Misplaced Pages

User:Buckshot06/Sandbox Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User:Buckshot06

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Buckshot06 (talk | contribs) at 20:21, 4 April 2008 (Criticisms(?)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:21, 4 April 2008 by Buckshot06 (talk | contribs) (Criticisms(?))(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.
Rifle Corps was a formation that existed in the pre-Revolution Imperial Russian Army, and was inherited by the Red Army. First suggestions for creation of large mechanised or tank formations in the Soviet Union were suggested based on development of doctrine for publication as PU-36, the field regulations largely authored by Marshal Tukhachevsky, and was created where "In the attack tanks must be employed in mass", envisaged as "Strategic cavalry". Although the name of "mechanised" may seem to the modern reader as referring to the infantry components of the Corps, in 1936 they referred to armoured vehicles only with the word "motorised" referring to the units equipped with trucks.

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.

Sources and References

  1. p.179, Simpkin
  2. ibid., p180.