Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Buckshot06 (talk | contribs) at 09:34, 4 April 2008 (←Created page with 'Opening paragraph ==introduction== , giving an overview of the major trials, tribulations and conflicts, followed by the the main body of the ...'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Opening paragraph

introduction

, giving an overview of the major trials, tribulations and conflicts, followed by the the main body of the article. The main body needs to acknowledge the legacy of the Imperial Russian Army and the First World War experience that created the Soviet Union, the Civil War, and war with Poland of course. These would represent the introduction to why and how the Red Army was created.

Historical Overview

of the development of the Ground Forces through its significant periods: formative (1925 - 1936), combat (1936 - 1946), transformative (1947 - 1961), consolidating (1962 - 1984), and final (1985 - 1993), and explain what happened for them to deserve these appellations (ok, not those actual words - I just used one word for what would be a sentence).

Higher direction - Politburo and MOD

Then go to the Structure and say how decisions were taken at strategic level, including the link to the Politburo,

Administrative organisation

Rifle forces, artillery, tank forces, engineers, signals, support organisations

Operational organisation

Formations of the Soviet Army The Soviet division The corps, the Army (Soviet Army) (iv) then the section on the organisation, and how that relates to the operational art as a doctrine. ->links to orders of battle by period ->A full OOB would be several separate articles, listing ~500++ divs in midwar, plus mech/tank corps, ~300(?) odd divs in 1946-7, and 200 odd divs in 1960s-80s. Finally, the OOB and how and why the Ground Forces were organised, stationed and equipped in the way that they were. There are good sources, primarily Simpkin and Glantz again (his job for US Army was in Soviet doctrine, not history).

Do you mean Race to the Swift? And which Glantz books? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the late Brigadier wrote several books on the operational art, and was an expert on the Soviet doctrine bar none in terms of published material.

Glantz wrote Soviet Military Operational Art - In pursuit of deep battle which is not on his article. I would highly recommend it as it recapitulates the Simpkin research, and adds to it in a relatively slim volume. Somewhat more readable also because Simpkin wrote not only in the British style, but one from another era.

Criticisms(?)

(vi) Lastly, you can include a section on "Suvorov" and his views as criticisms, something other articles on Armies lack completely as if no one has ever criticises then.