The Northern Fleet will not become the fifth military district

40
The Northern Fleet will not become the fifth military district

The Northern Fleet of the Russian Federation will not become the fifth military district in the system of the Ministry of Defense, but will remain an interspecies association. This was told by the chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Valery Gerasimov.

Speaking at a briefing for foreign military attaches, Gerasimov denied rumors that appeared in August this year that the Northern Fleet will receive the status of a military structure equal to a military district, and will be equated with the existing districts: Western, Southern, Central and Eastern.



No reorganization of the North fleet in the military district is not planned. The Northern Fleet is already an interspecific operational strategic association. Its further development is provided for in the existing organizational structure

- Gerasimov said.

Also, the chief of the General Staff, answering a question from a military attache from Great Britain, denied the information that the Russian army was abandoning the divisional structure and moving to the brigade. According to him, the Russian armed forces use both divisional and brigade structures.

The experience of modern armed conflicts shows that there is no unambiguous approach to choosing a divisional or brigade structure. It all depends on the features and conditions of their use.

- he said.

The general added that the US Army, as part of the modernization of the transition to the brigade structure, announced the need to leave the headquarters of the divisions. The military came to this conclusion after studying the experience of military operations in Afghanistan.
  • Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Our news channels

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

40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    December 18 2019
    "The Northern Fleet won't let you down ...!"
  2. +2
    December 18 2019
    It makes no sense to reorganize a structure that is optimal and efficient today. Moreover, it successfully develops comprehensively. hi
    1. 0
      December 18 2019
      Quote: bessmertniy
      It makes no sense to reorganize a structure that is optimal and efficient today. Moreover, it successfully develops comprehensively. hi

      That's right, why break what works.
    2. -6
      December 18 2019
      But this optimal and effective structure doubled with Kuzey, at first allowed the PD-50 to be drowned, and then a fire occurred on an aircraft-carrying cruiser, and people died in both emergency situations!
  3. +1
    December 18 2019
    It is not clear what the interest of Great Britain is, what difference it will make for another military district in Russia or not.
  4. +7
    December 18 2019
    In general, the modern structure of the RF Armed Forces is not very perfect. At some stage (the inglorious period in which troops were led by the manager from furniture trade), the reorganization went along the path of simplification and reduction, not taking into account the strategic, operational tasks that the troops should solve in the event of a possible conflict. Now the Northern Fleet, with nuclear submarines armed with ICBMs, probably should be directly subordinate to the VGK, and be part of the Navy.
    1. +3
      December 18 2019
      The furniture maker was practical.
      Why have divisions with an actual number of personnel not exceeding the brigade? And the brigade, not reaching the regiment?
      In Donbass, combined battalion groups were generally used: a pair of company tanks, an infantry battalion, and a bit of artillery — regular and Grad.
      And it turned out to be the most effective structure.
      Generals need divisions: there are many posts with high salaries and pensions.
      1. -2
        December 18 2019
        Why have divisions with an actual number of personnel not exceeding the brigade?


        Exactly. The number is a key indicator so that adherents of the organization of management do not speak there. For tactical formations, it has not changed (which is strange) since the time of the Roman legions - 6. The USSR fought in approximately the same number of divisions in WWII. Reformation was carried out at about 000-3 thousand and then not always. Koenigsberg was taken with the number of soldiers in the divisions of about 4 thousand. Conversely, the Germans often divided the full-blooded divisions into 3,5 groups.
      2. +9
        December 18 2019
        Quote: voyaka uh
        The furniture maker was practical.
        Why have divisions with an actual number of personnel not exceeding the brigade? And the brigade, not reaching the regiment?

        He was just a rogue, because instead of not destroying the divisional structure, but bringing it to 100% of the peacetime state, he decided to play with "American soldiers", which caused obvious harm to our army. Introducing a brigade structure for the combat units of the ground forces is sheer idiocy - any officer who served in the Soviet Army will confirm this to you, because he knows how thoughtful was the organizational structure of the ground forces divisions. The brigade structure is good for support units or for high mobility combat units, such as DShBr - no one disputes that. But to transfer divisions with heavy weapons to brigades is the height of stupidity - and time has shown it.
        1. -2
          December 18 2019
          You tell the Chinese (and many others)! China has almost abandoned divisions, reduced the number of armies, which now consist of brigades.
          1. +3
            December 18 2019
            Quote: moreman78
            You tell the Chinese (and many others)! China has almost abandoned divisions, reduced the number of armies, which now consist of brigades.

            And the Chinese are not a decree for us - they couldn’t even get free from the Japanese occupation, and we helped them, so they don’t have experience in military operations as part of modern formations and associations. Not only that, even the Vietnamese piled on them fully thanks to Soviet training in 1979, so that you personally can learn something from them, but military experts are unlikely. And the potential of their army has not grown to ours - this is for you at least to understand the differences between our armed forces.
            1. +1
              December 18 2019
              Moreover, even the Vietnamese piled on them in full


              Maybe just because the Chinese fought in small divisions of 100 thousand? laughing

              But seriously, what is the fundamental difference: to put a division or 40 brigades with an equal amount of equipment on a 2-km defense line?
              1. +3
                December 18 2019
                Quote: Arzt
                Maybe just because the Chinese fought in small divisions of 100 thousand.

                Yes, no, just the Vietnamese already knew how to fight, and they learned Soviet military science well - their officers studied in the USSR.
                Quote: Arzt
                to put a division or 40 brigades with an equal amount of equipment on a 2 km defense strip?

                The difference is enormous, if only because there is no one-man management for such a group of troops, and this alone indicates that controllability will be worse. But even worse, the brigade does not have, for example, a separate reconnaissance battalion that conducts reconnaissance using the RTR company, without which reconnaissance is impossible, there are no repair and restoration battalions and automobile battalions, and the worst thing is the lack of a medical battalion that can save the wounded in the field. I’m not even talking about the engineering and communications battalion - brigade structures are not equivalent to a separate battalion, at least in terms of the quantity of equipment and weapons. I don’t remember about the anti-aircraft missile and artillery regiment either - they are not in the brigade either. So it turns out that there are a lot of equipment and weapons in two teams, and it is even impossible to fully cover them with air defense means, not to mention the fact that there will be constant problems with the management and repair of equipment.
                1. 0
                  December 19 2019
                  Yes, a bad case! Sometimes it is better to remain silent than to sit in a puddle. To begin with, at least on the topic of the question it was necessary to study - the OSH brigades (of ours), and then the Chinese (brigades and armies).
                  Well then, for those who are on an armored train, I remind you that at the moment the brigade has everything - reconnaissance, engineering support, and air defense are sufficient, both rear and communications.
                  1. +1
                    December 19 2019
                    Quote: moreman78
                    Well then, for those who are on an armored train, I remind you that at the moment the brigade has everything - reconnaissance, engineering support, and air defense are sufficient, both rear and communications.

                    Well, since you are such a know-it-all, at least tell me what intelligence or communications equipment are available in the brigade of the ground forces, and compare them with what is available in individual battalions of the division to understand how much you are in general in the subject. Then we’ll talk to whom it’s better to remain silent here. Only we don’t need to nod to the Chinese - their structure is not a decree for us, if only because we are ten times smaller in number.
                    By the way, do you even have an idea how the repair and restoration battalion of a tank division differs from that of a tank regiment (in the brigades the company level of such units), at least in terms of the level of repairs being carried out, not to mention the machinery and field workshops?
                    1. 0
                      December 19 2019
                      I just understand! And you don’t even know how to use the search on the Internet. What is so difficult to google ossh omsbr? What are you talking about then, if you don’t even know that the brigade reconnaissance battalion has both a company r and rtr, and a company tsr, engineer-sapper and repair-restoration battalion - almost a copy of the division. Further laziness to write, everything is in the public domain ...
                      1. +2
                        December 19 2019
                        Quote: moreman78
                        I just understand!

                        You were the deputy commander of the armament division, or the deputy commander of the brigade - enlighten.
                        Quote: moreman78
                        What to talk about with you then, if you don’t even know

                        Well, if you are in the know about everything, then at least about this:
                        To understand the overall scale of the Omsbr, if we consider the motorized rifle and tank units: it consists of three battalions (about 40 bmp in each) and one tank battalion for 41 tanks. Total more than a hundred infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers in combat units and 41 tanks.

                        As can be seen from this composition, the number of support battalions for four combat battalions reaches six, and several separate companies - is it not too redundant if approximately the same number were in the division?
                        Quote: moreman78
                        that the brigade reconnaissance battalion has both a company r and rtr, and a company tsr,

                        Have you compared the strength of the brigade reconnaissance battalion and the arr of the four-armed personnel? Who told you that the capabilities of these battalions are the same, at least in terms of conducting long-range reconnaissance?
                        Quote: moreman78
                        Further laziness to write, everything is in the public domain ...

                        So you then compare the capabilities of the medrot of the brigade and the divisional medical battalion, for starters, as well as the capabilities of the anti-aircraft missile battalion and the anti-aircraft missile regiment, especially given the fact that you can’t do without air defense equipment.
              2. 0
                December 18 2019
                One Division - One Head soldier , 2 (two) brigades - 2 (two) heads soldier soldier
                1. +1
                  December 19 2019
                  Quote: cat Rusich
                  One division - one head, 2 (two) brigades - 2 (two) heads

                  And which of the two heads is the main one, or do they need a third head to control two? Then the management staff will grow - this is unequivocal.
              3. +1
                December 19 2019
                The fundamental difference in the support of hostilities. The division has, if not everything, then almost everything, and it is all united under a single command and operates according to a single plan and plan. The brigades have nothing from the word at all, their uncle provides from the side.
                Well, it's about how to dig a garden, and a neighbor has shovels, who says that he himself needs them.
                1. 0
                  December 19 2019
                  Quote: Yora Dan
                  The brigades have nothing from the word at all, their uncle provides from the side.

                  This is understood by military professionals, and amateurs will never understand this because they do not know how it all functions in real life, not to mention the exercises or military operations.
                  Quote: Yora Dan
                  The division has, if not everything, then almost everything, and it is all united under a single command and operates according to a single plan and plan.

                  That is why the return to the divisional structure began, after they realized that they had broken firewood with a brigade structure.
      3. +1
        December 18 2019
        The practicality of a furniture maker in the construction of the RF Armed Forces has led to colossal financial, personnel, and what can we hide, reputation losses - today and it is not known how much will come around in the future. This is known to all those who are directly, today, in the subject matter. The most effective structure of ground formations, in my opinion, has already been repeatedly and substantively divided into regiments: brigades for highly mobile units (by the type of military operations in the Donbas) and divisions for line units (for conducting a full-scale war). It is to this structure that the connections are gradually being reduced at the moment. And money is spent on this, big, very big money, incomparably larger than salaries (not salaries) and pensions. And in the division there is only one general, and what other generals need divisions because of salaries and pensions, that's a question. And this is not the only question of the "practicality" of the furniture maker.
      4. -2
        December 18 2019
        A cropped division in a peacetime state is not an indicator. In a "small" theater of operations (not large in area), combat subunits can be battalion and regimental and brigade groups and even company ones. The division has the right to be - the question is how to organize it? - what is the ratio of the number of personnel (soldiers) and the number of equipment. Life practice shows - from renaming a division to a brigade - the number of generals does not change (does not decrease).
        1. +1
          December 19 2019
          Quote: cat Rusich
          The cropped division for the state of peacetime is not an indicator.

          Now we should completely abandon the cropped formations and units and focus only on 100% staffing in peacetime, which cannot differ from the states of wartime by more than 5%, or as the maximum allowable for exceptional cases - 8-10% of peacetime staff, and even then in terms of personnel, and in terms of technology, they should not differ.
          Quote: cat Rusich
          The division has the right to be - the question is how to organize it?

          We have brilliant experience in organizing connections, and it does not contradict global trends. The only thing that is required to enter into the MSD and TD is army aviation, as part of at least a helicopter regiment, where there should be strike and transport squadrons. It's time to get rid of the fear of giving the "infantry" direct subordination of aviation - we are too far behind in this respect. Although I understand what the problems will be, but this must be done.
          Quote: cat Rusich
          The practice of life shows - from renaming a division to a brigade - the number of generals does not change (does not decrease).

          It’s not even a matter of the generals, because the brigade commander is a colonel’s position, but the fact that the brigade initially laid down more primitive means and in lesser quantities than those available in separate battalions of divisions, and military specialists know this.
          1. -1
            December 19 2019
            Commander - Major General, brigade commander-GENERAL soldier (Charles De Gaulle Brigadier-General)
            1. +2
              December 20 2019
              Quote: cat Rusich
              Commander - Major General, brigade commander-GENERAL

              This is a western gradation, and it was abandoned even in the Soviet army, so it makes no sense to copy the Western experience if we ourselves were winners and better understand what suits us best.
  5. +1
    December 18 2019
    "...The US Army, as part of the modernization of the transition to the brigade structure, announced the need to leave the headquarters of the divisions. .... "
    =====
    In fact, they used to have the opposite: At the headquarters of the division there were 2 brigade headquarters ..... Or am I misunderstanding something?
  6. +2
    December 18 2019
    - will remain an interspecific association.
    The fleet MUST remain a fleet, a strategic alliance. And the rights should be like those of a county.
    1. +5
      December 18 2019
      Quote: knn54
      The fleet MUST remain a fleet, a strategic alliance. And the rights should be like those of a county.

      Colleague, I welcome you!
      1. The General Staff on the Northern Fleet has attached the entire Arctic ... And the forces? One marines will not make the weather there ... Air defense forces, aviation, an early warning system and other attributes of the "sweet life" have become a hassle for the SF command, tk. "interspecies" links are not direct subordination, but rather "attached" forces ...
      2. Strategists from the Federation Council in the operational subordination of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. But to fuck with their content, provision and preparation - please - to the Northern Fleet!
      3. Hang on the contents of the entire NSR! (And the forces, Wan, the guide?)
      4. It is still not clear: what relation to the Federation Council will have a ZVO. If: - "pass by" - then this is one thing. And if: - "How are you, you brute !?" That is completely different ...
      Probably the same will happen with the Pacific Fleet, when 25 DPLs will rise from the ashes and be enriched with 4-5 Boriks ... What about the subordination of the Air Defense Forces?
      In short, the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet should be given the rights of the VO and removed from the subordination of "local feudal lords", closing control directly to the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces.
      IMHO.
      1. +1
        December 18 2019
        Is the fleet subordinate to the district?
        1. +3
          December 18 2019
          Quote: matRoss
          Is the fleet subordinate to the district?

          Baltic, Black Sea, Pacific Fleet - yes.
          The Federation Council was made an "interspecific association" and seemed to be removed from the subordination of the Western Military District. And before that, they were also wrestling under the boot ...
          Somehow, however!
          1. +2
            December 18 2019
            That is, he is not under the "local feudal lords" anyway. Then what is the sadness about? The interspecies association differs from the district only in the number of trousers with stripes. They fought for them under the carpets in the MO. But it did not break off.
  7. +1
    December 18 2019
    answering a question from a military attache from the UK, he denied information that the Russian army was abandoning the divisional structure and moving to the brigade
    Why is it that the British are interested in this question? Or do they proceed from the fact that the more different reorganizations, the more uncoordinated actions in the troops? Yes, and the report probably needs to be submitted to its management on the work done. If you have to fight, then all the same with the Russian army as a whole, and not with a division (brigade).
    1. 0
      December 18 2019
      Why is it that the British are interested in this question?


      Perhaps regarded as a step towards the West?
  8. +1
    December 18 2019
    The news that the Northern Fleet persists is encouraging.
  9. +1
    December 18 2019
    Quote: matRoss
    Is the fleet subordinate to the district?

    Tankers rule!
  10. 0
    December 18 2019
    As we were told, do not go bastard into the unit, do not bother him to work.
  11. 0
    December 18 2019
    The Northern Fleet of the Russian Federation will not become the fifth military district in the system of the Ministry of Defense, but will remain an interspecific association.

    Well, everything cleared up. And then how many victims of these fakes have already emerged and so much "blood" has been shed after the fake news about the transformation. I always said - do not rush with posters about any Internet excrement - a fake is possible (fake in Russian). lol
  12. 0
    December 19 2019
    Quote: ccsr
    Quote: moreman78
    I just understand!

    So you then compare the capabilities of the medrot of the brigade and the divisional medical battalion, for starters, as well as the capabilities of the anti-aircraft missile battalion and the anti-aircraft missile regiment, especially given the fact that you can’t do without air defense equipment.

    And what - for 4 battalions of the brigade (3 msb and 1 tb) there is enough medroty, and in the division of the medical battalion - for 4 regiments, or are you not up to date? In the ZRP division (of 4 Tor batteries) - for 4 regiments, in the ZRDN brigade (3 Tor batteries) - for 4 battalions.
    The modern Russian motorized rifle brigade is a regular SME with the rear and support of almost a division (ZRDN, ZDN, READN, 2 SGADN, RB, ISB, RVB, BMO, company réba, company rpa, rrbs, honey company).
    A reconnaissance bat from a divisional one differs only in the absence of one rp, a r and rtr company - one to one as in a divisional one, so everything is in order with long-range reconnaissance, especially when you consider that in the current structure of the MSD, it has only one UAV company in it, as in the brigade.
  13. 0
    December 20 2019
    An ideal system does not exist. There are optimally possible. So far, everything is in place.

"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"