Jump to content

Russian Military Reform Study (2011, Moscow Think Tank)


Recommended Posts

Found this study by the Centre for Research and Strategies and Technologies, Moscow. Some guy named Glantz wrote the foreword! 

 

 Russia's New Army

www.cast.ru/files/book/NewArmy_sm.pdf

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

 

Thank you for this lead, John. I am looking forward to reading it at my leisure. One important note to keep in mind - is that this source seems to focus on the reforms that were implemented by Mr. Serdyukov (Russian "civilian" Minister of Defense) and Army General Makarov (Commander of Russian General Staff) in 2008-2012. These were, by far, the most radical changes to Russian military structure (at all levels) in many decades. They definitely deserve a detailed understanding. However, it is also worth noting that some of these changes have been reversed or adjusted since the replacement of Mr. Serdyukov by Mr. Shoygu in 2012.

 

Also, and (I don't mean it as a criticism), David Glantz is more than just some dude - he is a very well-known and established (albeit controversial) historian focusing on Soviet military operations in WW2... His name is well known amongst the historians that cover that period.

Edited by DreDay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DreDay,

 

You are most welcome. That is an important point you made about the impact of leadership changes. On balance, though, I'm certain I'll emerge 120 pages later being considerably less ignorant than I was before on the modern Russian Army. As for David Glantz, I know exactly who he is and was. In fact, I had a copy of his excellent study of The Soviet Airborne Experience on my bookshelf at Rockwell during my military aerospace days and commend it your attention. As far as I'm concerned, he could write cleanly and clearly back then, likely because he had military superiors riding herd on him. Having read what he and House wrote in Kursk after he left the Army, I'm convinced he's since run amok. The thing is info rich but turgid beyond words. I read it and found it a reading ordeal, one greatly compounded by a lack of maps or even having the few properly integrated into the text. "Some dude" was just me cracking wise. Final thought. I can't read the new MoD head's name without instantly jumping to this

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right on. Irony is hard to detect within board messages sometimes; but I see what you had meant loud and clear now. I mostly agree with your assessment of Glantz (although my exposure to his work has been quite limited). He is definitely a good writer, and an unconventional/original historian. However, his works are a bit less grounded in research than I would like to see (albeit I am not a historian myself by any means); and he seems to include too much human interest and sensationalist reports in his books without proper context or reference.

 

As for the book on Russian MOD Reforms in 2008 - 2012; I would be very curious to hear your thoughts. That was the last period of Russian policies that I had followed professionally, so I happen to have some decent background into them. Please feel free to PM me if you'd like to trade some ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glantz has too much human interest?? lmao!! you should really read some of his work it.s dry as can be. Soviet official orders and reports. 76th Div. moved north to X. No comrade Popov ramming his tank stories.

 

Touche Sublime! You got me. I have somehow managed to mistake Glantz for Antony Beevor... no idea why... who knows where thoughts come from :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DreDay,

 

As far as I'm concerned, Glantz these days is a terrible writer. He takes a rich stew of sweeping warfare and turns it into tasteless porridge, then freeze dries that. In his Kursk book you read things like "The (insert unit here) advanced on an axis of X-Y-Z" OR "X ID moved  toward the village of Q and took all day to secure it." It's more extensive than that, but not by much.

 

If the standard for effective communication is the five "W"s, he fails utterly. I did some pretty serious digging in one case in order to learn that the insane on the face of it needing a division and all day to get through one defended village(!) made tons more sense when it emerged the village housed the railhead for one of the few railroads in the entire Kursk salient and controlled the junction of a major road in the process. Now the fanatical Russian defense of a village he didn't bother to show on a map fell into place, though I still have no idea how a presumably small village could stop first a battalion, then a regiment, then require a divisional effort to take it, with ferocious combat extending clear to dusk. Whereupon, the Russians counterattacked, but the Germans held!

 

As if the dessicated writing wasn't bad enough, the thing was printed in micro type, exacerbating all the problems. Had I ever dared to submit a report during my aerospace days put together the way his book was, I would've been excoriated, and that would've been getting off lightly! Important graphics shouldn't be tens of pages away from what's being described, for example. A book all about movement and the sway of battle ought to have more than a couple of tiny maps. There was so little in the way of maps that reading the book (way too small in physical dimensions) was practically insanity inducing. A deluge of information, but with almost zero context provided. I was thoroughly turned off by that book and left profoundly uninterested, as a reader, in anything else he did. Rest assured, I'm very much interested in other things he's written, but freely admit to a visceral dread of another slog through Perdition. I found reading his Kursk book physically and emotionally draining, and none of it had to do with the book's topic!  If you want a stunning contrast, read pieces of Bellamy's simply brilliant Absolute War, then some Glantz in his Kursk or other later books. Hope you survive it! Glantz writes about warfare but pretty much leaves out the people who waged it.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your clarifications John. I used to read Glantz back when he was writing for the FMSO. At the time, I did not find him to be too tedious... but that was many moons ago.

 

Now I do have a lot of respect for Leutenant Colonel Lester Grau (also of FMSO fame). His reseach was always original, thourough, relevant, and unconventional. I wonder, what he is up to nowaday?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DreDay,

 

You're welcome. The deeply insightful, now retired from the Army, LT COL Grau is still at FMSO, and according to the Wiki, I'm roughly 100 articles and books shy of being current on his writings! I adore his stuff and have many times found it most useful. I first encountered his work on the First Battle of Grozny, after which I got to read all about the bizarre 240mm Tyulpan laser guided shell. In my view, he is a master of his craft. Fortunately for us!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes Absolute War was fantastic though I felt it was extensive until Kursk or even Stalingrad then rushed through the war.

though i have to admit i.d tank Beevors or Ryans human interest history over Glantz anyday of the week. Absolute War had great anecdotes though I never heard elsewhere. Likw when Barbarossa kicked off at a bridge that was the border German guards shouted for the Russians to come out they had important business to discuss and machinegunned em down when they emerged. Alexander Werth.s Russia at War though dated is full of really good anecdotes you probably wont read elsewhere. at least none of these guys have been proven to embellish or outright lie as Ambrose has.

Edited by Sublime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...