Talk:Deep operation

message: Was the doctrine at all inspired by the success of the Brusilov Offensive?  The offensive certainly seems like prototypical deep operations, with synchronized movements by large numbers of troops to exploit multiple gaps and force the whole front into a retreat. ASWilson 07:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brusilov Offensive 

message: I find the following sentence surprising "Contrary to popular belief, Soviet deep operations did not copy or share any similarities with the nebulous, so-called "Blitzkrieg" methodology." If such a categorical and sweeping statement is made, perhaps there should be some elaboration about the fundamental differences, if any, between these concepts? And why exactly blitzkrieg is "nebulous"? Also, the connection between German and Russian armored doctrines would be suggested simply by the fact of extensive cooperation between their militaries in late 20s and early 30s on training and officer education. Anyway, I suspect that this claim is just baseless Soviet propaganda. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who says that it was unrelated to "nebulous" blitzkrieg? 

message: I'm not taking sides on the factual issue, but "nebulous, so-called" is not NPOV, "not based on" is unsourced, and "popular belief" is unsubstantiated. Who believes this? Why? Why are they wrong? A well-sourced summary of the arguments comparing the two would certainly be in order, but this sentence is not. --Chronodm (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who says it was? 

message: The north pincer of the Kursk offensive was the ninth army only. The 2nd panzer army was not part of the attack. The red army offensive hit the 2nd panzer army head on and not in the flank. The red army offensive was not stemmed by the Luftwaffe but by the committal of Models mobile divisions plus some more sent from other sectors. Bruchmuller (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  corrections 

message: "An example of this theory in practice is Operation Uranus in 1942... The Soviets broke through the German flanks and exploited the operational depth, closing the pocket at Kalach-na-Donu."
Kalach-na-Donu is much less than 50 miles from Stalingrad. Is it really DEEP?! Is it really a strategic depth? How much different is Operation Uranus from any German Kesselschlacht? BTW,in Kesselschlacht/Encirclement article one can read: The encirclement of the German Sixth Army in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 is a typical example.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.165.244 (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalingrad - a Deep Battle? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Thank you all for writing/maintaining this interesting article.  The current article says (with bolding added by me) that Triandafillov stated in 1929:The outcome in modern war will be attained not through the physical destruction of the opponent but rather through a succession of developing manoeuvres that will aim at inducing him to see his ability to comply further with his operational goals. The effect of this mental state leads to operational shock or system paralysis, and ultimately to the disintegration of his operational system.Issue 1: Surely what is meant is something like inducing him to LOSE his ability to comply further  Or, although the grammar might be somewhat incorrect, the original could be inducing him to see his ability DIMINISHED to comply further.  
That is footnoted to Watt 2008, p. 677. 
* Watt, Robert. Feeling the Full Force of a Four Point Offensive: Re-Interpreting The Red Army's 1944 Belorussian and L'vov-Przemyśl Operations. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISSN 1351-8046
I am wondering if the quate was changed by an editor accidentally or deliberately?  Or if this can be fixed by an editor here, by checking Watt 2008?  Or in the event that Watt quoted wrongly, by going to Triandafillov 1929 and translating again?  Pinging User:Dapi89 because I see that in some discussions above they had direct access to some sources that others did not. But maybe several editors could have access to that journal article.  I hope it is helpful for me to be pointing this out. --Doncram (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  quote must be wrong and other errors (i think)