Soviet tank doctrine was completely different to the Blitzkrieg; which the Soviets believed was a failed system that channeled vulnerable armor too narrowly. Their experience and opinions in this regard were undoubtedly formed by their experiences in WWII and the recognization that a defense in depth could disrupt even the most powerful armor-centric attack. In "Blitzkrieg" warfare, a breakthrough is often caused by the armor, that is, armor leads the assault; and often in a narrowly concentrated area. Shock and firepower are meant to give the Tanks the impetus, along with concentrated supporting arms, to advance through the enemy lines and knock him permanently off balance. EDIT: I may be reaching a bit, but there's definitely something to the idea that an armor-first offensive has potentially dangerous flaws as we move through the Cold War era; perhaps Soviet thinking was further influenced by the relatively heavy tank losses Israel suffered during the Yom Kippur war to ATGMs? The idea of successful AT systems getting smaller and more portable may have further ironed the belief that Tanks must be put into the attack only at the precise moment. Couple this with Soviet crew training being a bit more haphazard through a combination of conscription and budget, and avoiding the use of armor-first attacks can be considered wise indeed.

Soviet Doctrine called for massive tank attacks, yes, but only after a clear and powerful breakthrough was achieved by Infantry elements; in the case of the Cold War to be rapidly gained by the NVA and Soviet Units posted West. Tanks could, and would, accompany the first attacks in upwards of Corps size, but they would be there to support the infantry, whereas in follow on waves the (mobile) infantry would be there largely to support the tanks. The Soviet Doctrine of 'deep battle' followed this overall idea of 'breakthrough, exploitation, envelopment' rigidly, and it was proven and tested in WWII against a foe that often had a tactical edge in armored engagements; the first infantry attacks should be alarming enough to force the enemy to commit or otherwise tie down his own mobile reserves, allowing the follow up tanks to strike deeply (hence the term "Deep Battle") and unmolested.

This compartmentalization of roles even influenced Soviet ordinance. MBT series like the T-62, T-72, T-64 all had relatively different roles in this way; the T-62 meant to support infantry and largely being assigned to independent brigades and regiments; whereas the T-64 would've armed formations meant to conduct deep Battle, and was concentrated in "Guards" units.

Are you looking at the Interwar Period, WWII, or some section of the Cold War? They all look quite different and generally require different specialists to explore each one.