Guards vs Regular Soviet Units: whats the differance?

I have just recently been reading this book on Kursk and it is talking about all the differant armies and divisions that each side had. I could undrstand all of it but one thing. Whats the differance between a regular Soviet army or division when compared to a Gaurds army or division, and what would divisions or armies need to do in order to gain that Guads status? I have been looking on the web, but i havent found anything, so if you could please explain this to me, i would be very grateful.

 

According to wikipedia and [http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Russian_Guards]:
The Guards units were again awarded to units and formations which distinguishing themselves in during the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45 by the order of People's Commissar for Defence of USSR No.303 on the 18 September 1941, and were considered to have elite status. However, the Guards badge was not introduced until 21 May 1943.

i can't vouch for the authenticity of this information but maybe some other users who is a lot more knowledgeable can be of help

 

My understanding is that a unit that distinguished itself by exemplorary performance during a campaign received the Guards status. Any unit assigned as a Guard's unit, you know they were experienced, or at least the unit was.

I do not know whether or not they received any preferential resources such as men and equipment. Also, I believe this came about when Stalin was trying to instill some morale boosters by bringing back some of the traditions from the Czar's Army such as the epulettes and the Guard's units.

 

I think Guards Divisions were generally better equipped.

 

I believe you are correct.

 

And if I am not mistaken I seem to recall having read somewhere that the Guards Divs got the better recruits. The downside to being in a Guards Div was that you tended to get the tougher missions. The career time expectancy for a Soviet Rifleman was about two weeks in some units (Merridale I think).
JeffinMNUSA

 

Yes, another battery of 76-mm guns, as well more mortars and machine-guns. Also additional companies of sub machine gun-equipped infantry IIRC.

Cheers

BW

 

Correct. Glantz identified all of the above: Guards units have more recruits, often of higher quality, and better weapons. Russian divisions though seem to be habitually understrength compared to their German counterparts and looks feeble in firepower without the attached assets. And from what I have read, tank, antitank and artillery regiments were only given to those units deemed necessary for the main effort.

 

I very much doubt the "regular" divisions lacked the artillery regiment. Arty is the real killer and even the soviets were not so uncaring of losses to create a unit that would suffer disproportionate losses against a better supported formation. Some divisions were assigned a second regiment for particular ops and I believe some of the large pre war divisions had two organic artillery regiments.
Tank units were usually attachments though I believe some divisions, mostly guards, had organic tanks.
Anti tank units of regiment/brigade size are definetly corps or higher level assets and attached as needed, what's the use of adding 50 or so AT guns to a division that's facing a tankless german infantry unit like most soviet divisions where?.

 

TOS, actually it is true, the Guards divisions had more organic artillery, mortars, MG's and so on. The organisation of a Guards division was distinctly different from that of ordinary divisions, it is my understanding that, for example, much of their organic heavy AT and so on being centralised into separate companies rather than being spread throughout the rifles battalions. They also received preferential treatment when it came to issue of weapons, uniforms and so on. Something that hasn't been mentioned however is that 'Guards' received extra pay as befitted their 'elite' status.

In terms of their makeup, a Guards Rifle Division contained Divisional HQ, a 3 Guards Rifle Regiments, a Guards Artillery Regiment, Sapper battalion and various support elements. An ordinary rifle division contained the three Rifle Regiments, the Artillery but no integral AT battalion. Looking at the structure of the rifle regiment, each Guards rifle regiment contained 2 SMG companies, a much larger HQ, integral AT guns (again), a heavy mortar battery and a dedicated MG battalion which an ordinary rifle regiment lacked. Both contained 3 Rifle Battalions but a Guards Rifle battalion was again larger than a normal one, containing an integral HMG company, ATR company, AT company and mortar company.

When you look at what that means in terms of numbers, aside from having more SMG’s, infantrymen and so on, a Guards division had 18 120mm mortars that a normal Rifle division lacked, as well as 54 extra 82mm mortars and 81 extra 50mm mortars. Guards had significantly more AT rifles (over 300), machine guns, they also had much more integral motor transport.

As has been mentioned they received the accolade for performing particularly well in combat, however it was quite a common thing for a unit to be made a guards unit.

I'll dig around at home and see if I can find out how much extra pay 'Guards' received however a good source for the statistics is ‘The Red Army Handbook’ (The Red Army Handbook 1939-1945: Amazon.co.uk: Steven J. Zaloga, L.S. Ness: Books) though a decent quick reference guide can be found here:

TO&E Page

 

Stefan my point was not that guard units had the same TOE as regular divisions but that both had at least one artillery regiment though the one in the guard unit may have had more tubes. The only soviet divisions I know of that lacked the artillery regiment are some localy raised militia units barely deserving the "division" title.
Some naval infantry brigades were nearly as big as army divisions and had very little organic artillery but the regular army units had a decent amount of guns in their TOE for their size. There is evidence that sometimes the organic arty was stripped from the rifle divisions to create a makeshift "artillery division" under army direct control, leaving the rifle regiments unsupported but I don't believe this was a very usual practice.

 

Sorry TOS my bad, either way though the point remains that a Guards Division had more 'battle winning weapons' such as heavy mortars and guns than 'line' divisions.

I think the removal of organic artillery was a relatively common thing if it was required to support other units etc. It shows how advanced Soviet doctrine was that they realised that rigidly sticking to the structure of units they were happy to detach troops as necessary to achieve tasks, much as we do now.

 

>Stefan: each Guards rifle regiment contained . . . a much larger HQ

Almost missed this in your comments. It is quite signficant -- points to more effective command and control, a real weakness in average Soviet units once the chaos of battle got underway.

Cheers

BW

 

Especially late in the war when the Soviets had quite a few corps- and army-echelon artillery units in any case. Pulling the division's artillery regiment would be a major risk as it would make it an easy kill for even an average German infantry division with organic artillery support.

Cheers

BW

 

Whilst from what I've seen Guards Divisions tended to have more radios, the extra HQ resources tended to be extra infantry, extra engineers and extra recce troops, all of whom would have made HQ more secure and better able to function, as well as ensuring better communications. This would of course make C2 easier as well as making certain basic functions (intelligence gathering, engineer tasks and so on) more efficient.

As for removing divisional artillery, keep in mind that it would make a lot of sense if one division was in combat to remove it’s artillery and transfer it to somewhere where it is needed. Also consider that even if a division was being kept in reserve it’s guns could be put to use on the main effort until the division was put into combat at which point it’s own artillery could return to it. This kind of flexibility is indicative of quite advanced tactics and doctrine, it happens constantly in Iraq and Afghanistan albeit on a much smaller scale for the most part.

 

Oh no, that's not what I mean. I apologize for the lack of clarity. What I mean was that the Russians were fighting in 1945 with 45mm AT guns in their battalions and batteries of 76.2-/122-mm. field guns in their divisions, and comparatively in small numbers.

 

thanks for all of the great information guys, i really appreciate it and i look foward to hearing more

 

More!?!? Jesus! How much more do you need!?

 

lol, im not saying that i need more, i'm just saying that if there is anymore i am looking forward to hearing it

 

Little bit of information from 1946.
Red Army Guards - March 1946