Reduced rifle divisions of the Red army
-
- Member
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02
Re: Reduced rifle divisions of the Red army
I did mean Latvia, but the Soviets had units guarding the Germans in Kurland and they were light in infantry and heavy in machine guns and such. That is on the quiet sectors.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1234
- Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 17:09
- Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
- Contact:
Re: Reduced rifle divisions of the Red army
That was common problem for all Soviet infantry units - not just against Kurland pocket.steverodgers801 wrote:I did mean Latvia, but the Soviets had units guarding the Germans in Kurland and they were light in infantry and heavy in machine guns and such. That is on the quiet sectors.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02
Re: Reduced rifle divisions of the Red army
There were specific units that guarded quiet sectors, that were not intended for offensive duties
-
- Member
- Posts: 1234
- Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 17:09
- Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
- Contact:
Re: Reduced rifle divisions of the Red army
No.steverodgers801 wrote:There were specific units that guarded quiet sectors, that were not intended for offensive duties
- John Hilly
- Member
- Posts: 2618
- Joined: 26 Jan 2010, 10:33
- Location: Tampere, Finland, EU
Re: Reduced rifle divisions of the Red army
I agree with you Steve. I just can't remember their name. Something like Gun- and Machine gun Battalions.steverodgers801 wrote:There were specific units that guarded quiet sectors, that were not intended for offensive duties
"Die Blechtrommel trommelt noch!"
-
- Member
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
- Location: Canada
Re: Reduced rifle divisions of the Red army
David Glantz makes the observation [true or not] that the forced reduction of the line infantry divisions was to facilitate two critical concerns.
[1] to reduce each unit size to a point where the skills of the commanders could effectively command the units they were in charge of. IE if the skill of a regimental commander was at best similar to a battalion commander , it would be best to reduce its compliments and mission to that of a battalion commander....in all but name.
[2] If the reduction in line troop numbers still allowed these newer infantry formations to retain maximum numbers & weapons in each heavy weapons section , then the effective strength of the unit would increase as well as being properly commanded.
any thoughts
[1] to reduce each unit size to a point where the skills of the commanders could effectively command the units they were in charge of. IE if the skill of a regimental commander was at best similar to a battalion commander , it would be best to reduce its compliments and mission to that of a battalion commander....in all but name.
[2] If the reduction in line troop numbers still allowed these newer infantry formations to retain maximum numbers & weapons in each heavy weapons section , then the effective strength of the unit would increase as well as being properly commanded.
any thoughts
Re: Reduced rifle divisions of the Red army
The reduction was mostly a result of a lack of resources to maintain existing divisions at authorized level or anywhere close to the authorized level. Numbers that confirm it were already given in this thread:Paul Lakowski wrote:David Glantz makes the observation [true or not] that the forced reduction of the line infantry divisions was to facilitate two critical concerns.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1979330
Which in its turn was consequence of improvised and haphazard character of efforts to rebuild the army in 1941-42.
Issue of "quasi-TO&Es" were a means to institutionalize existing shortages rather than a reason of these shortages.
Proliferation if units actually exacerbated the problem of cadres instead of solving them. It is easier to find 200 divisional commanders than 500, 200 chiefs of staffs than 500 and so on.
Re: Reduced rifle divisions of the Red army
Fortified regions and machinegun units were not infantry by Soviet classification. And not that they were really strong and numerous. According to Krivosheev the average strength of Soviet infantry formations on the Eastern Front in 1943-45 was 2 700 000, while the average strength of fortified regions - 82 000:John Hilly wrote:I agree with you Steve. I just can't remember their name. Something like Gun- and Machine gun Battalions.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1169320
-
- Member
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
- Location: Canada
Re: Reduced rifle divisions of the Red army
I have difficulty loading these pages and can't read Russian anyway.
- John Hilly
- Member
- Posts: 2618
- Joined: 26 Jan 2010, 10:33
- Location: Tampere, Finland, EU
Re: Reduced rifle divisions of the Red army
Well, that solves the question, why those units cannot be found from infantry T&OEs!Art wrote:Fortified regions and machinegun units were not infantry by Soviet classification. And not that they were really strong and numerous.
With best, J-P
"Die Blechtrommel trommelt noch!"
Re: Reduced rifle divisions of the Red army
"Red Army Handbook" has info on organization of the machine-gun battalion, as far as I remember. There was some info on the same subject in online TsAMO documents, but I can't remember right now where exactly.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1001
- Joined: 28 Mar 2012, 19:56
Re: Reduced rifle divisions of the Red army
So back to the original post...
When a Rifle Div was put onto reduced scales, was that deemed a temporary state of affairs, or did it become the new basis for that Div? So say a formation drops from circa 10,000 to 9,000 and then under 8,000 effectives, and is then ordered to reorganise on the locally approved tables for an 8,000 or so strong Div. Does that Div now stick entirely to the reduced strength org, and be regarded as up to strength until it dips lower than 7,000 effectives, which triggers a further reshuffle; or might it still be eligible to receive replacements to bring it back up to over 9,000 and so revert to the standard organisation again?
Gary
When a Rifle Div was put onto reduced scales, was that deemed a temporary state of affairs, or did it become the new basis for that Div? So say a formation drops from circa 10,000 to 9,000 and then under 8,000 effectives, and is then ordered to reorganise on the locally approved tables for an 8,000 or so strong Div. Does that Div now stick entirely to the reduced strength org, and be regarded as up to strength until it dips lower than 7,000 effectives, which triggers a further reshuffle; or might it still be eligible to receive replacements to bring it back up to over 9,000 and so revert to the standard organisation again?
Gary
- Der Alte Fritz
- Member
- Posts: 2171
- Joined: 13 Dec 2007, 22:43
- Location: Kent United Kingdom
- Contact:
Re: Reduced rifle divisions of the Red army
http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaro ... imDiv.htmlPaul Lakowski wrote:I have difficulty loading these pages and can't read Russian anyway.
http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaro ... nfDiv.html
http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaro ... Div41.html
http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaro ... Div44.html
http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaro ... Reg40.html
http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaro ... Reg41.html
http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaro ... SMG41.html
- Der Alte Fritz
- Member
- Posts: 2171
- Joined: 13 Dec 2007, 22:43
- Location: Kent United Kingdom
- Contact:
Re: Reduced rifle divisions of the Red army
I find that most of the examples of the use of these reduced strength Divisions are carried across the entire strength of a Front so they are a response to local conditions, perhaps after a bout of heavy and sustained fighting. When the units are to be made up again to full strength would be unknown and depended on what was happening on other Fronts. The Front Command is dealing with probably a sustained period of reduced strength and is trying to manage its resources in the most effective way and a key element in this is to make sure that rear services are reduced down to an appropriate level and that weapons numbers are maintained so that the units can still carry out their mission.
Proper resource management is a key element in Soviet military thinking and so where any new recruits might go would depend on what was being planned next. They might build up some units to a full Shtat and leave others on the Diminished Shtat or build them all up to a higher Diminished Shtat.
What this avoids is the German type situation where use of a fixed Shtat with reduced strength divisions means under used rear and support elements.
Proper resource management is a key element in Soviet military thinking and so where any new recruits might go would depend on what was being planned next. They might build up some units to a full Shtat and leave others on the Diminished Shtat or build them all up to a higher Diminished Shtat.
What this avoids is the German type situation where use of a fixed Shtat with reduced strength divisions means under used rear and support elements.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
- Location: Canada
Re: Reduced rifle divisions of the Red army
Der Alte Fritz wrote:http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaro ... imDiv.htmlPaul Lakowski wrote:I have difficulty loading these pages and can't read Russian anyway.
http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaro ... nfDiv.html
http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaro ... Div41.html
http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaro ... Div44.html
http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaro ... Reg40.html
http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaro ... Reg41.html
http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaro ... SMG41.html
Thank you very much for your effort!