Russian Divisions

[gavmeister13]

Can anyone explain what the Guards and Shock divisions were and how they were different from the normal Russian divisions?

[derGespenst]

The title Guards was an honorific, given to Regiments, Divisions, Corps and even Armies which had particulary distinguished themselves in battle. They got a bit extra in the way of weaponry (e.g., Guards Rifle Regiments had an extra submachine gun company at the regimental level and an extra Heavy Machine gun company at battalion level), but basically they were just like their non-Guards counterparts.

I am only aware of Shock Armies, not Divisions. These were beefed-up with extra artillery, tanks and SPGs for a breakthrough role. They could be created and disbanded as needed and were not necessarily intended as a permanent establishment.

[Ciaran Byrne]

Just to add to that, the "Guards" title was first conferred on units in late 1942 and had to be earned through exemplary conduct in battle. As well as Guards titles, units were somtimes awarded medals such as the Order of the Red Banner.

[Michael Avanzini]

Just to add to that, the "Guards" title was first conferred on units in late 1942

Actually the first guards title was awarded on 18 September 1941 when the 100th Rifle DIvisions was renamed the 1st Guards Rifle Division for it's action during the Yelnia Offensive in late August-September.

Other Guards units formed in September 1941

1st Gds Mot RD from 1st Tank Division - 22 Spetember 1941
2nd Gds RD from 127th RD - 18 September 1941
3rd Gds RD from 153rd RD - 20 September 1941
4th Gds RD from 161st RD - 18 September 1941
5th Gds RD from 107th RD - 26 September 1941
7th Gds RD from 64th RD - 29 September 1941

By October of 1942 they were up to the 43rd GRD

Michael

[Michael Avanzini]

am only aware of Shock Armies, not Divisions. These were beefed-up with extra artillery, tanks and SPGs for a breakthrough role. They could be created and disbanded as needed and were not necessarily intended as a permanent establishment.

derGespenst is correct in that there were only Shock Armies in the RKKA

During the course of WWII the Soviets created 5 Shock Armies and they remained in the army for the rest of the war. Althought the initial 4 Shock Armies were created to spearhead the Moscow counteroffensive, the Shock Armies just became the same as any other army as far as divisions and support units assigned. As an example, during Bagration the 1st Baltic Front had 4th Shock Army attached and it was only used in the flank support role and was the weakest Army in the Front. 6th Guards Army was used to provide the breakthrough north of Vitebsk.

The Shock Armies were (I don't have exact dates of creation on me at work)

1st Shock Army created in November of 1941
2nd Shock Army created in December of 1941
3rd Shock Army created in December of 1941
4th Shock Army created in December of 1941
5th Shock Army created in December 1942

[LukeMiguez]

The "Shock" title could have something to do with the Siberian Troops brought in from the Russo-Japanese Border.

[Red Army]

Luke,

The "Shock" title had nothing to do with Siberian Troops. They're were a propaganda title to increase the moral of the troops.
If the case was there were Siberian troops there, then every other Army would have the "Shock" title.

Craig

[SS-Gruppenfuhrer-Wilck]

by the way,I want to ask what're the differences between a German army and a Russian army?
they have similar number of men but in 1942 even 3 or 4 Russian armies cannot stop a single German army.

maybe it's the number of tanks,or tactics problem,or other problems?

[Qvist]

Wilck:

Neither a German or a Soviet army is a fixed grouping, and their strength and composition varies constantly. Also, they are not really exactly corresponding levels in the two armies. In many ways, a Soviet Army was more comparable to a German Corps. Until well into 1943, the Army was essentially the first command level above the divisional, and when the Corps was reintroduced on a broad scale in that year it apparently assumed a relatively fixed structure that is not really comparable to a German Corps. It's a bit like Fronts and German Armies really - they are probably the closest equivalent, but not exactly so.


cheers

[Darrin]

Wilck:

Neither a German or a Soviet army is a fixed grouping, and their strength and composition varies constantly. Also, they are not really exactly corresponding levels in the two armies. In many ways, a Soviet Army was more comparable to a German Corps. Until well into 1943, the Army was essentially the first command level above the divisional, and when the Corps was reintroduced on a broad scale in that year it apparently assumed a relatively fixed structure that is not really comparable to a German Corps. It's a bit like Fronts and German Armies really - they are probably the closest equivalent, but not exactly so.


cheers

The rus armies tended to be made of fixed div as well something the ger never did at any level above div. This might of lead to better coordination but it was easy to predict which units would pop up.

[Michael Avanzini]

The rus armies tended to be made of fixed div as well something the ger never did at any level above div. This might of lead to better coordination but it was easy to predict which units would pop up.

This statment gives a very wrong impression of the compostition of the Soviet Armies. They were no more fixed as per the divisons in there compostion then the German Army.

While it is true that some divisons could remain with an Army for a year or more, the Soviets were constantly swapping both divisions and corps within Armies and Fronts and STAVKA Reserves. Even the Rifle Corps were constantly changing in their divisonal composition. And the Tank and Mech Corps where used very similar to the Panzer Divisions and were sent to the Army or Front where they were needed for offensive purposes. The only case of a relative fixed Army where the Tank Armies in that they where composed of the same Tank and Mech Corps thoughout the war. But these were used for exploitation after penetration and were assigned to the Front that was at the head of the offensive. If you study the BSSA (Boevoy sostav sovetskoy armii) which is the offical monthly OOB for the Soviet Army you would see how much the armies changed from month to month.

Now on the other hand you said that the Germans did not keep divisions in the same Armies. Well I did a quick look in Tessin at a few German infantry divisons:

1.ID spent all of 1941, 42 and 43 in 18.AOK then switched to 1.PzAOK for 3/4s of 1944.

5.ID spent 1942-1943 in 16.AOK then spent 1944 between 2.AOK and 3.PzAOK

6.ID spent almost its entire time on the Eastern front with 9.AOK except for 7 months with other armies in HrGp Mitte.

This was from just looking at the first few German Divisons in Tessin. Both armies certainly had cases of divisions remaining in the same Armies for a while but to say that the Soviets did this for better coordination is simply not correct. Again if you were to study the Soviet archival documents you would see how wrong this assumution is.

I am currently researching and writing divisional histories of the Soviet Rifle Divisions along with Craig Crofoot for his Soviet Army Journal. In the unit histories are the divisional assignments, (Front, Army, Corps) for the first of each month. From this information it is easy to see how much a division moved around during its existance.

Michael Avanzini
http://www.journalsovietarmy.com

[Darrin]

The rus armies tended to be made of fixed div as well something the ger never did at any level above div. This might of lead to better coordination but it was easy to predict which units would pop up.

This statment gives a very wrong impression of the compostition of the Soviet Armies. They were no more fixed as per the divisons in there compostion then the German Army.

While it is true that some divisons could remain with an Army for a year or more, the Soviets were constantly swapping both divisions and corps within Armies and Fronts and STAVKA Reserves. Even the Rifle Corps were constantly changing in their divisonal composition. And the Tank and Mech Corps where used very similar to the Panzer Divisions and were sent to the Army or Front where they were needed for offensive purposes. The only case of a relative fixed Army where the Tank Armies in that they where composed of the same Tank and Mech Corps thoughout the war. But these were used for exploitation after penetration and were assigned to the Front that was at the head of the offensive. If you study the BSSA (Boevoy sostav sovetskoy armii) which is the offical monthly OOB for the Soviet Army you would see how much the armies changed from month to month.

Now on the other hand you said that the Germans did not keep divisions in the same Armies. Well I did a quick look in Tessin at a few German infantry divisons:

1.ID spent all of 1941, 42 and 43 in 18.AOK then switched to 1.PzAOK for 3/4s of 1944.

5.ID spent 1942-1943 in 16.AOK then spent 1944 between 2.AOK and 3.PzAOK

6.ID spent almost its entire time on the Eastern front with 9.AOK except for 7 months with other armies in HrGp Mitte.

This was from just looking at the first few German Divisons in Tessin. Both armies certainly had cases of divisions remaining in the same Armies for a while but to say that the Soviets did this for better coordination is simply not correct. Again if you were to study the Soviet archival documents you would see how wrong this assumution is.

I am currently researching and writing divisional histories of the Soviet Rifle Divisions along with Craig Crofoot for his Soviet Army Journal. In the unit histories are the divisional assignments, (Front, Army, Corps) for the first of each month. From this information it is easy to see how much a division moved around during its existance.

Michael Avanzini
http://www.journalsovietarmy.com

I got this info from david khans very authoritative hitlers spies ger intell. Maybe I was wrong in thinking the ger did this much less but the ger thought the sovs seemed to do it predicably. Maybe if you really got into the references of the book you would find that they were specifically talking about the tank armies. Which even you admit rarly changed comp but the book as I remeber said said armies and divs.

The rifle corps did not come back into wide spread use until the second half of the war mid 43. That might have something to do with a change as well.

I know div in the ger army did not move around that much as well but thought the armies were more likly to change. The big difference were the panzer divs and panzercorps which were much more liklly to move around and change than the rus tank armies. The rus also rarly conc as much of thier tank forces into specific operations as the ger did. For example for kursk the ger cons over 80% of thier tanks into the entire battle about 65% into the south att alone. Despite having 3-4 times as many tanks on the front they only conc about 50% into all three fronts who took part in the def.

The rus raly used tank armies in conc as the ger did. The rus tank army from 42-45 when you look at the compastion was similar in str to a ger panzer corps. The ger as early frace 1940 were deloying two panzer corps per panzer groupss. These groups eventally got thier own inf divs added to them and became panzer armies early in barbarrasso. The rus tank armies were almost always emloyed singly 1 per front. The rare occasion when they were ever used even 2 together was rare, far bettween and confined to the closing stages of the war.

[Michael Avanzini]

darrin

When the Soviets reintroduced the Rifle Coprs in mid 43, similar to the armies you will find that some Corps stayed consistant while others changed constantly. I have found a few corps to contain the same two Rifle Divisions for the rest of the war, while others changed monthly.

On the other hand the Soviets would change there Front composition depending on the Fronts situation. They would swap out and change Armies, and they would also remove Armies to STAVKA Reserve for rebuilding. The Germans seemed to keep their Armies in the respective Army Groups throughout the war.

The Germans, like you said moved the Panzer Divisions around to be used where they were most needed, but the Soviets used the Tank Corps (eq to Pz-Div) very similar. The attacking Armies of the Front on the offensive would be given a number of Tank Corps, Tank Bde and Tank Regt to accomplish its task

As for the Soviet Tank Armies, while early on the Soviets did not concentrate the armies, they did in the later part of the War. A few instances

From May 1944 - September 1944 1st Ukrainian Front had 3 Tank Armies attached (1GTA, 3GTA, 4TA) for the L'vov Strategic Offensive Operation.

From Nov 1944 - May 1945 1st Ukrainian Front had 2 Tank Armies assigned (3GTA, 4TA (which became 4GTA in MArch 45))

From Dec 1944 - May 1945 1st Byelorussian Front had 2 Tank Amies assigned (1GTA, 2GTA) with only a period from mid March until the Berlin Offensive when both Tank Armies were in STAVKA Reserve to rebuild for the offensive.

In the later stages of the war, I do not think the Soviets cared if the Germans knew which Tank Armies were in what Front as the were in control of the initiative. But during the Byelorussian Strategic Offensive Operation (Bagration) the Soviets purposely only used 1 Tank Army and keep it well hidden from the Germans for use in exploiting the breakthrough. They also purposely had 3 Tank Armies in 1st Ukraninan Front and the other 2 in 2nd Ukrainian Front so the Germans would think that was where the summer offensive was to take place. I know there has been much discussion between yourself and others if this deception work so I will not get into that. But that seemed to be the Soviets reasoning for there forces distribution.

Now that is not to say that Bagration lacked tank support as they employed 1 Tank Army and 2 Cav/Mech Groups. In total, for the 4 Fronts involved they employed the following in the initial OOB.

6 Tank Corps
2 Mech Corps
14 Tank Brigade
20 Tank Regiment
1 SU Brigade
40 SU Regiments

The Tank and Mech Corps alone would be equal to 3-4 Tank Armies which would equate to 1 per Front. So the Soviets were certainly not lacking in Tank strength.

In 1943, I agree that the Soviets did not concentrate their Tank Armies. I can only find two times when they did. In August for the Kharkov offensive Voronezh Front had both the 1TA and the 5GTA. And in December 1943 1st Ukrainian Front had both 1TA and 3GTA.

But from mid 1944, when the Russians were in control of the initiative, the did concentrate the Tank Armies and from Dec 1944 until the end of the war, the two main attacking Fronts, 1st Byelorussian and 1st Ukrainian, both had two Tank Armies. And along with the independent Tank and Mech Corps they were able to concentrate and impressive tank force when needed.

Regards
Michael Avanzini

[Darrin]

On the other hand the Soviets would change there Front composition depending on the Fronts situation. They would swap out and change Armies, and they would also remove Armies to STAVKA Reserve for rebuilding. The Germans seemed to keep their Armies in the respective Army Groups throughout the war.

As for the Soviet Tank Armies, while early on the Soviets did not concentrate the armies, they did in the later part of the War. A few instances

From May 1944 - September 1944 1st Ukrainian Front had 3 Tank Armies attached (1GTA, 3GTA, 4TA) for the L'vov Strategic Offensive Operation.

From Nov 1944 - May 1945 1st Ukrainian Front had 2 Tank Armies assigned (3GTA, 4TA (which became 4GTA in MArch 45))

From Dec 1944 - May 1945 1st Byelorussian Front had 2 Tank Amies assigned (1GTA, 2GTA) with only a period from mid March until the Berlin Offensive when both Tank Armies were in STAVKA Reserve to rebuild for the offensive.

In the later stages of the war, I do not think the Soviets cared if the Germans knew which Tank Armies were in what Front as the were in control of the initiative. But during the Byelorussian Strategic Offensive Operation (Bagration) the Soviets purposely only used 1 Tank Army and keep it well hidden from the Germans for use in exploiting the breakthrough. They also purposely had 3 Tank Armies in 1st Ukraninan Front and the other 2 in 2nd Ukrainian Front so the Germans would think that was where the summer offensive was to take place. I know there has been much discussion between yourself and others if this deception work so I will not get into that. But that seemed to be the Soviets reasoning for there forces distribution.

Now that is not to say that Bagration lacked tank support as they employed 1 Tank Army and 2 Cav/Mech Groups. In total, for the 4 Fronts involved they employed the following in the initial OOB.

6 Tank Corps
2 Mech Corps
14 Tank Brigade
20 Tank Regiment
1 SU Brigade
40 SU Regiments

The Tank and Mech Corps alone would be equal to 3-4 Tank Armies which would equate to 1 per Front. So the Soviets were certainly not lacking in Tank strength.

In 1943, I agree that the Soviets did not concentrate their Tank Armies. I can only find two times when they did. In August for the Kharkov offensive Voronezh Front had both the 1TA and the 5GTA. And in December 1943 1st Ukrainian Front had both 1TA and 3GTA.

But from mid 1944, when the Russians were in control of the initiative, the did concentrate the Tank Armies and from Dec 1944 until the end of the war, the two main attacking Fronts, 1st Byelorussian and 1st Ukrainian, both had two Tank Armies. And along with the independent Tank and Mech Corps they were able to concentrate and impressive tank force when needed.

Regards
Michael Avanzini

The soviets of course had almost 100 armies generally smaller than the ger ones. They could afford to pull out and reinsert entire armies. The gers genarally had around 10 armies on the eastern front. Thier location just as the ger inf div was more constant. Instead of moving them around as much they would often change the frontage they had to cover moving it up and down. The rus partly need all those smalller armies to allow for the adv in size over the rus. Even in mid 43 the adv was at least double personnal and 3-4 times in arty and tanks.

The russian took much higher cas during thier def and att battles 4 times they had to pull out thier armies to rebiuld them. This would allow them to be reinserted into the front much more easily then the ger armies. The ger cas-rep were kept up with until bag meaning little reason to pull out entire amries.

Even when the sovs conc tank armies ealier in the war it usually was one very week tank army being combined with somthing smaller.

[Darrin]

The soviets of course had almost 100 armies generally smaller than the ger ones. They could afford to pull out and reinsert entire armies. The gers genarally had around 10 armies on the eastern front.

The sov armies at kursk during in all three fronts had numbers of divs from 5 to 12. 1 had 5 maybe 2 had 12 the avg would be close to 7 div in one rus rifle army. Each of these rus rifle divs were smaller than the the ger inf divs probly on avg the ger divs were at least 50% bigger until late 43.

1 avg rus army 7 rus divs. 1 rus rifle army would have on avg as many troops as 4.5 ger riffle divs. 1 avg rus riffle army would have as many troops as 2 ger inf corps in mid 43. It would be preety unsual that the ger armies would have fewer than 10 divs at this time. That would put each ger army equal in str to at least 2 rus rifle armies. That is without even considering the obvious ger qualitative edge which is probly at least 2.5 in mid 43. That would give 1 ger army the str and quality of 5 rus rifle armies. Now 100 rus armies compared to 10 ger armies seems a bit more bearable and makes me think the rus used thier armies more like ger inf corps of which there were similar numbers.