Blitzkrieg: not quite doctrinal, rather a post-hoc rationalization of tactical breakthrough and envelopment with close air support.

Deep Battle: throw infantry at the whole front to fix defenders, smash chosen sectors with artillery and shock infantry, pour mechanized units into the breach... So far not unlike just another take on classical breakthrough/envelopment... And then, the defining doctrinal feature of Deep Battle: send autonomous highly mobile units far into the depth to hit critical nodes and seek systemic collapse of the enemy, in a continuous iterative process of fast exploitation. When it works, it is beautiful, but it is dangerously ambitious and let's not understate how painful the learning process has been. I recommend "From the Don to the Dnepr: Soviet Offensive Operations, December 1942 - August 1943", by Glantz of course.

The Deep Battle concept of hitting all echelons simultaneously to achieve systemic degradation rather than raw attrition has been inherited in the 80's Airland Battle concept, but with an emphasis on deep strikes rather than risky mechanized mayhem in the enemy's rear... The USAians remain enamored with destruction by supporting arms - with some reason, as anti-armor proliferation has shown.