Brigadier awl on divisional soap?

123
It is always difficult to talk about new developments in the Russian army. Not because complicated questions are difficult to explain. Just the opposite. It is difficult because there are too many “specialists” who will tell about the right decisions and solutions options in general based on a computer game that has been played for several years. For example.

We entered the century when boundless faith in machine brains led to the fact that on paper, in plans and imagination, everything looks quite different from life. That is why today we will consider the issue not so much from the point of view of “as it should be”, but rather with “it is so”.





Today there is a lot of talk about recreating the "Soviet structure" in the Russian army. Recreation of divisions, we already see firsthand. The next step is the reconstruction of military districts. At least, talk about the need for this has been going on in the military environment for a long time.

Most experts speak quite reasonably about the dangers of large districts, about the complexity of command, supply, control of military units thousands of kilometers from each other.

But we have already spoken about districts, so today we will speak about brigades and divisions. Is the game worth the candle, or is it just another way to “master” the people's money. How thoughtful and expedient is such a step today? And most importantly, how will such an integration affect the combat capability of the ground forces?

You should start with the basics. From what all Soviet officers know, but, alas, not all Russian. Not to mention civilians, far from military service. A platoon, a company, a battalion, a regiment, a brigade, a division, a corps, an army, a front (district) are perceived by the majority approximately as a similar division occurs at some factory. More quantity, slightly different tasks, but in general it is an enterprise.

Never in the Soviet Army did not compare brigades and divisions. For one simple reason. According to the tasks that they solve. Even the military ranks of the staff of the divisional commander and the brigade commander were different. Kombrig, just like the regiment commander, is a colonel, and the division commander is already a major general.

What difference does it make? From the point of view of the average man no. And from a military point of view? The commander of the unit, even the senior officer, the colonel, in combat resolves tactical tasks. But the division commander should already be a strategist. At the same time continue to solve tactical tasks.

Even in the very name of the division laid down precisely these tasks. Compound! The connection of parts. The mechanism of the various components that perform their own work, but in general, the mechanism is designed for other, more complex labor.

Today it is often possible to meet the definition of "connection" in the materials about the brigades. And even in specialized editions. Sometimes you just want to ask: comrades "military", where did you study at all? And did you study at all? Only in armies, where a couple of regiments are united in brigades, can we speak of a connection.

So, starting from scratch.

A brigade is a tactical military unit in all branches and types of armed forces, which is an intermediate link between the regiment and the division. Along with the regiment is the main tactical formation. The structure of the brigade is similar to the regimental, but includes a larger number of units. Up to two regiments. The total brigade strength varies from 2 to 8 thousand people.

Division - operational-tactical connection of units and divisions. The size of the division (in various armies) varies from 12 to 24 thousand people. These are three motorized rifle regiments, tank, artillery and anti-aircraft missile regiments.

These are the anti-tank battalion, reconnaissance battalion, engineering and sapper, medical, repair and rehabilitation, and engineering and sapper battalions. These are separate companies RHBZ, UAV, EW. This is a curfew company.

These are own arsenals and food warehouses. In general, the compound has a complex rear structure, which ensures the operation of the division, even offline, for a long time.

When measures were taken to eliminate the divisional structure for the brigade, we were told a lot about the mobility of the brigades. On the benefits of just such a system of division of the army. Some experts talked about the possibility of participation of brigades in military operations abroad. That is, in fact, about changing the doctrine of the use of the Russian Armed Forces.

All this is true, but, in our opinion, the main reason for the reorganization was problems in the Russian economy. Moreover, about the same picture was observed in other armies of the world. Probably, except for the US Army and NATO.

Imagine the work that the district headquarters and the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces did then? In order to preserve the country's defense in the conditions of the restructuring of the army structure, it was necessary to rebuild almost everything. And these are not words, but the real work of headquarters.

Although it was the headquarters that became the first of those who began to "clean." It was necessary to destroy the old command and control system. At all levels. Destroy and create a completely new, in accordance with the new concept.

Remember, veterans of the Soviet Army, their personal, reaction to this transition. Lomali on living established stereotypes, standards, principles, representations. The very system of training the troops was worked out precisely on the division. Even the system of officer training in the Academy of General Staff had to be changed.

But there were still changes in the principles of mobilization work. There were cuts in a large number of senior officers and generals. Outwardly, it looked like the destruction of the army as such.

Probably the only officers who from the beginning of army restructuring agreed with the brigade system were participants in the Chechen wars. It was thanks to them that they adopted a new concept in the army. But there the army fought not with the army, but with militants, terrorists, and just bandits. This is another war. More precisely, another concept of war.

At the same time, a new concept of war appeared, which even today, in modern conditions and the modern international situation, has quite a few supporters. They began to talk about the impossibility of a big war.

The world is not led by idiots. Everyone understands that a big war is the death of mankind. Consequently, in the new world all wars will be local, sluggish. The big armies of the state are no longer needed. Small but well armed armies are needed.

We somehow stopped noticing the power of the American army and its equipment. We stopped noticing the power of the NATO army in Europe. These armies did not fit into our new concept of war.

And it was here that lurked a wonderful explanation for the liquidation of the divisions. The management team is much more mobile, flexible and efficient. This means that the brigade can be used as soon as possible in emergency cases. At least at that time, it was this opinion that prevailed.

By the way, it was then that the reorganization of the military districts began. Remember what we had in 1991.

8 military districts (Moscow, Leningrad, North Caucasus, Volga, Urals, Siberia, Trans-Baikal Far East). There was also a special area - Kalingrad OR.

Marshal Igor Sergeev began to enlarge. In 1998, in order to save the state. means. Remember the merger of ZabVO and DalVO? Sergey Ivanov continued (2001 year - PrivO and Urals Military District). Well, graduated Serdyukov. Received four huge VO with almost autonomous because of the big distances, parts and connections. Good life officers of the staffs of the Central and Eastern districts. Like a truck driver. Life is a road ...

But back to the beginning of our conversation. Be that as it may, during the years of the breakdown of the structure of the army, we have achieved quite serious successes. Abandoned, no, handed over to local authorities, military camps and warehouses. Abandoned infrastructure in general. Transferred housing in cities and towns.

If today we look at what remains of the once flourishing military camps and places of deployment of military units, then I want to cry. What was in the cities, has long been transferred to private hands, converted and used by businessmen. They will not give it back.

And military camps in the wilderness have been successfully looted by local residents and are in such a state that it is easier to build new ones than to restore the old ones. At least cheaper. In short, a beautiful tale about the speedy restoration of the divisional structure of the Armed Forces will long be just a fairy tale.

Just imagine the newly minted divisional division, which is engaged in the formation of a division somewhere beyond the Urals. Just the algorithm works no more. Why it will deal with the division commander and his officers, we think it is clear. The golden principle "You can not cope - we will appoint another" is valid in the army today.

So. Decide on the location of the division headquarters. At the same time, coordinate everything with local authorities (regional or republican) at all levels. From some land allocation to a water utility and sanitary service.

Further, the same work with regional authorities is already to determine the locations of units and headquarters of regiments and other units. For all items.

Further construction. The division is not a company. It will be necessary to build a small, but a city. With all the consequences. In the sense of not only the storage and preservation of military equipment and weapons, but also the provision of housing for draftees, contract soldiers and officers.

The list of work for the command of the new division can be continued indefinitely. And the work is not related to the provision of combat training. But most importantly, all this will have to take place in the Russian traditional manner: "There is no money, but you hold on!"

From this it becomes clear what is happening in the army today. The military budget can "pull" so far only units of divisions. And exactly where this budget is divided. Closer to Moscow. From here Taman (5-I motorized rifle), and then Kantemirovskaya (4-I tank) divisions. Fortunately, they were not long teams, did not have time to mutilate.

The same divisions that were deployed a little further, but which are widely announced by the MoD, are now doing exactly the work described above. And they will be engaged for more years. Judging by what we know about the cases in some of them.

Recall the new divisions. 152-I MSD in the Rostov region, 42-I division in Chechnya, 19-I and 136-I (as part of the 58-I army) in the Southern District, 3-I MSD in the Belgorod region (ZVO).

Observing the travails during the creation of the 3 MSD in Valuyki, it is safe to say that deploying a brigade (albeit not the most successful) to a division (the same for troeks) is not just bringing three times more soldiers into the field and pour them into the mud. Although there it was, do not hide.

This is a difficult, difficult and slow process. Yes, to sign the order is a matter of three seconds. Three years from now has not passed, but God forbid that for the fourth year in Valuyki there was a full-fledged division deployed from the brigade.

And if we talk about 100% success - time will need twice as much.

So we need a division or not? Do you need huge budget costs and will have to suffer again in the navel area from a tightened belt in exchange for a restful sleep?

It’s a paradox, but we cannot be sure of our own security without reviving the divisions. Moreover, not only in the border areas, where it is caused at least by the theoretical danger of an attack, but also in the depth of the territory as a core for the concentration of mobilization resources.

Probably, you need to give some comparisons or an example? You are welcome. After 2013, the US army (yes!), The experts began to accuse together of the loss of "density". Yes, the appearance on the scene of the brigade was the object of criticism. And when they began to reduce the number ...

The hardest thing we could find was the accusation that today the US Army would never repeat the operation against Iraq. And this is the voice of American experts. And they say that the brigade is a tactical tool, and the division is a strategic one. Hammer and sledgehammer, if simpler.

That is why we have a desire to express such an opinion: a hammer and a sledgehammer are good in a capable hand.

On the most dangerous areas (Baltic States, Poland, Ukraine) to have divisions is a heavier strategic strike tool.

And in the rear it is the brigade staffing - as a more mobile second-line tool. With a focus on the fact that, if necessary (or over time), this brigade can be reorganized into a division.

It is possible that this frontier combination will become the very golden mean necessary for the proper state of the organizational structure of our army.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

123 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +15
    22 March 2019 05: 37
    A competent article, not stupidly uro-patriotic, is explained in some detail and laid out on shelves.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. 0
        22 March 2019 08: 15
        Quote: Valery Valery
        I want to ask the author

        What is this "draft"? belay
        1. +8
          22 March 2019 11: 47
          It’s a paradox, but we cannot be sure of our own security without reviving the divisions. Moreover, not only in the border areas, where it is caused at least by the theoretical danger of an attack, but also in the depth of the territory as a core for the concentration of mobilization resources.
          - from article

          Question only WHAT FOR did they destroy divisions — operational-tactical formations of units and subunits (for war against a strategically dangerous enemy), and turn them into tactical formations capable of only fighting with gangs?

          WHO to blame for this, and WHY didn’t bear any liability in fact for the destruction of the country's defense?

          FOR WHOSE account and DURING what time will this defense be restored now?

          It is IMPOSSIBLE to justify reworking divisions into brigades, and now back only "officers who, since the beginning of army restructuring, agreed with the brigade system, were participants in the Chechen wars. It was thanks to them that they accepted a new concept in the army."
          That there were no other sane officers in the Army, Who understood the STRATEGIC VALUE of the Army in confronting not the gangs, but the major potential adversaries of the USA, NATO, China? There were probably. But they didn’t decide the fate of the Army and the defense of the state.

          Decided all politicians oriented towards the West - the United States and China, on "partnership" relations with them on the division of Russia's raw material pie, those who tried to fit into the Western Circle led the world through betrayal of the interests of Russia and its people, who moved their families, children there, bought palaces, yachts, planes, vineyards there.
          But they didn’t grow together, failed to enter the world elite of the moguls of the World, did not want to accept them in their circle, but on the contrary, they began to demand that they be given the national property of the whole nation.

          And here came the moment of truth. The army, which was actually poured to please the West, NATO, and China, and which could protect it from "partners" - competitors, is gone, and it is necessary to defend "what was acquired by back-breaking labor". What to do? - Restore, revive that former power, which once destroyed themselves. And at the expense of what? Here they have one option - as always, tightening the belt of the people already robbed once again: raising the retirement age, raising various taxes, excises and fees.

          But the main thing is lost not only financial and material resources, the might of the Army and the potential of the defense industry, - lost irreplaceable TIME. You can’t restore it in a short time, but they won’t give us a long time.
          1. -2
            22 March 2019 19: 23
            Quote: vladimirZ
            The only question is WHY did they destroy divisions — operational-tactical formations of units and subunits (for war against a strategically dangerous enemy), and turn them into tactical formations capable of only fighting with gangs?

            It was just that in the 90s the whole country was destroyed and the army had to be rebuilt virtually from scratch. Well, then they fought with the gangs.
            1. +1
              23 March 2019 03: 43
              It was just that in the 90s the whole country was destroyed and the army had to be rebuilt virtually from scratch. Well, then they fought with the gangs.
              -Dart2027

              Aren't you aware that the "reform" from divisions to brigades was carried out not in the 90s, and not even in the early 2000s, but from 2007 to 2012 during the "Serdyukovshchyna" period?
              And moreover, they did not "restore virtually from scratch", as you write, but destroyed the entire traditional military structure of the regiment-division-corps-army-district, garrisons and military towns, airfields, military infrastructure, repair and logistic services replacing them with civil ones?
              And how many military equipment were destroyed and written off, including "civilian", do not remember through the websites of the Ministry of Defense, the period of the female command of "Serdyukov"?

              May I remind you of the "restoration" of the number of military schools and academies that were liquidated during that period from more than 70 to one and a half dozen?
              And the ban on admission to military schools and academies of cadets and officers from 2007 to 2011 also probably "restored" the Army?
              And the mass dismissal of officers and warrant officers (and the elimination of the institution of warrant officers and warrant officers, as such), the liquidation of officer posts and the appointment of officers to non-commissioned officers were also carried out to "restore" the Army?
              1. -2
                23 March 2019 06: 32
                Quote: vladimirZ
                Aren't you aware that the "reform" from divisions to brigades was carried out not in the 90s, and not even in the early 2000s, but from 2007 to 2012 during the "Serdyukovshchyna" period?
                I know. First, in the 90s, one hundred were destroyed, and then they began to take measures to restore. Apparently, at first they tried to do without global withdrawal, but making sure that nothing works, they put a person from the side.
                Quote: vladimirZ
                And how many military equipment were destroyed and written off
                The question is the state of this technique. In the USSR, even WWII weapons were stored.
                Quote: vladimirZ
                military schools and academies liquidated during that period from more than 70 to one and a half dozen
                The question is what was left of them in fact.
                Quote: vladimirZ
                A ban on admission to military schools and the Academy of cadets and officers from 2007 to 2011
                And not since 2009? However, this is just understandable - in the conditions when everything was reformatted, at first they tried to understand what was needed, and then create it.
                Quote: vladimirZ
                the dismissal of officers and warrant officers (and the abolition of the institution of warrant officers and warrant officers, as such), the abolition of officer posts and the appointment of officers to sergeant posts
                They simply switched to a new system, where there is an officer and sergeant staff, without an intermediate staff.
                1. +3
                  23 March 2019 06: 57
                  I know. First, in the 90s, one hundred were destroyed, and then they began to take measures to restore.
                  -Dart2027

                  How good is "restoration" by destroying and disintegrating the still alive, which just needed to be supported, saved from destruction, and which now needs to be restored for decades ?!
                  The internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs should fight the gangs, not the Army, whose function has always been and will be to protect the state from an external enemy!
                  Is this a chip in Russia like this - to ruin everything to the ground, and then through the navel, tearing the people, condemning them to poverty, poverty, increased retirement age higher than life expectancy, to revive previously destroyed by the very same authorities?
                  The question is rhetorical, not requiring an answer.

                  As long as the comprador bourgeoisie is ready to surrender all power to Russia for its Western gesheft, there is no reason to expect that it will once again not give up the interests of Russia and its people.
                  1. 0
                    23 March 2019 08: 44
                    Quote: vladimirZ
                    which simply needed to be maintained, saved from destruction, and which now needed to be restored for decades
                    Sometimes it’s easier to break and start over. I remember the army of the 90s.
                    Quote: vladimirZ
                    Internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs should fight the gangs, not the Army
                    Even when these gangs turned into a real army? By the way, VV also fought, but the situation in them was no better.
                    Quote: vladimirZ
                    The question is rhetorical, not requiring an answer.
                    Unfortunately this happens.
                    Quote: vladimirZ
                    While the power in Russia will be in the comprador bourgeoisie ready to surrender everything for its western gesheft
                    Well, why didn’t they guess to arrest the assets of the current government in order to exchange for Crimea. Only recently, the type of order was given to the special services to submit them. But for many years schizans have been trying that Putin’s innumerable treasures are hidden in the West, they don’t know only on which island and where the map is.
                2. +1
                  23 March 2019 09: 52
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  The question is the state of this technique. In the USSR, even WWII weapons were stored.

                  Very, very little was stored, and then for deliveries to other states, and not for use in our armed forces.
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  They simply switched to a new system, where there is an officer and sergeant staff, without an intermediate staff.

                  This was a great stupidity, because the ensigns are a very important link in the army, and they cannot be reduced due to the fact that they are more reliable personnel than sergeants.
                  1. 0
                    23 March 2019 10: 59
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Very, very little was stored

                    That time is already a little, but the fact that the arsenals were excessively swollen, and the condition of the equipment stored there was already in question.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    This was a great stupidity, because the ensigns are a very important link in the army, and they cannot be reduced due to the fact that they are more reliable personnel than sergeants.

                    You confuse the Soviet army, where the sergeants were conscripts and the modern army, where the sergeant is a contract soldier. The institution of ensigns had to be introduced precisely because the sergeant-conscript is an conscript, not a professional. Now in ensigns there is no sense.
                    1. 0
                      23 March 2019 17: 27
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      but the fact that the arsenals were excessively inflated, and the condition of the equipment stored there was already in question.

                      I agree that we did not need to store everything that was lost for our armed forces, and it would be better to sell such stocks for a nominal fee to any country in the world, regardless of their orientation.
                    2. +1
                      23 March 2019 17: 27
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      but the fact that the arsenals were excessively inflated, and the condition of the equipment stored there was already in question.

                      I agree that we did not need to store everything that had lost significance for our armed forces, and it would be better to sell such stocks for a nominal fee to any country in the world, regardless of their orientation.
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      You confuse the Soviet army, where the sergeants were conscripts and the modern army, where the sergeant is a contract soldier.

                      I don’t confuse anything, but I just know how the psychology of the ensign differs from the psychology of the contractor.
                      Now in ensigns there is no sense.

                      The ensign usually plans to serve in the army until retirement, but the contractor often comes to solve his short-term problems, and at the first opportunity, sheds from the army - this is what they differ in.
                      1. -2
                        23 March 2019 18: 02
                        Quote: ccsr
                        it would be better to sell such stocks for a nominal fee to any country in the world
                        Maybe. On the other hand, selling equipment that is not in the best condition is also a two-edged sword.
                        Quote: ccsr
                        The ensign usually plans to serve in the army until retirement, but the contractor often comes to solve his momentary problems.
                        It happens, but it all depends on the individual. The ensigns were also different, I say from personal experience.
    2. +11
      22 March 2019 06: 30
      A competent article, not stupidly uro-patriotic, is explained in some detail and laid out on shelves.
      I, too, plus Comrade Staver and Skomorokhov, a surprisingly competent article.
      1. +4
        22 March 2019 10: 58
        ".. And they say precisely that a brigade is a tactical tool, and a division is a strategic one. A hammer and a sledgehammer, if it is simpler."
        I get it now..
        1. -1
          23 March 2019 17: 34
          Quote: Cormorants
          the brigade is a tactical tool, and the division is a strategic one.

          This is a masterpiece - the authors have shown themselves in all its glory. They don’t know that the division in the Strategic Missile Forces is not a division of the Ground Forces, that’s why they have a mess in their head.
          1. +1
            23 March 2019 19: 24
            And the submarine division is not a tank division at all! And the army aviation brigade is not a motorized rifle brigade at all! However, the authors clearly write about the ground forces, and not about the Strategic Missile Forces-VKS-Navy.
            1. -1
              24 March 2019 12: 08
              Quote: CTABEP
              And the army aviation brigade is not a motorized rifle brigade at all!

              Those. and you, together with the authors, think that in the Ground Forces the brigade is solving tactical tasks and the division is strategic?
              By the way, would you at least read what the authors wrote before correcting me:
              Brigade - tactical military formation in all branches and types of armed forces, which is an intermediate link between a regiment and a division.

              What do the words "in all genera and types of the sun" mean?
  2. +10
    22 March 2019 05: 40
    The question is very interesting in terms of both training and deployment in peacetime. The expanded division is a small town. With the increased capabilities and new characteristics of weapons, it will not be possible to solve the problem with a wave of drafts. And delaying his decision for later is a crime. Thanks to the authors for raising such strategic topics.
  3. +22
    22 March 2019 05: 58
    We got these experiments. Already, 20 is getting up from its knees, and only the number of billionaires and millionaires has increased.
    For housing and military infrastructure. But what about the almost daily victorious broadcasts, how cool they began to live in / employees, though some kind of military mortgage appeared. It is interesting even in one country of the world there is such, an officer, ensign, an over-conscript served, and to him, buy a house for yourself at a price. Let’s give you a little deny and free. Essentially thrown into a clean field.
    Well and then on what I earned so many minuses. They do not understand the anonyms putting them that I do not care about the ratings.
    ... the world is not ruled by. Everyone understands that a great war is the death of mankind. Consequently, in the new world, all wars will be local, sluggish. States no longer need large armies. We need small but well-armed armies. ... Where do we have this? The most modern and new technology is being fused abroad, which has somehow been modernized.
    The author writes about brigades. In principle, he writes correctly. There is only one thing BUT how to determine where a brigade is needed, where a regiment or a battalion in general is enough during the fighting. Throw back parts here or build up existing ones or, on the contrary, weaken them by withdrawing battalions from brigades and adding them to needy regiments. Nothing can be universal. So this should be inside divisions in which, in theory, there should be regiments and brigades.
    Brigades can be in the air defense. Here already depending on the defended object. The last place of service was an air defense missile defense consisting of 21 divisions, 18 firing and 3 technical, and nearby was a regiment of 5 divisional personnel 4 firing and 1 technical. The objects to be covered were different. So this is air defense, and how to be combined arms units and formations.
    1. +8
      22 March 2019 06: 27
      Quote: YOUR
      It is interesting even in one country of the world there is such, an officer, ensign, an over-conscript served, and to him, buy a house for yourself at a price. Let’s give you a little deny and free. Essentially thrown into a clean field.

      In this regard, your information is not correct. Who gets quit now, and in sufficient quantities. Buy, but reasonable. The subsidy is normal. This is not during the Serdyukov OShM, when you can’t buy anything sensible for the certificate. There was a problem and a clear field.
    2. +7
      22 March 2019 06: 27
      The author galloped up and pretended to be a specialist! Complete nonsense! So I want to ask the author - who do you work for, Responsive? !!!


      Will you be able to argue your attack in the form of analysis, or have you decided to follow up?
      1. +1
        22 March 2019 06: 53
        Quote: Ugolek
        or so decided to rise

        bully Dmitry, do not pay attention to such people. The man serves on the couch and is proud to have strayed from the army. There is enough of it everywhere.
        They do not need arguments. They are specialists in labeling. soldier
      2. 0
        22 March 2019 20: 43
        Ugolok Article on the foundations of the construction of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. The divisions mentioned in the article of traditional composition are a relic of the past until the 21st century. . The division, as a self-sufficient primary strategic unit, was created according to the requirements of conducting battles by experience and has justified such a structure to this day ... For a long time, much has been improved, new tools and capabilities have appeared, and the composition of the division has changed. Today, the level of self-sufficiency of the division, as a combination of units to perform certain tasks, with modern requirements determines the necessary expansion of the composition and capabilities of the division. For example, tank attacks, as the main form since the USSR. from which it follows that the tank division. as the basis of a strategic level, today it should have everything you need - its own powerful air defense, its attack and transports helicopter regiment, as well as its earlier components, artillery (tactical missile weapons, MLRS, self-propelled guns and other means), motorized rifles, electronic warfare, and others engineering units and divisions. The point is to ensure the successful use of the main strike force, for example, tanks in sufficient support with the necessary forces and means, because today battles are fought with complex measures and means. So the division must meet these requirements .. The need to create a self-sufficient primary combat strategic unit is a division in modern saturation .. Conclusion: modern divisions in terms of composition and structure must meet the requirements of the current level of combat, with sets of weapons of battle, as a self-sufficient primary strategic unit in close network-centric operations .. .. Only under the unified management of such necessary forces and means, can a strategic unit such as a division be able to fulfill garden.
    3. +5
      22 March 2019 13: 40
      My military mortgage was enough for my apartment for 4,5 million. You shouldn’t shake the air in order to seem smarter, but really be completely ignorant. You can take an apartment on a military mortgage, and your homeland pays for it, or as I did, I just served , and the money was dripping into the account. It’s quite convenient, given that you do not need to prove that you were still underage and incompetent, when your parents privatized an apartment somewhere in Transbaikalia, which costs 200 thousand, and the homeland of ha could deprive him of this right ha housing, or mother-in-law wives I didn’t write off the floor of the apartment, everything ..... housing is not supposed to be, you are kind of provided. And there is no problem with a mortgage: have as many squares as you want and where you want.
  4. +13
    22 March 2019 06: 59
    The article is really competent, but the situation is ambiguous. Whoever hats the author, let him write something worthwhile. I noticed that the reforms in our country have one property, as soon as something finally settles down and begins to survive and enter a working state, then another reform immediately arises, which hits the living and how often everything starts to return to the previous one. As a rule, the "reformers" were either in the shade and ... in a warm and nourishing place with a cozy armchair, but not on a bunk! You involuntarily begin to understand Joseph Vissarionovich with his approach!
  5. +2
    22 March 2019 07: 03
    The question is solved simply. Some divisions form on the basis of brigades, as has already happened in the history of the Russian army.
    1. +1
      22 March 2019 08: 19
      I also had to hear the expression "brigade group" ... Sho tse the same?
  6. +1
    22 March 2019 07: 12
    Great article, thanks. The subject of much controversy and reflection lately. Almost everything is in agreement with the author.
  7. +1
    22 March 2019 07: 23
    Thank you. Interesting article.
  8. -6
    22 March 2019 08: 34
    Excellent article.
    If "Alexander Staver, Roman Skomorokhov" writes that it is not necessary to do this, then this is exactly what should be done.
    1. +2
      22 March 2019 10: 33
      Quote: NOTaFED
      If "Alexander Staver, Roman Skomorokhov" writes that it is not necessary to do this, then this is exactly what should be done.
      Staver, a military man, and can reason, on the topic, professionally! But, with all this, one gets the impression that something is missing all the time - everything is not the same as in Tsoi - "Change, we demand change"! The divisions were disbanded, and here on the VO they wrote: "Help, you can't do that." They want to return, to the old, again, - "Help, you can't do that." The question arises: - "The command staff of the Russian Ministry of Defense, in general, and the General Staff, in particular, are they not professional? Or do critics have more reliable channels for obtaining information, political, military and other, which is required in order to objectively assess and make appropriate conclusions.
      Since the reforms of Serdyukov, a lot of water has flowed. The situation in the world and around Russia is not the same as it was in 2007-2012! Everything should correspond to the current moment.
      Just an article for which the fee relies!
  9. +2
    22 March 2019 08: 42
    I remember how in the training, the cadet of the military school during the internship, it was very profitable for us, the salag from a citizen, to chew on what a department, division, unit, connection, association was. I remembered it for my whole life, although it was never useful!
  10. +2
    22 March 2019 09: 08
    Competently, informatively and balanced. Without unnecessary emotions and distortions. Interesting about the tasks of brigades and divisions. And about the United States, which we still like to be equal to, where there are also problems with the organizational structure. IMHO, it's about money and politics. The craze for brigades is a kind of "end of history" where "democracies are not at war with democracies" and only bend over undesirable "regimes". In short, a larger “gang” successfully fights with the "gang". At the same time, you can save money (and while you are rebuilding it, you are working hard). And then it turns out that the vassal "panimash" with the hegemon insoluble contradictions over who is whose dinner. And everything spun in the opposite direction. Essno, again with a gallant picture on TV - as in an open field to gallant soldiers in a couple of weeks build euro barracks. Uh-huh ...
    1. -1
      22 March 2019 14: 34
      There is no general craze there, there are divisions with different numbers of brigades and separate brigades. There was even a division with one brigade, there is nothing terrible in this, you can always add.
  11. +10
    22 March 2019 09: 26
    I think that the reasoning: "which is better, a brigade or a division?" Is not entirely correct. The brigade is more mobile, "easier to climb", but it is also smaller in number ("manpower" and equipment). A brigade is "more convenient" for a "small" war ("compact", limited "activities" ...); for counterinsurgency ("partisan") operations, this structure is probably better suited for "special forces". I remember this time ... the time of the "conversion" of divisions into brigades ... (the time when many divisions "vobche" were disbanded!). But then the liberals, with the assistance of "Western friends", let the euphoria of the "new world order, way of life" go like a fog ... ! For the sake of "if only there was no war," the Russian Federation "cut" missiles and reduced the Armed Forces ... But suddenly the "international political" situation changed ... Russia "unexpectedly, not guessing" did not want to continue to pose. ... a summer resident! And again I had to "adjust" the Armed Forces to the "new" state of Russia. The brigade cannot have a "truncated" ... division, maybe ... well, at least "almost"! That is why the divisions began to "reincarnate". Divisions for the "big" war! Brigades are for "small" ... In "case of something" a small war with NATO, most likely, will not be enough. In such a war, the brigade will not be able to conduct hostilities on its own for a long time ... it will have to be immediately reinforced with individual units and thereby create brigade groups (an urgent alternative to a division). But there is still a question: the old people said that they once fought not only with "one" divisions, but also with corps, armies, fronts ... How did they fight? Without coordination then? Without close interaction "each other"? It can be assumed that "this is all" boo! So can it be possible to introduce "brigade formations" into the structure of the Armed Forces (ground forces)? This is not a permanent formation, but created to carry out certain operational-tactical operations and for the duration of operations. It is necessary to work out the interaction of brigades in a brigade formation in "peacetime" on the territory of the military ... Appeal to the Author: how do you consider the concept of "cadre divisions"? That is, not "full-fledged" brigades in the "outback", as in your opinion (which may be "transformed" into divisions ... or maybe not! And in the "outback" - "cropped" divisions. "pros and cons" about this ... but maybe it's worth considering this "topic"?
    1. +7
      22 March 2019 12: 08
      The brigade is more mobile, "easier to climb", but it is also smaller in number

      when Serdyukov perverted the concept of a team. If the brigade is a compound, then its composition should include separate parts, that is, having their number, their seal, etc.
      Under Serdyukov brigades were considered formations, only because they consisted of two separate units: the brigade itself and ............ a courier-post office.
      That is, in fact, the brigade was a reinforced regiment. There can be no talk of mobility here. The linear battalions do not have their own support units, the battalions cannot make the march themselves, they cannot go by rail, because the battalion commander does not have financial documents, there is no stamp, and there is still a lot of that.
      Therefore, in the exercises, all brigades failed marches and movement by rail.
      1. 0
        22 March 2019 13: 06
        When Serdyukov brigades were considered compounds, only because they consisted of two separate parts
        This is a completely separate topic. Not just a brigade ... how many parts of our country are dead souls that are absolutely nothing, but the senior and senior officers are inflated.
      2. 0
        22 March 2019 14: 45
        Brigades were, in principle, considered a unit if they included separate battalions.
    2. +3
      22 March 2019 12: 35
      There was a solution, he was offered. And it consisted of the following, without disbanding the divisions within them, to form brigades. Moreover, in the history of the Red Army and the Soviet Army, this already happened. But no, it was necessary to ruin everything and now feverishly think how to fix it ...
    3. -2
      22 March 2019 13: 03
      old people said that they once fought not only with "one" divisions, but also with corps, armies, fronts
      no one forbids from the brigades to create the same formations and foy the front. What is better is the strict centralization of large units or the coordination of the actions of more autonomous units that will not lose their combat effectiveness in the event of a loss of communication and communication by a pine group of forces.
      it will have to be reinforced immediately by individual units
      absolutely any unit is adjusted, tightened, strengthened under certain conditions, the regular structure is more and more for the rear, simplification of supply and training.
      1. 0
        23 March 2019 02: 49
        Quote: Corn
        no one forbids from the brigades to create such connections and to fight with the front.

        Duc, what I'm talking about in the previous comment! "Brigade formations" as a possible alternative to the division! But the brigades need to be "trained" to develop coherence when acting as part of a "brigade unit" ...
    4. +3
      22 March 2019 15: 29
      Parts of the frame for a protracted war. Apparently, it was considered unprofitable to maintain the infrastructure for deploying a division from a regiment. Now parts of the reserve are being formed as a whole, including commanders. There is a regiment, he has a mob task - to form another regiment with the outbreak of war. Armaments, equipment, property - in warehouses, obtained by mobnaryadami. A certain time is given for formation and combat coordination and for battle! I doubt that even in a month you can create a combat-ready military unit out of those mobilized .... It seems to me that a division deployed from a regiment where the command personnel are not called up from the reserve and the military personnel will be more efficient.
      1. +2
        22 March 2019 15: 56
        That's right. For all the shortcomings of the framed units, they had one large plus-core core of command personnel
        1. 0
          22 March 2019 16: 00
          However, in the realities of the 90s / early 2000s they were used to replenish parts of the OGV (s). They wanted to adapt the staff to new realities, but it turned out what happened.
  12. +6
    22 March 2019 09: 30
    Everything seems to be the case. But if the division, as stated in the article, is the main operational-tactical formation, then why is the division commander a strategy? A division is the main tactical formation, as taught at the academy, the army is an operational association. Perhaps in military science there have been changes, but I do not think that such a radical change in concepts. Something the authors in this science did not really or did not finalize.
    1. +3
      22 March 2019 12: 01
      if the division, as stated in the article, is the main operational-tactical formation, then why is the division commander a strategy?
      Yes

      According to the rules of military science, a platoon, company, battalion is a tactical link
      regiment, division - operational-tactical,
      army - operational strategic.
      the front is strategic.
  13. +2
    22 March 2019 09: 36
    The main problem is that, in the event of a major war, NO ONE knows what structure of units will most suit the situation and the principles of conducting combat work. Hence the throwing. Before World War II, it was the same in all the armies of the world (large). By the beginning of the war, only the Germans managed to find a more or less normal structure, the rest were rebuilt during the war. But from that moment, a lot has changed, and there is no other big war (thank God), here are the military and rushing around in search.
    1. +1
      22 March 2019 17: 26
      And the Germans felt for the normal organizational structure of the tank divisions by 1941, that is, having already had real combat experience behind the Polish and French campaigns.
      1. +1
        22 March 2019 17: 46
        Sehr guter junger mann. Sehr gut)))
  14. 0
    22 March 2019 10: 32
    It is written, of course, beautifully, but there is real experience of the US Marine Corps, which is actually engaged in just operational response at local theaters of operations, that is, it does the same thing that is supposed to be left for the brigades.
    And they have just divisions in the structure.
    Is it even possible to just turn a brigade into a division?
    Indeed, even the level of headquarters, and the commander should be different, the staff should have a completely different structure.
    No, of course, it is possible to foresee states in the brigade, as well as future divisions.
    but it will also turn out to be a virtually cropped Soviet division with combat efficiency close to zero.
    And how will this affect the supply, which is a mix of divisions and brigades?
  15. +3
    22 March 2019 11: 01
    In the division there are about 700 officers, in the brigade about 250. You can quickly find a soldier. And where to find so many officers? Increase admission to the military school, and wait for 5 years. Least. In addition to the next attempts to organize accelerated courses for the training of platoon commanders from warrant officers and contract soldiers.
  16. +12
    22 March 2019 11: 14
    Well, of course, there is no worse animal than a cat - the most terrible enemy for us is dying Ukraine. And the fact that China has tank armies against our several killed brigades is a trifle for the guys from ArVO. Indeed, for them there is still no land beyond the Volga.
  17. +3
    22 March 2019 11: 22
    Thanks! A serious article, it is high time to return what has been tested in the case, and not "to run after the west with his pants up." You should not blindly copy the structure of the Luxembourg army, expanding it to the size and tasks of the Russian army.
  18. +3
    22 March 2019 11: 41
    The golden principle "If you can't handle it - let's appoint someone else" is still valid in the army today.

    It is interesting that nowhere in the country does this principle apply to large officials, a directly untouchable caste ... and it’s expensive to destroy an army.
    It seems to me that the ruling elite categorically refuses to recognize NATO as a military adversary and to admit the possibility of a military clash. Which, however, is not surprising - NATO countries are a safe haven for their families, capital and real estate.
    And to protect the "national treasures" from the population, there are enough brigades and Guard cosmonauts.
  19. +1
    22 March 2019 11: 43
    Well, purely for reference.
    Motorized rifle brigade: 4500 people, 42 tanks, 170 infantry fighting vehicles, 36 152-mm self-propelled guns, 24 mortars, 18 Grads, 12 Tori, 6 Tungusok, 5 Arrow-10.
    Tank brigade: 3000 people, 96 tanks, 70 infantry fighting vehicles, 18 152-mm self-propelled guns, 8 mortars, the rest is similar to a motorized rifle.
    1. -1
      22 March 2019 11: 58
      Well, purely for reference.

      in fact, the combat and numerical strength of the brigade is "secret." The fact that you can find this information on the network is not an excuse, there are precedents. hi
      1. +3
        22 March 2019 15: 48
        Data from the textbook for military departments. There are no "secret" stamps there. wink
        1. 0
          25 March 2019 08: 57
          Data from a textbook for military departments.

          An ordinary "feint with the ears". Make an extract from a secret document and make it unclassified. Because by order, the level of secrecy is determined by the executor. You can even find some data on the network. But I repeat once again, documents have a stamp, depending on the level:
          squad, platoon - unclassified
          company, battalion - for official use.
          brigade, regiment and above - secretly.
          1. -1
            25 March 2019 13: 22
            Quote: glory1974
            company, battalion - for official use.

            This is not a correct conclusion - in a separate company of the Special Forces there was a large amount of secret equipment and documentation for it. The same thing in individual centers was where even a company of personnel could not be typed.
            1. 0
              26 March 2019 08: 24
              This is not the right conclusion.

              This is not a conclusion, it is the requirements of a combat charter. About special forces, this is from another opera. One person can be thrown behind enemy lines, and this will be a secret of special importance. But this does not mean that one soldier or unit is all secret.
              1. -1
                26 March 2019 11: 38
                Quote: glory1974
                But this does not mean that one soldier or unit is all secret.

                Wearable nuclear charge is secret or not?
                Quote: glory1974
                This is not a conclusion, it is the requirements of a combat charter.

                And what does it have to do with the requirements of a combat charter, if company battalions can perform completely different tasks even in the structure of one type of armed forces.
                1. 0
                  26 March 2019 16: 32
                  There is a list of information to be classified.
                  If the battalion has moved to the bathhouse for washing, this is not a secret. If a soldier with a nuclear charge moved forward to blow up a NATO bath, this is a secret. In general, read the guidance documents and all questions will disappear.
                  1. 0
                    26 March 2019 20: 37
                    Quote: glory1974
                    In general, read the guidance documents and all questions will disappear.

                    I myself wrote them at the time, so I know that the division that you are guided by does not come close to the real tasks of some units where your gradation looks out of place.
                    1. -1
                      27 March 2019 08: 22
                      I wrote them myself in due time

                      Smiled. laughing Thank you for the good mood at the beginning of the working day!
                      that division that you are guided by and did not stand close with the real tasks of some units

                      Graduation, which I am guided by and does not closely correspond to the tasks, but corresponds to the level of management. Why don’t you know what you yourself wrote? wassat
                      1. -1
                        27 March 2019 12: 23
                        Quote: glory1974
                        Graduation, which I am guided by and does not closely correspond to the tasks, but corresponds to the level of management. Why don’t you know what you yourself wrote?

                        I don’t know how much you are in the subject, but I’ll give you a simple example when in the part where a little more platoon of servicemen together with the commanders serves, and where there is a full-time cryptographer, i.e. at least work with top-secret information, equipment and documents. What the hell is DSP - do you generally understand that in the armed forces not all company battalions are motorized rifle, and their commanders, in the case of individual units, work with documents with a signature stamp right up to the orders of the Minister of Defense.
                        You can continue to smile, only I doubt that you understand what is at stake.
                      2. 0
                        27 March 2019 12: 57
                        Yes, I realized already that you did not serve in the army, and you have no idea about the management levels.
                        they work with documents classified as top secret up to the orders of the Minister of Defense.

                        Some orders of the Ministry of Defense are published in newspapers, for example, about another appeal.
                        In general, if you do not understand how and why the secrecy stamp is assigned, you just ask. Why write your speculation here?
                      3. -1
                        27 March 2019 13: 09
                        Quote: glory1974
                        Yes, I realized already that you did not serve in the army, and you have no idea about the management levels.

                        You didn’t understand anything, otherwise you wouldn’t talk about the management levels for the battalion company.
                        Quote: glory1974
                        Some orders of the Ministry of Defense are published in newspapers, for example, about another appeal.

                        And some are brought only to the commanders of units, including the commanders of individual companies, which have their own military number.
                        Quote: glory1974
                        you just ask.

                        You? Have you prepared at least one document for signature to the Minister of Defense or the NHS? May share memories of how you did this.
                      4. 0
                        27 March 2019 13: 25
                        otherwise, they would not talk about management levels for a battalion company

                        Combat regulations of the Ground Forces, part "company-battalion" - classified "DSP"
                        Have you seen such a little book?
                        And some are brought only to the commanders of units, including the commanders of individual companies, which have their own military number.

                        I gave an example that the actions of one soldier may be secret. Read carefully. Different orders are brought to the unit commanders. Including unclassified.
                        Have you prepared at least one document for signature to the Minister of Defense or the NHS?

                        What does this have to do with secrecy?
                      5. -2
                        27 March 2019 20: 15
                        Quote: glory1974
                        Combat regulations of the Ground Forces, part "company-battalion" - classified "DSP"
                        Have you seen such a little book?

                        This is just one of the documents. And on it you have already decided what level of secrecy can be in the companies?

                        Quote: glory1974
                        Different orders are brought to the unit commanders. Including unclassified.

                        It was a secret, which may be the commander of a separate company.
                      6. 0
                        April 2 2019 09: 00
                        And on it you have already decided what level of secrecy can be in the companies?

                        In addition to the BUSV there is an order "List of information constituting state secrets and subject to classification". There it is written what information needs to be kept secret.
                        Give an example of a secret order held by a company commander.
                      7. 0
                        April 2 2019 13: 16
                        Quote: glory1974
                        Give an example of a secret order held by a company commander.

                        Extract from the combat training plan of the Special Forces units for the current year. Or secret orders of the Ministry of Defense, which were communicated to all the commanders of individual units, including individual companies, which had their own items.
                      8. 0
                        April 2 2019 20: 29
                        Extract from the combat training plan of the Special Forces units for the current year.

                        Firstly, we were not talking about special units. I have already given you an example that the actions of one soldier may be secret.
                        Secondly, the statement is therefore done to remove the secrecy stamp. If the plan itself is secret, the statement in the part concerning - the chipboard.
                      9. 0
                        April 2 2019 20: 45
                        Quote: glory1974
                        Firstly, we were not talking about special units.

                        They were not in the CA? Yes, it was a question of a company battalion, and it is not clear why you suddenly decided to exclude individual companies, separate units or individual centers from the issue under discussion.
                        Quote: glory1974
                        If the plan itself is secret, the statement in the part concerning - the chipboard.

                        Who told you that someone has the right to reduce the extract from a secret document in the neck?
                        Quote: glory1974
                        Secondly, the statement is therefore done to remove the secrecy stamp.

                        This is if the application went unclassified, then then from it you could make the statement unclassified. So at least 010 an order read in my time
  20. +5
    22 March 2019 12: 37
    On the most dangerous areas (Baltic States, Poland, Ukraine) to have divisions is a heavier strategic strike tool.
    The article is normal, but only with an assessment of dangerous areas, the authors somehow rushed.
    A full-scale offensive by NATO, a kind of reincarnation of the Barbarossa plan, exists only in the violent fantasies of propagandists. It is not for this that NATO is saturating the armies with high-tech weapons in order to crowd into the attack with bayonets attached to the M16.
    But if you look in the other direction, there the picture is somewhat different.
    Far Eastern Federal District. 40% of the country's territory and 5% of the country's population (a little over 8 million)
    And what about the neighbors. Northeast China (only part of China) - 120 million. Japan - 130 million. South Korea - 50 million.
    Mongolia can be neglected.
    Three Chinese military districts border Russia. The Northern Military District of the PLA - 400 people. The rest is about the same.
    Of course, today China is a friend and partner. But history shows that in international politics, especially today, friendship is a very relative concept.
    By the way, judging by the danger of the directions for the formation of divisions, Moscow is the most dangerous, because the first to revive the divisions were not on the border with NATO or China, but in the suburbs - Tamanskaya and Kantemirovskaya.
    1. +1
      22 March 2019 14: 26
      Actually, in military science, the defining concept is a theater of military operations (TVD), what does the federal district have to do with it?
      1. +2
        22 March 2019 14: 28
        And the theater of operations - where is it located - in space or on the territory? Or could I speak out very much?
        1. +1
          22 March 2019 14: 36
          And in what academy did you receive military education? If in the ASH or the Academy. Frunze then surrender unconditionally. wink By the way, plus from me. wink
          1. +1
            22 March 2019 15: 02
            Thank you for the plus, but we did not finish the "academies". But to understand what a "theater of military operations" is, the academy is not needed, there are enough lieutenant ranks.
            1. +2
              22 March 2019 18: 21
              The strange name of a military school. Military science is a science, and according to your logic, you can consider yourself an expert in the field of quantum physics without the appropriate educational knowledge. Enough and basic high school. However, God bless them, with the theater of operations and operational areas. Good luck and have a good weekend. wink
              1. +2
                22 March 2019 18: 56
                Yes, the lack of a sense of humor can be equated with weapons of mass destruction.
                For information. To get a military education (higher), one does not need to study either at the Academy of the General Staff or at other academies. A military school is enough for this. Those who graduate from this receive the military rank of "lieutenant", higher military education and a volume of knowledge, which includes, among other things, knowledge about what a theater of operations is.
                Further, after a certain length of service, an officer can (if there is a positive certification) apply for further training at the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, the Combined Arms Academy of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation or the Military Diplomatic Academy.
                But to write a comment (intelligible) under this article and understand what a theater of war is, how it is prepared in peacetime and war, training in these academies is not required.
                Good luck and good health to you. Smile more often.
                1. +2
                  23 March 2019 18: 09
                  Quote: Decimam
                  Yes, the lack of a sense of humor can be equated with weapons of mass destruction.
                  For information. To get a military education (higher), one does not need to study either at the Academy of the General Staff or at other academies. A military school is enough for this. Those who graduate from this receive the military rank of "lieutenant", higher military education and a volume of knowledge, which includes, among other things, knowledge about what a theater of operations is.
                  Further, after a certain length of service, an officer can (if there is a positive certification) apply for further training at the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, the Combined Arms Academy of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation or the Military Diplomatic Academy.
                  But to write a comment (intelligible) under this article and understand what a theater of war is, how it is prepared in peacetime and war, training in these academies is not required.
                  Good luck and good health to you. Smile more often.

                  Interesting. When I graduated from VVUZ, higher education was civil, and military - secondary. Higher military - it was already an academy. Could it be that "Serdyukovschina" changed everything so radically ?! belay
                  1. 0
                    25 March 2019 09: 00
                    Could it be that "Serdyukovschina" changed everything so radically ?!

                    As for military education, everything remains as you write. Serdyukovschina nothing to do with, probably the exam is to blame. wassat
                    1. +1
                      25 March 2019 13: 26
                      Quote: glory1974
                      Serdyukovschina nothing to do with, probably the exam is to blame.

                      I agree that the decline in the quality of military education was primarily due to the low overall level of school education and the erroneous decision to withdraw higher education institutions from the country's largest cities. Well, the full-time categories of the faculty finally finished military education. That is why now we urgently need to change the system of training of higher educational institutions in order to catch up with the Soviet level of education of officers.
                2. -1
                  26 March 2019 20: 44
                  Quote: Decimam
                  Further, after a certain length of service, an officer can (if there is a positive certification) apply for further training at the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, the Combined Arms Academy of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation or the Military Diplomatic Academy.

                  And do not you consider the position with which you were allowed to enter the academy decisive?
                  By the way, for entering the VDA in Soviet times, other parameters generally existed, and the main thing was at least a two-year internship in the district (fleet) intelligence department. Otherwise, you should not have been admitted even to the medical board.
  21. +3
    22 March 2019 12: 57
    These are the anti-tank battalion, reconnaissance battalion, engineering and sapper, medical, repair and rehabilitation, and engineering and sapper battalions. These are separate companies RHBZ, UAV, EW. This is a curfew company.

    Battalion communications forgotten. Yes, even on the communications company in each regiment. This differs significantly from the communications company alone in the brigade.
    Even earlier there was an ORDN "Luna", and then with "Tochki" - and it must be returned to the division. And now such a division with modern weapons, I would also add an MLRS division and a UAV unit (reconnaissance and strike) there - and such a division will be able to solve tasks on the ground at the operational level, not tactical. Crush any enemy along the front and to a depth of a couple of hundred kilometers. With unconditional support from aviation, air defense, reconnaissance, supply of higher commanders.
    1. 0
      22 March 2019 14: 35
      The structure of command and control of the troops and, consequently, communications will change, so it hardly makes sense to reproduce what happened.

      It’s necessary to add to the division a PSB as before
    2. 0
      25 March 2019 16: 11
      Also forgot a separate battalion mat. security, a separate reconnaissance battalion, a bus.
  22. BAI
    +1
    22 March 2019 13: 45
    Well, by golly, not funny. Who is up there thinking about defense?
    The authors themselves write the answer and do not see it:
    The brigade commander, like the regiment commander, colonel, and the commander, is already a major general.

    Serdyukov cut off general posts. Shoigu restores. If anyone remembers, Colonel Generals commanded in the Emergencies Ministry schools. It was especially noticeable in the parades - the commander of the school of the Ministry of Defense (under Serdyukov) - the colonel, the commander of the school of the Ministry of Emergencies - the colonel general. Therefore, they create new districts - all under general posts.
    Marshal cannot lead the colonels! But when the army general submits dozens of colonel generals, then you can get the marshal himself.
    Moreover, the divisions will still be equal in number to the brigade - there is no draft contingent.
    1. 0
      22 March 2019 14: 17
      School commander? Looks like the training was not in the system of universities of Moscow oblast.
      1. BAI
        +1
        22 March 2019 15: 06
        Well boss, no need to find fault with the words. The meaning has changed?
        1. 0
          22 March 2019 18: 08
          I’m not finding fault, but I’ll clarify. Just not precise wording depressing. I ask you not to be offended, I try to refrain from criticism, but it does not work out. wink
  23. +2
    22 March 2019 14: 00
    "From here Tamanskaya (5th motorized rifle)" - when did she become the 5th? It seems like it's already 50 years ago, the 2nd Guards.
  24. -5
    22 March 2019 14: 03
    The transition to brigades was a deliberate act of WARMING from the INFLUENCE AGENCY of foreign intelligence Serdyukov. Remember how our grandfathers, SOVIET WINNERS beat any adversary. Beat with DIVISIONS.

    How can the Serdyukov brigade stop thousands of abrams and leopards advancing along Voronezh chernozems? That's it and brothers. It is necessary to create 200 DIVISIONS as during the GREAT USSR, to equip them with proven T-72 tanks and not painted armatures. Then no NATO will be scary. We wrap them on the caterpillars Aegis am am am
  25. -1
    22 March 2019 14: 03
    I also agree with the authors, it is necessary to have divisions and brigades, and where and in what directions is the General Staff to decide. And our districts are poorly managed due to the vast territory and underdeveloped infrastructure, changes are also necessary in the boundaries of the districts. But the bloggers, who again delayed - and why did it and the like, then this conversation is not about what has been done, it’s done, the question of how to adjust everything to improve management efficiency.
  26. 0
    22 March 2019 14: 31
    I remember how the headquarters of 14 TD was mobilized during the command and staff exercises (USSR). For more than an hour, they could not leave the location of the unit and organize a convoy for arrival at the places of dispersal.

    From my point of view, the difference between a brigade and a division is only in who makes decisions. If, for example, during an enemy raid, the divisional commander will be named in the army corps, the corps - in the district headquarters and so on and there is no difference waiting for instructions.
    1. +5
      22 March 2019 15: 26
      Quote: MrFox
      I remember how the headquarters of 14 TD was mobilized during the command and staff exercises (USSR). For more than an hour, they could not leave the location of the unit and organize a convoy for arrival at the places of dispersal.

      You can recall 08.08.08, when the divisions, which were held according to all documents as permanent readiness formations, were in fact able to put up a reinforced battalion from the regiment. On paper - a formidable division, but in fact a brigade left the field.
      1. +1
        22 March 2019 15: 40
        That is the point, especially since in my example it was a division fully deployed throughout the state of wartime
  27. +2
    22 March 2019 15: 27
    Signalmen in my urgency are generally gloomy: communication brigades from separate battalions (with their banner), field communications center of the General Staff in general from dissimilar communication centers with a profile equal to approximately balloons, horror!
  28. -1
    22 March 2019 16: 04
    The Russian army, so completely not brushed. Yes, and military districts - as they were and have remained, as well as large military associations / formations.

    There are three armies in the Western Military District: the Guards Tank in the Moscow Region and two combined arms in the Voronezh and Leningrad Regions. As part of the Guards Tank Army, the Kantemirovskaya and Tamanskaya Guards Tank Divisions remained so. It seems that they were going to be blamed, but they changed their minds, and this story is old. A minimum of five years ago.

    In my humble opinion, at least the Western Military District has an organization that meets its objectives.

    And, with regard to reverse obdivizirovanie, we must understand what is meant. If the reorganization of individual brigades back to divisions, then there is nothing criminal in this - the circumstances have changed after all.

    And, about the complete return to the organization of a decade ago - vague doubts torment.
  29. +5
    22 March 2019 18: 03
    Uh, firstly, in terminology. In the SA division is the main type tactical connections. By the way, the corps (not the army corps written off from NATO, but the Soviet rifle corps) is the TOP type, but still tactical connections.
    And on the tasks being solved, yes, the regiment commander works at a tactical level, for example, a division ... too. Yes
    The operational level is, sorry, the army, plus the corps (say, in a separate direction). And the strategic level is a group of armies (front), but certainly not a division.
    In general, it is strange that the authors, trying to flaunt the knowledge of the Soviet officer, from tactics, bypassing operational art, skip to strategy. This, sorry, the military art of the NATO countries operates on these two levels, and in the USSR Armed Forces operational art is an intermediate element. But this is so, immediately cut the eye.
    Now about the main thing.
    OSH (organizational structure) is created for the tasks. The tasks are changing - the OSH is changing. Is the hint clear? Unfortunately, the authors about this neither gu-gu.
  30. -1
    22 March 2019 21: 18
    Author:
    Alexander Staver, Roman Skomorokhov
    Even the very name of the division contains precisely these tasks. Compound! The connection of the parts.

    In fact, the brigade is also a compound.
    A division is an operational-tactical combination of units and subunits. The number of divisions (in different armies) varies from 12 to 24 thousand people. These are three motorized rifle regiments, tank, artillery and anti-aircraft missile regiments.

    Firstly, in the tank divisions there is a different ratio of regiments, and secondly, the commander of the American division submits more than 130 helicopters for various purposes. So the calculation is very conditional, and does not reflect current trends.
    These are the anti-tank battalion, reconnaissance battalion, engineering and sapper, medical, repair and rehabilitation, and engineering and sapper battalions. These are separate companies RHBZ, UAV, EW. This is a curfew company.

    And where is a separate battalion of communications and a bus? You also abolished the Himbat and decided that there would be enough companies for the division?
    You can still find some absurdities in this article, but I note that a return to the divisions is proof of the vitality of this structure, at least in the Ground Forces. Finally, the idiotic decisions of the Serdyukov period begin to be corrected and this pleases those who know and understand military affairs.
    1. 0
      23 March 2019 18: 16
      Quote: ccsr
      Author:
      Alexander Staver, Roman Skomorokhov
      Even the very name of the division contains precisely these tasks. Compound! The connection of the parts.

      In fact, the brigade is also a compound.
      A division is an operational-tactical combination of units and subunits. The number of divisions (in different armies) varies from 12 to 24 thousand people. These are three motorized rifle regiments, tank, artillery and anti-aircraft missile regiments.

      Firstly, in the tank divisions there is a different ratio of regiments, and secondly, the commander of the American division submits more than 130 helicopters for various purposes. So the calculation is very conditional, and does not reflect current trends.
      These are the anti-tank battalion, reconnaissance battalion, engineering and sapper, medical, repair and rehabilitation, and engineering and sapper battalions. These are separate companies RHBZ, UAV, EW. This is a curfew company.

      And where is a separate battalion of communications and a bus? You also abolished the Himbat and decided that there would be enough companies for the division?
      You can still find some absurdities in this article, but I note that a return to the divisions is proof of the vitality of this structure, at least in the Ground Forces. Finally, the idiotic decisions of the Serdyukov period begin to be corrected and this pleases those who know and understand military affairs.

      There was no chemical battalion in the division. Only ORRHBZ.
      1. 0
        23 March 2019 19: 06
        Quote: Doliva63
        There was no chemical battalion in the division. Only ORRHBZ.

        I agree, confused with OBMO.
        Although by and large it’s hard to imagine that for a fully deployed division, a separate company’s forces are enough to fully deactivate several regiments simultaneously passing through the infected area.
  31. -1
    22 March 2019 21: 31
    Author:
    Alexander Staver, Roman Skomorokhov
    So we need a division or not? Do you need huge budget costs and will have to suffer again in the navel area from a tightened belt in exchange for a restful sleep?

    Divisions are the best form of combat units of the Ground Forces. And we are obliged to restore them, abandoning cropped connections, creating only 100% complete connections.

    And in the rear it is the brigade staffing - as a more mobile second-line tool. With a focus on the fact that, if necessary (or over time), this brigade can be reorganized into a division.

    The brigade is the best form of supply units for the Ground Forces. As an exception, the creation of district air assault brigades is possible, but this issue should be addressed taking into account the use of airborne divisions.
    Do not allow any re-formation in any case - this is all monkey labor and there will be no time, and as they say "the benefit is doubtful, the harm is obvious."
    I think that knowledgeable people will agree with me.
  32. 0
    22 March 2019 21: 35
    Stupid article-author-you for yourself at least understand the tasks of the army in a future war, and then talk about the structure, and then "the brigade is more mobile than the division" -and the company is even more mobile laughing
  33. 0
    23 March 2019 01: 22
    almost everything is correctly spoken by this author.
    1. +1
      23 March 2019 09: 12
      The brigades have long been remade into divisions, the vast majority. Why are they now saying loudly? Then, that money was requested for allegedly reorganization or the military leaders who did not know set such a task (if anyone does not know what they do not know, do not hesitate). Within the staffing table, and in very small quantities, they will carry out understaffing and understaffing, and for free !!!!!!! And where the money will go, fantasize yourself. T.Ch. the article is purely scientific and populist; it has nothing to do with our armed forces.
  34. +1
    23 March 2019 14: 15
    Probably, we must first of all count: how many trained soldiers are there?
    And from this quantity to complete: a division or brigade.
    Or maybe the regiment will not be typed?
  35. +1
    23 March 2019 18: 26
    The division in the conditions of our country is the most flexible structure. Inside it, you can form any "tactical groups", at any distance, with any reinforcement. In addition, even being a 30-50% "shot", a division can alert several deployed regiments - what will a cropped brigade set up? And brigades are special and combat support units, as it was in the early 80s in the SA. The country has become smaller than the USSR, but not enough to build an army following the example of a thread of the FRG.
    1. -3
      23 March 2019 20: 44
      First, you need to identify the enemy, and build troops for him. We had both Chechen and other Georgian clashes with militarily weak adversaries. mobile units are needed there, and therefore the brigades quickly went into circulation ... But today the clouds are gathering in the Pacific theater in the confrontation of the millions of armies, there is nothing to do with brigades, there are more powerful fists ... Hence the construction of troops ... the issue of command and control, and then, brigades or divisions, do not differ so much, having created a well-controlled structure that works in real time and has communications in all directions.Then the previously existing need for self-sufficiency of all operational tactical units, the division, disappears. At the head is the ability to create groupings of troops according to tasks, for example, a grouping in Syria .... In particular, an important component: communication and interaction of units was the "Achilles heel" of RIA, RKKA .SA, because of which they suffered and defeats. First, you need to get rid of this chronic "disease". and to create advanced communication, management and interaction .. The wish is necessary, only realities will be "as always" ...
      1. 0
        24 March 2019 12: 21
        Quote: Vladimir 5
        And the main issue in management and interaction, and then, brigades or divisions, do not differ so much, creating a well-managed structure that works in the present time and with connections in all directions. Then the previously existing need for self-support for all operational tactical units disappears - divisions .

        A very controversial conclusion, especially since in real life you will have to deal with different types of tasks in different regions. The advantage of the divisions with the reduced composition of the armed forces lies precisely in the fact that on the basis of the deployed divisions any operational tactical group of troops can be formed without the need to work out the deployment and coordination of the units and units that make up such a group. By the way, any GSVG divisions were much more alert than the same divisions in the internal districts, because all the division’s structures were manned, and the coherence of troops was always worked out during exercises. This is what we must do with the current divisions - a constant 100% peacetime staffing, plus an additional 10% horsepower for weapons and weapons and arrivals on arrival. in order to switch to wartime staff within 4-12-24 hours. And then we will have constantly combat-ready connections, which is less costly and more efficient than having deployable connections.
        1. 0
          24 March 2019 12: 57
          tsssr ... I agree with you that a division equipped and coordinated by a single mechanism is what it should be. Time amends the modern composition of the divisions, there are no longer any bases for the existence of combined-arms motorized rifle divisions, for the saturation of various combat arms with weapons determines only the actions of specialized formations with the prevailing high-tech weapons, for example, only tank, artillery with all today's capabilities, air defense, aviation and others have sufficient level of modern combat readiness. Of course, the importance of such as the Airborne Forces, amphibious assault, mountain and similar specifics is growing. A small arms soldier is no longer a striking force. but by the more consolidating and cleaning force of the second echelons .. In the structure of the divisions, opposing realities do not contribute - from economic, political persons in power, the composition and quantity of the draft contingent and others, therefore only compromise decisions are possible, as one model of such is brigade crushing ... With the weakness of the Russian Federation, brigades were sufficient. With today's strengthening of the state’s power, we need a return to stronger formations. Conclusion: the basis for the construction of the state’s armed forces, derived from the economic and political power of the state itself Today, with the liberal (Medvedev) government, which for personal and other reasons is ready to give up positions rather than gain, so long as it is not possible to build strong RF armed forces ... Moreover, the indicators of development and deployment of new weapons are constantly shifting to the right and five years ...
          1. -1
            24 March 2019 14: 14
            Quote: Vladimir 5
            Therefore, only compromise solutions are possible, as one example of such - brigade crushing ... With the weakness of the Russian Federation, brigades were sufficient.

            I do not believe that a compromise solution is needed regarding brigades, as a structure of combat units of the Ground Forces. I know very well how the Berlin Motorized Rifle Brigade differed from the airborne assault brigades, special forces, equipment and artillery brigades, and therefore I think that where there is armored vehicles and a large number of various weapons and equipment, there is no place for a brigade structure. I don’t think that it will be very expensive in terms of maintaining the troops, given the fact that it is much more difficult for the brigade to organize full support even for the repair bodies and other support services that are needed in a combat situation. For example, how do you provide a two-way communications team with higher headquarters if you do not have a full-fledged communications battalion? How to organize the transportation of ammunition and material assets without a vehicle based on the stored ammunition in warehouses? In a word, there are so many questions that it becomes obvious that the transition to the brigade basis was carried out by the pests of our state. It is a pity that they could not be brought to trial ...
      2. 0
        25 March 2019 19: 58
        Quote: Vladimir 5
        First, you need to identify the enemy, and build troops for him. We had both Chechen and other Georgian clashes with militarily weak adversaries. mobile units are needed there, and therefore the brigades quickly went into circulation ... But today the clouds are gathering in the Pacific theater in the confrontation of the millions of armies, there is nothing to do with brigades, there are more powerful fists ... Hence the construction of troops ... the issue of command and control, and then, brigades or divisions, do not differ so much, having created a well-controlled structure that works in real time and has communications in all directions.Then the previously existing need for self-sufficiency of all operational tactical units, the division, disappears. At the head is the ability to create groupings of troops according to tasks, for example, a grouping in Syria .... In particular, an important component: communication and interaction of units was the "Achilles heel" of RIA, RKKA .SA, because of which they suffered and defeats. First, you need to get rid of this chronic "disease". and to create advanced communication, management and interaction .. The wish is necessary, only realities will be "as always" ...

        Without nuances and details - there was a time when many "works" in the Middle East were carried out through the Novocherkassk division, even hiring civilian specialists.
  36. -1
    23 March 2019 18: 29
    Today it is often possible to meet the definition of "connection" in the materials about the brigades. And even in specialized editions. Sometimes you just want to ask: comrades "military", where did you study at all? And did you study at all? Only in armies, where a couple of regiments are united in brigades, can we speak of a connection.

    Comrade "non-military", did you study at all? Where have you seen brigades made up of regiments? In your fantasy?
    And if in essence, then the brigade is by definition a compound. And if it consists of separate battalions (divisions), i.e. military units, even more so.
    1. 0
      26 March 2019 09: 43
      Quote: combat192
      Today it is often possible to meet the definition of "connection" in the materials about the brigades. And even in specialized editions. Sometimes you just want to ask: comrades "military", where did you study at all? And did you study at all? Only in armies, where a couple of regiments are united in brigades, can we speak of a connection.

      Comrade "non-military", did you study at all? Where have you seen brigades made up of regiments? In your fantasy?
      And if in essence, then the brigade is by definition a compound. And if it consists of separate battalions (divisions), i.e. military units, even more so.

      What stupid minus? I wrote exactly as enshrined in the guidance documents.
  37. +1
    23 March 2019 20: 04
    To borrow money for the restoration of divisions from Serdyukov and Vasilyeva. Well, Medvedev - there too. His protege and relative. They destroyed, they let them build. That would be honest.
  38. 0
    24 March 2019 05: 32
    The world is not ruled by. Everyone understands that a great war is the death of mankind. Consequently, in the new world, all wars will be local, sluggish. States no longer need large armies. We need small but well-armed armies.


    an analyst from the category "yes no .." gives rise to false reflections and conclusions. are equivalent to two different evacuation plans hanging on the wall in case of fire, they will only give disorganization, chaos and increased losses and casualties.

    Therefore, you have to choose which principle of manning is preferable for Russia, divisional or brigade. Given this, the General Staff of the Moscow Region returned to the divisional principle of forming the Russian army.
    At the same time, the Russian military got rid of the problems in the recruitment of units of the USSR army. When inside the country there were incapable "rear personnel" equipped with old and junk and combat-ready units with modern equipment only along the western borders of the USSR.
    What modern Russia has already paid for with a mountain of corpses of military personnel in Chechnya. So the problem of the war in Chechnya is not that we had a divisive principle of formation in that we did not have any combat units whatsoever. Namely the absence of a sledgehammer (powerful combat ready division fist) was the result of a grueling war in Chechnya, and as soon as such a unit was assembled, having absorbed combat-ready units from all over Russia, a turning point in the Chechen war came in an instant.

    Now the divisional recruitment principle, which is the only true for Russia, has been chosen for Russia, and "heated" discussions and disputes have remained only at the level of experts "with a diploma" and experts "without a diploma" who imagine themselves to be strategists.
  39. 0
    24 March 2019 13: 15
    The article is excusable for the layman. The authors are not in the subject. More precisely, the topic is very superficial and distorted.
    Based on the materials of the open press:
    1) in the Ground Forces, both the brigade and division are tactical formations;
    2) both a brigade (if it consists of separate battalions - "units") and a division are formations;
    3) in relation to modern requirements, the brigade is not opposed to a division, but to a regiment. If it’s popular, a brigade is a regiment with a complete set of forces and means of combat and rear support, that is, it is a real tactically independent regiment. Which battalions also have real tactical independence;
    4) the vast majority of the armies of developed states have the following structure:
    - in larger armies - brigade divisions;
    - in less numerous - brigades, if necessary, combined into corps.
    In general, discussing this topic is a thankless task if there is no higher military education behind.
    But on the couch you can talk about everything! :))
    1. -1
      24 March 2019 14: 23
      Quote: infantryman2020
      In general, discussing this topic is a thankless task if there is no higher military education behind.

      I will add that you need not only education, but also a lot of experience in various positions, and it is advisable at the highest headquarters to see all the problems and shortcomings that exist in each state structure in order to choose the optimal one for our Ground Forces. I am sure that the division is what is best suited for our Armed Forces at the present time, given the fact that now they are financing more or less normally, and there are people who want to serve in the army.
      Quote: infantryman2020
      But on the couch you can talk about everything! :))

      That's for sure. The sad thing is that they sometimes set the tone for the whole discussion.
  40. 0
    24 March 2019 16: 20
    I read that when the divisions were led to Afghanistan in 1979, then after some time they removed and returned to the USSR from their structure a tank regiment and an air defense regiment of the type there unnecessarily. They left only Motorized Rifle and artillery regiments. What if the same situation arises? How modular are the divisions in this regard?
  41. 0
    April 14 2019 13: 27
    Who told you about nuclear weapons?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A0WFh_u1SM&t=145s
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH9ULuskKqY&t=11s
    study!

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"