Talk:List of Soviet armies

message: Please do not delete or merge this page. It is a good respository for info on Soviet armies that don't have enough info to deserve their own page.
203.97.106.191 10:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Home for information on Soviet Armies of WW2

message: Merging the Civil War list with the WWII list makes it hard for readers to find out how many armies were present in the Civil War, and the Civil War material is irrelevant to those looking up WWII, and vice-versa. Jacob Haller 17:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please, un-merge the lists

message: The translation of отдельная as separate is not quite right. The Army with such a designation was intended to operate within the operational and strategic design of the Red Army as a whole, but independently due to some particularity of its deployment of the threat faced. From this POV it seems to me that Independent is a better English word to use. At the start of WW there were several of them, the best known being the 9th Independent Army that later became Independent Coastal Army, and the 7th Independent Army that was operating against Finland in some fairly remote terrain. There were also independent armies of the reserve, the 51st, 52nd, 54th and 56th Independent Armies. The other Army sized organisations usually left out are the Fortified Regions. Although they did not have the manpower of the Armies, they did occupy the frontages of the Armies, so in a strategic sense were very much on the Army level in terms of impact on planning.--Mrg3105 (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Independent, not Separate

message: I need to check this, but I ma mostly sure that the correct designation for these was (example) 5th Army of the Reserve of STAVKA. The STAVKA reserves had lots of different units from all Arms and Services and the Armies of Reserve were eventually renamed and renumbered on being fielded in active Front assignments. I know its semantics maybe, but here the Reserve means not that the Army was a reserve one of reserve status as in Australian Army Reserve, but that it was a formation in Reserve of the higher echelon of Command.--Mrg3105 (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reserve Armies

message: By the way, I am very surprised a the Russian version of the MDs because it says they were created in the 1860s, but I thought only the Zemstvo were created for civilian administration. I thought the administrations were based on gubernya system (replacing the Inspectorates), but that part of Russian military history during later 19th century is not my strong point. In any case, I have a list of the MDs and their histories, so I will have a look at your current setup, and create the rest. I would like to propose that the appellation "X formation" be used in the actual formation/unit name to avoid confusion. Is that ok with you? What is the problem with documenting 2,000 divisions? :o) As I see it, Wikipedia offers a great opportunity to do so. Even if we will not complete it, someone will, which is the entire point of Wiki. BTW, speaking of Craig, he is a co-author of the book you quote. Cheers--Mrg3105 (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See :Category:Soviet fronts. Indeed, have a through look at :Category:Military units and formations of the Soviet Union in general. But no armies or divisions need to be 'moved,' that's the purpose of the Divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-1945 and Army (Soviet Army) to provide a central list. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So there need so be created :Category:Military units and formations of the Russian Empireand Divisions of the Russian Empire 1692-1917 and Army (Russian Imperial Army)?--Mrg3105 (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already created :Category:Military units and formations of Imperial Russia. Put everything in there for now - battalions, regiments, divisions, corps, everything. Once there are more than four divisions (or battalions, or whatever) set up the subordinate category. A central article? I'd create Military units and formations of Imperial Russia and list everything there for a start. Once you've got more than 100 or so units/formations listed, set up the subordinate pages. Redlinks? In my view, it's simple. Don't create the redlinks until more information is available. Just place the information in the 'parent' articles. See Formations of the Soviet Army for the list of 'parent' articles. Glantz's books (I'm looking at Slaughterhouse, 2005) list tens and tens of unit and formation histories, plus hundreds of articles in VIZh etc. Otherwise we get these awful stub tags - and nobody yet has access to the information to fill them out. Wait until more information is available from wikieditors with access to these books who can translate, and until then, just work on articles you have the information for. The list of campaigns article would be really useful - I would suggest that as your first focus, if you wanted my opinion. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Imperial Russian Army adminstration structure

message: Do you mind if I move the Air Armies to the Soviet Air Force article? I need to expand the table substantially and it seems to me they are misplaced with the Army armies anyway. Cheers-- mrg3105mrg3105   00:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no size problems with the article at the moment. They're in the template together, I don't see any reason why they can't go in the same article. There's already a list of Air Armies at the SAF article. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I appreciate that, but firstly they are "Soviet Air Armies in the last years of the Soviet Union ", and as you will see they will need some 'adjusting', and also intuitively I would not look for Air Armies in the Army section :o)-- mrg3105mrg3105   01:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well adjust the SAF article then. I believe they belong in both, and this article is currently well under the size limit, so what's the problem? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Amh, I need to add about 100 lines ;o)-- mrg3105mrg3105   02:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think that's a problem. It's only 40 kb. However, I strongly suggest you add any second formation material within the existing structure, without adding extra boxes. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not even talking about second formations. This is (future) VVS  and PVO as of May 1945. Second formations will have to wait ;o)-- mrg3105mrg3105   02:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Add away. Don't write on talk pages, just add text, providing it is referenced. You'll get a notice in the edit box if the page is getting too big. But if you like, place most of it at Soviet Air Forces (which is smaller) and just link it here. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is not referenced. This is just the OOB table from one of the Russian sites. I can't do all-in-one job. I have to have a structure in place and then work away at that by finding references which will in part come from my library (that I have not even begun to use). I need to see what needs to be done before I start adding sources and references. This is how encyclopaedias work btw. They get a big-wig professor at some uni to write the article from his head, and then assign it to a post-grad to do the sources and referencing though he/she would not get the credit (hope you are not a 'big-wig' professor somewhere):o)  -- mrg3105mrg3105   02:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Whatever you're going to do, I suggest you simply start, just as long as you know where the references are going to come from. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good advice. Its interesting, but I got this OOB from a site with good reputation, but it has not been proofread. I have found several minor errors due to scanning.-- mrg3105mrg3105   04:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Air Armies

message: :Combined is capitalised because its the first word
:Arms is capitalised because its Arms, as in Arms and Services, and not "arms" as in small arms
:Armies is capitalised because it refers to formations and not "national armies"
--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've read my edit summary, you'll know why I did it - I was following the WP:MOS. I would much rather have 'Rifle Corps (Soviet Union)' but the MOS dictates 'Rifle corps (Soviet Union)'. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 01:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS is wrong--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, go and argue the case for changing it. That's your right. Buckshot06(prof) 01:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems the MOS agrees with me--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Combined Arms Armies

message: Here is a discussion. 
*The article is called Army (Soviet Union). Instead it contained two lists!
*Now it has a structure that will reflect the purpose for the article, and the lists have been converted into appropriate List articles.
Anyone has anything to add?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The title change is great - but it means that we must add the Red Army (Bavaria) as this was another Soviet Army. I am not sure that the same can be said for the Lenin Boys as they were more akin to the Cheka. However read this which indicates that the  However my main point is that the First Army link goes to First Army (Soviet Union) and actually winds up with 1st Red Banner Army which does not really work out. We need clarity about the changes in structure so that the querent can have a clear idea of the changes and continuities which make up the history of the Soviet Armies. My own interest is with the early days of the Red Army, particularly before the foundation of the Soviet Union.Harrypotter (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Better links

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of Soviet armies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302130751/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp to http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030917172328/http://stalingrad.ic.ru/s51arm.html to http://stalingrad.ic.ru/s51arm.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://samsv.narod.ru/Arm/arm.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of Soviet armies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20010424225243/http://stalingrad.ic.ru/s1garm.html to http://stalingrad.ic.ru/s1garm.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060902041430/http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/avenue/vy75/ob.htm to http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/avenue/vy75/ob.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061213142703/http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/glacol.html to http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/glacol.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified