Military doctrine on tank design and employment remained stagnant following the end of WWII, though designs continued to improve through the early years of the Cold War. The reigning philosophy on tank warfare relied on two distinct types to fill separate roles on the battlefield. The first type was a slower, heavy tank equipped with a general purpose main gun and machine-guns for supporting infantry. These were called "Infantry Tanks" by the British and simply "Tanks" by the US. Prime examples would be the British "Matilda" or US M-4 "Sherman." The second type was fast, light armored tank that carried a powerful, armor-piercing main gun. These were referred to as "Cruiser Tanks" and "Tank Destroyers" by the British and US militaries respectively. The concept of two separate tank types eventually proved impractical for battlefield employment and became obsolete by the end of the 1950's as countries shifted towards the Main Battle Tank concept. | Military doctrine on tank design and employment remained stagnant following the end of WWII, though designs continued to improve through the early years of the Cold War. The reigning philosophy on tank warfare relied on two distinct types to fill separate roles on the battlefield. The first type was a slower, heavy tank equipped with a general purpose main gun and machine-guns for supporting infantry. These were called "Infantry Tanks" by the British and simply "Tanks" by the US. Prime examples would be the British "Matilda" or US M-4 "Sherman." The second type was fast, light armored tank that carried a powerful, armor-piercing main gun. These were referred to as "Cruiser Tanks" and "Tank Destroyers" by the British and US militaries respectively. The concept of two separate tank types eventually proved impractical for battlefield employment and became obsolete by the end of the 1950's as countries shifted towards the Main Battle Tank concept. |