I am currently reading the 1982 edtion of John Hacketts "The Third World War", in this book there is a mention of KGB barrage battalions sent to the rear lines to shore up defenses and stop units from retreating. There is a mention of a rocket artillery commander being arrested because he wants to move the units back 4-5 kilometers and to the South. I thought these kind of things ended in the soviet union after Stalins death or even during the later phases of WW2, and units were allowed to show more initiative?

There is also the mention of KGB "Liquidation" units that were behind the other KGB units and took care of the political enemies such as priests, state enemies, and political figures. Come on! I thought shit like was REALLY anachronistic and was just there to show the "evil" soviets.

Commie SOP, as applied in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc etc. Maybe the Russian commies had moved past that(yeah, sure), but their minions were more than eager to step up and get 'er done. S/F.....Ken M

John Hacketts beleaved Suvorov (V.Resun) a bit more then he should (ie. not at all).

As far as World War III is concerned, the KGB barrage battalions are complete nonsense. For example, the infantrymen were in BMPs, the KGB had machine guns. Wouldnt take an awful lot for them to be chewed up, and they were hardly mobile enough to keep up with the former anyway.

Secondly, there wasnt any in the order of battle of the GSFG forces. If they went into the attack, who was going to keep them in line? The answer was the rather more practical approach of political officers. In that regard I suspect there MAY have been individuals relieved who were perceived to be being politically reliable or militarily effective. But I hardly think that it would have been a matter of course in Wartime. It doesnt seem to have been widely noted happening in Afghanistan.

Hackett was at his strongest describing how NATO would have responded to any potential invasion. But some of the stuff regarding the Soviets is frankly cringe worthy, and Im not Soviet apologiser either. The reality of Communism in Eastern Europe was bad enough without having to come up with nonsense like that.

Hackett was taking things that really did happen in WW II as a starting point for a lot of his descriptions of Soviet actions. In his defense, most military analysis in the Seventies was based on Soviet WW II behavior. I think that "Suvorov" character had very little to do with it one way or the other. There was plenty of similar information floating around. His work is certainly no more cringeworthy than the propaganda that was being passed off as fact in everything from DoD public consumption pubs to service field manuals.

True. Some of the tosh in 'Soviet Military Power' is every bit as contrived as that in 'Whence the threat to peace?' Both in retrospect are also good for a damn good laugh.

Did those KGB barrage battalions rode battlebears?

There were NKVD barrage units (not bataillons) used in WW2 but it was never soviet standard tactic or something unique for the red army. Barrage units were raised only by special orders in areas where the situation was extremely critical, mostly in the year 42. Their number and effect seem to be overestimated by many authors which apparently believe a soviet soldier generally advances only with a gun at his neck.

Their use in the Great Patriotic War was a carry over from the Civil War, where they were employed by the Bolsheviks. IIRC Tukhachevsky came up with the idea.

BillB

Hackett relied heavily on "Suvorov".

Given how often he comes up in these discussions, was there anyone who didn't?

Falken

I've never heard of either NVA or VC "barrage battalions" or any equivalent. Not saying it would never, ever have happened, but it sure seems to have been very far from common practice.

Hey, I liked reading the "Whence The Threat to Peace" journals.

Reminds me of a poster recently emailed to me which is about the "The Soviet Big Five" - the Hind, Shilka, T-72, Gecko and BMD. Purportedly a US DoD info-poster.

I have been reading the book and some of the stuff Suvurov mentions just seems plain WRONG! I swear was he some secret disinformation agent or something?

Some? Almost everything

Weren't Hackett and Suvurov writing for a particular audience? Hackett was also carrying on a rather long British tradition of military officers (usually but not always retired) of writing pieces which were intended to alarm and awaken people from complacency about an enemy that they perceived to be just waiting to attack and/or invade? Even Winston Churchill did it between the wars, along with Basil Liddell-Hart. Suvurov had to not only put bread on the table but pay for it, didn't he? How easier than to give conservatives in the west what they wanted to hear?