The Russian "Deep Operation" tactic

[p_panzerschreck]

Red army during World War Two was often described as unorganized and usually charge without thinking, and cost the Russians millions of lives. But actually the charges were part of the totally original tactical warfare created by A.A Svechin, M.N. Tukachevsky, and V.K. Traindafillov, called “Deep Operations”. Once upon a time, M.V Frunze organized a staff consisting of the Tsarist war specialist (voenspatsy) and the radical communist war officials. This created a tactic that was unique, mix ideological, with practical knowledge, and oretical thought. These tactics were so different and original compared to the tactics the West used so it is often said to be obsolete and useless. The Russians had 3 questions to answer after the civil war. 1, the nature of war between industrial powers. 2, How to destroy the enemy’s powerful defences with frontal assault. 3 the impact of technology. These questions were answered by observing the Great War and the Russian Civil War. While other powers usually strive for a perfect tank, the Russians, sticking to the Deep Battle tactics, had only three things in mind when building tanks, gun, armour and mobility. The Germans usually create more advanced tanks to carry out old tactics. The Deep Battle tactics were used during the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, but couldn’t function because of the Stalin Purges, forcing the Russians to promote Soviet Commanders quickly. This is a link to some facts and stuff about the Deep Operations. http://www.magma.ca/~khayward/deepops.htm

[old_reb]

Good thing you aren't leading an army.

In the American civil war we had horrible losses because we were trained in frontal assualts against very inaccurate and slow firing ball and powder guns. During the war we switched to cartrage shells and rifling barrels and that made frontal assualts simple suicide but charge we did and die we did. We are much smarter now.

I saw an American tank commander telling about the first Iraq war and he came over the top of a sand dune to see 4 Saddam tanks but he blew them all away before they could harm him. That is quality over quanity.

During ww2 the germans had the best equipment but it was of no use when fighting the whole world.

A german friend of mine who was on the Russian front said he would sit at his machine gun and Russians would rush up the hill for him to mow them down. How stupid is that? He was overcome by shear numbers.

old reb

[ANDY-J1]

Originally posted byp_panzerschreck

While other powers usually strive for a perfect tank, the Russians, sticking to the Deep Battle tactics, had only three things in mind when building tanks, gun, armour and mobility. The Germans usually create more advanced tanks to carry out old tactics.

This is a silly statement-what do you think the Russians were striving for,an imperfect tank?Every tank designer regardless of nationality knew that you had to strike a balance between having adequate firepower and sufficient armour without affecting mobility.Allied tanks like the Sherman sacrificed armour and firepower for mobility because they were primarily designed as an infantry support weapon and could be mass produced.German tanks like the Tiger sacrificed mobility for extra armour and firepower because they were primarily designed as tank killers.The T-34 was a durable and reliable tank but it had a fatal disadvantage in that it had a two man turret and no radio which in modern armoured warfare is really a necessity.

[p_panzerschreck]

Eehem, perhaps none of you read the link I provided. If you read “The Reintroduction of Deep Operations During World War Two”, you will realize that the tactic couldn’d be carried out accordingly because most of the experienced officers were eliminated by Stalin. Richard Simpkin (about him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Simpkin ) said that the early German success in 1941-42 was like Deep Operations in action. Deep Operations tactic was a great tactic but the Soviet officers just couldn’t do it right.

“The early use of deep operations and the genesis of the mobile group is illustrated by the battle of Tatsinskaya in December 1942. In October a Soviet counteroffensive had encircled the German Sixth Army in the Stalingrad pocket, destroyed the Fourth Rumanian Army, and opened up a 120-mile wide gap between German Army Groups A and B. The Soviet Southwest Front began a new series of attacks with four armies to seize Rostov and to isolate Army Group A in the Caucasus. The 24th Tank Corps was plunged into the vacuum left by the collapse of the Eighth Italian Army after the first attacks. A speedy advance put the 24th well ahead of its supporting units as it headed for the Tatsinskaya airfield, where the entire German resupply capacity for the Stalingrad pocket was based.
The Germans did not have the in-place forces necessary to defend the airfield, but they were unable to relocate the airlift operation and still maintain the resupply of Stalingrad. To protect the airfield from seizure and prevent the destruction of many aircraft, the Germans were forced to divert armoured forces from the effort to relieve the Stalingrad pocket; in so doing, the Soviet 24th Tank Corps was isolated and destroyed. The Germans scored a tactical victory at Tatsinskaya in defending the airfield, destroying a Soviet tank corps, and temporarily stopping the Soviet drive on Rostov. But the offensive as a whole was a Soviet strategic success in that only a portion of the advancing army was lost; the threat to Rostov forced Hitler to evacuate the Caucasus, sealing the fate of the Sixth Army in Stalingrad.”

[p_panzerschreck]

Originally Posted by ANDY-J1

Originally posted byp_panzerschreck

While other powers usually strive for a perfect tank, the Russians, sticking to the Deep Battle tactics, had only three things in mind when building tanks, gun, armour and mobility. The Germans usually create more advanced tanks to carry out old tactics.

This is a silly statement-what do you think the Russians were striving for,an imperfect tank?Every tank designer regardless of nationality knew that you had to strike a balance between having adequate firepower and sufficient armour without affecting mobility.Allied tanks like the Sherman sacrificed armour and firepower for mobility because they were primarily designed as an infantry support weapon and could be mass produced.German tanks like the Tiger sacrificed mobility for extra armour and firepower because they were primarily designed as tank killers.The T-34 was a durable and reliable tank but it had a fatal disadvantage in that it had a two man turret and no radio which in modern armoured warfare is really a necessity.

The German Panther tank had good armour, good mobility, and a good gun. The Allied Pershing tank had almost the same qualities. I said while other powers were STRIVING for the perfect tank, and the Russians weren’t STRIVING, they accepted tanks that fit into their tactic. Germans especially loved unpractical super weapons, like the Maus Super heavy tank, Schwere Gustav 800mm railway gun; The Western Allies weren’t far too, the T-28 super heavy tank is an example.

[vorosilov]

There was not much to improve on the famous T-34 because it was almost perfect. After the Battle of Kursk the T-34 s were equiped with 85 mm high velocity cannons what greatly improved it's firepower.
It was the best tank of WW2.

Give credit to the JS-120s. Stands for Jozef Stalin 120. Blew up the Tigers and ripped the Panthers apart.

I never agree the opinion of anybody who says that the officers who were purged would have succeded against the Germans in WW2. No high ranking WW1 officer succeded in WW2. It was totally different war.
Those officers would have been in the way of the truly brilliant Soviet officers like Zhukov, Konev, Vasilevsky, Chuykov and the rest.

It is typical Stalin bashing...

Typical Stalin bashing to mention the forced industrialisasion....The other thread shows us the weapons what the Germans were killed by. The videos showed incredible centralization of firepower done by famous Soviet artillery pieces. Yes, the Russian artillery was very good even during Tzarist times....But non of those weapons would have been egzisted in such a great numbers if not for the industrialization of the SovietUnion.
I missed the T-34- 76 and 85. Also the "Tommy gun" of the Soviet infantry and the JS-120s.

[ANDY-J1]

The German Panther had state of the art suspension and overlapping road wheels which improved its mobility and later models were fitted with Infra red night vision periscopes.There wasn't much difference between it and the T-34/85 but it has to be considered marginally better although it was never produced in sufficient numbers to allow the Germans to effectively combat the Russian armoured divisions.Russian commanders like Zhukov were brilliant because they had endless supplies of men and material-I think the German officer corps was more brilliant because they managed to fight on three or four different fronts,constantly outnumbered and outgunned yet still remaining combat effective until the very end.