I've noticed in writings on the Soviet Army, frequently they mention something called a front. I was wondering: Is this equivalent to an Army Group command? Also, the Soviet Army had Shock Armies. Were these formations equipped and designated as breakthrough forces?
Cordially,
Freiritter
Soviet Military Nomenclature
Moderator: John W. Howard
-
Freiritter
- Associate
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 9:56 am
- Location: Missouri, USA
Soviet Military Nomenclature
Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.
Front and Army Group - generaly the same operational level, but often two fronts were very diferent in size and equipment (sometimes one front was two times bigger than another). Shock Army and regular Army - different supply level, number of tanks, cars, soldiers. Germans also got panzer armies. Fronts and Shock Armies has chaged as war month goes, so "1st Bielarussian Front" in 1945 was much different than "South-East Front" in 1942.
-
Freiritter
- Associate
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 9:56 am
- Location: Missouri, USA
The main problem with Russians is that they used the same names to units in different size. It is well known that soviet infantry divisions got from 6000 to 13 000 soldiers and officers (100% strengh). So sometimes division was closer to brigade than western ally division.
Compare also this:
17 september 1939
Bielarussian Front: 16 infantry divisions, 7 cavalary brigades, 7 tank brigades
Ukrainian Front: 7 infantry divisions, 7 cavalary brigades, 4 tank brigades.
This was two main "fronts" against poland, but there where also two supporting "fronts" (near polish-latvian border, and polish - romanian border) which had less than 5 divisions and 2-3 cavalary brigades, but still called "front".
I don't know when Red Army first orginised Tank Army, probably not before 1944. But as a former soldier of Warsaw pact i can say that in 1991 USSR and his satelites got in europe 12 Tank Armies, called "Military county": 8 russians, 2 polish, 1 east german and 1 czechoslovakian. So totally it was c.a. 40 000 tanks! (T-80, T-72, T-62 and T-55). What a peaceloving empire. Add to this number reserve tanks in USSR, and tanks in far east Russia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and you got over 55000 tanks.
Compare also this:
17 september 1939
Bielarussian Front: 16 infantry divisions, 7 cavalary brigades, 7 tank brigades
Ukrainian Front: 7 infantry divisions, 7 cavalary brigades, 4 tank brigades.
This was two main "fronts" against poland, but there where also two supporting "fronts" (near polish-latvian border, and polish - romanian border) which had less than 5 divisions and 2-3 cavalary brigades, but still called "front".
I don't know when Red Army first orginised Tank Army, probably not before 1944. But as a former soldier of Warsaw pact i can say that in 1991 USSR and his satelites got in europe 12 Tank Armies, called "Military county": 8 russians, 2 polish, 1 east german and 1 czechoslovakian. So totally it was c.a. 40 000 tanks! (T-80, T-72, T-62 and T-55). What a peaceloving empire. Add to this number reserve tanks in USSR, and tanks in far east Russia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and you got over 55000 tanks.
-
Dackel Staffel
- Associate
- Posts: 710
- Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:04 pm
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited by Dackel Staffel on Thu Mar 25, 2004 2:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
All we need it's a Dackel in each pocket
-
Dackel Staffel
- Associate
- Posts: 710
- Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:04 pm
Hi Pirx,
Because you were "one of them", what would has been the behavior of the polish soldiers if the russians have tried to invade "peacefully" the Poland in the 80's. I've heard of a polish admiral saying to russian officers :" take care, we are poles not czechs"
So long.
Because you were "one of them", what would has been the behavior of the polish soldiers if the russians have tried to invade "peacefully" the Poland in the 80's. I've heard of a polish admiral saying to russian officers :" take care, we are poles not czechs"
So long.
All we need it's a Dackel in each pocket
-
Michael Avanzini
- Supporter
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 5:55 am
- Location: New York
Freiritter
The Tank armies were first formed in 1942, 3rd Tank Army in May, 1st and 4th Tank Armies in July. The Tank armies were really not used as the spearhead of an offensive buy rather as the mobile group to exploit the breakthrough and penetrate deeply into the rear.
As for the Shock armies (there were 5), while the first 4 started out as the main assaulting armies during the Moscow counterattack, they became just like any other army as far as equipment and troop strength. It all depended on what army was assigned the task of penetrating the front line.
As for the relative size of a front, in REAL general terms you could equate it to a German Army. And the Armies within the Front as equivilent to a German Corps. But that is real general because a Front could be very large (1st Ukrainian Front in the summer of 44 was hugh)
Michael
The Tank armies were first formed in 1942, 3rd Tank Army in May, 1st and 4th Tank Armies in July. The Tank armies were really not used as the spearhead of an offensive buy rather as the mobile group to exploit the breakthrough and penetrate deeply into the rear.
As for the Shock armies (there were 5), while the first 4 started out as the main assaulting armies during the Moscow counterattack, they became just like any other army as far as equipment and troop strength. It all depended on what army was assigned the task of penetrating the front line.
As for the relative size of a front, in REAL general terms you could equate it to a German Army. And the Armies within the Front as equivilent to a German Corps. But that is real general because a Front could be very large (1st Ukrainian Front in the summer of 44 was hugh)
Michael
-
Freiritter
- Associate
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 9:56 am
- Location: Missouri, USA
So, in essence, a Front was the basic operational formation of the Soviet Army and the subordinate Armies and Corps were tools with which the Front commander could accomplish his task. So, Shock Armies were the breakthrough/spearhead formation and Tank Armies were the heavy armored/mechanized formations with which to exploit the breach made by the Shock Armies or whatever formation tasked with breakthrough effort. Were Fronts directly subordinate to the Stavka? Also, I read an account of the Soviets in Afghanistan. That paper had stated that the Soviet motor rifles were trained to fight either mounted in their BRDs and BMPs or dismounted very close to their vehicles. Did Soviet infantry in the Tank Armies fight similarly to their later counterparts? I read about how Soviet foot infantry during WWII had infiltrated the weakly held German strongpoint network, setting up positions within the German rear. Then, tanks with infantry would advance, bypassing some German positions, overrunning others. The other method that I heard of was that the Soviets would hit German positions with artillery support fires before sending mass waves of infantry into the advance, according to the book, The Last Days of the Third Reich. Did the Soviets concentrate artillery at the Corps/Army/Front level?
Cordially,
Freiritter
Cordially,
Freiritter
Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.
The Soviets made the best of a bad situation by concentrating their weaponry with the men who could get the best out of it. Tank units were mostly tanks, infantry divs were just a bunch of ground pounders, artillery was highly concentrated as well. Mixed groups? Hard to do when you lack technical personnel, particularly officers.
Thus you had Shock Artillery Corps with vast quantities of guns and rocket projecters which would be gathered together to support Shock Armies (breakthrough forces) and independent tank and heavy tank formations to punch the holes in the line.
There were never enough technical officers to have the fancy type of artillery Western countries had - for instance at the div level - so Ruski divisions tended to have a handful of guns used in the direct fire mode with the fancier stuff all concentrated in special units of varying size.
The Shock Artillery (I use that term to avoid confusion with the Assault Artillery or SUs) was not particularly mobile and couldn't keep up with the tank armies.
The Tank Armies in theory might have two tank corps and a mechanized corps - the latter were rare because they required more technical support than the former and were correspondingly more effective. With the Ruskis a Tank Corps was pretty much a strong armoured division. The Mech Corps had as many tanks but a higher concentration of mobile infantry, guns, engineers etc.
Once the Tank Armies found their hole in the lines, particularly late in the war, they seemed to race toward Germany at full tilt boogie until they finally ran out of gas and maint. The final offensives were about that - once the tanks ran out of fuel and the break downs got too extensive they'd stop, and prepare for the next giant step forward.
Some of the Tank Army commanders - Rybalko and Katukov come to mind immediately - were very good.
The Western armies were tactically more adept in some ways but ultimately the Soviets put together a war winning strategy and an army that could pursue that strategy successfully.
cheers
reb
Thus you had Shock Artillery Corps with vast quantities of guns and rocket projecters which would be gathered together to support Shock Armies (breakthrough forces) and independent tank and heavy tank formations to punch the holes in the line.
There were never enough technical officers to have the fancy type of artillery Western countries had - for instance at the div level - so Ruski divisions tended to have a handful of guns used in the direct fire mode with the fancier stuff all concentrated in special units of varying size.
The Shock Artillery (I use that term to avoid confusion with the Assault Artillery or SUs) was not particularly mobile and couldn't keep up with the tank armies.
The Tank Armies in theory might have two tank corps and a mechanized corps - the latter were rare because they required more technical support than the former and were correspondingly more effective. With the Ruskis a Tank Corps was pretty much a strong armoured division. The Mech Corps had as many tanks but a higher concentration of mobile infantry, guns, engineers etc.
Once the Tank Armies found their hole in the lines, particularly late in the war, they seemed to race toward Germany at full tilt boogie until they finally ran out of gas and maint. The final offensives were about that - once the tanks ran out of fuel and the break downs got too extensive they'd stop, and prepare for the next giant step forward.
Some of the Tank Army commanders - Rybalko and Katukov come to mind immediately - were very good.
The Western armies were tactically more adept in some ways but ultimately the Soviets put together a war winning strategy and an army that could pursue that strategy successfully.
cheers
reb
The red Army was sometimes described as an artillery army supported by tanks. Russia has a ling and prominet history with artillery (there is evidence that they used indirect fiire in the late 18th Century) and in imperial times artillery officers were generally recognised as the brightest and the best. Many of these joined the Red Army after the revolution.
During WW2 artillery was organic at regiment, division, corps and army level. However, there were also very large quantites of artillery under higher levels of command. You have to be a bit careful about generalising and Sov/Russ historians generally divide the GPW into 4 periods (IIRC) and organsiation and practices evolved (as they did in all armies).
A key figure is that in 1941 only 8% of artillery was High Command Reserve (these were Front assets), by 1945 it was 35%! Artillery divisions were first created in 1942 and in 1943 artillery divisions were sometimes grouped into Breakthrough Artillery Corps (AKP), usually 2 arty divs and 1 rocket lnchr div (often/usually called 'Guards Mortar Divisions'). Above Front level was the Artillery Reserve of the Supreme High Command (STAVKA), this comprised arty brigades, divisions and AKP. An indication of size, 1943-5 an arty div had up to about 364 guns, mortars of rocket lnchrs (in about 7 arty brigades), an AKP about 1000.
However, ad hoc Arty Groups were also formed from time to time, for example at Leningrad in 1943 a Front Counter Battery Group was formed comprising 3 arty regts, a naval rail gun brigade and the ships of the Baltic Fleet. A Front Arty Group of 250-300 guns was also used at Stalingrad. Arty groups were also created at Regt, Div, Corps and Army levels as required.
Basically arty formations' role was to reinforce main axes. While a key mision of artillery was to enable a breakthrough of German lines, counter-preparation was also a very important role (ie attacking the Germans when they were deploying for an offensive). Kursk is a good example, counter prep used around 3000 guns, mortars and rkt lnchrs. The usual measure of Sov arty efforts takes us back to WW1 - guns per km of front.
For example, take the Kursk counter offensive in Aug 1943, at the operational level 11 GA (one of two GAs) had a sector 36 km wide and a breakthrough sector of 14 km, overall they had 3703 guns etc of which 2516 were in their breakthrough sector. If you then look down to the tactical level of 11GRD, a sector (breakthough) of 1.5km they were supported by 381 guns etc.
During WW2 artillery was organic at regiment, division, corps and army level. However, there were also very large quantites of artillery under higher levels of command. You have to be a bit careful about generalising and Sov/Russ historians generally divide the GPW into 4 periods (IIRC) and organsiation and practices evolved (as they did in all armies).
A key figure is that in 1941 only 8% of artillery was High Command Reserve (these were Front assets), by 1945 it was 35%! Artillery divisions were first created in 1942 and in 1943 artillery divisions were sometimes grouped into Breakthrough Artillery Corps (AKP), usually 2 arty divs and 1 rocket lnchr div (often/usually called 'Guards Mortar Divisions'). Above Front level was the Artillery Reserve of the Supreme High Command (STAVKA), this comprised arty brigades, divisions and AKP. An indication of size, 1943-5 an arty div had up to about 364 guns, mortars of rocket lnchrs (in about 7 arty brigades), an AKP about 1000.
However, ad hoc Arty Groups were also formed from time to time, for example at Leningrad in 1943 a Front Counter Battery Group was formed comprising 3 arty regts, a naval rail gun brigade and the ships of the Baltic Fleet. A Front Arty Group of 250-300 guns was also used at Stalingrad. Arty groups were also created at Regt, Div, Corps and Army levels as required.
Basically arty formations' role was to reinforce main axes. While a key mision of artillery was to enable a breakthrough of German lines, counter-preparation was also a very important role (ie attacking the Germans when they were deploying for an offensive). Kursk is a good example, counter prep used around 3000 guns, mortars and rkt lnchrs. The usual measure of Sov arty efforts takes us back to WW1 - guns per km of front.
For example, take the Kursk counter offensive in Aug 1943, at the operational level 11 GA (one of two GAs) had a sector 36 km wide and a breakthrough sector of 14 km, overall they had 3703 guns etc of which 2516 were in their breakthrough sector. If you then look down to the tactical level of 11GRD, a sector (breakthough) of 1.5km they were supported by 381 guns etc.
Nigel
Too true. The Russians were somehead early on using their Licorne (or unicorn) field pieces which were also howitzers - putting them at least theoretically ahead of France of Prussia during the Napoleonic wars.
Napoleon gets the credit usually for introducing mass artillery to the battle field but the first major instance of that was at Elyau where he lost a whole corps when they blundered into the Russian massed battery in the slow.
Borodino of course was the classic - the Russians dug in their guns and blew the Grande Armee into a better world (while offering their own infantry to Napoleon's gunners just to be fair!).
In WW2 it took them a while to get the details down right - the purges and the huge losses of the first year were a real problem but once they got it right - whew... From way back when the Russians have always felt that a lot of guns are good and more guns are better!
reb
Too true. The Russians were somehead early on using their Licorne (or unicorn) field pieces which were also howitzers - putting them at least theoretically ahead of France of Prussia during the Napoleonic wars.
Napoleon gets the credit usually for introducing mass artillery to the battle field but the first major instance of that was at Elyau where he lost a whole corps when they blundered into the Russian massed battery in the slow.
Borodino of course was the classic - the Russians dug in their guns and blew the Grande Armee into a better world (while offering their own infantry to Napoleon's gunners just to be fair!).
In WW2 it took them a while to get the details down right - the purges and the huge losses of the first year were a real problem but once they got it right - whew... From way back when the Russians have always felt that a lot of guns are good and more guns are better!
reb
One important aspect of the rus arty was lack of HE shells comared to number of guns. Despite having 4 times the number of guns and mortors as the ger in 43 they made less HE shells and used similar amounts on the east. ALL HE shells of 20mm+ not spec designed for AAA guns. Its also true that despiute out numbering the ger in personnal by at least 2 the rus still suffered from WELL OVER 4 times as many per cas WIA, MIA, KIA.
Rus had 4 times as many guns but suffered from a lack of HE shells to fill these huge numbers. The rus at most fired as many shells as the ger did in 43. The ger arty firing with fewer guns and more importantly SIMILAR numbers of shells caused much more damage compared than the rus arty. Its imposible for me to describe anyone but the ger arty as being more effctive even in 43 in the east.
Rus had 4 times as many guns but suffered from a lack of HE shells to fill these huge numbers. The rus at most fired as many shells as the ger did in 43. The ger arty firing with fewer guns and more importantly SIMILAR numbers of shells caused much more damage compared than the rus arty. Its imposible for me to describe anyone but the ger arty as being more effctive even in 43 in the east.
Darrin
Number of shells is an issue but not the only one. The Sovs tended to dump it all at once, in one place. Plus an awesome number of rockets. Were they as good as the Germans at this? Probably not. But we must remember that "quantity has a quality of it's own."
German fire control was superior to the Soviets as well - 70-80% of all Sov casualties were from artillery fire. They got on target quicker and reacted faster. The war in the East was an infantry war, where guns did the killing and tanks got the headlines.
Ultimately though, we must recall that fifty per cent of German casualties in the East were from artillery.
How many is that? The usual figure bandied about is six million total German losses - half of that is three million! Ivan has no complaints with his gunners.
cheers
reb
Number of shells is an issue but not the only one. The Sovs tended to dump it all at once, in one place. Plus an awesome number of rockets. Were they as good as the Germans at this? Probably not. But we must remember that "quantity has a quality of it's own."
German fire control was superior to the Soviets as well - 70-80% of all Sov casualties were from artillery fire. They got on target quicker and reacted faster. The war in the East was an infantry war, where guns did the killing and tanks got the headlines.
Ultimately though, we must recall that fifty per cent of German casualties in the East were from artillery.
How many is that? The usual figure bandied about is six million total German losses - half of that is three million! Ivan has no complaints with his gunners.
cheers
reb
Well, i was in army 1991/1992 and warsaw pact has ended this time (July 1st 1991). But don't believe that any polish general, admiral or somebody said thatDackel Staffel wrote:Hi Pirx,
Because you were "one of them", what would has been the behavior of the polish soldiers if the russians have tried to invade "peacefully" the Poland in the 80's. I've heard of a polish admiral saying to russian officers :" take care, we are poles not czechs"
So long.
, they all where communist party members, and all finished military academy in Moscow and Leningrad. Polish soldiers take an oath for friendship with Soviet Union. General Jaruzelski was subordinate to marshall Kulikov from Soviet Army and polish prime minister at the same time. It sad to said but our generals were tenacious to soviet leaders. They had power and profits, but must be servants! What could do simply soldiers without leaders? nothing. Orwell's "1984" was reality in my country in real 1984, however this book was prohibited in Poland.