MILITARY THOUGHT: THE QUESTION OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ORGANS OF TROOP CONTROL, BY MAJOR-GENERAL N. REUT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80T00246A029700230001-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: T
• Document Page Count: 14
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 12, 2012
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: June 19, 1962
• Content Type: MEMO

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Denied
Iq
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7
The Question of the (organization of the Organs of Troop Control
by
Major-General R. Reut
The necessity has long been apparent for discussing the problems
involved in improving the system of troop control (upravleniye voyskami)
and the administrative-organizational structure of the control organ.
It is known that the existing organs of control are unwieldy, in-
sufficiently flexible, and do not ensure the mobility necessary for
control of troops during abrupt changes in the situation and in keep-
ing withthehighly maneuverable nature of combat operations.
The articles of Generals M. Ivanov, A. Morozov, V. Arkhipov, and
Colonel K. Pashuk, basically, correctly uncover the flaws in the ex-
isting organizational structure of control organs, and the inability
of the latter to ensure firm control of troops. However, a significant
portion of these authors' proposals for improving the organization of
the control organs is directed, actually, toward slightly modernizing
the organizational structure and adapting it to modern requirements.
In our opinion, such an approach cannot lead to the eradication of the
flaws in the organization of troop control uncovered by the authors.
In the existing structure, as well as in the structure of the
control organs proposed by the authors, there are still a few organs,
acting parallel to one another, and directly subordinate to the com-
bined-arms commander, among which the functions of troop control are
divided. The combined-arms staff and the numerous commanders of arms
of troops (special troops) and services are such organs now. In General
M. Ivanov's proposals, the control functions are divided between a main
planning center, operations, intelligence, and nuclear/missile centers,
and a PVO control center. The other authors are for maintaining the
apparatus of the commanders of arms of troops (special troops) and ser-
vices, and by so doing, concur in the existence of numerous control organs.
Indeed, this "overgrowth" of the combined-arms commanders by control
organs operating along parallel lines is the very thing which brought
about loss of flexibility, since it has forced them to spend much time and
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7
energy directing the activities of a large number of directly sub-
ordinate officials heading the specific control organs.
In our opinion, in order to eradicate the flaw noted, it is 50X1-HUM
necessary to have only one organ of troop control, directly sub-
ordinate to the combined-arms commander. Such an organ should
be a staff since only the latter is gapab,Ie of evaluating a situa-
tion thoroughly and objectively, determining the combat capabilities
of friendly troops and the troops of the enemy, proposing to the
combined-arms commander an expedient solution to the problem posed,
determining the forces and weapons needed for it, and also, quickly
coordinating the efforts of the large units and units. This will
permit the combined-arms commander to spend a minimum of time adopting
well-founded decisions. The other organs --commanders of arms of
troops (special troops) and services, and their apparatus, can be
abolished, because they only complicate the process of troop control
by their autonomous existence, and have actually lost the role which
they played in the years of World War II and after its termination.
During the course of training, many commanders of arms of troops
(special troops) are found to be hostile to troop control and, to a
certain extent, are a burden to the control points.
It is known that in order to perform operational tasks in the
course of a modern operation, the combined-arms commander allots a
specific quantity of forces and weapons, including combined-arms
large units (units) and units of arms of troops (special troops).
Each one of such groupings is headed by a subordinate combined-arms
commander and is designated for operating on a separate axis and for
making independent decisions regarding the tasks confronting him
(using, of course, the results of strikes by weapons of mass destruction,
if they are delivered by the senior commander).
Each combined-arms commander who leads such a grouping of troops
is given the right of independent command of the forces and means
assigned to his jurisdiction, and is charged with most effective use
of them in performing the assigned tasks. In this case, it becomes
superfluous to have supervision from above; this often arises because
of the tendency of the comma riders of arms of troops (special troops)
and services to plan operations and issue orders about the manner of
using the units and subunits which are within their competence, but
which are subordinate to the lower-ranking combined-arms commander.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7
It is the removal of this supervision which creates favorable con-
ditions for the combined-arms commander to practice intelligent
initiative and make best use of forces and means in a situation
which arises. 50X1-HUM
It is also known that each combined-arms commander keeps a
certain quantity of the means of destruction under direct subordination
to him (large units and units of missile troops, aviation, and anti-
aircraft missile units); these allow him to exert decisive influence
on the course and outcome of combat operations, creates reserves for
reinforcing the main troop groupings, and for performing unexpected
or suddenly arising tasks; finally, he also has units (large units)
of special troops, which he designates for the execution of the most
vital measures in the interests of supporting the operations of all
the troops in the formation.
Thus, during the course of the operation, the combined-arms
commander must direct the lower-ranking combined-arms commanding
officers who head up the groupings of troops designated to execute
independent tasks on separate axes; he also directs the above-mentioned
means of destruction, reserves, and units (large units) of special
troops left under his direct subordination. What role, in troop control,
then, in these circumstances, will be played by the commanders of the
arms of troops and special troops?
Recently it has been recognized that there is need for wide use
of nuclear weapons and other means of mass destruction in an operation;
the firing capabilities of the units (subunits) having these means have
been increased, as have the ranges of fire, and the need has arisen to
increase the speed of delivery or retargeting of fire strikes against
the enemy. All this substantially influences the use of means of des-
truction in a modern operation. In our opinion, it is necessary to change
the organization of the control of these means, because it no longer en-
sures fast delivery of fire strikes, and does not correspond with the
new principles of assignment of missions by the combined-arms commander.
Actually during World War II and after its termination, the combined-
arnms commander designated only tactical tasks for the means of destruction,
and in this connection there was need for control organs for these means.
These organs were occupied with determining the fire tasks and distributing
them among the numerous artillery groups (units, subunits), planned
* 50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7
the execution of these tasks, and also organized the control of the 50X1-HUM
most effective massed artillery fire, which called for bringing in
many artillery units which were subordinate to various levels of
command. This justified the interference of the commander of artillery
of the operational formation (combined-arms large unit) with the oper-
ations of the lower-ranking combined-arms commanders, and the bringing
in of the artillery units subordinate to them for carrying out massed
fire on behalf of the operational formation (combined-arms large unit)
as a whole.
In addition, these organs of control were charged with organizing
reconnaissance of the enemy's system of fire and carrying aat combat
with his main means of destruction -- artillery and mortars. All this
taken together permitted the commander and staff of the artillery of
the operational formation (combined-arms large unit) to resolve in-
dependently the particular sphere of problems connected with the combat
activities of the artillery and, as a result, the above-mentioned con-
trol organs were quite necessary.
In modern operations the combined-arms commander assigns not
tactical, but actual fire tasks to the missile troops, indicating the
objectives to be destroyed by nuclear (chemical) warheads, the yield
and quantity of the latter, the time for delivering nuclear strikes, and
the type of burst. In other words, at present the combined-arms commander
is charged with the planning of fire, which is closely related to planning
the operations of troops. It therefore follows that the combined-arms com-
mander no longer has any need for those organs which would be occupied
specifically with the planning of fire, and there is no need to duplicate
his work and the work of the combined-arms staff.
At the same time, under modern conditions, the basis of the combat
formation of the enemy -- his nuclear means -- can be discovered only by
the combined efforts of all types of intelligence. In turn, the destruction
(limiting the operations) of nuclear means of the enemy is also attained by
the coordinated efforts of missile troops, aviation, PVO troops, and radio
countermeasures, in conjunction with a swift offensive by the combined-arms
large units and units. As a result, the organization of intelligence and
combat with the nuclear means of the enemy can only be in the hands of the
combined-arms commander. It follows, therefore, that the combined-arms
commander has now become the organizer of combat with the enemy's princi-
pal means of destruction, and not the commander of missile troops and
artillery, as many think.
VIPENMWW
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7
Everything which has been said, in our opinion, deprives the 50X1-HUM
commander of missile troops and artillery of independence of action,
and turns him into a direct executor of fire tasks, which are specified
by the combined-arms commander, and limits his activity to the control
of the units of missile troops and artillery left directly subordinate
to the combined-arms corm rider.
In connection with this there arises the question of whether it
is advisable to remove the commanders of missile troops and artillery
and their staffs from the commands of operational formations, and to
turn over to them the c,1-nd of the missile and artillery units which
are directly subordinate to the combined-arms commander. This will increase
their responsibility for the status of the units directly subordinate to
them, and will permit them to exercise full command of the latter; it will
also eliminate the possibility of interference with the operations of the
lower-ranking combined-arms commanders.
The fast-moving nature of combat operations, and the need for rapidly
delivered strikes by nuclear and chemical weapons require immediate trans-
mission of the fire tasks to the executors. This can be attained to the
best degree by direct communications between the combined-arms commander
and the executor, i.e., the commanding officer of the missile or aviation
unit (subunit) directly delivering these strikes. However,, an excessive
number of such executors complicates the activity of the combined-arms
commander in controlling them, and necessitates intermediate organs cap-
able of ensuring firm control.
Under the existing administrative-organizational structure of the
control organs, there are, between the combined-arms commander and the
executor -- the commanding officer of the missile or aviation subunit --
three intervening relay organs. In the missile troops, these include the
commanding officer of the missile troops and artillery, the commanding
officer of the missile brigade, and the commanders of battalions; in
aviation, there are the commander of the air army and the commanders of
aviation divisions and regiments. Th our opinion, it would be advisable
to abolish the brigade level in the missile troops and the divisional
level in aviation, because there is no independent use for them during
the course of combat operations. This step will significantly speed up
the process of troop control, cut down on the quantity of documents to
be processed, and lower expenditures on the maintenance of the control organs.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246A029700230001-7 JIM
The conditions under which a modern operation is conducted, and
control of troops during its course evoke the need for review of the
organization of control of the means designated for combating the air
enemy, because the current subordination of these means to two com-
manders -- the commander of the air army and the commander of PVO
troops -- does not ensure unity of command, nor their effective utili-
zation. The need arises for the combined-arms commander to coordinate
directly the operations of these two levels, which leads to an unwar-
ranted waste of time, which is so precious during the course of combat
with the highly mobile air enemy.
Perfecting the ground means of combat with the air enemy, and in-
creasing the combat capabilities of antiaircraft missile units, allow
for creating zones of continuous destruction along the entire area of
operations of the troops of a front. In their turn, such zones ensure
centralized use, on the scope of a front, not only of the fighter avia-
tion, but of antiaircraft missile units, as well as the means for re-
connaissance of the air enemy, and radio countermeasures, all under the
direction of a single control organ.
In this connection, we suggest that antiaircraft missile units be
taken out of the makeup of combined-arms large units and the primary
operational formations, in order that they may be used in a centralized
and more effective manner on the scope of a front. In this way there
will be no need for coordinating the combat operations of aviation with
the numerous levels of command to which antiaircraft missile units are
subordinate, and it will become possible to use them more effectively for
destroying the air enemy.
As suggested by us, shifting antiaircraft missile units to subordina-
tion to a single control organ of the front will permit painless elimination
of the intervening control organs -- the chiefs of PVO of the combined-arms
large units and the primary operational formations, which, at these levels,
have almost no bearing on the course of combat in the air; it will also
eliminate preparation of unnecessary documents.
Such a measure will free the commanders of troops of the primary
operational formations (commanding officers of combined--arms large units)
from organizing the combat with the air enemy, a subject to which they
actually attach little significance, since the main thing to them is the
defeat of the enemy's ground troops.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246A029700230001-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246A029700230001-7
It is advisable to assign the control of all the means designated
for the destruction of the air enemy to the commander who controls the
means of air attack. Such a situation is conditioned by the fact that,
in the first place, this commander can organize the combat with the air
enemy more easily, not only in the air, but on the ground, and in the
second place, he can coordinate more promptly the operations of fighter
aviation and antiaircraft missile units with the operations of his own
means of air attack.
Taking all this into consideration, it occurs to us that it would
be beneficial to combine the means of PVO and aviation under the unified
leadership of the commander of the air army. This will do away with dup-
lication in the work of the chief of PVO troops of a front and the com-
mander of the air army, and with unnecessary coordination, and will free
the combined-arms commander from still another artificially created organ
of control -- the PVO command post; the use of the latter in the course
of an operation, in the light of the control system suggested by us, is
highly questionable.
For combat with low-flying aircraft and cruise missiles, as well as
for the destruction of the enemy's army aviation aircraft, it would be
expedient for combined-arms large units and units to have appropriate
antiaircraft weapons, which would be equally suitable for combat with the
ground enemy. It is the versatility of these weapons which will permit
effective employment of personnel in the course of a battle to combat the
air or ground enemy, depending on the actual situation which has developed.
The combined-arms commander can control such units (subunits) directly, with-
out the help of the chief of PVO troops and his apparatus.
Uniting the missile and aviation means of destruction under a single
organ -- a missile/nuclear center -- as is suggested by Major-General M.
Ivanov, considering the clear-cut technical isolation which exists between
the types of armament, is hardly advisable, because such an organ will be
incapable of directing simultaneously the operations of the missile units
and aviation, and especially of supporting them from the technical aspect.
The use of units (large units) of special troops and the organization
of their control differ somewhat at the present time from the analogous
situation during World War II. Specifically, the increased independence in
operations of the combined-arms commanding officers has made superfluous
the interference of the chiefs of the special troops attached to the higher
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246A029700230001-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246A029700230001-7
combined-arms chief in the use of units within their competence which
have been resubordinated to the command of lower-ranking combined-arms
commanders. In this connection there is no need to accomplish, at the
higher level, the planning of various measures of support for operations
of subordinate troops, to be executed by special units directly subordin-
ate to the lower-ranking combined-arms commanders, since this problem
can best be handled by the troops themselves. Freeing the chiefs of the
special troops from these functions will allow tnem to spend more time on
measures which the combined-arms commander expects to accomplish by the
units of special troops left under his direct subordination, on behalf of
all the troops subordinate to the formation (large unit).
Under these conditions, the combined-arms commander needs organs for
controlling the units of special troops which were left under his direct
subordination. In our opinion, this role will be filled best by the
chiefs of special troops, which have become commanding officers of com-
posite large units of special troops; they will gain independence of
action, will have their own control points, and will be able to make de-
cisions in order to perform the tasks assigned by the combined-arms commander.
There will be no need for the chiefs of special troops to remain at the
control point of the combined-arms commanding officer, and this will
greatly increase the flexibility of this point.
Outfitting units of special troops with new combat equipment, in-
creasing their combat capabilities, and the mechanization of work pro-
cesses are conducive to decreasing the number of such units and the
number of personnel therein. Thanks to new machines, many units (sub-
units) of special troops can perform the same work considerably faster
than entire large units, using manual labor, could accomplish it during
World War II. This makes it advisable to reduce the numerous intervening
control organs and units of special troops for which no combat use can
be found in the course of an operation.
Thus the headquarters of front and army engineer-sapper brigades and
headquarters of sapper battalions in large units are becoming superfluous,
since the direct control of units (subunits) within their makeup is really
already exercised by the chiefs of engineer troops. The same applies to
the headquarters of front and army communications regiments and head-
quarters of communications battalions ct'large units, since their subunits
are under the direct control of the chief of communications.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246A029700230001-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29760230001-7
At the same time, in our opinion, it is better to unite separate
units of chemical troops under a single control organ, headed by the
chief of chemical troops. This will eliminate the lack of control
for these units which is presently felt by the chief of chemical
troops, who has no communications means of his own.
After the suggested changes are carried out it will be superfluous
to work out plans for the use of special troops in an operation, because
these plans will actually duplicate combined-arms documents.
Summing up the foregoing, it can be concluded that the changed
functions of the chiefs of arms of troops (special troops) make it
possible to remove them from the system of control of the operational
formations and shift them from consultants attached to the combined-arms
commander into the actual executors of the tasks carried out by the forces
and means left directly subordinate to the combined-arms commander. This
will permit the removal of supervision of the lower-ranking combined-arms
commander; also, by decreasing considerably the number of control organs
directly subordinate to the senior commander, it will permit having one
headquarters -- a single, highly flexible and numerically small organ for
controlling the combat activity of all troops within the makeup of an
operational formation.
In these conditions, staffs will be charged with the following
functions: preparing information which will allow the combined-arms com-
mander to make decisions,and drafting the necessary memoranda; planning
combat operations and detailed support of the latter; collecting and,
collating of information on the situation and reporting it to the combined-
arms commander and higher headquarters, and informing lower headquarters;
transmitting tasks to the troops, directing and supervising their daily
combat activities; directing restoration of combat effectiveness of troops
and preparing them for performing impending tasks; and organizing points
of control and communications.
The work of the staff will be most effective if the basis of its struc-
ture is the principle of independent execution, by each department (direct-
orate) of a specific type of work for control of troops, without bringing
in other departments. This will result in less time being spent in co-
ordinating the efforts of the combined-arms large units (units)., units of
the arms of troops (special troops), and aviation, because all this work
will be carried out by one department (directorate). At the same time,
each department (directorate) will present the chief of staff and the com-
mander an information summary on all the troops, forces, and means making
up the operational formation.
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246A029700230001-7
In our opinion, a staff should have the following departments
(directorates):
-- the first -- which will take up the questions of organizing
impending operations taking into consideration the situation as it
takes shape; prepare recommendations for the combined-arms commander;
carry out the planning of combat operations and their all-round support,
and inform the troops of their tasks.
-- the second -- to direct the current combat activities of the
troops in the course of performing the tasks assigned to them for collect-
ing and collating information on the situation and presenting it to the
combined-arms commander, and higher and lower headquarters, and also to
transmit all current orders to the troops and undertake supervision of their
execution; this department must have within its subordination all means of
intelligence and traffic control.
-- the third -- to develop and carry out measures for restoring com-
bat effectiveness and increasing the viability of troops, as well as their
combat preparation for impending operations; units implementing activation
of troops, and the training base should be subordinate to this department.
-- the fourth -- to organize troop control, that is, be in charge of
establishment and movement of control points, and of their protection and
defense of apparatus for communications between the points, and of control
of troops by secure communications, and to supply them with topographic
maps and charts; this department directs communications large units (units),
and commandant's and topographic subunits.
-- the fifth -- to carry out the administrative and supply functions.
The makeup of each department (directorate) should include highly
qualified combined-arms generals and officers, and generals and officers
of the arms of troops (special troops) of various specialties. A combined-
arms general (officer) should be at the head of a department (directorate).
The organization of work in the departments (directorates) and coordination
between them should be set up in the manner suggested by General M. Ivanov
and Colonel K. Pashuk in their articles.
Such an organizational structure of a staff will eliminate another
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7
important deficiency of control organs -- simultaneous execution by
the very same departments (services) of work relating to preparation
of information for making a decision, the planning of combat operations
and their support, and also in regard to the collection of information
on the situation and the immediate direction of the current combat
activities of the troops. At the same time there will no longer be the
need to involve a large number of officers in controlling the troops;
duplication of work, lengthy coordinating processes and the basis of
numerous documents, duplicating each other, will all be done away with.
A staff so constructed will have two vital departments -- the first
concerned with matters of planning impending operations, the second, dir-
ecting the current combat activity of the troops. This will permit more
purposeful distribution of the efforts of the staff personnel in the
control of the current activity of the troops and, at the same time, in
the organization of impending operations.
In our opinion, such a distribution of functions will attain the
best results, since a definite number of staff personnel, headed by a
combined-arms general (officer), are dedicated beforehand to the execu-
tion of each task. Under the existing system, however, the decision in
these matters is arrived at with the participation of the very same
officers. The experience of numerous operational exercises indicates
that the basic reason for unsatisfactory functioning of staffs in the
matter of troop control, during the course of highly maneuvering and
swift-moving combat operations, is the inability of the same persons to
perform both functions equally well.
The suggested staff structure allows the combined-arms commander to
receive simultaneously collated information on the situation regarding the
enemy and all troops of the operational formation, and to work out measures
which will reflect the combined activity of all arms of troops (special
troops). It will become feasible to reduce considerably the quantity of
documents processed in the staffs regarding troop control, mainly those
dealing with plans for utilization of arms of troops (special troops), as
well as types of support, since these documents actually only summarize
the basic measures which are spelled out in documents of the combined-arms
staff. It will be possible to bring in considerably fewer personnel for
the purpose of troop control than under the existing system, by bringing in,
in turn, the first four departments, depending on the actual situation, and
also by concentrating the basic work for control of the current activities
of the troops in one -- the second -- department (directorate).
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7
50X1-HUM
The chief of staff is given the best conditions for performing
his functions, because he is relieved of the necessity of coordinating
the activity of officers not under his subordination, and at the same
time he is given a greater opportunity to study the situation and to
organize combat operations, and the all-round support of the latter.
In our opinion, such an organizational structure of the staff is
more convenient for work at the control points, because only the first,
second and fourth departments (directorates) may be located with the
combined-arms commander, and the efforts of these would be quite sufficient
for performing the main functions of troop control. This will make it
possible to decrease the personnel at the control points, increase their
flexibility, significantly ease the work of communications equipment, and
decrease its quantity, because it abolishes joint location of the combined-
arms headquarters and the control organs of the chiefs of arms of troops
(special troops) and services in one area (point), as it was in the past.
It will be possible to disperse the points of troop control more, which
undoubtedly will increase their viability.
The new organizational structure of the control organs is, in many
ways, conducive to reducing the expense of their maintenance; and allows more
effective use of the work of personnel and employment of the means of com-
plex automation and mechanization of control processes. In addition, there
will be need of only one system of automation for the combined-arms commander,
capable of receiving and transmitting collated information on the situation.
And finally, the organizational structure of control organs suggested
by us will avoid piecemeal control of operations of the arms of troops
(special troops) and services, and point them, to a large degree, tc the
performance of tasks by combined efforts, that is, make the organization
of troop control conform with their activities in the course of an operation.
It is known that an important place in the work of the combined-arms
commander is occupied by the problems of materiel-technical and medical
support. For directing materiel-technical and medical support, the combined-
arms chief, in our opinion, also should have one control organ. This stems
from the fact that in modern conditions the troops will be equally incapable
of combat whether they lack materiel supplies or whether their equipment
is not serviced and put into combat-effective condition. In turn, if the
troops have a great amount of various combat equipment, and its performance
depends on the supply of materiel on one hand, and on technical servicing
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7
50X1-HUM
and repair on the other, then these types of activity are made into
one process. This is the reason for the need to unite the direction
of materiel, equipment, and other types of rear support under the chief
of the rear, directly subordinated to the combined-arms commanding officer.
In this, centralization of control of the rear must be carried out
not only in matters of the organization of the rear, transport of materiel
and technical equipment, and medical service, which are now the respon-
sibilities of the chief of the rear, but also in matters of technical
support as a second inherent part of modern rear services, which at pre-
sent is under the jurisdiction of the various chiefs of arms of troops and
special troops (services) not subordinate to the chief of the rear.
Thus, it seems to us that an administrative-organizational structure
of control organs more suitable than the existing one, or the one suggested
by Generals M. Ivanov, V. Arkhipov, and Colonel K. Pashuk, will be one in
which the headquarters and the chief of the rear with his apparatus will
be under the direct subordination of the combined-arms commander. Each of
them will be concerned with a specific sphere of problems which require
independent decisions on the part of the combined-arms commander. In our
opinion, in conformity with modern principles of the use of troops in an
operation, an operational formation must have within its makeup: combined-
arms (tank) armies and combined-arms large units, an air army, including
PVO troops, a large unit of missile troops and artillery, large units of
engineer, chemical and communications troops, as well as units and subunits
of intelligence, commandant's service, traffic control, and others.
"i With such a structure of the operational formation, the combined-arms
commander can charge the lower combined-arms commanders with the fulfilment
of tasks stemming from the goal and plan of the operation, and also will
have means under his direct subordination with which he will be able to
influence the course of tie operation as a whole. At the same time, the
organization of troop controlis ;onsiderably simplified, and many intervening
and, in our opinion, needless, control organs are elimiazated.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP80T00246AO29700230001-7