What Christie had developed was a new and revolutionary design...but it had its failings also: 1. durability at high speeds was less than exemplary, 2. maintenance/repair was both costly and time-consuming, 3. excessive sag in the track increased the tendency to shed a track (this was even worse in high-speed maneuvers), 4. the suspension took up a great deal of space, but the BIGGEST PROBLEM 5. the materials of the day were not up to the task (especially the rubberized road wheels) thereby limiting lifetime significantly. <45 years later, the Israelis took the Christie design as a basis to design the Merkava, developing a revised Christie design using modern materials to overcome flaws 1,2,3,&5, but it still takes up a LOT of space>
In the 1930s, many nations (especially Britain/France/Germany/Poland/Russia ) saw that tanks could become essential to their defense. Britain/Germany/France/Poland all had Christie designs, but Christie's suspension saw the largest amount of development/experimentation/manufacture by the Russians. With adoption of the Christie suspension, the BT2 (and later the T-34 and its derivatives) showed all the advantages and disadvantages inherent in the use of Christie's design. Of note: while the T-34 was put into production with the Christie suspension, the Russians recognized the benefits in ease of manufacture and durability that a torsion-bar suspension would provide. With war on the horizon, however, they knew that stopping/slowing production to retool and make such a significant change to the T-34 was not an option. They even kept the design on the T-34-85 to speed production. It wasn't until the T-44 that they instituted the change. Overall, the Russians found that torsion bars gave more benefits when compared to the Christie system at that time. The Russians didn't try the Christie system again until the T-64 was put into development, but once again found it to be less reliable and more costly than standard leaf/torsion systems (which they put into production on the T-72 and T-80).