflict. What we will discuss in the following essay will cover weapon and doctrinal advancements, which were intended to return decisiveness, back to the business of waging war, with minimal losses of equipment and human life.
During the inter-war period, militaries were primarily led by officers who were conservative in their approach to military structure and combat.
One notable and very important aspect that became a topic of much debate during the period between WWI and WWII was that of armored and motorized warfare. Not only armored vehicles such as tanks but also motorized vehicles for logistical purposes as well. The conservative stance regarding these new weapons systems, which were introduced during WWI, was that they were to be utilized in a support role for the infantry and cavalry. This came at a time when most of the armies of the world were transitioning away from horse-drawn supply trains and tactical cavalry, due to the modernization of motorized military vehicles.
Several leaders who opposed the conservatives on the role of armor and motorized warfare went on to become some of the most well known military writers ever. Two of these men were British General J.F.C. Fuller...