The Purges and Moscow Trials

Quote:

From the way your use those words, you seem to be a very emotional, and emotions are bad.

Sure. But am I wrong? Why were figures like Shaposhnikov, and Triandafillow able to come up with sound military doctrine, while figures like Tukhachevsky and Yakir with nothing but ridiculous political warfare theories?

Quote:

The summary provided by Tukhachevsky and co for deep operations was too attack enemy across the entire depth of his defence to cause a catastrophic failure, break through the front and then send in the mobile formation was the way to achieve that gaol at the time, and, the mobile formations do far more than just destroy logistics and C3 structure, the central role of the mobile formation is to advance as deeply into the enemy rear as possible, and the threat of envelopment will force the enemy to retreat,and the mobile formation and the main force will form a combined pursuit, thus controlling the movement of the enemy forces.

If the enemy retreats, then he escapes encirclement. The mobile element's goal is to make sure the enemy can not retreat, so that a significant number of his forces are left in the "bag" so to speak. But primarily the damage is rendered through destruction of C3 and logistics. Without those, even a powerful modern day army becomes weak and disorganized. (granted a modern day army can restore C3 very quickly compared to WWII era)

Quote:

Two things, firstly, it was only a war against Germany, Secondly, tanks of the 20's and 30's are far smaller and less durable than what appeared in WWII.

And far less in numbers. Remember industrial capacity was not what it was during WWII, and Tukhachevsky knew that (presumably, since he drafted the 5-year plan needs for the military which didn't include anything as ridiculous as 100K tanks).

Quote:

A war against the entire capitalist world was possible, don't forget, 21 nations intervened during the Russian civil war, while the leaders of the western world praised the fascists for smashing socialism in parts of Europe. At the same time Japan took over Manchuria, and Turkey was still heavily influenced by western powers, and is a traditional enemy of Russia.

Oh please. A few thousand British in CAR, few thousand Americans in Murmansk, few thousand Japanese in Vladivostok, and few thousand French in Odessa does not make an intervention. The Czechoslovak corps that rebelled in Siberia alone were worth more then the combined Entente intervention.

Quote:

No, in the 1935 war game, Tukhachevsky proposed that in an invasion a combined German and Polish force would attack with twice the number of divisions involved in Schlieffen plan, i.e. over 200 division, with only weeks for preparation. And many thought it was not possible at the time. Actually, Tukhachevsky wrote a paper, Hitler's war plan.

Hitlers war plan was complete lunacy. Leave it up to Tukhachevsky to propose similar lunacy during a war game. Anyways, war games can be of almost any variety, including ones that are completely unrealistic. Publicly Tukhachevsky wrote a fairly well known article which focused on America, Britain, and France being the USSR's main enemies. Not Germany. Not to mention that during 1935 there was no Nazi war machine capable of fighting a war yet. So it was not his foresight, but sheer blind guess. Never mind the ridiculousness of a combined German Polish invasion.

Quote:

Sure. But am I wrong? Why were figures like Shaposhnikov, and Triandafillow able to come up with sound military doctrine, while figures like Tukhachevsky and Yakir with nothing but ridiculous political warfare theories?

==Theory of deep operations was used and refined during WWII, and was continue to be developed into the cold war.

Quote:

If the enemy retreats, then he escapes encirclement.

==It is not necessary to encircle and destroy enemy forces all of the time, Soviets talk about neutralisation rather than destruction, neutralising an enemy implies stripping away his ability to hinder you from reaching your objectives, and that only means physical destruction when it is the most convenient way to achieve that.

Quote:

But primarily the damage is rendered through destruction of C3 and logistics. Without those, even a powerful modern day army becomes weak and disorganized. (granted a modern day army can restore C3 very quickly compared to WWII era)

==The destruction of the enemy's C3 and logistics is only a small part of it, the bigger picture is to put your enemy in a position that he is extremely uncomfortable with, and he will be forced to react to your moves, and if their is a very limited way in which your enemy can react to you, and you ready to respond to each of these reactions, you are basically controlling the movement of your enemy.

By the way, why do you say mobile "element"?

Quote:

Remember industrial capacity was not what it was during WWII, and Tukhachevsky knew that (presumably, since he drafted the 5-year plan needs for the military which didn't include anything as ridiculous as 100K tanks)

==Again, as I said, 100,000 tanks were what he believed would be necessary for the Red army, I do not believe he is actually mad enough to want 100,000 tanks to be built.

Quote:

Oh please. A few thousand British in CAR, few thousand Americans in Murmansk, few thousand Japanese in Vladivostok, and few thousand French in Odessa does not make an intervention. The Czechoslovak corps that rebelled in Siberia alone were worth more then the combined Entente intervention.

==I didn't say the intervention was significant, I was using it to address the capitalist nations hostility towards the Soviet Union, there was no guarantee that they will not start another war.

Quote:

Hitlers war plan was complete lunacy. Leave it up to Tukhachevsky to propose similar lunacy during a war game. Anyways, war games can be of almost any variety, including ones that are completely unrealistic. Publicly Tukhachevsky wrote a fairly well known article which focused on America, Britain, and France being the USSR's main enemies. Not Germany.

==Tukhachevsky did write an article, Hitler's war Plan, in 1935

Quote:

Not to mention that during 1935 there was no Nazi war machine capable of fighting a war yet. So it was not his foresight, but sheer blind guess.

==Although the Nazi's had no credible war machine as of 1935, however, their intention was clear, and they had the military theory, that's what Tukhachevsky based his assessments on.

Quote:

Never mind the ridiculousness of a combined German Polish invasion.

==Why is that? Poland collaborated with Germany during the annexation of Czechoslovakia, and the Poles have been traditionally hostile towards Russians.

Quote:

Theory of deep operations was used and refined during WWII, and was continue to be developed into the cold war.

You wanna answer my question?

Quote:

It is not necessary to encircle and destroy enemy forces all of the time, Soviets talk about neutralisation rather than destruction, neutralising an enemy implies stripping away his ability to hinder you from reaching your objectives, and that only means physical destruction when it is the most convenient way to achieve that.

Are you talking about mission kill? Encirclement is also mission kill. It also neutralizes the enemy forces. In fact it does so in a more permanent way. They have no way of pulling back and re-organizing.

Quote:

he destruction of the enemy's C3 and logistics is only a small part of it, the bigger picture is to put your enemy in a position that he is extremely uncomfortable with, and he will be forced to react to your moves, and if their is a very limited way in which your enemy can react to you, and you ready to respond to each of these reactions, you are basically controlling the movement of your enemy.

Without C3 the enemy can not organize any sort of major operations.

Quote:

By the way, why do you say mobile "element"?

I refer to the mobile part of an army that's organized into distinct units that are used to lead mobile warfare and for manouever.

Quote:

Again, as I said, 100,000 tanks were what he believed would be necessary for the Red army, I do not believe he is actually mad enough to want 100,000 tanks to be built.

That's garbage. That would require forming hundreds of tank divisions. This was completely ridiculous. Even at the peak of WWII the Soviet Union never operated that many tanks.

Quote:

Although the Nazi's had no credible war machine as of 1935, however, their intention was clear, and they had the military theory, that's what Tukhachevsky based his assessments on.

Again it's complete lunacy to suggest that Germany would attack along three separate axes of advance into the USSR with no single target or real objective.

Quote:

В состав дивизии, помимо пехотных полков, видимо, войдут: два артполка (легкий и тяжелый), танковый батальон, батальон связи, инженерный батальон и химическая рота.

From your own article. It's completely ridiculous to suggest that every German infantry division would include a tank battalion, when even tank divisions consisted of 2 tank regiments.

Количество кораблей Количество людей
Линкоров 9 9.000
Крейсеров 8 4.000
Эсминцев 12 2.000
Миноносцев 20 2.000
Подлодок 26 2.600
Азы и управлен[ия] 26 3.000

More garbage. The German fleet never had 9 Battleships. Not even under construction.

Quote:

Само собою понятно, что империалистские планы Гитлера имеют не только{14} одно антисоветское острие. В случае осуществления своей безнадежной мечты о разгроме СССР, конечно, германский империализм обрушился бы всеми силами на Францию: ему нужна французская руда. Ему необходимо и расширение его морской базы. Опыт войны 1914—1918 гг. показал со всей очевидностью, что без прочного обладания портами Бельгии и северными портами Франции морское соперничество с Великобританским империализмом Германии не по плечу.

And more garbage. Without the surface fleet, the Kriegsmarine had no chance.

Quote:

Why is that? Poland collaborated with Germany during the annexation of Czechoslovakia, and the Poles have been traditionally hostile towards Russians.

The Polish Army was in no condition to go on any conquest sprees. German support or no.

Quote:

You wanna answer my question?

==Yes, I have answered your question, Tukhachevsky's deep operations was useful, and its basis is still useful even today. And the only reason why you say Triandafillov produced sound military doctrine was because he was not killed in the great purge, if he did not die in that plane crash, he would have more than likely been purged, and you would have thrown his ideas into the garbage heap as well.

Quote:

Are you talking about mission kill? Encirclement is also mission kill. It also neutralizes the enemy forces. In fact it does so in a more permanent way. They have no way of pulling back and re-organizing.

==It's far more than mission kill, as mission kill only implies rendering something ineffective during a battle, it is limited in both time and scope. While the Soviet concept of neutralisation have permanent effects, as once one's enemy is unable to stop him from achieving his strategic objectives, then the later has lost the war. Encirclement is only used when it is the most convenient method of neutralisation, as to encircle and destroy an enemy, one's own forces will have to slow down, and potentially allowing the enemy to build new defences.

Quote:

Without C3 the enemy can not organize any sort of major operations.

==The effect of any disruption, damage, destruction you bring on to your enemy is only temporary, and are not the objective of the fighting, they are only the ways to reach the objective.

Quote:

I refer to the mobile part of an army that's organized into distinct units that are used to lead mobile warfare and for manouever.

==That's a very interesting way of speaking.

Quote:

That's garbage. That would require forming hundreds of tank divisions. This was completely ridiculous. Even at the peak of WWII the Soviet Union never operated that many tanks.

==I do not believe that 100,000 tanks can be all in service at once, the 100,000 is the number of tanks that a large scale war would chew through,and, all Soviet tank units did operate at less than optimal strength levels during the war.

Quote:

Again it's complete lunacy to suggest that Germany would attack along three separate axes of advance into the USSR with no single target or real objective.

==Who said anything about Germany attacking along three separate directions?

Quote:

From your own article. It's completely ridiculous to suggest that every German infantry division would include a tank battalion, when even tank divisions consisted of 2 tank regiments.

==No, German tank divisions only have 2 tank regiment because it provides what the German believed to be the optimal tank to infantry ratio, so that the tank divisions will be better at defence than a formation with more tanks and less infantry, while better at attack and exploitation missions than a formation with less tanks and more infantry. While the tank battalion in infantry division is to provide armoured support, and during the war, Germans did frequently attach assault gun battalions to infantry divisions.

Quote:

More garbage. The German fleet never had 9 Battleships. Not even under construction.

==There were the two Bismark class battle ships, two Scharnhorst battle cruisers, two WWI battleships, and 3 pocket battleships.

Quote:

And more garbage. Without the surface fleet, the Kriegsmarine had no chance.

==What are you on about? What has this got anything to do with anything? Germany did use French ports as bases for U-boats during the war.

Plus, even if they are indeed incorrect, it is very easy for you to be smart after the fact, you have to bear in mind that the information you have today was not available to the decision makers in the Red Army 73 years ago.

Quote:

The Polish Army was in no condition to go on any conquest sprees. German support or no.

==Neither was the army of Rumania, or Hungary, or Italy, but they all participated, and killed their fare share of Russians.

Quote:

Yes, I have answered your question, Tukhachevsky's deep operations was useful, and its basis is still useful even today. And the only reason why you say Triandafillov produced sound military doctrine was because he was not killed in the great purge, if he did not die in that plane crash, he would have more than likely been purged, and you would have thrown his ideas into the garbage heap as well.

Tukhachevsky did not produce deep operations. Again read his works.

Quote:

The effect of any disruption, damage, destruction you bring on to your enemy is only temporary, and are not the objective of the fighting, they are only the ways to reach the objective.

Loss of C3 is the ultimate defeat, because it prevents organized action.

Quote:

That's a very interesting way of speaking.

I'm sorry but my English isn't perfect. If you want an example of a mobile element in practice look at the bronegruppas formed by Soviet forces in Afghan.

Quote:

I do not believe that 100,000 tanks can be all in service at once, the 100,000 is the number of tanks that a large scale war would chew through,and, all Soviet tank units did operate at less than optimal strength levels during the war.

So you recognize that Tukhachevsky's demand was ridiculous?

Quote:

Who said anything about Germany attacking along three separate directions?

You said that Tukhachevsky proposed a war game that mirrored what the actual German invasion turned out to be......

Quote:

No, German tank divisions only have 2 tank regiment because it provides what the German believed to be the optimal tank to infantry ratio, so that the tank divisions will be better at defence than a formation with more tanks and less infantry, while better at attack and exploitation missions than a formation with less tanks and more infantry. While the tank battalion in infantry division is to provide armoured support, and during the war, Germans did frequently attach assault gun battalions to infantry divisions.

Assault guns and tanks form two different types of armored vehicles and are used for different purposes. The reason that German tank divisions had so few tanks was that the German doubled the number of tank divisions without significant strength increases in tanks.

Quote:

There were the two Bismark class battle ships, two Scharnhorst battle cruisers, two WWI battleships, and 3 pocket battleships.

The table I quoted listed 8 cruisers in addition to the battleships. Also how many were operational during the war? How many could be of any use during the war? The table is misleading and inaccurate at best, and utter crap at worst.

Quote:

What are you on about? What has this got anything to do with anything? Germany did use French ports as bases for U-boats during the war.

Plus, even if they are indeed incorrect, it is very easy for you to be smart after the fact, you have to bear in mind that the information you have today was not available to the decision makers in the Red Army 73 years ago.

I don't think that even 73 year ago anyone was stupid enough to think that the Germans could really take control of the seas from Britain.

Quote:

Neither was the army of Rumania, or Hungary, or Italy, but they all participated, and killed their fare share of Russians.

Read about how much good they did on the eastern front.

Quote:

Tukhachevsky did not produce deep operations. Again read his works.

==Who came up with the 1935 Instruction on Deep operations and Field Regulation 1936?

Quote:

Loss of C3 is the ultimate defeat, because it prevents organized action.

==Loss of C3 means loss of organised action, and that all it does, it does not automatically lead to victory.

Quote:

I'm sorry but my English isn't perfect. If you want an example of a mobile element in practice look at the bronegruppas formed by Soviet forces in Afghan.

==It has nothing to do with your English, it's that the way you talk about military matters is very western.

Quote:

Assault guns and tanks form two different types of armored vehicles and are used for different purposes.

==For the Germans, assault guns are a cheaper substitute for tanks.

Quote:

The reason that German tank divisions had so few tanks was that the German doubled the number of tank divisions without significant strength increases in tanks.

==The total number of tanks available only effect the size of tank units when there is a severe shortage, and does not effect at the structure of tank units. The fact that Germans only have one or two panzer regiment in each panzer division is due to purely tactical reasons.

Quote:

You said that Tukhachevsky proposed a war game that mirrored what the actual German invasion turned out to be......

==In scope and intensity, Tukhachevsky predicted that a German invasion would involve over 200 divisions, with only month of preparation, and the initial phase of the war would last weeks if not months, these have nothing to do with Hitler's mistakes.

Quote:

The table I quoted listed 8 cruisers in addition to the battleships. Also how many were operational during the war? Wink How many could be of any use during the war?

==Germany had 3 heavy cruisers and 6 light cruisers during the war, and all of the battleships and battle cruisers participated in the fighting during WWII.

Quote:

I don't think that even 73 year ago anyone was stupid enough to think that the Germans could really take control of the seas from Britain.

==The paper didn't say anything about Germany taking over the control of the sea.

Quote:

Who came up with the 1935 Instruction on Deep operations and Field Regulation 1936?

Would you like to quote said instruction for me?

Quote:

Loss of C3 means loss of organised action, and that all it does, it does not automatically lead to victory.

Loss or organized action means defeat on an operation level. Basics here.

Quote:

It has nothing to do with your English, it's that the way you talk about military matters is very western. [/wuoyr]

I hang around lots of western military specialists at defensetalk.com so I guess it sort of rubs off. In any event it shouldn't matter. The principles of military thought are the same for everyone. If you trouble understanding just tell me and I'll try to explain.

Quote:

For the Germans, assault guns are a cheaper substitute for tanks.

No. Assault guns are just that, assault guns. They're direct infantry support. They're not a mobile element the way for example Soviet tank battalions attached to each regiment were later during the Cold War.

Quote:

The total number of tanks available only effect the size of tank units when there is a severe shortage, and does not effect at the structure of tank units. The fact that Germans only have one or two panzer regiment in each panzer division is due to purely tactical reasons.

Evidence please?

Quote:

In scope and intensity, Tukhachevsky predicted that a German invasion would involve over 200 divisions, with only month of preparation, and the initial phase of the war would last weeks if not months, these have nothing to do with Hitler's mistakes.

His wargame was simply a typical speculation of what an invasion from the west would look like. Nothing special or unique about it in that case.

Quote:

Germany had 3 heavy cruisers and 6 light cruisers during the war, and all of the battleships and battle cruisers participated in the fighting during WWII.

So the heavy cruisers can't be counted as part of the battleships, which is what you did earlier. Again this assessment of German Naval strength is misleading at best.

Quote:

Would you like to quote said instruction for me?

==I am unable to find copies of the instructions, but it seems that you have better access to Russian sources than me, you can look for устав РККА 1936.

Quote:

Loss or organized action means defeat on an operation level. Basics here.

==No, with envelopment, the loss of organised action only applies to the enemy groupings you have enveloped, and unless the elimination of that grouping is strategically significant, it may or may not lead to victory.

Quote:

I hang around lots of western military specialists at defensetalk.com so I guess it sort of rubs off. In any event it shouldn't matter. The principles of military thought are the same for everyone. If you trouble understanding just tell me and I'll try to explain.

==It's okay, I received a fairly western military education from my service in the Australian army, it's just that it came off very weird as you claim to be Russian, yet you speak in a very western manner and you did not pickup on some of the very Russian concepts in the stuff I said. And, it is very disturbing that you call those people at defensetalk.com "military specialists".

Quote:

No. Assault guns are just that, assault guns. They're direct infantry support. They're not a mobile element the way for example Soviet tank battalions attached to each regiment were later during the Cold War.

==Tanks would provide better support for infantry in assault and defense, but they are expensive and few in number, so they were allocated to mobile formations where they are needed more. And, during cold war, the Soviets attach one tank battalion to each infantry regiment was due to the rise of all arms concept, i.e. due to the appearance of BMP's, Soviet infantry were given mobility and fire power that approaches those of tank units, so it was believed that motorised infantry divisions can also serve as mobile formations.

Quote:

Evidence please?

==During WWII, a standard Soviet medium tank company had 10 tanks, the company commander and 3 platoons of three tanks each, it was like that in the critical time of 1941 to 1942, and even when more tanks become available, the Soviets just increased the number of tank formations rather than enlarge the tank companies, and the reason is simple, lower level commanders in the Red army was of dubious quality, the platoon commander is not trusted to control more than 3 tanks, and the company commander is not trusted to control more than 3 platoons. Eventually, a third tank battalion was added to each tank brigade because increased German anti-tank fire power makes two battalion brigades depleted way too quickly. And only in the late 70's, when NATO started to deploy man portable anti-tank missiles on a large scale, an additional tank was added to each tank platoon to increase the chance of destroying enemy ATGM positions before they wipe out the platoon.

Quote:

His wargame was simply a typical speculation of what an invasion from the west would look like. Nothing special or unique about it in that case.

==However, when most of his contemporaries still thought about a WWI style invasion, he thought of something twice as big.

Quote:

So the heavy cruisers can't be counted as part of the battleships, which is what you did earlier. Again this assessment of German Naval strength is misleading at best.

==No, battle cruisers were included in battleships, heavy cruisers are classified as cruisers.

Quote:

I am unable to find copies of the instructions, but it seems that you have better access to Russian sources than me, you can look for устав РККА 1936.

I'll look.

Quote:

No, with envelopment, the loss of organised action only applies to the enemy groupings you have enveloped, and unless the elimination of that grouping is strategically significant, it may or may not lead to victory.

Hence envelopment on a strategic scale is what we're talking about come on. Tactically the Soviet Union never emphasized envelopment as much as breakthrough.

Quote:

It's okay, I received a fairly western military education from my service in the Australian army, it's just that it came off very weird as you claim to be Russian, yet you speak in a very western manner and you did not pickup on some of the very Russian concepts in the stuff I said. And, it is very disturbing that you call those people at defensetalk.com "military specialists".

There are a lot of specialists there, as well as immature fanboys with ridiculous views. You should stop by some time.

Quote:

Tanks would provide better support for infantry in assault and defence, but they are expensive and few in number, so they were allocated to mobile formations where they are needed more. And, during cold war, the Soviets attach one tank battalion to each infantry regiment was due to the rise of all arms concept, i.e. due to the appearance of BMP's, Soviet infantry were given mobility and fire power that approaches those of tank units, so it was believed that motorised infantry divisions can also serve as mobile formations.

Hence the concept of fluid mobility, yes? All-mobile formations where the army acts in distinct mobile groupings rather then a front?

Quote:

During WWII, a standard Soviet medium tank company had 10 tanks, the company commander and 3 platoons of three tanks each, it was like that in the critical time of 1941 to 1942, and even when more tanks become available, the Soviets just increased the number of tank formations rather than enlarge the tank companies, and the reason is simple, lower level commanders in the Red army was of dubious quality, the platoon commander is not trusted to control more than 3 tanks, and the company commander is not trusted to control more than 3 platoons. Eventually, a third tank battalion was added to each tank brigade because increased German anti-tank fire power makes two battalion brigades depleted way too quickly. And only in the late 70's, when NATO started to deploy man portable anti-tank missiles on a large scale, an additional tank was added to each tank platoon to increase the chance of destroying enemy ATGM positions before they wipe out the platoon.

Are you sure an additional tank was added? From what I know Russian tank companies are still at 10 tanks, with 3 tank platoons. The real argument in platoon size hinges on whether you want two manouever elements in each platoon, allowing them to advance independently, or whether you want more solid platoons, at the expense of losing tactical flexibility, in which case a tank company, rather then a tank platoon, becomes your smallest independent tactical unit.

Quote:

However, when most of his contemporaries still thought about a WWI style invasion, he thought of something twice as big.

So he had a gigantomania. Big whoop. Just like he wanted ridiculous numbers of tanks, he expected ridiculously large invading armies.

Quote:

No, battle cruisers were included in battleships, heavy cruisers are classified as cruisers.

Do you have an actual listing of German Navy ships and classifications for 1936?

Quote:

Hence envelopment on a strategic scale is what we're talking about

==Envelopment at the strategic level is only conducted if it helps with the seizing of strategic objectives.

Quote:

Tactically the Soviet Union never emphasized envelopment as much as breakthrough.

==This is also a very western view, the Soviet army only emphasised breakthrough when they are actually faced with prepared enemy defences, head on engagements, turning battles, and attacks from the march in general received most attentions.

Quote:

There are a lot of specialists there, as well as immature fanboys with ridiculous views. You should stop by some time.

==I have been to defensetalk, I find there is a general lack of grasp of reality. I normally go to sino defence forum, although the scope is much narrower as it is for Chinese military affairs, the discussions are generally grounded in the real world.

Quote:

Hence the concept of fluid mobility, yes?

==Where did you pick up the term "fluid mobility"?

Quote:

All-mobile formations where the army acts in distinct mobile groupings rather then a front?

==Armies will still be subordinate to the fronts as a Front is the operational-strategic large unit responsible for a specific strategic direction.

Quote:

Are you sure an additional tank was added? From what I know Russian tank companies are still at 10 tanks, with 3 tank platoons.

==A fourth tank was added to tank platoons of motorised rifle units in the 80's, how ever, I don't know what became of them after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Quote:

Do you have an actual listing of German Navy ships and classifications for 1936?

==The best I can do is wikipedia

Quote:

Envelopment at the strategic level is only conducted if it helps with the seizing of strategic objectives.

Late WWII, Soviet drive through Eastern Europe. Envelopment was used mainly as a means for cutting off large formations of enemy troops, destroying supplies, C3, and causing general chaos. The cut off troops were then surrounded in what was referred to as a "котёл" where they would be mopped up with ease, as they would lack supplies support, and often centralized command.

Quote:

This is also a very western view, the Soviet army only emphasised breakthrough when they are actually faced with prepared enemy defences, head on engagements, turning battles, and attacks from the march in general received most attentions.

Breaking through the enemy lines was the priority. Whether the enemy had prepared defenses or not didn't matter. You had to break through to cause strategic envelopment.

Quote:

I have been to defensetalk, I find there is a general lack of grasp of reality. I normally go to sino defence forum, although the scope is much narrower as it is for Chinese military affairs, the discussions are generally grounded in the real world.

What do you mean?

Quote:

Where did you pick up the term "fluid mobility"?

It's not a term per se, rather something I use to distinguish between the deep operations of WWII, and modern 3rd gen. warfare. I outlined the key difference in my previous post.

Quote:

Armies will still be subordinate to the fronts as a Front is the operational-strategic large unit responsible for a specific strategic direction.

Naturally. But instead of forming a wall of troops, with some mobile forces used for manouever war, everything would be engaged in manouever war (full mechanization).

Quote:

A fourth tank was added to tank platoons of motorised rifle units in the 80's, how ever, I don't know what became of them after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Interesting. So in the 80's there was a 4 tank platoon? How would that have worked? 2 mobile elements with the command tank being part of one of them?

Quote:

The best I can do is wikipedia

Which gives us 4 battleships, 6 heavy cruisers, and 6 light cruisers. The pocket bships you mentioned were re-classified as heavy cruisers in 1940.

Quote:

What do you mean?

==Too much XX vs YY topics that are detached from real life situations, too much emphasis on paper specifications on weapon systems, and just weapon fetishism in general.

Quote:

Interesting. So in the 80's there was a 4 tank platoon? How would that have worked? 2 mobile elements with the command tank being part of one of them?

==I do not have the details on the small unit tactics, however, during the 80's the Soviet army also started to pay attention to the use of terrain as cover and concealment for armoured units, so it is possible that soviet army was beginning to introduce fire and maneouvre for tank platoons.

Fire and manouever always existed. They were just employed at the company level, with a platoon being the basic mobile element.

As for defense talk, there is actually a lot less of that there right now. It's mainly discussion on capabilities and specific conflicts.

What's your user name on defence talk?

Quote:

Late WWII, Soviet drive through Eastern Europe. Envelopment was used mainly as a means for cutting off large formations of enemy troops, destroying supplies, C3, and causing general chaos. The cut off troops were then surrounded in what was referred to as a "котёл" where they would be mopped up with ease, as they would lack supplies support, and often centralized command.

==That was because back in WWII, there were no long range precision strike capabilities, the only sure fire way to neutralise the enemy is to physically destroy him, but nowadays, with the rise of precision guided and standoff attack munitions, any movement without air cover will mean certain destruction, so, if the attacker has air superiority, defender's entire armies can be forced into hiding, becoming irrelevant to the course the war.

Unless the attacker has a mobile IADS capable of contesting air superiority, even after his actual air force can no longer gain air superiority. Exactly what the Soviet Union had.

My name on defensetalk is Feanor.

I post there under the name King Comm, in fact, that's my name for most forums I go to, so, if you see a King Comm with a pedo bear avatar, it's me.

Yeah I've seen you. You should let the staff know that you're an ex-military officer so you can get the defense professional tag under your name. It's good for people to know who they're arguing with.

I am no ex-military, I am a current reservist, I've never served in the army full time, so I am probably not professional enough to go into the "professional" group.

My mistake. I recall you said you were in ..... Aus. Army? Or was that someone else I'm thinking of? Anyways what kind of experience have you had? I'm just curious.

Yes, Australian army reserve, Royal Australian Artillery, in charge of the regimental signal squadron for an extremely low readiness reserve artillery regiment, not because I have the rank for it, but because I am the only one who shows up regularly.