No announcement yet.

Comparison of Soviet Deep Battle Theory and German Blitzkrieg?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Comparison of Soviet Deep Battle Theory and German Blitzkrieg?

    Which is was more efftcitve inWW2?Here are basic info:
    Blitzkrieg (German, "lightning war"; listen (help·info)) is an anglicized word describing all-mechanized force concentration of tanks, infantry, artillery and air power, concentrating overwhelming force and rapid speed to break through enemy lines, and once the latter is broken, proceeding without regard to its flank.

    During the interwar period, aircraft and tank technologies matured and were combined with systematic application of the German tactics of infiltration and bypassing of enemy strong points.When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, Western journalists adopted the term Blitzkrieg to describe this form of armored warfare.

    "Blitzkrieg" operations worked during the Blitzkrieg campaigns, 1939 - 1941. These operations were dependent on surprise penetrations (e.g. the penetration of the Ardennes forest region), general enemy unpreparedness and an inability to react swiftly enough to the attacker's offensive operations.

    Only later, during the invasion of the Soviet Union, would the flaws of "Blitzkrieg" come to be realized. In France and Poland the foot-bound infantry had been, at most, a few hours behind the armored spearheads. In the vast open Russian steppe delays of hours would become days.[4] The Allies, both in the West and the Soviet Union, would realise the failings of "Blitzkrieg" warfare.

    Soviet Deep Battle Theory
    Deep battle was a military theory developed by the Soviet Union for its armed forces during the 1920s and 1930s. It was developed by a number of influential military writers, such as Vladimir Triandafillov and Mikhail Tukhachevsky who endeavoured to create a military strategy with its own specialised operational art and tactics. The concept of deep operations was a national strategy, tailored to the economic, cultural and geopolitical position of the Soviet Union. In the aftermath of several failures or defeats in the Russo-Japanese War, First World War and Polish–Soviet War the Soviet High Command (Stavka), focused on developing new methods for the conduct of war. This new approach considered military strategy and tactics, but also introduced a new intermediate level of military art: operations. The Soviet Union was the first country to officially distinguish the third level of military thinking which occupied the position between strategy and tactics.

    Soviet artillery was integral to Soviet doctrineUsing these templates, the Soviets developed the concept of deep battle and by 1936 it had become part of the Red Army Field Regulations. Deep operations had two phases; the tactical deep battle, followed by the exploitation of tactical success, known as the conduct of deep battle operations. Deep battle envisaged the breaking of the enemy's forward defences, or tactical zones, for fresh uncommitted mobile operational reserves to exploit by breaking into the strategic depth of an enemy front. The goal of a deep operation was to inflict a decisive strategic defeat on the enemy and render the defence of their front more difficult or impossible. Unlike most other doctrines, deep battle stressed combined arms cooperation at all levels: strategic, operational, and tactical.

    Blitzkrieg as pretty much historians generally know is the primary German military docrtine use.The Deep Battle Thoery is not well known among most historians except for those who specialize on the Eastern Front in WW2.Deep Battle Theory was the primary Soviet military doctrine used by Soviet Commanders in WW2.Zhukov was a master of the Deep Battle Thoery and the thoery is still being used today in the Russian military.In many major battles in WW2,Soviet forces employing the Deep Theory have defeated German forces relying almost entirely on the Blitkrieg theoy.

    Which was better in actuality?Based on what I read I would say Deep Battle Theory.Its more well balanced and emphasizes things most military theory neglect completely:importance combined arms cooperation at all levels: strategic, operational, and tactical.I would say Deep Thoery is better.Blitzkrieg only stresses the tactical level and is limited.

  • #2
    Although i would agree for the most part i do want to point out that as the Deep Battle Theory was specificly designed by two Russians for Russia it would be very hard for someone say Britian or an all volunteer army to use as it took advantage of Russia's massive size and geography, where a varient of Blitzkrieg is used by the all Volunteer army of the U.S.A. I would also wonder why this theory dosnt seem to have worked very well for U.S.S.R. could be that Russ. just wasnt well trained enough in the beginning. (also this is kind of a side note but in my opinion it would be very hard to fight a limited war or a war on terrorism with this strategy. dont know if this makes a differance to you or not) good thread idea by the way.
    Proud Christian.

    And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgement.
    Philippians 1:9


    • #3
      Say what, Russians invented operational level? I highly doubt that...
      Wisdom is personal


      • #4
        Blitzkrieg are tacticals princips that gave to Guderian in Sedan the possibility to reach the operational level due to specific circonstances of the french campain.
        Deep battle for russian is already at the operational level.
        Both are linked with their own specific army and geography and scale.
        For exemple the germans had a small army untill late thirties, so they had to play with those limits.

        What Frieser shows in his book, "the myth of the blitzkrieg" is that the blitzkrieg is a tactical level, and doesn't reach operational by itself.


        • #5
          Originally posted by grosnain View Post
          Both are linked with their own specific army and geography and scale.
          Exactly: both were tailored to suit the respective countries forces. Blitzkrieg struck me as an all or nothing gamble that Germany needed to do as she couldn't afford long campaigns whereas Deep Battle was perfectly suited to the SU who could afford to stockpile and take casualties in a slowly but surely approach.

          Does anyone know what the US and GB battle systems were called and how they were supposed to work?
          Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the cheesemakers

          That's right bitches. I'm blessed!


          • #6
            Comparison of Soviet Deep Battle Theory and German Blitzkrieg?
            LOL. "Hearts of Iron 2", yeah, great game.


            Latest Topics