Talk:Deep operation

Brusilov Offensive
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)

Who says that it was unrelated to "nebulous" blitzkrieg?
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)

Who says it was?
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)

Nebulous is not a POV word. Any way is was used by Naveh. In answer to the "who?"; every historian that has written a work on Soviet deep operations. It is as standard in military books as is the fact that Hitler's first name was Adolf. Dapi89 (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Deep Battle and the Blitzkrieg
The text says "consensus among historians" and "no way similar", which are pretty strong statements. References should be provided if this material is to be retained. There were two citations following this sentence, one is Blitzkrieg. Wiki articles cannot cite other Wiki articles to establish sources. The second citation is Naveh 1997. I looked at Naveh 1997, pg. 179-180. What it says is "Many historians believe that until the emergence of mechanization a modern theory of operational manoeuver could not be developed. Therefore they have tended to associate the birth of theories such as Blitzkrieg and Deep Operations with the application of armor in the relevant armies". This doesn't justifies the inclusion of "consensus among historians" and "no way similar".

After I added the citation required tag, Dapi89 added the reference Watts 2008. My questions are: Does Watt actually say that there is a "consensus" that "no way similar"? I note that this material in the article actually preceded the Watts reference, so it would not be surprising if the material in the article is actually not present in Watts.

Steel2009 (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

False. Firstly, it is extremely insulting for you to suggest that I ripped Watt's piece from another article. If you must know, I was given this article by him personally and I still have it. The Naveh citation was to support the statement that Blitzkrieg was not a proper strategy. This point got diluted in the rewrite. I expect an apology before I respond again. Dapi89 (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition may I also remind you of the statment I made of the Blitzkrieg article: If you bothered to read the deep battle paget properly, you would see Watts opinion clearly laid out in the form of a block quote. Dapi89 (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that you felt extremely insulted, but quite frankly I have no idea what you are talking about. Where did I say you "ripped Watt's piece from another article"? I said that the Watts reference was added (to the end of the sentence) after I asked for a reference justifying "consensus among historians" and "no way similar". Also I read the block quote from Watts (quoting Triandafillov), but do not find it discussing any comparisons between the Blitz and SDB. The Watts article from its title (Feeling the Full Force of a Four Point Offensive: Re-Interpreting The Red Army's 1944 Belorussian...) seems to be about a particular offensive rather than a comparison between the Blitz and SDB. Steel2009 (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to keep this short and sweet as I have no intention of dragging this out. Wiki articles cannot cite other Wiki articles to establish sources - you are implying that I was ripping Watt off from other articles. Watt is present in both articles (Blitzkrieg and this one) because I put it there. You don't? Please read the blockquote and last line again. If you are familiar with the subject at all you will instantly recognise its significance. If not, there is always the last line. More sources will follow. Dapi89 (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I did not imply you "ripped Watts" from another article. I mentioned you cannot quote other Wiki articles as sources because there is a link to the Blitz article at the end of the sentence. What I said was, that link cannot be counted as a reference to justify the material. Steel2009 (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dapi, You undid my edit with the comment "editor does not understand subject". Whether I understand the subject or not, you still have to follow Wiki rules and back up strong statements like "consensus among historians" and "no way similar" with references. If you want these statements to be retained, you should provide more references that are actually identifiable as supporting these statements rather than being somewhere else on the page. Steel2009 (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am far from convinced that "consensus among historians" and "no way similar" are justifiable with the current references. I am hence removing this language. Steel2009 (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Sourced, and more will follow. Whatsmore, you have no justification for removing the wording when you have not seen the source. Just accept it. Dapi89 (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * that u will bring more sources, is irrelevant. u have to bring sources first. this claim is disputed so one source is not enough. user steel2009 is correct ... . maybe wait until u have proper sources and then u write "consense among historians".... . user steel2009 checked your first source and find out that the source is not supporting your edit. very doubtful... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.148.49 (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He hasn't seen it. This is probably a sockpuppet.Dapi89 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above message. Once again, I am far from convinced that "consensus among historians" and "no way similar" are justifiable with the current references. I am hence removing this language. Its a bit of a game to cite a mostly unrelated article (topic of cited article was Red Army's 1944 campaign) in an obscure journal (The Journal of Slavic Military Studies), and then say "you have not seen the source. Just accept it". No, this source will not be accepted. It defies belief that such a source can represent "consensus among historians". Specifically, quote exactly what the source says about "consensus". Steel2009 (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above message was probably you steel. I'm restoring the information. You havn't seen LEAVE IT ALONE. Dapi89 (talk)
 * Ooh, somebody's mad. Listen, what has been said to you here is valid. You need to reference your edits, and reference them well. One or two historians do not constitute a 'consensus'. Frankly, I find the notion that "Deep Operations" and blitzkrieg are somehow incredibly 'dissimilar' rather risible. You'll need a hell of a lot of evidence to 'prove' that.Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Purges
Some of the information in the 'impact of the Purges' section is really quite laughable.

First off, the number "35,000" given as the number executed is flat-out WRONG. 35,000 is a rough estimate of the number dismissed, NOT the number actually executed.

In 1937, 20,643 men were dismissed, and in 1938, 16,118 men. This makes for a total of 36,761. But note again, this is the number dismissed, NOT the number executed. The numbers are taken from a document in the Russian State Military Archive, fund 37837, index 10, case 142, sheet 93. For a while, only this "36,761" number was given out, so it was assumed by many that all of those dismissed were also arrested and executed.

But the document goes on. Out of those dismissed, 10,868 people were actually arrested. Of these, only 1,654 were actually executed or died before their trials began.

And the fun goes on. The notion that "Deep Operations" went out of favour as a result of the Purges and didn't show its face until after the Winter War and Barbarossa is also flat-out WRONG. Deep Operations was used successfully in Mongolia in August 1939, when men of the Red Army under Zhukov inflicted an unprecedented defeat on Japanese forces at Khalkhyn-Gol. This fact categorically disproves the notion that "Deep Operations" was stifled as a result of the Purges.

What embarrassing "stumbles" for that "colossus" of the study of Soviet WWII history, David Glantz...

Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What a load of nonsense. The figures are sourced while yours are plucked out of thin air. Your opinion (as an untrained military 'historian') is worthless. As to the assetions about the practice of deep battle in 1939 - it was not the practice of proper deep battle. Zhukov took the opportunity to use some elements in an ad hoc style. Dapi89 (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * They most certainly are sourced: Russian State Military Archive, fund 37837, index 10, case 142, sheet 93. Furthermore, I have no reason to believe that you are a "trained military historian", especially given your puerile temper tantrums to edits that you did not like. So, your opinion is as 'worthless' to me as mine is to you. Whether or not it is 'pure' Deep Operations is immaterial. Conventional thought says that all traces of it had been swept under the rug, and only began to come out after the Winter War's so-called 'failures'. If you look at the conditions in Finland, you will see why any sort of Deep Operations would have been extremely difficult to pull off successfully.


 * But whether or not Khalkhyn-Gol was an exhibition of 'true' Deep Operations is, again, immaterial. Many historians believe that it was indeed some form of it, as do I. Perhaps it was not 100% true to theory, but then again, few things in the USSR were 100% true to theory.


 * And besides, Tukhachevskij got a fair bit of his "combat experience" dropping poison gas on peasant rebels and executing hostages. I'd want to make a few alterations to a plan made by somebody like that...


 * Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you are using myths, not facts. Tukhachevsky never used chemical warfare agents against the rebels - although he actively frightened them with it. He told me how scary it was and offered to give up immediately. The only episode of the use of "chemical" shells was reduced to 3 (three) shots of a 76.2 mm regimental cannon with shells equipped with chloropicrin - now known as tear gas. The same one with which the police are now dispersing the rioters.

As for the purges, your opponent is completely right, you are using outdated myths about tens of thousands of people shot - which have long been refuted by published documents from the archives, which have long been removed from the high-secrecy regime and have become publicly available. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akardo~ruwiki (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Even if your sources do say that, Russian sources are not to be trusted. Even now they arrest people for uncovering stalinist crimes. In particular 'official' figures. Dapi89 (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * True, but this document was only made available in full recently. Soviet sources only showed the ~35,000 number. The rest of the document was kept secret for decades. Usually that means that they didn't want the information going public.


 * Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Glantz
I'd appreciate it if User:Lothar von Richthofen would stop removing Glantz from this article and generally causing trouble:

1) Glantz is an expert. He is able to jugde primary sources. 2) Your 'source', if indeed that is what it is, is not only primary research as it has not been analysed by a proffessional, is unverifiable anyway. So it isn't a source. 3) This article is no place for your personal opinions about what happened, using unverifiable 'sources', original research, and removing proper secondary sources that you don't like.

I'm busy, so I'm reluctant to spend any time listening to inevitable erroneous excuses for your assertions. So if you insist on starting an edit war, I'll take this to an admin. And given the indisputable logic of my position, the outcome I am certain, will not be to your liking. Dapi89 (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will drop the matter for the time being. I don't think Glantz had access to this document when he wrote the book cited, but I will do some further research into the matter. I am reasonably confident that I shall be vindicated here and that you will regret your pompous, disrespectful manner.
 * Warmest regards, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in your rattle throwing. And you are in no position to accuse anyone of being pompous or disrespectful. Your removal of expert sources in favour of your opinion is what I would call pompous, and certainly not respectful of Mr David Glantz. As I always say, if you can produce a citation from a like-minded historian that the majority were not "liquidated", or "destroyed", as Glantz says, then add it. I won't have any beef with that. Hardly a 'pompous' position to take. Dapi89 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but may I suggest you both have a look at this. Reese (pp.85-92) has a more recent and thorough analysis of the issue. Maybe that would help you to sort this dispute. Regards --Dodo19 (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent source. It vindicates Glantz, not User:Lothar von Richthofen. Dapi89 (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Does it? "All told, by may 1940, 22,705 army, air force, and PUR leaders remained discharged after arrest and expulsion from the party" (pg. 85). Note that there is a significant difference between murdered and discharged. Neither of us have been vindicated in full, but this essentially supports my assertion that the number dismissed was in the tens of thousands, not the number murdered. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Who's talking about figures? This was never a part of our discussion. You have no idea (and nor do I) how many were actually caught up in the purge, so how can you assume the 22,000 thousand was the majority of those arrested in the beginning? The source says that only half of those "repressed" were arrested. What about the other half? Deciphering the passages, Rees does indicate that the 'losses' as he calls them were in the tens of thousands anyway. And "discharged" doesn't say anything other than they were no longer in the armed forces. It could be just as well this 'remaining 13,000' ended up dead in a gulag. Rees does say it was possible that some of the 13,000 were rearrested. In total 34,000 were "discharged", Rees makes no effort to speculate on whether the Soviet's used this euphemism for 'executed' or any other fate. And as I've already pointed out, the Russian's are still reluctant to reveal the extent of the terror. Rees doesn’t claim to know either way. Dapi89 (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard. W Harrison, The Russian Way of War (used extensively in this article): "By the time the blood letting subsided somewhat in the autumn of 1938, more than 40,000 people had been "purged" from the Army. And although to be purged was not necessarily synonymous with death, it can safley be assumed that most of the victims either were shot outright, or died in the labor camps".
 * His source is V.L Petrov. Osobennosti Politicheskoi Sistemy Pered Voinoi in Velikaya Otechestvennaya Voina, 1941-45", ed. V A Zolotarev and G.N Sevast'yanov (Moscow 1999) Vol. I Surovye Ispytaniya''. Dapi89 (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This aside, I've added in three words that I think will put this to bed. I'm rather tired of it, and actually, all things being equal, am not really bothered. Dapi89 (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, these three words do make a world of difference. Not all those discharged were imprisoned, not all those imprisoned were executed. It's important that we don't jump so quickly to conclusions. Take for example Rokossovkij. He was not only dismissed from the army but was also imprisoned during the purges. However, he went on to become a Marshal of the Soviet Union during the war. All told, I am more or less satisfied with the revision as it stands. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

corrections
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) The mobile reserves used in the northern pincer of Zitadelle were not taken from any flank.Bruchmuller (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC) The red army operational reserves were used in counterattack, not in defensive operations to seal off a breach. This is so explained in the article on the battle of Prohorovka. German losses in the Kursk battle were not irreplaceable and therefore not the reason for the ulltimate retreat from the Ukraine. The real attrition of the german forces happened in the months of fighting after Kursk.Bruchmuller (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Stalingrad - a Deep Battle?
"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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Vladimir Triandafillov.jpg

quote must be wrong and other errors (i think)
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)

P.S. Hey, User:Dapi89, WikiBlame blames you, back in 2009 in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deep_operation&diff=prev&oldid=317907103 this edit introducing the quote the way it still is. --Doncram (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

P.P.S. Issue 2 Another statement from the same source (Watt 2008, pp. 677–678) seems off, too: "In that sense, the Soviet deep battle, in the words of one historian, 'was radically different to the nebulous 'blitzkrieg'' method but produced similar, if more strategically-impressive, results." I think that would make better sense in English as: "In that sense, the Soviet deep battle, in the words of one historian, 'was radically different to the nebulous 'blitzkrieg'' method but produced similar, if NOT more strategically-impressive, results." --Doncram (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Issue 3 Here's another smaller issue, that the sentence:"Instead, operational forces for Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev that were intended for the southern counteroffensive, were ordered to at and near Prokhorovka."

Surely ATTACK would make more sense than AT AND. This was introduced in this edit of 16:41, 31 March 2013 by User:Bruchmuller with edit summary "(→‎Outcome: correction see talk page)".

It was one of three edits with similar edit summaries: that together implemented this diff. Editor Bruchmuller did post here on the Talk page a section titled "Corrections" but received no reply and maybe no one reviewed their changes in detail. --Doncram (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 16:41, 31 March 2013‎ →‎Outcome: correction see talk page
 * 16:32, 31 March 2013‎ →‎Outcome: correction see talk page
 * 18:11, 23 March 2013‎ →‎Outcome: correcting some mistakes in the text see talk page

Issue 4 Further that combo of changes introduced a grammar error, at least, and maybe some content errors (which i cannot evaluate).

Before:"Fortunately for the Germans, the Luftwaffe was able to stem the advance and enable the Germans to effect a withdrawal."

After:"Fortunately for the Germans, they were able to stem the advance by committing their mobile reserves and effect a withdrawal."

I don't know if the change of meaning here was correct or not. It introduced grammar error which could be fixed by finishing the sentence as "and effecting a withdrawal."

In the current article:"However the Germans were able to stem the advance by committing their mobile reserves and organize a withdrawal."

In which the grammar error could be fixed by the same change. But I don't know if the change of meaning here and in other parts of the combo of changes were correct or not. In the sentence change above, the idea that the Luftwaffe played an important role is simply removed. Another significant change of meaning was to remove assertion that the German armies "stripped their flanks" at one point, enabling the Soviets to implement Operation Kutuzov. Maybe someone knowledgeable could fix the grammar and also review the changes of meaning? --Doncram (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Issue 5: The current sentence:"However, the extremely vast numbers of the Chinese People's Liberation Army and their knowledge of the terrain, coupled with their then-recent possession of nuclear weapons, made such a drive the Soviets were to execute extremely unlikely."

does not make sense. Perhaps change end to: "made it extremely unlikely that the Soviets would execute such a drive."? --Doncram (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)