Ironically, even though tanks were introduced in 1916 (at the battle of the Somme), they had little impact on World War I. They did not break up the trench warfare of the time (even though they were designed to do that).

It was during the period BETWEEN the two world wars, that generals thought about tanks. The British expert was Basil Lidell-Hart, and the Germans produced great theorists like Guderian and Rommel. In the U.S. the foremost tank specialist was Patton. The idea arose that tanks could be used independently of (rather than as an adjunct to), infantry. By turning tanks "loose," they could be a highly "disruptive" force (in today's terminology).

The result was a new form of warfare known as the "Blitzkrieg" that was the antithesis of World War I tactics. But that arose only after 20+ years of thinking during an "interwar" period.

Ironically, even though tanks were introduced in 1916 (at the battle of the Somme), they had little impact on World War I. They did not break up the trench warfare of the time (even though they were designed to do that).

It was during the period BETWEEN the two world wars, that generals thought about tanks. The British expert was Basil Lidell-Hart, and the Germans produced great theorists like Guderian and Rommel. In the U.S. the foremost tank specialist was Patton. The idea arose that tanks could be used independently of (rather than as an adjunct to), foot soldiers. By turning tanks "loose," they could be a highly "disruptive" force (in today's terminology), with mainly MOTORIZED infantry support..

The result was a new form of warfare known as the "Blitzkrieg" that was the antithesis of World War I tactics. But that arose only after 20+ years of thinking during an "interwar" period.