Actually, maskirovka can be on many levels from tactical to strategic. So, strategic deception could be considered a subset of maskirovka. Yes, Bagration was considered part of a strategic maskirovka operation that spanned the entire front, and Patton's 'ghost army' would definitely be considered maskirovka.
While maskirovka was used mainly in the initial stages of an operation, it was also used as needed in fluid situations like the Dnepr battles. In one instance, at least, it was even used during an actual exploitation maneuver. Also, forward detachments were used extensively in tactical maskirovka measures, usually to confuse the Germans of the main point of advance.
The thing about effective maskirovka is that it takes a well trained and disciplined army to pull off, which is why the Soviets only started to get good, consistant results from about mid-1943. The other thing is in order to keep maskirovka effective takes imaginative and original thinking on the part of the commanders, since an experienced enemy picks up on his opponent's patterns fairly quickly. Maskirovka can almost be categorized as part of the realm of psychological warfare.
Originally posted by freyburg:
Is there a dividing line between maskirova and strategic deception; or are they trancslations of the same concept? Wasn't Bagration set up by a strategic deception, and wouldn't Armee Gruppe Patton be classic maskirova? :confused: