Soviet organization

[Kelvin]

Hi I have some question on Soviet WWII organization during 1944-45 and hope someone will help:

a. What different between Breakthrough or penetration artillery division and Gun artillery division ?

b. How many horses in Soviet cavalry division and cavalry corp in 1944 ?

c. Soviet cavarly corp had two or three tank regiment and had one or two SU assault gun regiment

d. Tank corp had heavy tank regiment ? and how many ? 1944 and she had two or three SU assault gun regiment ?

e. How many BM 13 Rocket launcher in Soviet mortar division in 1944 ?

f. how many AA division in Soviet army during 1944-45 ?

[Art]

b. How many horses in Soviet cavalry division and cavalry corp in 1944 ?

Some information can be found here:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &sk=t&sd=a
Thee was no TO&E for the cavalry corps, only those for cavalry divisions and corps units existed. But for a normal corps (3 cavalry divisions, stadart set of corps units) the authorized number of horses was probably close to 20 000.

Soviet cavarly corp had two or three tank regiment and had one or two SU assault gun regiment

Beginning from 1943 each cavalry division had a tank regiment. Since each of all the seven cavalry corps existing after summer 1943 had three cavalry divisions, there were 3 tank regiments in a corps. As far as I can see from the OOBs each cavalry corps had one self-propelled artillery regiment.

d. Tank corp had heavy tank regiment ? and how many ? 1944 and she had two or three SU assault gun regiment ?

Strange, but info on the TO&E composition is rather contradictory, I hneed to check it. In reality the composition could be different, but as a general rule in 1944-45 a tank corps had one light, one medium SP-artillery regiments and either a heavy SP-regiment or a heavy tank regiment. The same for a mechanized corps.

f. how many AA division in Soviet army during 1944-45 ?

There were 80 AA artillery divisions in the Soviet Army, the number of division in the Operational Army increased from 47 in January 1944 to 59 in May 1945.

[Art]

Strange, but info on the TO&E composition is rather contradictory

Just compare these two variants of the tank corps organization:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/ ... kcorps.gif

The second is from "Tactics in combat examples: the divisions" by Radzievksy.
So according to the first source by the end of the war the tank corps included three SP-gun regiments, accordung to the second - two regiments and a heavy tank regiments. It seems that even the authors of official publications were not very certain which variant of TO&E was correct.

[Kelvin]

thank, Art, Why Soviet tank and mechanized corp did not have artillery gun for indirect fire like her German counterpart and also it had less infantry in comparison with German panzer division and will lead to lack of staying power if armored breakthrough fail and too many tank and not good for combined arm warfare.
If based upon their TOE on tank corp and Panzer divison, which one is better ? Modern Soviet tank divison is much more like Soviet tank corp organization but have more SP or towed artillery for indirect fire

[Art]

a. What different between Breakthrough or penetration artillery division and Gun artillery division ?

As I can see only a limited number of gun artillery divisions were formed in 1943:
4th Guards (11, 12, 13, 14 Guards Gun Artillery Brigades)
6th Guards (15, 29, 30 Guards, 4 Gun Artillery Brigades) - In May 1944 became 6th Guards Breakthrough Artillery Division
8th (26th, 27th, 28th Gun Artillery Brigades)
The standard gun brigade consisted of two regimetns each with 18 A-19 122-mm guns or ML-20 152-mm gun-howitzers, the primary missions of these units were counterartillery fire and attacks on distant targets. The information on organization of breakthrough artillery divsion can be found here:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/ ... artdiv.jpg

e. How many BM 13 Rocket launcher in Soviet mortar division in 1944 ?

In 1944 Guards mortar divisions didn't have BM-13 launchers, they were organized in separate regiments. In late 1942-early 1943 the OOB of Guards mortar division included several BM-13 regiments, but then they were excluded.

[Art]

thank, Art, Why Soviet tank and mechanized corp did not have artillery gun for indirect fire like her German counterpart

The motorized riflle brigade of the tank corps had a light artillery battalion (76-mm guns) which could be used for indirect fire, the same for mechanized brigades of he tank corps. So some artillery assets were available. though the organzation of coprs artilery was hardly the most succesful one - artillery units were subordinated to brigade commanders, so it was difficult for a corps commander to corrdinate artillery fire with actions of his troops. The situation changed somehow in 1944, when a light artillery regiment (24 76-mm guns) was introduced in the tank corps TO&E. Roughly at the same time the corps artillery commander recieved a HQ platoon which assited him in coordination of various artillery/mortar/rocket units in corps dispsal. So there was some progress by the end of the war, but still tank corps didn't have any artillery pieces with caliber higher the 76 mm. In the last phase of the war when operations occured in Eastern/Central European countries with a large number of stone or brick buildings it was a serious drawback. To some extent the absense of howitzers was compensated by 120-mm mortars. As concerns the reasons for such a deficit the sentence I've seen on one document (now couldn't remember where unfortunately) sais something like "we have to use heavy mortars in the role of howitzer artillery becuase we had no adequate prime-mover for artillery pieces of more than 76-mm calibers". This explantion lseems plausible to me. It shoud be said that the only dedicated artillry tractor for a gun of 122-mm howitzer class produced in the USSR was STZ-5 (a military version of STZ-3 agricultural tractor). It was produced by the Stalingrad Tractor Plant, after August 1942 production was stopped for obvious reasons.

As concerns infantry support my impression is that due to deficit of motor transport tank corps encounterd problems in using even the authorized number of infantry. Soviet mobile formations were normally underequipped with automobiles, as Ananiev ("Tank armies in offensive", 1988) says usually mechanized corps recieved 1300-1400 automobiles instead of authorized 1849, and tank corps - 1100-1150 instead of 1 456 authorized. As a result "motorized" infantry was sometimes forced to make foot marches. A good example is 2nd Tank Corps in the Battle of Kursk. The corps was transferred from the South-West Front and its tank brigades were committed to actions on 8th July 1943 at Prokhorovka. At the same time the 58th Motorized Rifle Brigade of the corps was marching on foot and was first engaged in action only three days later - on 11 July. Some examples ccan be found even in 1945 as well.

[Kelvin]

Strange, but info on the TO&E composition is rather contradictory

Just compare these two variants of the tank corps organization:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/ ... kcorps.gif

The second is from "Tactics in combat examples: the divisions" by Radzievksy.
So according to the first source by the end of the war the tank corps included three SP-gun regiments, accordung to the second - two regiments and a heavy tank regiments. It seems that even the authors of official publications were not very certain which variant of TO&E was correct.

Hi, Art, I saw two types of Soviet motorcycle battalion : one is small one ; only 288 men with two motorcycles infantry companies with 21 motorcycles each. And another one is big one : three motorcycles infantry companies, a armoured car company, a tank company, two 45mm AT gun companies and one 76.2 mm AT gun company, which one is more correct in organization of Soviet tank corps ?

[Stephan]

thank, Art, Why Soviet tank and mechanized corp did not have artillery gun for indirect fire like her German counterpart and also it had less infantry in comparison with German panzer division and will lead to lack of staying power if armored breakthrough fail and too many tank and not good for combined arm warfare.
If based upon their TOE on tank corp and Panzer divison, which one is better ? Modern Soviet tank divison is much more like Soviet tank corp organization but have more SP or towed artillery for indirect fire

Observe, its in much compensated by their heavy use of mortars - I presume mainly in the rifle divisions.

I saw the other day refered a Swedish SS-officer, whom used to tell these mortars were used virtuosly (exact citate), and gave them germans troops heavy damages. Perhaps the single weapon which gave them most casualties.

[Kelvin]

Hi, Stephen, thank for your reply.

In WWII, on western Front, the most fearful weapon of German is mortar. Many allied casualties were caused by them.

I always think the organization of Soviet Mechanized corps is much better than Tank Corps. It had more manpower and weapon. Perhaps Soviet armoured units only need that kind of unit is enough.

[Stephan]

Hi, Stephen, thank for your reply.

In WWII, on western Front, the most fearful weapon of German is mortar. Many allied casualties were caused by them.

I always think the organization of Soviet Mechanized corps is much better than Tank Corps. It had more manpower and weapon. Perhaps Soviet armoured units only need that kind of unit is enough.

Apparently both sides had effective mortars... I had found this place, I will write it in (including translation) later on, perhaps during the evening, otherwise during the weekend. That officer was btw also "appreciating" the soviet 76,2 cannon.

[Kelvin]

Hi, Stephen, thank for your reply.

In WWII, on western Front, the most fearful weapon of German is mortar. Many allied casualties were caused by them.

I always think the organization of Soviet Mechanized corps is much better than Tank Corps. It had more manpower and weapon. Perhaps Soviet armoured units only need that kind of unit is enough.

Apparently both sides had effective mortars... I had found this place, I will write it in (including translation) later on, perhaps during the evening, otherwise during the weekend. That officer was btw also "appreciating" the soviet 76,2 cannon.

Each Rifle Battalion in Mechanized Rifle Brigade had a battalion of 76 mm gun and a battalion of mortar (6 x 120mm and 12 x 82 mm), those very light artillery are suitable for artillery forces.


And Stephen, I don't see any advantage of Tank corps if Soviet had Mechanized Corps organization, Tank Corps did not have any advantage in Tank strength ( Three Tank Brigade with 65 tanks plus a motorized Brigade with no tank and 10 tanks from motorcycle battalion) while Mechanzied Corps had 3 x Mechanized Rifle Brigade with 41 tanks each plus a Tank Brigade with 65 tanks and 10 tanks from motorcycle battalion). On the other hand, Mechanized Corps have enough infantry and enough infantry weapon for exploitation.

Moderen Soviet Tank Division had more than 300 tanks, obviously a advantage in comparision with its Motor Rifle Division had around 200 tanks But in WWII Soviet armoured units. Perhaps only keep Mechanized Corps organization is enough.

[Stephan]

thank, Art, Why Soviet tank and mechanized corp did not have artillery gun for indirect fire like her German counterpart and also it had less infantry in comparison with German panzer division and will lead to lack of staying power if armored breakthrough fail and too many tank and not good for combined arm warfare.
If based upon their TOE on tank corp and Panzer divison, which one is better ? Modern Soviet tank divison is much more like Soviet tank corp organization but have more SP or towed artillery for indirect fire

My comments are a try to answer the bold lettered. Not as a discussion re the organisation of the soviet armies as such.

OK, an experienced and knowleable field officer on company level shares his experiences:

The source book is Lars Gyllenhaal, Lennart Westberg, "The swedes in war 1914-1945". The book is in Swedish.

Hans-Gösta Pehrsson, captain, the swedish most highly merited and decorated officer in Waffen-SS.
(There wasn’t that many swedes in SS nor Wehrmacht, together about 200).


In a lecture for Swedish army in 1953, when he would talk his experiences and practicals about fights against soviet-russia soldiers.
First, Pehrsson helds the soviet soldier in high estime as fighting soldier. Notices he is well trained in digging in. As soon he gets a chance, he digs in, and after that, he is practically impossible to throw back. [this was surely also helping against germans mortars, otherwise so deadly against the allies in west]
The lecture continues, its apparently somebodys notes, not an exact referate word by word. “Theirs 7,62 cm anti-tank cannon in in-direct shooting. A fantastical hit score. Big impression on morale… Mortars 8 and 12 cm: Tactical massive use, virtuose and devastating. The statistics shows Russians mortars caused bigger losses in the german army than all other weapons put together”

[FORBIN Yves]

I post here for Guards cavalry Corps and Cavalry Divisions TOE here a good PDF appear about 18700 mens in a Corps and 4700 in a Division then do 14100 in the 3 CDs and in more 4600 seems impossible... but i see also out 21000 and 6000 respectively what is the true ?

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/view ... odmilintel

Also exist in this site https://pamyat-naroda.ru/ infos for Cavalry-Mechanized Groups ?

Thank you.

[Art]

There were several different TO/Es issued at different years. I don't know, what is the exact TO/E described by the handbook and when it was issued exactly.

[FORBIN Yves]

Hummm i see but for you more reliable figures are ?

P.S : In https://pamyat-naroda.ru/ infos for Cavalry-Mechanized Groups i have find but as in Nafziger collection don't appear provisionnal units by ex Sokolov Cavalry-Mechanized Group.