Talk:Formations of the Soviet Army

message: Re: "In the early years of the Soviet Union, motorized and mechanized units received a "larger" designation. For example, an armored unit that was the same size as an armored division in most other armies was called a "tank corps" in the Red Army. The logic supporting this system was that all units with the same designation would have equivalent combat strength. So a "tank corps" was believed to have equivalent combat strength with a "rifle corps," even though the latter unit had about three times as many men.[citation needed]
In the 1950s, this naming system for armored and mechanized units was abandoned, and the Soviets began naming such units in the same manner as other nations.[citation needed]"
:I'm not sure why this was added. "Motorized and mechanized units" in the Soviet definitions refer to divisions and not Corps which are called formations. As formations these were only created in the mid-30s at the behest of Tukhachevsky and recreated just before the start of the war. Certainly not "in the early years of Soviet Union". The early Soviet Mechanized Corps in 1940 had over 1,000 tanks in two tank and one mechanized divisions (Glantz, p.19, From Don to the Dnepr, 1984) so they were most certainly not the size of "an armored division in most other armies". I'm not sure how the statement "a "tank corps" was believed to have equivalent combat strength with a "rifle corps" can even be made. Aside from the absolute difference in purpose for each type of the formation, and their equipment which can not be compared in 'raw' quantity of personnel, I also fail to follow the suggested obvious that "all units with the same designation would have equivalent combat strength". Yes, all tank Corps would have equivalent combat strength.
:The statement in regards to the reorganisation of the Soviet Army in the post-Stalin period (restructuring of 1956) is utterly wrong. The naming of units was not abandoned, but changed due to changes in technology, changes in doctrine and general restructuring. Tank units were sometimes changed to 'heavy tank - self-propelled' to reflect their equipmnet. Mechanised units were renamed to motor-rifle with increased motorisation of their rifle sub-units, the previous designation reflection only the mechanisation of the tank and artillery units (by and large) in most rifle divisions (remnants of GPW). However, if anything no Soviet Army unit was named "in the same manner as other nations". No other nation, at least in Europe, had units named 'tank division', or motor-rifle division, strictly speaking (even if the German Bundeswehr created soon after with its Panzer divisions is considered).--mrg3105mrg3105 08:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corps 

message: Why is "Strategic direction" redirected here?  Leobold1 (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A Strategic Direction was a strategic-command echelon of the Soviet Ministry of Defence--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. The original link needs to be changed then.  Leobold1 (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Be my guest ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to the original question 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class.    --dashiellx (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Dear , I'm the principal person expanding this article, which is a scratchpad for a future companion to Structure of the United States Army. Would you be able to kindly please tell me more about your concerns on the wording, especially tone, so I can fix them? Kind regards from the sheep of Aotearoa, Buckshot06 (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags February 2024