Military Review

"The general victim" partisans 15 year

56
During World War I, by analogy with 1812, the guerrilla units were formed from volunteers and regular units of the Russian army in the Austro-German front to carry out search and sabotage operations in the tactical rear of the enemy.


In 1915, the headquarters and the headquarters of the fronts and armies received a large number of proposals for the formation of partisan units. Guerrilla units began to form in the military in May 1915, and by the autumn there were several dozen such units of various numbers (on average, 50-150 people armed with small weapons). By the autumn on the North and West fronts existed on 6, on the South-Western Front - 11 guerrilla groups. Practically the actions of the detachments were expressed in the activities of small military groups, and had a local tactical significance. The main forms of these actions are reconnaissance searches, raids, actions of sabotage groups.


Il 1. In the forest by the fire. The great war in the images and paintings. Issue 1. M., 1914.


Il 2. Meeting with the German travel. The great war in the images and paintings. Issue 4. M., 1915.

The most effective operation of the Russian partisans was a raid on the town of Nevel and the capture of the chief of the German 82-th reserve division. Partisan Guards, 11 and 7 cavalry, 1, Don, Orenburg and 1 Terek Cossack divisions participated in the raid, as well as the Combined guerrilla unit.

The operation was carried out at night on 15 November 1915, north of the Pripyat River in 25 km south-west of the city of Pinsk.

Raid was preceded by serious preparation. In order to reach the rear of the enemy, the partisans built a pontoon bridge, consisting of two pairs of boats. A thorough reconnaissance was carried out. Although each unit participating in the operation numbered 120 people, but non-combat tasks were allocated up to 50% of the personnel of the units — they did not take part in the raid. In addition to rifles and carbines, the partisans were armed with grenades (besides, the Kuban Cossacks had daggers, and the officers had revolvers).

The village of Nevel in the previous battles was destroyed by artillery fire, so the German reserve infantry regiment stationed in it was located in dugouts, and the Austrian cavalry squadron, carrying the headquarters, was quartered in large bread barns. The headquarters was located in the manor house (farm).

Part of the units involved in the raid, fought in the village, while others provided the operation, destroying the guard posts and German outposts. These detachments in the course of the operation repulsed the offensive of German infantry and a half companies.

By two o'clock thirty minutes of the night, the partisans approached the forest north of Nevel, and from the northern outskirts of the village with a swift blow, removing the German posts, broke into a populated area without a shot. After a short but furious bayonet battle, the village was captured. The guerrillas, diverging through the German dugouts, bayoneted the sleeping Germans or, without entering the dugouts, threw inside hand grenades. Sometimes sleepy Germans jumped out of their dugouts, mostly without weapons, and died.

Thus, it was destroyed to the battalion of the 271 th reserve regiment (including to the 20 officers) and to the 100 horses. Most importantly, they succeeded in capturing the headquarters and the chief of the 82 reserve division there, Major General Siegfried Fabarius. Documents and maps captured by the partisans clarified the grouping of German troops from Pinsk.

The German partisan captivated the partisan detachment of the 11 Cavalry Division under the command of Staff Captain A. Ostrogradsky. For the destruction of the headquarters and the capture of the chief of the division, the staff captain was awarded the Order of St. George of the 4 degree (The Highest Order of 12 in January of 1917).

The attack of the headquarters developed as follows.

The partisans approached the estate, silently removing the guards. The guards who did not expect anything took the partisan in the dark for their own. In the manor house housed the officers of the division headquarters, the canteen, the office and the telegraph operators. All the details of the placement of the headquarters were well known to the partisans. Stealthily, they approached the gallery of the manor house, and without shots burst into the gallery, they took the telegraphers by surprise. Without stopping, the partisans ran into the reception room, through which he walked with a tray of soldiers-messenger. He did not have time to scream as he was stabbed with a bayonet. Running up to the doors of the officers' canteen, the partisans saw the officers sitting after dinner. At this time, someone threw a grenade through the window, and the officers began to shoot back. Some of them tried to jump out the windows or run out of the door, but everywhere they ran across the partisans and were destroyed.

The attack on squadrons, where people had already laid down to rest, was also very sudden. In horror, the Austrian cavalry ran in all directions, often ending their life with Russian bayonets.

The operation lasted less than an hour, and the detachment, together with the captured prisoners, ran towards the front line. On the way, we ran into the rear of the German battery - the artillerymen jumped out of the dugouts and ran in different directions. The guerrillas were in such a hurry that they did not manage to disable all the guns.

Shooting began at the front, and many of the prisoners died. The space between the trenches was covered with German corpses.

After the first 45 minutes of the detachment's actions, the organizer of the raid on Nevel, Lieutenant Colonel Leontyev, was killed - the partisans managed to carry his body with them. For conducting an effective raid, during which the German regiment was defeated and the headquarters of the division destroyed, the lieutenant colonel was awarded the Order of St. George 3 degree (actually "general's" award) posthumously.

The main reasons for the success of the Russian partisans in the case of Nevel: 1) the rare and vigilant guard of the Germans - the German infantry battalion 2 had just come from the reserve; 2) exemplary raid organization. The raid was preceded by a double thorough reconnaissance of the enemy’s positions, a skillful choice of the route followed by the detachments was carried out, barriers and patrols were set up from where reinforcements could approach the Germans. The attack was carried out before dawn and from two sides, the partisans acted only with bayonets and hand grenades. The actions of the Russian units was inherent swiftness.

As a result of the Nevelsk operation, the following were destroyed: 2 implements, telephone exchange, 13 carts with weights, forage warehouse. Initially, a significant number of officers and privates were captured, but during the ensuing battle, and also because of the prisoners' attempt to escape, they were destroyed. Carried away by the partisans with them: 1 general, 3 officer, doctor, 2 non-commissioned officer, 2 privates and 5 camper. The Russian casualties — an officer and a soldier were killed, and three officers and six soldiers were injured.

Major-General Z. Fabarius, becoming a victim of a partisan night attack, 15 November fell into Russian captivity. At the moment of capture the general was in bed. Having pulled him, undressed, out of bed and somehow covering him with a blanket, the partisans dragged him away with them.

"The general victim" partisans 15 year

Il 3. The victim of the partisans - General Siegfried Fabarius.

Having rested in the village. Komora, where the general was dressed in a sheepskin coat and a hat (which he did not want to wear), was taken prisoner by a divisional commander to Mutwitz, settled in the officer's wing. The command of the Russian 4-th Horse Corps invited the captive general for lunch - but he did not eat anything, was very worried. After that, Z. Fabarius was taken to the first interrogation conducted in the small town house. The hostess found a warm sweatshirt for the prisoner. After the interrogation, the general was returned to the outhouse - he was nervous, and refused to offer him the food, preferring tea with chocolate. For the night the prisoner-general was placed in a manor's house - the hosts persuaded him to have dinner and drink coffee.

In the morning, a young warrant officer with an escort arrived from the corps headquarters for a captive general (10 hussars of the 17 th Hussars of the Chernigov regiment). Despite the cold, the general did not want to wear a Russian hat, but put on a woolen knitted helmet proposed by the ladies.

Having put the general in a sleigh, the convoy took him to the Gantsevichi railway station - the prisoner was awaited at the headquarters of the 3 Army. But at the station, the ensign met his comrade commander. The commandant invited the officer along with the escort to his apartment, where the friends began to have lunch and drink. At this moment, Z. Fabarius went into the next room to ask the batcher for washing water. And when the orderly came out of the room, the general grabbed the snout of the revolver who was in the belt taken off by the ensign and shot.

So unlucky Russian ensign actually drank a German general.

Subsequently, a monument was erected in the village of Nevel with the names (more than 30) of all those killed during the raid of German officers. The village of Komora was soon swept off the face of the earth by German artillery fire, but the partisans had already been transferred to another front. For many of the raid participants, these events made a bad impression.

Thus, having overcome a completely natural initial confusion, Z. Fabarius behaved with dignity, preferring death to captivity.

The idea of ​​forming partisan detachments in the years of World War did not bring the desired results - it was necessary to solve organizational issues in relation to partisan actions in peacetime, and not when the war began. When maneuvering operations it was still possible to correct the blunders of peacetime, but this became impossible when the enemy took up fortified positions from sea to sea, wrapped himself in several rows of barbed wire — then the time was irretrievably lost. It was obvious that most of the attempts of the partisans to penetrate the enemy's rear would end in failure and would be reduced only to the removal of several posts and the enemy, as well as to ordinary disturbing actions.

But on the eve of the coming wars, the experience of a “small war” was acquired. And in stories it will remain the fact that the only captive acting general of the German army on the Russian front of the First World War is the victim of the 15-year partisans.
Author:
56 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Amurets
    Amurets 13 January 2017 07: 14
    +2
    During World War I, by analogy with 1812, the guerrilla units were formed from volunteers and regular units of the Russian army in the Austro-German front to carry out search and sabotage operations in the tactical rear of the enemy.

    Well, first of all, these are not partisans during the Second World War.
    Here is what is written about the tasks of the WWI partisans "Partisan actions played a significant role in the course of many wars. The First World War stands out in this regard. First of all, it should be noted that during the First World War, a partisan detachment was called a light detachment directed to the flanks and to the rear. the enemy army to inflict material harm and psychological impact on the enemy. " And the link to the post is where it came from. http://smolbattle.ru/threads/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D
    1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5-%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D
    0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8B-%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D
    0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9-%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D
    0% BE% D0% B9.30114 /
    And the rest, the PMV partisans were military units whose commanders had great independence in the conduct of hostilities.
    1. igordok
      igordok 13 January 2017 08: 54
      +3
      Quote: Amurets
      Well, first of all, these are not partisans during the Second World War.

      These were most likely DRGs, not partisans. Partisan warfare requires the assistance of the local population and often its armament.
    2. veteran66
      veteran66 13 January 2017 10: 05
      +1
      Quote: Amurets
      And the rest, the PMV partisans were military units

      rather saboteurs or special forces
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 13 January 2017 10: 17
        +2
        Quote: veteran66
        rather saboteurs or special forces

        Yes. I agree. This is especially true of the Kuban Plastun battalions.
        https://topwar.ru/7470-istoriya-russkogo-specnaza
        -plastuny.html
        1. veteran66
          veteran66 13 January 2017 10: 23
          +1
          Quote: Amurets
          This is especially true of the Kuban Plastun battalions.

          yeah, those "animals" were still (according to enemies)
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 13 January 2017 10: 35
            +4
            Quote: veteran66
            yeah, those "animals" were still (according to enemies)

            Well, what can you do? Everyone has their own perception. Remember the Bashkirs in the war of 1812. This is where fear was instilled.

            The photo is clickable. the text can be read.
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 13 January 2017 07: 56
    +6
    An interesting episode of course .. Thank you .. But in general Amurets I wrote everything very correctly ...
  3. Rotmistr
    Rotmistr 13 January 2017 09: 27
    +18
    Yeah. And by the way, in terms of moral and psychological qualities, the Kaiser major general turned out to be more stable than the Nazi field marshal (Paulus, of course I mean), who not only did not shoot, but also became the mouthpiece of his ideological adversary.
    Poor Fabarius
  4. soldier
    soldier 13 January 2017 09: 43
    +20
    Of course, they were military units: "by analogy with 1812, from volunteers and regular units of the Army in the field."
    In 1812, partisan detachments, too, were also formed from the regular army.
    What does the Second World War? In 1915 it was still necessary to live up to it.
    And these detachments, although they were essentially DRGs, were officially called partisan detachments according to documents.
    Thank you
  5. Ham
    Ham 13 January 2017 09: 56
    +4
    "" The idea of ​​forming partisan detachments during the world war did not bring the desired results "" "
    because the guerrillas are fighting for the idea! and no one wanted to partisan for the "king-father" ...
    and the word "partisans" was not used - such groups were called "hunters" ... and by and large they were not partisan detachments, but large RDGs
    1. soldier
      soldier 13 January 2017 10: 16
      +18
      The word "partisan" was not just used, but officially appeared in the documents: a partisan detachment of such and such a division or army.
      And they are fighting not only and not so much for the tsar-priest or for the idea, but for their homeland. In 1915, the Germans and Austrians were on Russian soil. Therefore, an analogy arose from 1812.
      1. Ham
        Ham 13 January 2017 10: 45
        +2
        an analogy that arose, but no one especially wanted to fight ... and they were called partisans precisely because of this analogy inciting patriotism, although in reality there were no "partisans" of the PMV
      2. murriou
        murriou 13 January 2017 18: 41
        0
        Quote: soldier
        Therefore, an analogy arose from 1812.

        It did not "arise", all government propagandists tried to instill it from above from the first day of the war - but the stone bowl did not come out from the crooked "masters".

        Because Russian people who are capable of thinking point blank did not understand why they are trying to call the attack of the Russian army on the Germans for Anglo-French interests the Patriotic War for the Russian people laughing
    2. soldier
      soldier 13 January 2017 10: 27
      +18
      Hunting teams from the end of the 19th century existed in parts of the Russian army and they should not be mixed.
      1. Uncle Murzik
        Uncle Murzik 13 January 2017 15: 39
        +7
        interesting article! I agree with the army team, hunting teams or on a modern DRG!
  6. Olgovich
    Olgovich 13 January 2017 09: 59
    +9
    Thanks to the author for another open glory page of our country.
  7. Ham
    Ham 13 January 2017 10: 53
    +4
    "" "So the unlucky Russian ensign actually drank the German general on drink" ""
    the episode clearly describes the decomposition of the army ... and now imagine an episode when a Red Army lieutenant escorting a German general (who is so awaited at headquarters!) turned on his way to a friend to plump ... so. already in 1915, distiplin, even among the officers, was to hell, what can we say about the lower ranks ...
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 13 January 2017 11: 04
      +2
      Quote: Ham
      in 1915 disтIplina even among the officers was to hell,

      So, it was time to start a disТdiscipline battalions ...
      1. Walking
        Walking 13 January 2017 17: 47
        +1
        In this case, only the shooting probably
  8. captain
    captain 13 January 2017 17: 04
    +7
    Many thanks to the author for the article. For those who criticize the author for the name "partisan" and cite as an example the partisans of the Great Patriotic War 41-45. In 1907, the Hague Convention was adopted, please read and draw conclusions.
  9. murriou
    murriou 13 January 2017 18: 37
    +1
    Crunchy stories are always funny when comparing them with other, more typical facts of our history.
    But it’s nothing so that during the infamous East Prussian operation 10 Russian generals were killed, 13 more were taken prisoner - and accepted this as a normal event, only Samsonov shot himself.
    1. soldier
      soldier 13 January 2017 18: 59
      +17
      But nothing that during the Lodz operation killed 4 German generals? What can you do - war
      1. murriou
        murriou 13 January 2017 22: 09
        0
        War is war, yes. But for some reason it goes differently for everyone.

        Or do you think that the loss in one operation of 4 generals, like the Germans, and 24 generals, like the RIA, is no difference? laughing

        At the same time, you can count the number of captured generals during the WWII, the German in Russian captivity and vice versa. I think the result will impress you, but it is unlikely to please.
        1. soldier
          soldier 13 January 2017 22: 37
          +18
          The war is coalitional and there is much that can be counted as a whole. As it should be.
          For example, 9 Austrian generals captured in Przemysl (total of at least two dozen captured and killed Austrian generals on our front is recruited).
          The deceased and captured 19 German generals (incl. Fabarius), a dozen Turkish.
          And this is not a complete list, not a plowed field, so to speak
          1. murriou
            murriou 13 January 2017 23: 04
            0
            Quote: soldier
            Killed and captured 19 German generals (incl. Fabarius)

            For the whole war. Against 24 generals in one operation alone in the first month of the war. Still not seeing the difference?
            1. soldier
              soldier 13 January 2017 23: 10
              +18
              Well, I said that everything happens - especially in boilers. Remember the coppers of the Red Army in 1941 and how many generals were left in them.
              And can you by the way list the names of these 24 generals by name - or is this an element of another Christobul mythology, only earlier?
              1. murriou
                murriou 14 January 2017 05: 47
                0
                By name - I could probably if I wanted to, but I’m too lazy to dig and I don’t see the point. And the number of these generals is given a lot where and a lot by whom, including crystal bakery sources also bashfully acknowledge this fact.
                1. soldier
                  soldier 14 January 2017 08: 05
                  +18
                  They did not answer my question. I wonder where 5 generals come from in 24 surrounded divisions. Many by whom ... Some common words.
  10. soldier
    soldier 13 January 2017 23: 14
    +16
    And once again I repeat that in a coalition war it is necessary to consider ALL opponents, and not only rest against the Germans. That should also be clear.
    1. murriou
      murriou 14 January 2017 05: 45
      0
      Quote: soldier
      in a coalition war it is necessary to consider ALL opponents

      Take into account - yes, equate - in no case.

      Or do you think that the Italians and Germans in the WWII as part of the Rommel corps had the same fighting efficiency, and that victories over Italians / Romanians, etc. should be equated with victories over the Germans? laughing

      The combat readiness of the Russian army in the REV was much inferior to the Japanese - this is a fact.
      It is also a fact that the combat readiness of the Russian army in the WWI was much inferior to the German, despite the significant share in it of the units and formations of the landver on the Eastern Front, in contrast to the Western.
      The Russian army was more or less equal with the Austrian army in combat readiness, but at the same time the Russian division was much larger than the Austrian, equal in combat readiness.

      The only enemy next to whom the Russian army in WWI consistently looked good is Turkey. Well, "these blockheads Turks have a talent for being beaten", (C) Napoleon. The Turks on the defensive during the Dardanelles operation lost much more than the attacking side.
      1. soldier
        soldier 14 January 2017 08: 18
        +18
        All this is reasoning. The Russian army was no less combat capable than the German, and even more so the Austrian. The enemy himself recognizes this.
        And in the Turks)
        The Ottoman Empire by 1914 was an impressive force in military and territorial aspects. It is enough to recall that during the four years of the Great War, its army and navy fought in five theaters of operations - the Caucasus against the Russian Caucasian Army, the Sinai-Palestinian Front, the Dardannel-Gallipoli, Arabian and Iraqi Fronts against the allies of Russia on the Entente. Separate units of the Turkish troops operated in Romania and Galicia, the Thessaloniki Front, indirectly causing trouble for the Entente in Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan and the Sahara.
        The Quartermaster-General of the Caucasus Front, E. V. Maslovsky, gave the following characteristics of the Turkish troops: “The Ottoman Turks, as combat material, were of high quality, bold, brave, extremely hardy, undemanding and modest, and at the same time disciplined; in general, by nature, they were real warriors, possessing nobility distinguishing a true warrior. They fought bravely, almost always took a bayonet strike, applied well to the terrain, attacked well, defended well, and only, shot down from the first line of fortifications, could not always stay on the second line if they were not given time to recover, pursuing persistently: this was reflected in the property of the eastern peoples - sensitivity at failure. ” The same author, speaking of the Turks as a serious adversary: ​​“After all, this was the adversary who, during the same last war, successfully fought with the British in Mesopotamia, captivating some of their forces there and not having numerical superiority. This was the enemy who arrived in the Caucasus with high spirits of the victors of the British and French in a bitter struggle on the Gallipoli Peninsula, where 549 thousand people, colossal technical means and powerful naval artillery were brought into battle by his opponent, quotes the German specialist: “Contrary to to all shortcomings (training and supply), the courage, ability to resist and discipline of the Turks gave them superiority over all races of Asia and Africa and made them able to fight against European troops. The gradual arrival of the materiel and German specialists to them gave them terrible value, "as well as the British General C. Tausgend (captured by the Turks in Mesopotamia):" These are the most stubborn of all the soldiers of Europe and Asia, disciplined, firmly soldered into one mass, more stubborn and harder than the Germans. "
        Turkish soldiers, as a rule, fought to the end, extremely reluctantly surrendering in comparison with the Austrians and even the Germans.
        The Turkish army was reorganized primarily under the leadership of German instructors and advisers. Moreover, during the war, up to 6 thousand German and Austrian officers served in the Turkish army.
        A. Jemal Pasha wrote: “For more than 30 years now, German instructors have been working in our army; our commanding staff received a purely German upbringing and the entire army is imbued with the German military spirit. ”
        During the war, direct military assistance from Germany and Austria-Hungary to their Turkish ally was also observed. So, according to Russian intelligence in 1916: “two infantry and one howitzer-artillery Austro-German regiments arrived from Germany in Constantinople, which were then urgently sent to Eastern Anatolia .... For two months, 100-200 Germans were sent from Constantinople to the Caucasus Front. ”
        In the Dardanelles operation, the total losses of the Turks on land - 250000 people, the Entente - 266229.
        Despite the fact that the casualties of the Turks (87000 people) were almost double the losses of the Allies (46400 - 36400 Britons (including 1700 Indians, 9700 Australians and New Zealanders) and 10000 French), but the latter have a large percentage of wounded and mainly sick (163000 wounded and sick in the Turks, 173329 in the British and 46500 in the French). So, among Britons there are 90000 wounded for the 83329 sick people, 16500 wounded in the French and 30000 sick, and in the Turks 99000 wounded, 64000 sick. In the Navy, primarily due to the death of large ships, the losses of the Anglo-French far exceed Turkish. In total, the Turks lost the battleship, destroyer, destroyer, two gunboats and a mine layer - they killed 652 people.
        The Anglo-French lost 6 battleships, destroyer, 7 submarines, not counting small vessels - and 1540 of the crew of ships.
        The Russian Caucasian army, which defeated the Gallipoli winners in the Ognos and subsequent operations, proved that it was in no way inferior to the Allies, the Turks, or the Germans. The Germans themselves considered the Turks strong fighters. By the way, they were much more reluctant than the Germans to surrender.
        It’s better to do the recounting of divisions in articles on the Romanian front - you know the numbers, you know, they like the score. And these data are somewhat inferior to the data of the Germans, whom you love so much))
        1. murriou
          murriou 15 January 2017 07: 49
          0
          Quote: soldier
          The enemy himself recognizes this.

          This means that the enemy was smart enough not to downplay the significance of their victories.
          "The enemy was strong, the higher our glory" laughing

          The Japanese also acknowledged a lot of things in the RJV, the bakers like to quote these confessions - without realizing that the Japanese do not praise them, but themselves. lol
          But in fact, the combat effectiveness of the Russian army was 2-3 times lower than the Japanese.

          In most major battles of the RJV, the Japanese attacked and won, having the same strength as the Russians, or even slightly less, and suffered losses that were approximately equal to the Russians, or even less (only Liaoyang was an exception, but there was a terrain perfectly prepared for defense and prepared defense in 3 tiers).

          In a few cases of symmetrical combat, Russian losses turned out to be 1,5 times more than Japanese losses at Sandep (2 times for irreversible ones), 2 times with Shahe, 3 times with Wafangou.

          And the loss ratio under Tsushima is unique not only in our history, but also on a global scale: the entire squadron was defeated, most of the 38 warships were sunk or captured, 6 thousand were captured, only 870 people broke into Vladivostok, 1,8 , 7,5 thousand were interned, the remaining 3 thousand died - and the Japanese lost 117 destroyers and XNUMX people, including those who died after the battle. Well, with another five hundred wounded, who soon returned to duty.

          But the Japanese, yes, recognized the courage of the Russian sailors even in this most shameful of the battles of the REV. laughing

          So it is in WWI: by the coast of recognition for lyrical dates, and the numbers of real combat readiness testify against your fantasies.
        2. murriou
          murriou 15 January 2017 08: 00
          0
          Quote: soldier
          And in the Turks

          Aha-aha, a lot more CONFESSIONS laughing

          And now we look at them more closely and notice that you have not mastered even in your own quotes and links laughing
          Quote: soldier
          Contrary to all disadvantages (training and supplies) courage, ability to resist and discipline of the Turks gave them superiority over all races Asia and Africa and made them able to fight against European troops.

          1. We notice the initial words about the flaws.
          2. Notice the words "Africa" ​​and "Asia" laughing
          3. We recall that the German twisted his heart, "forgetting" about the Japanese, who beat the Germans in Qingdao and fought with Russia no less effectively than the Germans.
          4. Able to fight against Europeans? Yes, that was the case. But in the 20th century - not on equal terms.

          And now finally back to the facts.
          In 1911-1912 even Italians beat the Turks, deservedly considered among the Western European powers the most mediocre militarily.

          In 1912 the Turks were convincingly beaten by the Balkan Union, which was greatly inferior to them in strength, consisting of Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and even smaller countries.
          At the same time, on land and at sea, the Balkans beat the Turks much more convincingly than the much stronger Russia had been able to do. years later.

          That's all about the great military power of the Ottoman Empire in the 20th century. laughing
          1. soldier
            soldier 15 January 2017 09: 11
            +16
            After the Balkan wars, the Turkish army was reorganized by the Germans. And the Germans consider them strong fighters. Africa, Asia - so in the quote.
            And what does the Russian-Japanese?
            Let's think through the tree like an ancient Bayan
            1. murriou
              murriou 15 January 2017 13: 33
              0
              Quote: soldier
              After the Balkan wars, the Turkish army was reorganized by the Germans.

              And the fleet was reorganized to the best of Sushon Pasha. And the details can be found at Lorea. These are the tears alone.
              Yes, the Germans made the substance a little stronger out of completely shit, but the statistics of military operations do not prove at all what you are trying to impress upon us.

              What does the RYAV have to do with it, I wrote quite clearly: there, too, on the part of the Japanese were full of "confessions" of the great merits of the Russian army, which, in fact, had done a clean job in that war. If you didn't manage to read it the first time, I sympathize, as usual crying
              1. soldier
                soldier 15 January 2017 14: 10
                +16
                Yes, Goeben with Breslau is more than a powerful, I would say, strategic reorganization, which had an impact on the entire course of the war.
                But I'm not about the fleet, but about the army.
                Carefully study what the Germans themselves write about the Turkish army. No wonder the whole Turkish corps was part of the South German Army.
                1. murriou
                  murriou 15 January 2017 14: 47
                  0
                  Quote: soldier
                  the whole Turkish corps was part of the Southern German Army.

                  1. Not the whole. Reduced composition. Two incomplete divisions.
                  2. At the end of the war, any bastard was already on the line. Not to fat was.
                  3. This "corps" distinguished itself by a large number of prisoners, even against the background of the Austro-Hungarian army. I don't know any other achievements behind him. laughing
                  1. soldier
                    soldier 15 January 2017 14: 58
                    +16
                    This is not the end of the war, but 1916.
                    It was an elite corps, learn the materiel and learn.
                    See the losses of the Southern Army for June 16-23, 1917 at the Österreich-Ungarns Letzter Krieg 1914-1918. Bd.vi. Wien, 1936.
                    The Turks gave the least prisoners.
                    Raise your educational level and do not bully - otherwise I'll get angry and go along the Romanian front with the Reichsarchive. Data on divisions I verify)
              2. soldier
                soldier 15 January 2017 14: 46
                +16
                You need to sympathize, especially since the dirty words are used. Constantly trying to belittle the role of the Russian army - it is not clear why.
                And if we talk about facts, then the Turks in Mesopotamia captured the whole British corps and defeated the British and French in the Dardanelles operation. Those British and French, who then defeat the Germans.
                And these same Turks, the Russian Caucasian army beat all the way - including the 2nd army, composed of Dardanelles veterans and transferred to the Caucasian front. It did not help them that instead of one army there were two - and this does not speak of the weakness of the Turks who defeated the Anglo-French, but of the strength of the Russians
                1. murriou
                  murriou 15 January 2017 15: 09
                  0
                  Quote: soldier
                  all the more so, the dirty words went into use.

                  What do you think? belay
                  I’m even ready to apologize, but curiously, why ... laughing

                  Quote: soldier
                  defeated the British and French in the Dardanelles operation.

                  1. And at the same time, while on the defensive, they incurred irretrievable losses noticeably more than the attackers and the losers. It must be able to.
                  2. For the Turks in that operation did the geography of the theater of war.
                  So after all, the EBR "Slava" could hold back for a long time significantly superior enemy forces, although in an open battle the same forces would quickly crush him like a cockroach.

                  Quote: soldier
                  Constantly trying to belittle the role of the Russian army - it is not clear why.

                  Do not belittle. And to lead to reality, to clear of unjustified exaltation, popular among some alternatively gifted individuals, who consider such lies to be a manifestation of patriotism. laughing

                  Or are you also going to prove that the Russian army won the RPE, and only the Bolsheviks prevented it in the same way lol win PMV? laughing
                  1. soldier
                    soldier 15 January 2017 15: 21
                    +16
                    The word "shit" meant: "completely out of crap." Yes, God bless him.
                    Whatever the impact, but the fact is that the Turks beat the "allies" of Russia. And in Mesopotamia, and in the Straits, were the features of the theater geography influenced? They generally influence any war.
                    Well, according to the REV, this is a separate conversation, where both sides have a bunch of missed opportunities.
                    1. murriou
                      murriou 16 January 2017 13: 04
                      0
                      I apologize if my non-parliamentary expression hurt you personally. I thought that we didn’t have conversations in the boarding house of blaarod girls. And please note that my rude expression did not apply to any of the interlocutors personally, nor to something close and dear to them.


                      As for the Turks and their talents - read G. Lorey, "Operations of the German-Turkish forces in the Black Sea in 1914-1918." There is quite a lot about the contribution of the Germans to the state of the Turkish fleet and coastal defense, besides the "Goeben" and "Breslau".
                    2. murriou
                      murriou 16 January 2017 13: 13
                      0
                      Quote: soldier
                      according to the REV, this is a separate conversation, where both sides have a bunch of missed opportunities.

                      That was enough for every war.

                      But in the REV, the opportunities missed by the Japanese were usually associated with their enormous reassessment of the enemy’s capabilities and capabilities.
                      They often tried to predict the actions of the enemy, judging by themselves, therefore they did not expect such rapid retreats from Kuropatkin, but often (and in vain) expected offensive actions from the Russian army and navy.

                      Opportunities missed by the Russian side were usually associated with indecision, lack of initiative, unwillingness to take responsibility for decisions, poor thoughtfulness and preparedness of actions.
                  2. soldier
                    soldier 15 January 2017 15: 22
                    +16
                    What does the Bolsheviks have to do with it?
                    It's about operational and strategic factors and only about them. Something like this
                    1. murriou
                      murriou 16 January 2017 12: 59
                      0
                      Quote: soldier
                      What does the Bolsheviks have to do with it?

                      I am glad that for you this is the same question as for me.

                      But there are a large number of inadequate bakers, for whom the Bolsheviks are to blame for everything, and by definition.

                      This is their universal explanation for all the failures of the tsarist Russian empire, which, in their opinion, would be perfect in everything perfect - if not for the Bolsheviks laughing
                      For them, losing in the RJV, and failing in the WWII, and industrial backwardness, and embezzlement at the top, and ignorance at the bottom - all the fault of the Bolsheviks.
                  3. soldier
                    soldier 15 January 2017 15: 31
                    +16
                    By the way, I really respect the Soviet Union as a great state. SOCIAL with a capital letter (especially at the last stage of its existence). And I respect I.V. Stalin as one of the greatest politicians of mankind: there were only a few such figures in history - Caesar, Napoleon, Alexander the Great (maybe he forgot someone else).
                    But politics should not be mixed up once we are talking about military matters.
                    1. murriou
                      murriou 16 January 2017 12: 59
                      0
                      And here I completely agree with you drinks
                  4. soldier
                    soldier 15 January 2017 15: 40
                    +16
                    And the last.
                    Russia's contribution to the Entente’s victory in the WWII is indeed very large, if not decisive, because geostrategic factors come to the fore in such wars, rather than victory in some kind of battle. Therefore, such views are not an alternative, but a reality that many historians and specialists wrote about, including Soviet.
                    Therefore, you need to be careful with the terms LIES, LIES, which you like to use on business and idle (I once remembered shouting). Anyone can be blamed for this, especially if there is no reference to the source or the source is not the source - I hope that we understand each other.
        3. captain
          captain 15 January 2017 19: 29
          +6
          Dear CSKA, do not argue with murriou, he is a Bolshevik-Leninist. That's all for him. what was bad before the Bolsheviks. He is glad that Lenin divided Russia into 15 of the Union Republics, he is glad that this coincided with the requirements of the American delegation, which brought to the Paris conference, summing up the First World War (held intermittently from January 18 to January 1919 to January 21 to 1920 year), map with the new borders of the Russian state, where the Central Russian Upland remained behind Moscow, the Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine, the Caucasus, Central Asia and Siberia were cut off. What is interesting, it is now, except Siberia. He is glad about the collapse of Russia according to the Rothschild scenario. And to prove something is useless. Let him read the Talmud.
          1. soldier
            soldier 15 January 2017 19: 41
            +16
            Yes, dear captain. All clear)
          2. murriou
            murriou 16 January 2017 12: 50
            0
            Quote: captain
            do not argue with murriou, he is a Bolshevik-Leninist.

            Thank you for the compliment, "captain"! Bolshevik-Leninists have always turned out to be much more honest and educated than White Guards-crushers like you.

            By the way, so where are your answers to my questions asked first in early January - then you quietly silently merged from the topic?
            I recently repeated these questions - and again you passed them over in silence. lol
            Well, you yourself understand who you are after that? laughing

            And yet, yes, you really should not argue with competent interlocutors in the subject. At first, you would have much to learn and understand, but after that you are unlikely to remain a baker. laughing
            1. murriou
              murriou 16 January 2017 18: 20
              0
              Everything is as always: "Rotmistr" continues to fight in other topics of this forum, has already dashed off several comments, but continues to cowardly keep silent about my questions.
              Because understands that the truth is not profitable for him, and his usual lies will be exposed by me quickly and mercilessly.
          3. murriou
            murriou 16 January 2017 12: 52
            0
            Quote: captain
            He rejoices that Lenin divided Russia into 15 Union republics

            You are, as always, illiterate. Lenin did not divide the USSR into union republics: on the contrary, he glued it from the already existing national republic.

            And this, indeed, is worth rejoicing.
  11. soldier
    soldier 14 January 2017 10: 52
    +17
    And about landver divisions.
    By October 1914, out of 29 Landver divisions, only 9 fought on the Russian Front. That is, it is difficult to say that the Germans primarily used the land divisions in the East, and that they were less valued than the field divisions.
    And by the way, many land-based formations (I mean the Silesian Landver Corps of Wojrsch) by the Germans themselves are considered the best front-line formations of the German Army
  12. Lieutenant Teterin
    Lieutenant Teterin 14 January 2017 22: 18
    +8
    Article plus, the material is interesting. With all his interest in WWI, he did not know about partisan detachments before. Thanks to the author for the work done!
  13. Bouncer
    Bouncer 9 March 2018 14: 51
    +15
    Awesome stuff
    Thank you!