This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Buckshot06 (talk | contribs) at 20:14, 4 April 2008 (→Administrative organisation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:14, 4 April 2008 by Buckshot06 (talk | contribs) (→Administrative organisation)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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
 | This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Like other armies, the Red Army used administrative departments (called Directorates) to develop, train and equip the many combat Arms of Service troops and their Service Corps support echelons. These were:
- airborne troops
- anti tank troops
- armoured division staff
- armoured engineer companies
- armoured training regiments
- armoured trains
- armoured units
- army AA units
- army map and military survey
- army propaganda troops
- army dogs units
- artillery observation training units
- artillery observation units
- artillery troops
- artillery training units
- barrier troops
- cavalry units
- chemical troops
- fortification engineers
- fortification signals
- Frunze Military Academy
- general armoured commands
- general command
- machine gun troops
- medical officers and NCO
- medical training units
- medical troops
- Military District and Front command
- military field police
- military justice units
- mobilisation processing personnel
- mortar battalions (MRL)
- motor maintenance troops
- motorcycle units
- motorised troops
- mountain troop divisional staff
- mounted artillery troops
- Officers of the Stavka
- railway engineer training companies
- railway troops
- reconnaissance (mounted)
- reconnaissance (motorised)
- rifle troops
- rifle divisional staff
- rifle training regiments
- rifle and mountaineering units
- rifle unit staff
- sapper troops
- sapper training battalions
- signals training regiment
- signals troops
- ski troops
- smoke training units
- smoke troops
- specialist officers
- supply officers
- technical officers
- transport supply officer
- transport training units
- transport troops
- veterinary officers and NCOs
- veterinary troops
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.