Soviet Rifle Divisions as western brigades: a facile comparison?

I've seen a few times the description of Soviet rifle divisions as being the equivalent of western brigades or regiments. I'm fairly certain this comparison has in large part come about as a result of strength comparisons; that is, an author sees the average strength of rifle divisions during a given period of combat as around 4,000, and so they are considered as brigades since that would be a common strength for a Second World War German or Allied brigade.

This seems, however, to be too simple of an assessment. Zaloga and Ness' Red Army Handbook paints a more complex picture. For example (p. 32 in RAH), the 1st Baltic Front in July 1944 had four levels of authorized strength that a rifle division could sink to as a result of losses: 7,189, 6,245, 5,237, and 4,400 men.

(RAH)

A similar scheme was used by the 3rd Ukrainian Front. What is really interesting about these programmed reductions is that they affect only the infantry regiments. The artillery regiment is untouched, as is the antitank battalion and the machine gun battalion.

So while the overall strength of these units lends the impression of being a brigade, it is a "brigade" with an authorized strength of 20 ZiS-3 76-mm guns and 12 122-mm howitzers, not to mention a relative abundance of antitank guns and machine guns. Even if combat losses meant the divisional artillery wasn't at full strength, it was probably still stronger than that of a true brigade (usually something like 12 pieces organized into a battalion).

Cheers

BW

 

In Islands of Fire-some Russian Company-sized units were still called Companies when in fact many of them had only 7-8 or 23-25 or 33 men in them. Some Rifle Regiments ceased to exist as what they were originally known as as their tiny remnants of survivors were absorbed into neighboring Rifle Regiments.

A "Garrison" was considered 6 men and one NCO or Junior Officer.

I don't remember which book I read this next part in but most likely in either Ottos Carius's Tigers in the Mud or Hand von Lucks book. Anyway, in a book I read written by a German Officer-he stated that a Soviet Tank Korps was about the same size of a single Panzer Division-or mayby even a single Panzer Regiment.

 

Yes, a tank corps was roughly (by authorized strength) the size of an Allied armored or German Panzer division -- the strengths all of which varied hugely as a result of losses.

Which period of the war were you reading about that mentioned the remnants, etc. ?

Erickson's Road to Berlin mentions strengths for rifle divisions in 1944-45 as often ranging between four to six thousand. For the late war period, they had to have at least this much strength else one has to wonder where the manpower in the Soviet Army was. To put it a different way -- there were something like 500 rifle divisions in 1945. While the German Army had taken heavy losses, they still had something like 150 division or division - equivalents on the Eastern front. That force was beaten back and forced to surrender -- by the Red Army, whose manpower was primarily in rifle units. So I have to conclude, that at least by 1944-45, the rifle divisions had enough strength to accomplish what history records. If there were, say, battalion-sized rifle divisions, they had to have been few and far between.

What the rifle division appears to have become by 1945 is what westerners would think of as a heavily reinforced brigade, a sort of brigade with much more organic artillery than a brigade would normally have. And that's what I'm getting at here -- equating rifle divisions to brigades (and rifle corps to divisions) is at best a very generic comparison.

Cheers

BW

 

A Soviet rifle division was a rough equivalent of a Western infantry division just less capable. The difference in man power mainly derives from far smaller services and support troops being provided. That is, the Soviet division is mostly "teeth" not "tail."
The Red Army generally let these divisions whither away in combat until reduced to say a thousand or less men. At that point the unit would be withdrawn and rebuilt.
But, even at full strength the Soviet rifle division is far weaker in firepower than a Western division is. It has an artillery regiment with three mixed battalions of 2 batteries of 76.2mm guns and one of 122mm howitzers. These normally would be distributed one battalion per regiment with no ability to mass fires like a US or British division could with their artillery.
The regimental cannon company had 6 76.2mm infantry guns. These were direct fire only. Mortars were distributed throughout each regiment (almost all 82mm and 50mm in size) much like in Western divisions but in somewhat greater numbers. Infantry companies were very much the equivalent of their Western counterparts in terms of manpower except that the Soviet companies lacked any supply, support, or maintenence troops. The company HQ was just two officers and two ncos.
So, going strictly by TO&E the Soviet rifle division is a weak equivalent to the Western infantry division. In practice, it was more closely a reinforced regiment in terms of capacity and firepower.

 

T.A., I have to quibble a bit here. Let us recall the Soviet rifle division also had 21 (24 in a Guards division) 120-mm mortars in addition to the 50's and 82's you mentioned. I would also say that strictly in terms of manpower, they were closer to being a what the west might call a brigade of four to six battalions rather than a regiment (at least in 1944-45 with the strengths quoted by Erickson for certain offensives). Reinforced, yes, but I'd say it was more like heavily reinforced as long as the artillery regiment hadn't been badly worn down in combat. Krivosheev's work indicates that by late-war, 76-mm pieces were running a loss rate of about 20 per cent and 122-mm howitzers a much smaller loss rate, so statistically one of these divisions might have had 15-16 ZiS-3's and ten 122-mm howitzers -- pretty impressive artillery support for what was in manpower terms a brigade-sized unit.

Of course, it all varied by unit. No doubt some of the 500 rifle divisions were at the 1,000-man strength you mention but that quote is incomplete without pointing out that other rifle divisions intended for assault roles were built up to maximum strength prior to an offensive.

Your comments about the lack of logistical tail are dead on, but also point to a heavier teeth-to-tail ratio. This ratio also confirms what I am contending -- that simple comparisons of these units to western brigades, regiments, or whatever, are misleading.

Cheers

BW

 

The 120's were another form of hip pocket artillery for these units. But, the regular tube artillery isn't as impressive as it seems. All of the batteries of the artillery regiment are only capable of very limited indirect fire. For the 76 batteries it was common to have them double as antitank guns. Their indirect fire capacity was limited to a single forward observation post manned by the battery commander and a fire control / communications staff, if this was established. The battery commander might be able to tie into the 122 battery and pass fire requests to it as well but this is not always the case.
If you look at a US regiment it has 12 57mm AT guns in its antitank company plus another 3 per battalion. It also has 6 105mm guns and normally could call down anything up to the full divisional artillery complement in support for up to another 36 105mm and 12 155mm howitzers. The various HQ companies also contain machinegun platoons, pioneer and mine platoons etc.
I think in overall terms regiment is a good equivalent for a typical Soviet rifle division on actual TO&E.

This is true enough. Most Soviet rifle divisions were at 60 to 50% strength after just a week or two of operations.

Any comparison is going to be rough at best. The Red Army operated differently than did Western Armies in many ways. As for strength comparisons that is why I try to point out the available weapons but also how they were organized and their ability to employ them effectively. Any simple bean count otherwise comes up badly wrong on capability.
I also wouldn't use the term brigade for the Soviet division simply because this implies, at least in US terms and to a great degree British ones, that the division was capable of independent operations. For the Soviets this was rarely, if ever the norm. Instead, the Rifle Corps was the "divisional" level unit with the rifle divisions acting much like regiments within the corps structure.
The Soviet Rifle Corps also had the attached units like engineers, maintenance, and supply units that allowed it to functionally be the equivalent of a Western division. This follows the pattern of the other Soviet WW 2 era units like the Tank and Mechanized Corps.

 

Hi B/W-quite welcome. Also in Pyl'cyns book Penalty Strike, he mentions that a Company in the Red Army could be anywhere from about 90 men, ncs and offiziers to several hundred-jusr depends on which kind of unit they were? A regular Red Arny line Rifle Company was usually around 90 men-three Platoons per company. A German company as well as an American one-usually had 4 platoons per-with each having from 40-48 men per platoon.

 

Interesting comments on the artillery - goes a long way to explain the loss rate of the 76-mm pieces.

Not so sure I agree completely with this as the typical U.S. regiment could count on support from one 105-mm battalion plus its organic cannon company as well as a battery of the 155-mm battalion, or 22 howitzers total. But I realize the flexibility of the U.S. artillery and ability to quickly reinforce fires was not a capability possessed by the Soviets.

The 57-mm AT guns -- I haven't heard much good about these; as far as I know the U.S. didn't even have an HE round for them before the end of the war and their antitank capability was fairly limited in 1944-45. I have read their crews were organized as ad-hoc infantry units on occasion.

Yes -- the manner in which the Red Army was structured was different in many ways and reflected different national priorities and outlooks. In some ways it was, for better or worse, something that cannot be accurately compared to other military forces that superficially resemble it. I take your point regarding the implications of the word "brigade".

Cheers

BW

 

As an AT gun they were marginal. But, the infantry frequently used them for direct fire support particularly in urban areas. I've seen quite a few pictures of this actually being practiced.
The US 57mm had an HE round available (information is hard to find on it but, it did exist and was issued in quantity. I did the research on that several years ago) and both it and the AP round were used to shoot up buildings frequently.

 

You are correct. More (easily accessible) information has emerged since the last time I looked at this question.

From Zaloga's US Anti-tank Artillery, p.16:

I have also found this on the internet but am unsure of its accuracy, or in which time period these rounds were produced:

"Ammo produced for the US-made 57mm (6-pdr) in the US was:

HE-T, M303 (T18 and T18E1) (HE tracer) 1.845 million rounds"

So, the detailed answer appears to be that an HE round was available, but not until late 1944. Crews of the gun in Sicily, parts of the Italian campaign, and Normandy didn't have an HE round for the weapon.

Cheers

BW

 

may i ask where else besides wiki do you guys find more info on in the internet?

 

Jeff is right--books-which is wy I keep mentioning Penalty Strike, Island of Fire and Armies of the Bear pts-1-3 of volume 1-of a 19 part series bout Soviet Rifle Divisions from 1917-1957. Also, I just discovered another Red Army ORbat series of I think 12 parts-just yesterday. Will tell more when I delve into fact-finding mission next week.

 

There's plenty of places on the 'net but not all of them are well advertised. Some examples:

Tanknet.org (Powered by Invision Power Board) are the forums of Tanknet.org -- some very interesting discussions about tank armor and weapons here

France1940 : French military history of the 1930s and is a good group to discuss the campaign in France in 1940

Kriegsstärkenachweisungen for information on German organisation in the Second World War

HyperWar: World War II on the World Wide Web for all kinds of official histories and other works

Cheers

BW

 

Don't miss the online Soviet OOB -- these are transcribed from the formerly classified documents kept by the Stavka during the war. Yeah, the Cyrillic is no fun, but once that is mastered, the military Russian in the document isn't that bad:

Index of /BoevojSostavSA/

Cheers

BW

 

Hi B.W/ The Armies of the Bear are in English and im HOPING the other set of 12 is also in English. Also, according to both Jason Mark (I believe ?) as well as the two Gents who did and are doing Armies of the Bear-according to them the Russians now have cut off access to that wealth of info due to too many Author abusing the system as well as not writing their books as the Russians would have liked them written. Luckily though, I think enough time had been granted for a great wealth of info to be had by those lucky enough to have access to it. Tomorrow if I think about it? I might call the dealer who has this other set and pick his mind about them. If the are in Cyrillic (SP?) I know a site to go to to translate the letters. I just don't really feel like having to do so ;-))

One of the two gents who did and are doing "Armies" I think his name ia Michael Avanzini-or something like that. They did a pretty good job but, in doing a few cross-checkings with Pyl'cyns boooks-that the few Rifle Divisions I cross-referenced-well-the info does not correspond with the info I read in Pyl'Cyns book.

 

C. Evans, that is an interesting quote for me because I can compare it to the authorized strength shown for a December 1942 rifle company (as listed in Red Army Handbook) - 130 men. Is Pyl'cyn's quote for an on-hand strength or is he quoting an authorized strength at some point in the war?

If it is a typical actual as opposed to authorized strength, then the company would be at about 70% of authorized strength.

RAH shows a December 1942 rifle platoon as being authorized 36 men in four 9-man squads as well as a four-man platoon headquarters. RAH is referencing an organization table called 04/551 -- that may help to link with any data you have in your books.

Cheers

BW

 

Hi BW, im not sure how to answer your question about what Pyl/cyn said but, I elieve he was quoting authorized strengths of Company-sized units effective mid-1943 onwards. I don't know what page its on where hes talkig about it but if I can think about it-sometime this weekend ill try to look and see exactly what he says. Sometimes some of his info can get a bit vague-but is still very understandable. Also, im not sure if his company-sized units authorized strength numbers were the same for Penal units as for regular Rifle Company-sized units? I would assume that Penal units were a bit smaller than Regular Army but-I saw it in a few places in his book where he noted his Penal Company was larger than some Regular Company units in the area he was operating in.

Ill also have to check with what Jason Mark has listed in Island of Fire and compare.

 

Found this in Zetterling's Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis, p.35:

23rd Guards Rifle Corps arsenal of guns, 4 July 1943:

51st GRD, 52nd GRD, 375th RD, Total
42,,,,,,,,60,,,,,,,,63,,,,,,,,165 45-mm AT guns
32,,,,,,,,12,,,,,,,,12,,,,,,,,,56 76-mm infantry guns
10,,,,,,,,44,,,,,,,,79,,,,,,,,133 76-mm divisional guns
00,,,,,,,,30,,,,,,,,30,,,,,,,,,60 122-mm howitzers
00,,,,,,,,18,,,,,,,,,0,,,,,,,,,18 152-mm howitzers
45,,,,,,,,48,,,,,,,,46,,,,,,,,139 50-mm mortars
74,,,,,,,,64,,,,,,,,68,,,,,,,,207 82-mm mortars
18,,,,,,,,24,,,,,,,,54,,,,,,,,,96 120-mm mortars
00,,,,,,,,16,,,,,,,,41,,,,,,,,,57 BM-13 rocket launchers

Some notes are in order. These figures include reinforcing units from the parent army, particularly the 76-mm divisional guns, the 122-mm howitzers, the 152-mm howitzers, the 120-mm mortars, and the BM-13 rocket launchers. Still, these numbers are not to be sniffed at. For example, the 82-mm mortar totals for each division exceeds the number of 81-mm mortars authorized for a 1943-type U.S. infantry division.

 

Hmm, penal company strengths may have depended on the number of shtrafniki turned over by regular units. Thanks for providing any quotes you may find.

From Glantz's Colossus Reborn, pp. 576-577:

Cheers

BW