How Operational Art Devoured Strategy

[William F. Owen]

I have to disagree with you. This is taken from my PhD so sorry for the dry tone:

Not sure what you are disagreeing with, but I would be interested to read your PhD.

I am pretty well aware of how the Soviets tried to explain the idea - which is why I remain unconvinced. You are right that the term "Deep Battle" is never used. IMO, it actually comes from Simpkin's book on Tukhachesvsky. - which is why is said,

- but If you believe the PU-36, is the "how to" cook book of "Deep battle" then poster child of the "Operational Level," is Tukhachesvsky. Svechkin and Triandifillov never really say anything about "Deep Battle" and it is that which has come to define the idea of Operational Art.

Sure AA Svechkin may up with the all terminology, but what about the actual practice? I've only read the paper attributed to Svechkin, in the 1927 "Strategiya," - and it's pretty rambling stuff, and the definitions are not good.
He does not tackle the real issues that Triandiffolov does. IMO, Triandiffolov gets the ball rolling in a practical way - a year later, and may have written it well before. You have to split and encircle enemy armies, to destroy them across their "depth." Like it or not, "Deep Battle" is how the Soviet attack into the enemies depth is described.

Now I do not believe that PU-36 is the "how to" cook book of "Deep battle," because it's actually pretty banal stuff. I do not think it is actually anything much to do with Operational Art either, but it is supposed to be the practical guidance laid out by Tukhachesvsky. If you know or can prove he didn't write it, then sing out.