User talk:Buckshot06/Sandbox List of Russian units which have invaded the territory of Ukraine

I've been thinking in what way to approach this keeping your comments in mind. I think on the balance of it your are right, and the article need not be structured to reflect Soviet terminology.

• For Historical section, I'd like to suggest combining the event narrative with doctrinal development, and not just another "List of..." type section. This means actual writing-in of the lessons and mistakes that resulted from, or contributed to development of the Ground Forces

How about this for sections 3,4,5?

• An introduction on the relationship between the Party-political policy-setting organs and the General Staff strategic planning roles within the Soviet general strategy and relationship of Ground Forces to other Services

• A section on the Administrative-strategic aspect.

This is both in terms of Military strategy of the Soviet Ground Forces (theatres, directions, Fronts, etc.)

and

Organisational strategy of the Soviet Ground Forces (the training (different combat and combat support Arms and Services) and technology developmental Directorates, mobilisation, budgets, etc.)

• A section on the Operational aspect (doctrine, GRU, etc.)... this is a full article of its own: Soviet Military Doctrine, and, in the land forces side of it, does not belong in a 'Structure' article, rather in the main article

Yes, quite appreciate that, but the structure of formations and units can not be explained without the understanding of how they were shaped by the doctrine. This bit is not found in other similar articles and will require breaking new grounds in editorialship and writing--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but how your tank division fits into the Combined Arms Army & how tank armies into the Front etc and why won't need breaking new ground; quoting and rewritting from Suvorov's ITSA, Odom's The Collapse of the Soviet Military and the 1986 Br Army Soviet Operations fd manual I've got will do. All three together cover what rifle and tank and artillery forces were supposed to fit together doctrinally quite well. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I only said "new ground" in the sense that this is not explained in the other articles. I need not explain to you the history of for example the US Army's search for operational structure and doctrine since before Second World War, and its history of reforms worthy of an article in their own right (I hadn't looked). But you are right in that the sources you have, as well as those I have, are sufficient to deal with this.

• A section on the Tactical aspect (innovation in technology, tactics, etc.)

• For the last section, rather then criticism, maybe on a more positive side, the section can deal with the assessment of the service personnel of the SGF as the officer Corps, NCOs and privates, i.e. a characterisation of the atomised Force.

This belongs in Personnel of the Soviet Ground Forces, but mobilisation, conscription cycle, etc goes under administrative organisation

What do you think?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I predict there will be a number of Main article: -> redirects emanating from introductory/cursory paragraphs here--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrative Structure

I've been thinking on how best to organise this. There are the troop types and branches, but also the units to which I wanted to link all the articles such as cavalry regiments, anti-aircraft battalions, and rifle brigades etc. So what I had in mind is several columns with

rifle troops staffs of rifle units rifle training units rifle Corps rifle divisions rifle brigades rifle regiments rifle battalions rifle companies rifle platoons

what do you think?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's getting 'into the weeds' a bit too much for this top-level structure article. Remember that we are talking about every branch of service for all the time between 1917-91 here - doing that for every branch would make this page unmanagable. I would imagine a sentence or two linking to a branch article, then going onto the next branch:

• Rifle forces: The Soviet rifle forces evolved slowly from 1917 to 1941, with only a few small units mechanised. During the war many mechanised formations were established which became Mechanised Divisions after the war. All units were redesignated 'Motor Rifle' in 1957 and gained increasing mobility and combat support..
• Tank forces: ...blah blah blah..

The Rifle forces article (and the other branch articles) would have the links to each echelon and descriptions of units/formations; that would be a good place for your column structure. At this level, with everything from all rifle echelons to tanks, to artillery corps/div/bde/regt/bn, AA forces/div/bde/regt/bn, eng/sapper etc army/bde/regt/bn, signals bde/regt/bn, ...right down to material maintenance bde/bn & pipeline bde/regt/bn.. it would be very difficult to comprehend, let along to navigate. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. So lets leave only the branches, and link from the branch articles to formation and unit articles. Easier to "chew" when the "mouth" is not full ;o) right...--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Should these be called Soviet rifle troops or rifle troops (don't want to have to disambiguate from British rifles), or should they be linked from existing infantry article? I'm actually inclined to use existing generic article and link from there to unit organisational articles that would allow comparative reference to same types of troops in other countries. This means that the infantry article will get a new expanded section on the development of Soviet rifle arm with links to unit articles e.g. rifle brigade (and in turn specific unit articles) that will explain the evolution of the rifle brigades, etc.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. But I don't understand why you've reinserted the redlinks to the various sizes of unit in each branch sentance. I thought we were going to put the various size unit links in the subsidary articles - whether uniquely Soviet ('Soviet artillery') or not (artillery) and leave the short sentances/paragraphs for the big picture. I think we need the big picture here - general trends in each branch development, SP arty in the arty sentance, for example, and links to various unit sizes are better placed in the subsidary branch articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I just de-wikied them for now; worry about units later. I will put together a unit matrix in the spreadsheet and import from there later. Just trying to sort it all out here at home. Artillery is artillery, from AT-rifles to Katyushas and fortified pieces.

OT - You were working on the USAF right? I realised today they converted the naming of the bombing units to "Bomb"! Only in America. I wonder which general signed off on that.

• NKVD - Yes, they will have to be included because they did serve in more-or-less regular combat units also, including of substantial size. The border guard troops also need to be included - forgot them

Of course - W.B. Wilson's listed division upon division of them. Nobody's saying they weren't at the front. But it needs to be noted in the article, as this is the structure of the RKKA and Soviet Army, that they weren't actually part of either! Buckshot06 (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, they were and they weren't. Administratively an NKVD lieutenant could tell an Army colonel to go and get...., but operationally they were a part of RKKA, and an Army staff lieutenant delivering orders to a colonel had to be accepted as conducting a mission with the authority of his commanding officer by an NKVD general. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes - accepted; they had some special powers, including over RKKA personnel. And I'm not going to not mention them. But it should be made clear that the NKVD troops were not part of the Red Army. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Starting source

I've decided to go with the Scotts (The Armed forces of the USSR) for a start. I know its an old book, but its fairly reliable and consistent, and has a good reputation. It will also save me from juggling multiple books. We can fill in the details with other sources as they arise--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Depending on your edition, you could be working from 1977, which covers all but the last ten years - and I haven't seen any good English-language recent books on the Soviet Armed Forces for years - latest really was Odom 1998. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have Odom so there is no reason for us to duplicate each other, right? However, I will need to catch up with my course over the weekend first.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad news, good news and more good news...I couldn't find the Isby book, and then realised that I had loaned it to someone in Melbourne three years ago. That person is sending it back. I have also found my old US Army field manuals on The Soviet Army (FM 100-2-3) and one on operations and tactics (FM100-2-1)

More bad news...it turns out the course I'm doing is supposed to be done much faster then I thought. This means I will have the editing time reduced significantly for several months. This is the reason you may have noticed my "disappearance" in the past few days. I'm sorry abou tthis, but my work depends on this, so it comes first.

Hope you have had a good ANZAC Day, Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-1945

There were really three generations of Soviet divisions

I. the revolution and civil war Red Guard divisions that were largely disbanded or reorganised in the late 20s early 30s (1918 - 1924)

II. the 'new' Red Army divisions created for the PU-36 from the mid-30 to 1947 (1925-1947)

III. the Soviet Army divisions from 1957 onwards after the decade of post-war hiatus of downsizing and focusing on aircraft and missiles when SGF took a secondary role for a time (1948-1991)

I think it would be good to keep these lists separate--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you keep adding material to the existing article until it is obvious to the non-specialist (or even to as much a 'specialist' as myself) what the difference was, and then we can split the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)