"Soviet Leadership " Topic

Did the Soviets have a clear way for a transfer of leadership at the tactical level? For example, if a platoon leader were to die was there another officer that could quickly take command, or would the responsibility of the dead platoon leader mean that the platoon had to rely upon the leadership of the company commander? I know in other armies there was a clear chain of command that could smooth a complicated situation such as this, but the Soviets have me puzzled. Especially since I don't quite know how much their tactical leadership changed throughout the war.

I know from memoirs I've read that squad leaders DID take charge in the absence of the platoon leader, at least on occasion, but I'd be curious as well to hear what the correct procedure was supposed to be.

The early war structure wasn't that different from most armies, but there was a unique distinction.

In the 1941 Rifle Bn each Coy (three Rifle, one MG, one Mortar) had a Coy cmdr and a deputy cmdr. Each Rifle Platoon had a Pl cmdr and an asst cmdr. At the Pl level the asst cmdr was a Senior Sergeant, so the same as Br/US practice. At the Coy level though the asst cmdr was also the unit political officer, roughly speaking the 'deputy commander for political affairs'. So as normal, if the Pl officer becomes a casualty the Pl Sgt takes command, at least until a replacement officer arrives. If the Coy cmdr is lost, then the political officer takes charge.

The new organisations introduced from the end of 1941 through into 1942 showed a Coy cmdr, a Deputy Coy cmdr and a Political leader in Coy HQs. Rifle Pls remained as before. Then in late 1943 all Dep Coy cmdrs and Coy level Political officers were deleted. That actually put the Red Army more in line with German orgs, which normally only had a Coy leader with no 2inC/XO as in Allied practice. That removed the immediate possibility of an officer taking over leadership of the Rifle Coy in the event the CO was lost. The role of the Starshina (CSM/1st Sgt) was retained throughout, so there was a senior NCO who should be able to keep the Coy HQ operating at least.

Gary

But also keep in mind that in the Red Army the non-commissioned officers were seldom soldiers who had come up through the ranks over a prolonged period of service by way of demonstrated competence. Rather, they were typically selected out by testing at time of induction, and put through NCO training rather than (or in addition to) basic training.

In the US Army (can't say I know about British or German experiences) it was common that a platoon commander was a newly-minted lieutenant, fresh out of OCS or a military academy. But he usually had a #2, a platoon sergeant, who knew his way around the block. This was not as often the case in the Red Army. The platoon sergeant, as often as not, was fresh from NCO school with no prior military experience.

This often made it particularly difficult for NCOs to assert control, as it was not at all uncommon to have private soldiers with real experience serving under NCOs and junior officers with little or no experience.

As the war progressed it became more common in the Red Army to see experienced soldiers rise into the NCO and officer ranks. So by 1944, I would not expect too much difference.

And, given the dramatic expansion of the US Army in the 1940-43 timeframe, there were also a lot of US NCOs who got the job through early selection rather than long experience. By mid-1944 most NCOs had some time in service, but only a small percentage of US units had any NCOs with combat experience.

Up to 1942, and after 1946, the issue of NCO experience levels has been a defining difference between most western armies and the Russian army. But during the 2nd half of the war I doubt it was much of a real issue.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

In the 1942 field manual, the Soviet rifleman is exhorted to "take command of the section and continue the battle" if the commander (e.g., the squad leader) becomes a casualty. Was there an explicit system for this? Well, the Red Army did decide it was a good idea to have an actual, modern military rank system after the disastrous Winter War, so there were Starshinas and Efreitors on the battlefield who understood the rank hierarchy… that being said, I would guess no, there was likely no explicit procedure for taking command in the heat of the moment. You are talking about a soldiery that is raised from hundreds if not thousands of tiny little villages with no experience of modern warfare or technology. It stretches plausibility that there would be a nuanced vocabulary for small-unit tactics and strategies.

I wouldn't be too puzzled about Soviet small unit leadership. Worked like any other army of the times. In battle, those who will, lead. A lot of miniatures rules like to include special rules for the commies as if they are some unique creature, but the special rules are usually unnecessary if the game has good design throughout.

There are certainly questions of unit effectiveness, motivation, and cohesion and social, political and cultural factors certainly affected these areas, but leadership is more about familiarity with a problem and your perceived ability to overcome the problem than anything else.

The book goes out of the window………in a real military unit, there will be those who are experienced and/or respected enough that the others will follow them, just as warriors followed a leader in the days before organized armies. It's human nature – born to lead or not, some people have an innate skill to inspire others