What is more important in war - military equipment or fighting spirit

120
For a long time there has been a dispute over what is more important in a war - military equipment or fighting spirit. In the course of the First World War, the predominant importance of the first one seemed to be revealed - the powerful equipment allegedly received priority over the moral component, which relegated to second place. But is it?

P. von Hindenburg loved to say that the one who has stronger nerves (that is, who is stronger in spirit) will win the war - and the events of World War fully confirmed his words.



In our opinion, the grand First World War not only did not destroy, but also confirmed the old truth that the main factor in the war as a whole (in battle in particular) always was and always will be man - in the complex of his spiritual and physical nature. Man is the root of all phenomena, and technology is only a tool in his hands, often grazing in front of the fighting spirit of a fighter.

Let us take two combat operations to illustrate this thesis.

In the course of the Warsaw-Ivangorod strategic operation 15 of September - 26 of October 1914, the strike group of the German 9 army under the command of A. von Mackensen (17-th army corps, parts of the 20-th Army Corps and the combined body of Frommel) attacked Warsaw, and from September 24 she led heavy battles on the outskirts of the city with the Siberian corps of the Russian 2 Army.

September 26 The 2 and 3 Siberian infantry regiments, which had just disembarked from the wagons, were pushed through Warsaw onto the Vladislav-Piaseczno line to cover the deployment of the main forces of the 1 Siberian Army Corps (which included) still on the way.


1. From the car - a fight. Siberian shooters are moving forward.

Siberians came to the specified milestone on the morning of September 27.
They had not yet managed to navigate the new positions, as the battle broke out - the first battle of the Great War for them. The Germans bombarded the Siberian shooters with a hail of bullets and shells — the latter were forced to withstand this fire hell, almost without having full-fledged defensive positions. Moreover, they did not have the opportunity to fully repay the enemy with the same coin - they had nothing but rifles and a small number of machine guns: the Siberian artillery was still on the way, and for some reason they did not allocate other artillery.

The opponent was technically very strong.
He felt it and boldly rolled his artillery into open positions, pushing the advancing infantry forward — but Siberians got in the way of the Germans. And they turned out to be even stronger, but not by technique, but by their spirit - the desire to conquer or die.

An eyewitness noted that “it was necessary to see people who, in spite of everything, were striving forward in order to come together chest with chest with the enemy. The companies melted. Silently died; the losses speak for them, but they have withstood, making it possible for the troops to come from the rear and thereby save Warsaw. ”

The operation historian G. Korolkov, speaking of the German strike of A. von Mackensen’s group on September 9 on Warsaw, noted: “The Germans met with such a strong rebuff and ... suffered significant losses, which made the gene. Mackensen to stop further advance and wait for reinforcements. This stop of the Germans in one transition from the goal of action after the success achieved in battle is the strategic victory of the gene. Scheidemann (cavalry general S. M. Scheideman - commander of the 28 Army of the North-Western Front - A. O.) ... ”[Warsaw-Ivangorod operation. M., 2. C. 1923].

And then the 2 Army (1 and 2 Siberian Army, 1 and 4 Army Corps) on September 29 launched a strong counter-strike. The Russian counterattack ended in a serious tactical success and secured Warsaw from the most long-range artillery of the Germans.

We see in this episode, on the one hand, the superiority of the German technology, on the other, the power of the Siberian shooters who did not even have time to orient themselves on unknown terrain, newcomers to a firing battle that found himself in it with one small weapons, but with high morale - and Siberians defeated the deadly technique of the enemy.

During the summer offensive of 1917, Russian troops were preparing to attack Vilna.

From 6-th to 9-July, Russian artillery of all calibers methodologically smashed the enemy.


2. Camouflaged guns on the position.

For three days, the fortified positions of the Germans were plowed far and wide, and by 7 o'clock in the morning of 9 on July, puffs of smoke and dust in an impenetrable veil covered the entire field ahead of the infantry regiments waiting for the attack signal at the initial line.

There was not a centimeter in the defense of the enemy, where Russian large-caliber “suitcases” would not be torn with a wild roar, and Russian shrapnel would not fly away with a piercing squeal. Blocks of earth, logs, pieces of concrete, stakes from obstacles flew in all directions; perennial trees were mowed like blades of grass, pulled out along with the roots. The defeated, flattened German positions in the full sense of the word were seething in raging fire.

The shocked Germans reacted poorly, confusedly and haphazardly firing back insignificant force. Sometimes their artillery suddenly fell on some combat area, but the Russian counter-battery group was alert - and instantly crushed the enemy's batteries, falling asleep with a hail of shells.

It is the fateful minute of July 9, the day of the attack.
Calm - and again a hurricane fire, but deep into the enemy's defense, to cut off his reserves, hurrying to the front line.

The chains of Russian infantry rushed forward.
Three rows of German trenches and the forest lying behind them were quickly occupied, but further ... then it was also possible to move forward swiftly: the demoralized enemy was running away, his batteries were removed from positions.

And what happened?
Germans and Russians ran in different directions.
The withdrawal of the Germans was a consequence of the fire defeat, and the leak of the Russian infantry to the rear was a consequence of the disintegration of the revolutionary army of “free” “democratic” Russia.

The technical operation of July 1917 was brilliantly prepared from the technical side - but the equipment could not give victory. The operation ended in vain solely because the morale of the troops experiencing the turbulent stage of the “deepening of the revolution” was not taken into account when preparing the offensive, despite instructions from military commanders and staffs.

Moral decomposition affected especially strongly as soon as the infantry units hit the forest and mixed there.

In this case, the Russian equipment was superior to the German one, preparing its infantry the easy way forward - to victory. But the morale of the Russian infantry was broken and corrupted before the battle, and the offensive turned out to be unsuccessful.

Through the whole military history the rule that the other side is defeated, which considers itself defeated, that is, when it loses faith in its strength and morally breaks, runs through the red thread.

Opponents fall asleep to each other with a hail of steel — primarily to break the spirit of the enemy troops, to inflict moral defeat on them. A technique is only an instrument of influence (that is, a means) in the hands of a person - and, of course, a means cannot take precedence over those who use it.

It is always worth remembering that an ax cuts a tree only when it is in the hands of a person.
But, of course, ideally there should be a reasonable balance between the spirit and the technique of warfare.
120 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    15 June 2017 05: 46
    Strange article. The combination of historical information with the popular description of the feat. Here is the last sentence, yes, you can’t argue.

    But, of course, ideally there should be a reasonable balance between the spirit and the technique of warfare.
    1. +7
      15 June 2017 06: 26
      And what is better in winter - felt boots or a hat? laughing
      1. +11
        15 June 2017 09: 11
        Tascha Today, 05:46 AM New
        Strange article.
        To put it mildly, at Oleinikov all articles are "strange" ... negative But this only seems so at first glance. Upon closer inspection, everything is very readable. Before that, he had a series of articles about the "brilliant military strategist Nikolai the Bloody", now he has articles about the WWII, but I would say everything with such a loyal "darling". And in this article, everything is extremely clear.
        The technical operation of July 1917 was brilliantly prepared from the technical side - but the equipment could not give victory. The operation ended in vain solely because the morale of the troops experiencing the turbulent stage of the “deepening of the revolution” was not taken into account when preparing the offensive, despite instructions from military commanders and staffs.
        Throughout military history, the rule that the side is defeated, which considers itself defeated, that is, when it loses faith in its strength and breaks down morally, runs through the red thread.
        Why is it incomprehensible ?! If you translate from Oleynikov’s language to normal, then it all comes down to one thing, it’s not the Tsar “sufferer” but the damned revolutionaries who are to blame for the Russian defeat in the WWII. And pay attention that the concept of “revolutionaries” doesn’t have any specifics, that is, under this concept you can bring anyone you want, at least essays, at least Cadets, at least Bolsheviks, at least the bald one.

        All articles of this author bear only one subtext: “if revolutionaries had not prevented the tsar, we would have given them to the Germans, and Austro-Hungarians, and Turks ...” In general, the Bolsheviks “cursed the bloody“ tsar-priest ” . Only the author forgets the Russian proverb about a grandmother who could be a grandfather.
        The author is your whole rotten attempt to whitewash the bloody tsar, who has spoiled the country, who has lost everything that is possible, including his life, is doomed to failure! No matter how you try, the black crow will never turn white ... negative
        1. +13
          15 June 2017 09: 25
          And it would not hurt the author to know that the morale of the soldiers is determined not by the fact that an agitator appeared in the trench, but how the soldier understands and evaluates the goals of the war. Does the soldier understand what he is fighting for, for what such a great purpose ?! Why did the soldier fight in WWI ?! For "faith, king and fatherland" ?! So no one encroached on his faith, the king was useless, and no one attacked his fatherland, but on the contrary, his fatherland attacked first. There was no truth for the soldier in this war, and therefore he did not want to shed blood for the interests of the bourgeoisie! So this war was initially doomed to failure, just like the Russian-Japanese one, because for the common people the interests of the bourgeois were foreign and the people did not want to fight for it, something like that! The author, learn history, and then of you is a "historian" as a ballerina from me ... negative
          1. +23
            15 June 2017 10: 29
            All this was, dear ballerina ...
            And the thousands of demonstrations at the beginning of the war, and mass exploits.
            And the Second World War it was not just called. And agitators in the trenches until 1917 were not needed.
            An eyewitness wrote about the battle in the Augustow forests in September 1914:
            The trenches there, it is a solid fabric embroidered with serifs. She should have been left as she is, the eternal monument of Russian soldiers and their valiant officers. If someone else burst here, he would have moved back in front of an irresistible position. Ours, dotting all our ditches and trenches with their corpses, took their bayonets position by position. The Germans beat them from deep dips, struck from above, from trees, running across ... from a trench to a trench, moving forward hit them in the back from well-camouflaged dugouts, but could not stop the wondrous regiments that had revived their historical glory ... An ordinary bayonet battle lasts several minutes, a quarter hours. This epic battle of worthy knights lasted two hours - merciless, persistent and unparalleled by the irresistible power of pressure. People littered the ditches and pits with corpses. The comrades passed through their bodies, trying more likely to feel with the bayonets of brave enemies. Bayonets broke. Shotguns were wrapped and worked with butts. In the trenches there are many such mutilated rifles. They say that in the August jungles they found many bodies that seemed to embrace before death. Dying, clutching. Even death did not open her arms. Now there are still masses of the fallen. Eight thousand Germans are buried only here ... But only you will move away from the road, - from a ditch or a messed-up shoot, wide-eyed eyes look at you ... The German army will remember the August forests
            .
            And here is what the Soviet historian Korolkov wrote about the battle of the Siberians in July 1915:
            In the areas of the strike, the Germans were able to concentrate the number of guns, which exceeded the number of Russian guns by 8-10 times. Such a mass of guns made it possible to use a fire hammer, which, in several hours of intensive work and spending a huge number of shells, swept Russian trenches off the face of the earth, demoralized their defenders and, in essence, completed the conquest of space. The German infantry could only consolidate what was taken. One technical advantage could not yet ensure complete success. The fire hammer, destroying everything in its path, cannot finally break the moral strength of the enemy. Need a strong blow with manpower. The Germans concentrated almost threefold infantry forces. But even with such superiority, the Germans were not always easily successful. Siberian and Turkestan regiments found the strength to fight an excellent opponent

            Toak fight only for their homeland, and not for power or order.
            So forget the slogans and really learn the history of your Fatherland - regardless of the color of the flag and personal preferences
            1. +12
              15 June 2017 10: 50
              soldier Today, 10:29 ↑
              All this was, dear ballerina ...
              And the thousands of demonstrations at the beginning of the war, and mass exploits.
              For those who are on an armored train and cannot get off it, I am not saying that there were no mass rallies or there were no agitators. It was both! The only question is that the tsar himself prepared the ground for these rallies with his mildly speaking, not clever actions. Your king was worthless, that’s what the soldiers didn’t want to fight for your king by 1917, and again I repeat NOBODY attacked !!! Russia itself was drawn into this war on the initiative of the bloody Nikolashka, a mediocre dumbhead.
              Learn to read first, what is written, not what you dreamed!
              1. +22
                15 June 2017 11: 01
                Our king is just like yours.
                Blame someone there for not knowing the story, and take the trouble to study the chronology. And then you will see that on August 1, Germany declared war on Russia, and not vice versa. This is the question of who attacked whom.
                So the recommendations are the same
                1. +12
                  15 June 2017 12: 03
                  soldier Today, 11:01 ↑
                  Our king is just like yours.
                  You are mistaken, Mr. Oleynik, this is your king.
                  Blame someone there for not knowing the story, and take the trouble to study the chronology. And then you will see that on August 1, Germany declared war on Russia, and not vice versa.
                  I know perfectly well who, to whom and when he declared war, but the chronology and declaration of war by the Germans as the first does not cancel the fact of Russia's aggressive actions and the desire of its emperor to enter into conflict and have his own selfish gesheft.
                  So the recommendations are the same
                  Exactly, study history more carefully, especially in the context of its premises, who was friends with whom and against whom!
                  1. +13
                    15 June 2017 12: 36
                    Madame Ilyina, our king is all the same. Common. Part of the history of our country. Or do you think Russia before 1917 is not your homeland?
                    And yes, why do you consider Russia's desire to protect allied Serbia by aggressive actions? Do you, as well as one "comrade" who was banned a month and a half ago, also think that Russia was guilty at the beginning of the WWII, just because it was Russia, and it was headed by the lawful ruler, the All-Russian Emperor?
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                  3. +20
                    15 June 2017 14: 05
                    Diana Ilyina Today, 12:03 ↑
                    You are mistaken, Mr. Oleynik, this is your king.
                    I know perfectly well who, to whom and when he declared war, but the chronology and declaration of war by the Germans as the first does not cancel the fact of Russia's aggressive actions and the desire of its emperor to enter into conflict and have his own selfish gesheft.
                    Exactly, study history more carefully, especially in the context of its premises, who was friends with whom and against whom!

                    They baptized me as Mr. Oleinikov, and I will call you, for example, Milyutinskaya.
                    Will go?
                    Your tsar too - if you are of course a citizen of Russia. As well as your beloved Ivan the Terrible, and other kings.
                    I know the story I dare to hope no worse than you at least.
                    There is ideological chatter, but there is a legal fact. Germany was the first to declare war on Russia. It is a fact.
                    However, any state participating in the war pursues its goals, often aggressive. And the premises must be distinguished from the causes.
                    Knowing the facts
                    1. +4
                      15 June 2017 19: 27
                      Quote: soldier
                      Your tsar too - if you are of course a citizen of Russia. As well as your beloved Ivan the Terrible, and other kings.

                      Yet a rare mess is going on in people's heads.
                      1) The Russian Federation is the legal successor
                      USSR, but the USSR is not assignee of the RI.
                      So Vladimir Ilyich Lenin is indeed our common leader, the first chairman of the Soviet government. And all the citizens of Russia and Comrade Ilyin, I and you (if you are a citizen of Russia) required consider Lenin his.
                      But Nicholas 2, the Monarch, is the mercy of God, no one is obligated to consider his own. This is a personal matter for everyone. If you consider him a Monarch, the grace of God is “yours” to your health. Diana Ilyina does not consider and has every right to do so.
                      2) In the Republic of Ingushetia there were and could not be any "citizens", there were subjects . So, as a citizen, she can in no way consider Nikolai "her".
                      It is unclear if you do not understand such basic things as the difference between citizens and citizens why, in general, try to write about RI and the monarchy.
                      1. +18
                        15 June 2017 20: 41
                        Odysseus
                        Yet a rare mess is going on in people's heads.
                        1) The Russian Federation is the legal successor
                        USSR, but the USSR is not the assignee of the Republic of Ingushetia.
                        So Vladimir Ilyich Lenin is indeed our common leader, the first chairman of the Soviet government. And all citizens of Russia and Comrade Ilyin, I and you (if you are a citizen of Russia) are obliged to consider Lenin their own.
                        But Nicholas 2, the Monarch, is the mercy of God, no one is obligated to consider his own. This is a personal matter for everyone. If you consider him a Monarch, the grace of God is “yours” to your health. Diana Ilyina does not consider and has every right to do so.
                        2) There were no and could not be any "citizens" in the Republic of Ingushetia; there were subjects there. So, as a citizen, she can in no way consider Nikolai "her".
                        It is unclear if you do not understand such basic things as the difference between citizens and citizens why, in general, try to write about RI and the monarchy.

                        After reading this - I see what a mess really in my head.
                        The Russian Federation is the legal successor
                        The USSR is well known. Regarding the fact that there are no and could not be citizens in RI, it is already understandable. There is citizenship in the monarchies, and everyone knows this without you.
                        You do not make discoveries.
                        And about the fact that Nikolai is the common king - I meant that we have a common history. By the way, in some issues (and some agreements) the USSR was still the legal successor of the Republic of Ingushetia.
                        Well, about what I write in the comments - thank God I will manage without your advice
                  4. +6
                    15 June 2017 20: 08
                    Quote: Diana Ilyina
                    does not cancel the fact of aggressive actions of Russia and the desire of its emperor to enter into conflict

                    And what were they?
                    Quote: Diana Ilyina
                    that’s what the soldiers were talking about, already by 1917, to fight for your king

                    Was he in June?
              2. +7
                15 June 2017 19: 16
                Quote: Diana Ilyina
                soldiers already by 1917 fight for your king

                The soldiers are not fighting for your "king" and not for Stalin and not for Putin, the soldiers are fighting for their families, for their homes, and not at all for the "Abramovich's yachts" as the liberal press likes to say.
                Quote: Diana Ilyina
                Russia itself was drawn into this war on the initiative of the bloody Nikolashka

                Enemy "mediocre Nikolashka" met at distant approaches, not expecting him to break through to the Volga, as in the "great Stalin."
                1. +3
                  16 June 2017 00: 34
                  Quote: Setrac
                  The soldiers are not fighting for your "king" and not for Stalin and not for Putin, the soldiers are fighting for their families, for their homes ...

                  Wow, the Communists pecked me the other day on an article about the Second World War, just for the same words. lol
            2. 0
              16 June 2017 05: 24
              Well, by the way, on the topic of the day (about the motivation to fight)
              https://oper.ru/video/view.php?t=2160
          2. +7
            15 June 2017 16: 36
            The Germans attacked Russia, they wanted to destroy it, and they attacked both the Russian word and the birches by the river on faith.
          3. Out
            0
            15 June 2017 20: 33
            Quote: Diana Ilyina
            There was no truth for the soldier in this war, and therefore he did not want to shed blood for the interests of the bourgeoisie!


            Well, you see, for example, I don’t want to shed my blood for the Trotskyists, and your Trotskyist propaganda will not convince me, dear Dean.
        2. +11
          15 June 2017 12: 29
          Madame Ilyina, you have some strange, inexplicable hatred for Nicholas II. Is he to blame for the decomposition of the army by the summer of 1917? Did he personally sign the criminal Order No. 1? Or he distributed such proclamations: http://elib.shpl.ru/en/nodes/14152-bolsheviki-vg
          ody-imperialisticheskoy-voyny-1914-fevral-1917-sb
          ornik-dokumentov-mestnyh-bolshevistskih-organizat
          siy-m-1939 # page / 201 / mode / inspect / zoom / 4. ?
          1. +3
            15 June 2017 18: 38
            Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
            you have some kind of strange, inexplicable hatred for Nicholas II

            In general, the discussion turned to flood and left the topic of the article “spirit” or “matter” in the army, but here I will conduct an educational program (liquidation of illiteracy), since this is a typical mistake of a beginner.
            1) The only people who feel hatred (and absolutely explainable) for Nicholas 2 are monarchists (that is, supporters of the monarchy as a principle, of course the absolute monarchy, for the "constitutional monarchy" in the capital countries is the worst and most vile mockery of monarchism of all ever invented) .There are very few monarchists in Russia, fewer than even Old Believers, and 10 times less than Rodnovers, but there are such people. The truth is that here I did not meet a single monarchist on the forum.
            2) Supporters of capitalism (who overthrew the tsar in February 1917, and in 1989 who defeated the supporters of socialism and now have power) as well as supporters of socialism (who overthrew the supporters of capitalism in October 1917 and then won the civil war against them) are sympathetic to citizen Romanovna as a useful idiot.
            Overall historical rating gr. Romanov is one for all - a fool, a weak-willed coward who ended his reign by direct betrayal of his own state. But the attitude towards him is different because of the differences in the approaches of those who evaluate him.
            For the supporters of capitalism and socialism, he is good at that because a fool and a weak-willed coward. The February and October Revolution would not have won if not for this factor.
            For supporters of the monarchy, his betrayal and the fact that he directly led RI to liquidation is, on the contrary, a negative factor. Accordingly, they hate him.
            In general, the attitude of the monarchists to Nicholas 2 is similar to the attitude of the communists to the city of Gorbachev .. Both for the communists Gorbachev is a traitor (and for proponents of capitalism he is a hero in contrast), so for monarchists are traitor Nikolai. There is a difference in nuances. Gorbachev is a traitor conscious, but Nikolai is not, he betrayed by weakness, but Nikolai is dumb (here he has no equal), and Gorbachev is not stupid.
            Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
            Is he to blame for the decomposition of the army by the summer of 1917? Did he personally sign the criminal Order No. 1? Or he distributed such proclamations: http://elib.shpl.ru/en/nodes/14152-bolsheviki-vg

            Of course not. Why ask deliberately absurd questions. Citizen Romanov had nothing to do with this.
            1. +6
              15 June 2017 20: 10
              Quote: Odyssey
              one for all is a fool, a weak-willed coward who ended his reign by direct betrayal of his own state

              Trapped by conspirator generals?
              1. +1
                15 June 2017 22: 56
                Quote: Dart2027
                Trapped by conspirator generals?

                So, in particular, that’s why he was a fool (of course, not only because) that he had all the generals being conspirators, and he was trapped in them.
                And, in particular, therefore, a limp coward who did not even try to fight for the Monarchy and the Empire, although it was his duty.
                Personally, I don’t blame him (because I’m not a monarchist), but the monarchists are not happy with this. And I understand them.
                After all, he should have understood what renunciation would lead to. Supreme Commander during such a difficult war. And not just the Commander-in-Chief, but the Monarch by the grace of God, to whom the Russian army swore allegiance.
                1. +1
                  16 June 2017 18: 29
                  Quote: Odyssey
                  that he had all the generals turned out to be conspirators

                  After Stalin's death, only two Marshals - Rokossovsky and Golovanov - did not renounce him. And his companions led the company to dousing him with mud.
                  Quote: Odyssey
                  that he didn’t even try to fight for the Monarchy and the Empire

                  That is, starting a war during such a difficult war is smart?
                  1. 0
                    18 June 2017 14: 45
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    After Stalin's death, only two Marshals - Rokossovsky and Golovanov - did not renounce him. And his companions led the company to dousing him with mud.

                    Well, you are exaggerating. In fact, on the contrary, you can easily list the Marshals and senior generals who took an active part in defaming Stalin (including, unfortunately, Marshal Zhukov). The rest were just silent, but Golovanov and some others objected for that and paid
                    . But these are trifles, another thing is important, it all happened after the death of Stalin and when the state policy changed.
                    During the life of Stalin, there was nothing similar to the generals and could not be, just as this could not have happened to Nicholas 1, Alexander 3, etc.
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    That is, starting a war during such a difficult war is smart?

                    Well, if we consider that Nikolai did everything right, then it turns out that the Empire, in principle, was doomed. But it seems you, dear Dart2027, do not quite correctly understand what the Civil War is. This is the state of society when social contradictions have reached such an urgency that they cannot be resolved by peaceful means, and at the same time, all sides of the social struggle possess the means for armed struggle (that is, weapons).
                    That is, this is the state of the whole society, respectively, nor any person (or group of people), even the Emperor alone can not cause a civil war in any way. Nicholas, with all his desire, could not start a war by itself. How Putin cannot begin it, and even more so, Lenin could not begin it either in 1914 or in 1917.
                    For example, Nicholas 1 suppressed the Decembrist uprising, did this cause GW? Of course, no, because there were no prerequisites for this. By 1917, all the preconditions for GV had developed in Russia (in many respects, thanks to the activities of Nicholas), but society was in a state of dynamic equilibrium and the decision of Nicholas 2 could direct events to another channel.
                    That is, his mastiff before the Empire was to suppress the conspiracy (as in 1825) and not let the gv start .Could he do this? Theoretically could. But probably it would not be Nikolai 2
                    The fact is that he did not even try to do this, and his decision was the worst possible, as a result, the Empire and the Monarchy collapsed instantly, and Russia plunged into a state of war.
                    1. 0
                      18 June 2017 15: 26
                      Quote: Odyssey
                      another thing is important, it all happened after the death of Stalin and when the state policy changed

                      That is, they were liars - while they were alive they swore allegiance, and then quickly renounced?
                      Quote: Odyssey
                      You, dear Dart2027, do not quite understand what Civil War is. This is the state of society when social contradictions have become so acute that they cannot be resolved peacefully and at the same time all sides of the social struggle possess the means for armed struggle (i.e. weapons).

                      And there is. But what else could be in 1917? The mistake of Nicholas II is that he underestimated the stupidity and arrogance of the liberals and overestimated the loyalty of the military. If he had learned about the conspiracy and hung up ministers and deputies on Palace Square without long conversations, he could have avoided the catastrophe, but from the moment he left, there was practically no chance - if he got out of the trap he tried to regain power, then this would not have cost little blood - too many were messed up in betrayal.
                      Quote: Odyssey
                      That is, his mastiff before the Empire was to suppress the conspiracy (as in 1825) and to prevent the outbreak of war. Could he do this? Theoretically could.

                      Not really. If in 1825 there was an attempt at a coup d'etat, then in 1917 the whole elite was involved in it, and most importantly, the years of propaganda inspired a large part of the country with various kinds of beautiful ideas (not only communism) that were practically impossible, but very attractive.
        3. Out
          +1
          15 June 2017 20: 37
          Quote: Diana Ilyina
          he doesn’t have any specifics, that is, under this concept you can bring anyone you want, at least essayers, at least Cadets, at least Bolsheviks, at least the bald one.


          Not at all, it was your Trotskyist influence that corrupted the army, though in those days it was called differently ....
        4. +1
          16 June 2017 21: 32
          How many more commies undercut on the forum hang out! Go to hell with your Lenin! am
      2. Cat
        +3
        15 June 2017 11: 48
        Quote: siberalt
        And what is better in winter - felt boots or a hat? laughing

        A bottle of vodka!
    2. +7
      15 June 2017 17: 55
      From the car to battle. Siberian arrows advance to the front.

      With the outbreak of World War I, the writer V. A. Gilyarovsky wrote the text “March of Siberian Riflemen”. The Bolsheviks remade verses to the music of this march in "Through the valleys and along the hills"
  2. +7
    15 June 2017 06: 48
    Though spit, at least minus, and most importantly - training of soldiers and officers..

    Real training also provides indispensable, calm courage.
    One trained soldier (truly trained) costs twenty. Trained officers increase the strength of the division fivefold! And even ten times!
    -------
    Of course, learning is impossible without iron discipline, since real training is a very, very difficult thing. Heavy for both ordinary and major.
    ------------------
    sad It was through training that the Germans reached both Moscow and Stalingrad. And only then later .. when they became poorly trained, and we learned to fight .. at a great price. Then the war rolled back.
    1. +4
      15 June 2017 06: 52
      The article did not seem to be about this, judging by the title. What do you think, if well-trained, truly trained, constrained by iron discipline and extraordinary morale mumbo-jumbo tribes with spears and flintlock guns go on a machine gun - what will happen?
      1. +2
        15 June 2017 07: 29
        Quote: tasha
        The article wasn’t like that.


        The article, in principle, does not consider mumba - yumba and spears.
        --------------------------
        In addition, mumbo-jumbo are not trained at all. Even specially selected recruits at 25% go to dropouts. Translated (translated) in other parts, as incapable of learning. A great officer could only come from 1 (one) fit for combat training from 10.
        1. +2
          16 June 2017 21: 34
          Quote: ammunition
          In addition, mumbo-jumbo are not trained at all.

          Just the Germans in their few African colonies mumbo-jumbo so trained that they were in the WWII brazen and angry-winged mumbo-jumbo hit in the tail and mane!
      2. +9
        15 June 2017 16: 38
        Differently.
        There the Zulu were massacred by the British with the latest rifles and cannons and mithralles, and in the battle with the Boers armed with grandfather's muskets they were destroyed by sniper fire before reaching the enemy.
    2. +2
      15 June 2017 10: 33
      Quote: ammunition
      most importantly - the training of soldiers and officers ..

      Quote: ammunition
      Of course, learning is impossible without iron discipline

      Those. the author is fundamentally wrong. The winners were those who turned their soldiers into cars. Clear obedience to orders, minimization of reflection due to emotional pumping and / or various kinds of chemistry, constant drill. As a result, a well-functioning military machine is obtained, and the rank-and-file composition is capable of marching to its full height under dense fire.
      Quote: ammunition
      It is through training

      Just a good example. German war machine fighting at once on 2 fronts.
      The moral is this. To wage war, people themselves are not needed. And some button presser has a huge advantage over the trench inhabitant. If only because he has something to press on. People are weak, vulnerable, hard and long reproduced. Whereas riveting the simplest, but effective mechanisms in the form of the same anti-personnel mines does not cause any particular problems. And all these discussions about the spirit and other things are just crutches that turn people in efficiency into a distant similarity of mechanisms.
      1. +2
        16 June 2017 05: 45
        Well, there was such a Friedrich der Grosse who "turned his soldiers into cars with an endless drill and combatant. Rumyantsev-Zadunaysky came with a creative approach and flexible construction of troops on the battlefield. How did it all end? Correct: chasing Frederick with piss rags the whole of Prussia. Then Pasha the First, as if apologizing, like, okay, what’s there, brought Berlin back to him. Recall the Second World War: “cars” came to us and what? Yes, they howled a month later, because “the Russians are not fighting so. "For some reason, nothing about German ingenuity (well, okay, I personally do not know; maybe the damned propagandists have worked, all cases from the historical memory have been deleted ...) is not known, but about the Russian one is full. and there were many such stories and articles on the VO site.

        The warrior must first of all remain a man. To make a car out of a man is to cover up his managerial failure. The machine does not know how to act creatively, so its applicability is very limited. Man - knows how. Therefore, he can cope both himself and the car in such circumstances that it will turn out like a bearded anecdote, when a Russian user forced the computer to allow an "unacceptable" operation ...
        1. +1
          16 June 2017 22: 37
          Quote: DimanC
          Then Pasha the First, as if apologizing, like, okay, what’s there, brought Berlin back to him

          At the age of six years oldDo you need to understand? fool wassat
          Where did you get this nonsense? We took Berlin briefly during the war. This is Koenigsberg promised to return Peter the 3rd (but to promise does not mean to marry) - but Catherine returned!
          1. 0
            17 June 2017 19: 30
            he could have lied to the emperor’s account, but the main message was different: man-machine will lose to man-man
    3. +2
      15 June 2017 12: 29
      In addition to the training of soldiers and command personnel, I’ll add that, together with the armament and equipment optimized for the theater of operations, the motivation of the personnel, the uninterrupted supply of everything necessary for warfare, the organization of communications and command and control, reconnaissance, the most important element in the success of any operation, as in Tactical and strategic level is the competent work of the General Staff and the headquarters units. If there is no such work or it is inferior in quality to the enemy, success will not be in battle.
    4. +3
      15 June 2017 13: 40
      Why do not care? You have communicated the truth. This is confirmed by front-line soldiers in memoirs. And our guys in Syria have recently confirmed this. Training, discipline, coherence of the unit, good weapons and the ability to use them ("It is difficult to learn easily in battle," A.V. Suvorov). This is in tactics. The right strategy is still important. Right military thought. The topic has long been disclosed by many famous people. And the article is so ... tryndet from nefig do. The author wants to be too proud of his spirit. In fact, he can quickly deflate. Spirit from God. A striking example of Suvorov, Nakhimov.
      1. 0
        16 June 2017 21: 44
        Quote: Love is
        "It is difficult to learn easily in battle" A.V. Suvorov

        Suvorov did not say this - for in battle it does not happen easily!
        He said: "hard in learning - easy on a hike!"
        1. +1
          16 June 2017 21: 48
          You tell the political leaders of all time. Well, show the links. And then the men do not know !!!!! crying
    5. +8
      15 June 2017 16: 50
      The SA was learned, but somewhere fled in 1991, somehow.
      1. +1
        15 June 2017 18: 35
        The army does not fight on its territory. Riot suppression leave VVshnikam and UFSIN.
    6. +6
      15 June 2017 19: 20
      Quote: ammunition
      Though spit, at least minus, and most importantly - the training of soldiers and officers ..

      What is called “fighting spirit” in this article - it doesn’t appear from scratch, it is the result of military training, tempering of character, initial skills and stamina of recruits.
  3. +3
    15 June 2017 07: 48
    Alexei, generously excuse me ... but as if I read Cadet Bigler’s notebook ... hi
    1. +10
      15 June 2017 16: 39
      Yes, but the cadets the biglers held on for more than four years, and the funny seamstresses and capes with the hooks surrendered in 1938 immediately without a shot.
  4. +5
    15 June 2017 08: 06
    Discussions on this subject really were conducted for a long time and cost the Russian soldier dearly.
    At the beginning of the XNUMXth century, two parties existed in the military circles of the Russian Empire.
    Some recognized the "bayonet" - a sign of courage, spirit, courage - and argued that, whatever the perfection of technology and the power of fire, the main thing in the war would be a man, that it is not weapons that are important, but a man with his decisiveness, and so as a bayonet is a representative of this quality, the Suvorov aphorism “bullet is a fool, a bayonet is well done” is eternal. Others, keen on the power of modern fire, attached exaggerated importance to technology, denied the “bayonet”, and with it the Suvorov aphorism.
    M. I. Dragomirov dubbed the first “bayonets”, the second - “fire worshipers”. The first, led by Dragomirov himself, remained the winners.
    Continuing altercations of “bayonets” and “fire worshipers” led to a vagueness of understanding the issues of “bullet” (matter) and “bayonet” (spirit), to false conclusions of the theory and, consequently, to the wrong preparation of the matter for war, to excessive enthusiasm for the moral side of preparation troops to fight to the detriment of military equipment.
    And the soldiers on the battlefield were paying for these "creative searches" with blood.
    1. +1
      15 June 2017 08: 40
      Quote: Curious
      Suvorov aphorism “bullet - fool, bayonet - well done”

      This is a phrase from the context.!
      But the whole (finished) phrase of A.V. Suvorov. -

      "Learning is light, ignorance is darkness! The master’s business is afraid. And the peasant - he doesn’t know how to own a plow - bread will not be born. For a scientist they give three unlearned. Three are not enough for us! Give us six! Let us beat ten for one! take! The last campaign the enemy lost counting [43] seventy-five thousand, just not one hundred, and we did not lose one full thousand 30. Here, brethren, military training! Gentlemen officers - what a delight! "
      1. +2
        15 June 2017 08: 59
        This is really out of context. And I quoted this phrase in this form, because it was so interpreted by "bayonets."
        Completely in the manual on combat training of troops of the Suzdal Institution, Suvorov, which was published in 1806 under the title “Science to Win”, the phrase reads: “Take care of a bullet for three days, and sometimes for a whole campaign, there’s nowhere to take it. Shoot rarely, yes aptly; with a bayonet if it is tight. A bullet will amuse itself, a bayonet will not amuse itself: a bullet is a fool, a bayonet well done. "
        And your quote from the same book, but on a different occasion and not for this case
        1. +1
          15 June 2017 12: 13
          This interpretation belonged to the mitraliasis, they had serious problems with the transfer of fire along the front, the NSW in the Franco-Prussian one poor fellow received 27 bullets, and his rank and file neighbors did not. In fact, the first, still experimental machine-gun companies were created in 1899, even before the production of machine guns began in Russia.
          1. 0
            15 June 2017 12: 42
            He did not catch the connection between Suvorov and the Mitrallies. explain.
            1. 0
              15 June 2017 13: 54
              She is not there, there is an exaggerated "bayonet" of Dragomirov, in particular the phrase that it is enough to kill a soldier with one bullet, and not with several machine guns.
              1. 0
                15 June 2017 14: 00
                “... the bullet and bayonet are not mutually exclusive, but complement each other: the first paves the way for the second. This relationship between them will always remain, no matter how far the improvement of firearms goes. ”
                "Tactical Textbook" written by the general
                M.I. Dragomirov in 1879.
                1. 0
                  15 June 2017 15: 34
                  "The gentlemen with incomprehensible persistence ascribing M. Dragomirov contempt for the fire, do not deal with the genuine, but with the fictitious, composed by Dragomirov themselves." Dragomirov. Taken from: Fedoseev. "Machine guns of the Russian army in battle."
                  1. +1
                    15 June 2017 22: 15
                    You would still quote from Samsonov or Oleinikov’s articles. Classics must be read in the original, if possible, then they are classics.


                    There is no doubt that I read it.
                    1. 0
                      16 June 2017 17: 06
                      Great. Why did you decide that his point of view has not changed since 1879? In 1891 Dragomirov allowed the use of machine guns in fortresses and steppe expeditions.
                      1. +1
                        16 June 2017 19: 04
                        You will excuse me, of course, but you just did not fully understand the essence of the subject. Dragomirov is not an opponent of machine guns, in the given phrase his whole doctrine. And she went into the charter of 1904. Find my article on the three-line bayonet on the site (the continuation of Shpakovsky’s articles on the three-line), everything is written there.
  5. +19
    15 June 2017 08: 37
    The article is actually interesting, given the technocratic orientation of the army. But we can recall how our equipment was handed over to the Arabs and how they failed all military operations because of the cowardice and cowardice of the soldiers. The spirit is always more significant and the Russian soldier was famous for his courage
    1. +3
      15 June 2017 09: 36
      Quote: Barcid
      our equipment was handed over to the Arabs and how they failed all military operations because of the cowardice and cowardice of the soldiers. The spirit is always more significant and the Russian soldier was famous for his courage


      Ofigeva from all comments.
      Recently .. I quote - " "16 Russian soldiers repelled the attacks of 300 terrorists for two days. Without a single wound."
      On one courage, or what? ..
      By the way. Courage is a matter of gain .. and very often.
      -------------
      In nature, I’m getting fucked up. It seems that on Military Review there is not a single military man. Some jerks .. or sloping.
      --------------
      Yes edrit him to the left! Oh, here! Here is 16 (sixteen!) trained warriors calmly WORK .. Do you understand ?? They worked. I am in full control of the situation. And against them were -
      1) No less brave.
      2) No worse armed.
      But! Much worse trained !!!! Like amateurs versus grandmasters. angry
      1. +1
        15 June 2017 10: 34
        In addition, not only scribblers or mentally unhealthy people are afraid of anything. Overcoming a sense of fear and completing a combat mission is just what is called courage. And faith in their own weapons plays a huge role in this.
        In general, a balance of moral-volitional qualities, professional training and technical equipment should be observed, since all this is interconnected. On paper, finding out what is more important requires ink, on the battlefield - blood.
        1. Cat
          +3
          15 June 2017 12: 07
          I will not judge the army. I’ll tell you about the internal affairs bodies, where since 2008 there have been two scientifically fostered ideas.
          1. Professional service and physical training.
          2. Moral and psychological preparation.
          Ideas are equal, in 10 years they formed two scientific schools of supporters and unapproachable supporters. The problem, which is more important than knowledge, skills and forensics, or moral and psychological readiness. The answer is obvious this and that, but the devil is in the details. For both directions are not only adjacent, but in some cases mutually exclusive.
          In the end. The truth is obvious that the employee must possess both qualities, and in sufficient quantities to match the position being replaced.
          I dare to suggest that this applies to the army.
          Triad: knowledge-skills-skills + moral and psychological readiness (spirit) + material and technical security (from a hot breakfast to a personal companion in orbit). There is no other way!
          1. +1
            15 June 2017 12: 44
            Absolutely true!
  6. +3
    15 June 2017 09: 30
    What is more important in the great war is evident from the very course for us of the First World War. They acted successfully against the Turks and Austrians, the Germans almost always lost. Small, local successes did not count. The huge superiority of the Germans in technology and training turned out to be.
  7. +1
    15 June 2017 09: 31
    What is more important in war - military equipment or fighting spirit

    And why go so far? The United Arab Emirates have the most modern (relatively) weapons which they have above the roof, but the Yemenis with almost the same machine guns beat them both in the tail and mane.
  8. +7
    15 June 2017 09: 49
    A machine gun is fighting morale - if a rod is placed on it in the forehead.
    The projectile equally tears the veteran and the recruit.
    The atomic charge destroys a strong spirit division with the same indiscrimination as slamming a brave mosquito.
    Good to all! Nagan under the pillow and a machine gun in the barn ...
    1. +3
      15 June 2017 10: 00
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      The projectile equally tears the veteran and the recruit.


      You are deeply mistaken.
      A well-trained veteran, and a shell .. and a mine are very poorly found. sad
      1. +2
        15 June 2017 15: 24
        Quote: ammunition
        You are deeply mistaken.
        A well-trained veteran, and a shell .. and a mine are very poorly found.


        That you are mistaken - you will not hear your shell and you will not hide.
        Yes - an experienced fighter lives a little longer - but no one is safe from accidents
        Professional soldiers in the infantry are knocked out in the first months of an active war.

        When you are sitting under shelling in a trench, only the case determines whether you are lucky / not lucky.
        1. +1
          15 June 2017 16: 57
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          That you are mistaken - you will not hear your shell and you will not hide.

          Who told you that?
          -----------------
          You see .. I myself went through the toughest forced training. Was under shelling. And much more.
          And I’m not writing theories here, but a concrete practice.
          -----------------
          Any artillery shot is perfectly audible for 10-15 km. The flair precisely tells - what and where flies.
          And mines, in general, give five seconds, and not from the shot, but from the sound of the mines flying.
          1. +1
            16 June 2017 13: 09
            Quote: ammunition
            Any artillery shot is perfectly audible for 10-15 km. The flair precisely tells - what and where flies.
            And mines, in general, give five seconds, and not from the shot, but from the sound of the mines flying.


            Mines - yes.
            A projectile flies faster than the speed of sound - so you cannot hear "your" projectile.

            If you were really well prepared, you would know that most howitzer shells have a speed of 600 m / s and higher - even taking into account the ballistic trajectory, it will fly before the sound of a shot. Direct guns (guns) - more than 800 m / s initial projectile speed. Sound speed 300-366 m / s depending on temperature.
            So do not hear "your" shell. This is pure luck or no luck.
            Because artillery is the god of war.
            Read the memoirs of the division commander Pyotr Alekseevich Mikhin
            "Gunners, Stalin gave the order!"

            A competent division commander dispersed the Nazi battalion in a few minutes, held back a convoy of several thousand retreating Nazis, and covered enemy positions with ricochet of shells - this is aerobatics in artillery!

            In the memoirs of German officers in WWII, it is repeatedly found - they suffered heavy losses from the F-22 and ZiS-3 divisional cannons. They were called "doom-doom" - the explosion and shot sound flew sequentially.
            It is impossible to lay down in advance - the most experienced fighter can not do anything under fire, except if he survived the first salvo - he will try to take cover.
            1. 0
              18 June 2017 10: 28
              Quote: DimerVladimer
              A projectile flies faster than the speed of sound - so you cannot hear "your" projectile.
              If you were really well prepared, you would know that most howitzer shells have a speed of 600 m / s and higher - even taking into account the ballistic trajectory, it will fly before the sound of a shot. Direct guns (guns) - more than 800 m / s initial projectile speed. Sound speed 300-366 m / s depending on temperature.
              So do not hear "your" shell. This is pure luck or no luck.


              In fact of the matter !! What is heard! It is the sound of flight that is heard. A bit like the sound of a jet plane. sad
              Why do you breed theories if they tell you what you hear. Howitzer shell is heard. Exactly yours.
              Maybe because .. because the shell from the howitzer .. slows down significantly by the end of the flight. And it does not fly in a straight line (like the sound from it), but in a strongly bent curve.
              In short - I hear.
      2. +2
        15 June 2017 15: 42
        Quote: ammunition
        You are deeply mistaken.
        A well-trained veteran, and a shell .. and a mine are very poorly found.


        This is worth remembering when the MLRS type Grad will cover on the march.
        1. +1
          15 June 2017 18: 42
          And intelligence for what?
          1. 0
            16 June 2017 13: 47
            Quote: Kostoprav
            And intelligence for what?


            If intelligence had not messed up, then there would have been no loss at all.
            That’s the task of the Gradov division - it quickly moved forward, turned around, gave the BC to the convoy, curled up, and promptly left - 30-40 minutes.
            The Hurricane Division - you don’t even need to move in - range - almost like OTR.

            Let the gunners have the choice of the right ammunition at hand — there are a lot of tactical techniques that can be used in the convoy — remotely mined (held at the right point on the route) - scouted (ideally from the drone), worked out, curled up, left. If a helicopter or an air cover - left an ambush a couple of calculations with MANPADS "Arrows" - also a chance to twist the turntable, if loshary.
            If on the defensive - the EW put a projectile close to the headquarters and several cluster mines with mines - there is no connection.
      3. +1
        15 June 2017 17: 21
        It all depends on the caliber!
    2. +3
      15 June 2017 11: 24
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      A machine gun is fighting morale - if a rod is placed on it in the forehead.

      The machine gun is not autonomous. The human factor is too strong. All sorts of explosive devices are autonomous. An anti-personnel mine absolutely does not give a damn about the fighting spirit of both those who created and installed it, and those who blew it up. Crossed once with one Afghan sapper from Moscow. One leg is a prosthesis, the other is stuffed with tiny fragments of a plastic shell from a mine. Doctors did not begin to remove them, they said that it was actually necessary to disassemble the leg. And he walked to such feet in the 90s to work, squeezing blood in the prosthesis in the evening. Those. he will not occupy the will and spirit. What's the point?
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      The projectile equally tears the veteran and the recruit.

      To add anti-personnel landmines a little improvement, such as installation on non-extraction, non-magnetic body, click counter. And the veteran’s advantage over the rookie will be that the veteran will send the command far away and will not climb to such territory at all.
      1. +2
        15 June 2017 17: 23
        Mines with artificial intelligence have already been developed that distinguish an adult from a child, an unarmed person from a person armed and one from another. On the minefield of such mines their own can play football. Boys 12-14 years - too ... But a stranger uncle with AK breaks a directed explosion! True, so far it's expensive!
    3. Cat
      +2
      15 June 2017 12: 13
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      A machine gun is fighting morale - if a rod is placed on it in the forehead.
      Smart DotA will not work, smart DotA will bypass. laughing
      The projectile equally tears the veteran and the recruit.

      Well, so the veteran will trample for his death! The ability to calculate the situation. At least to know from the sound of where and whose suitcase flies this is exactly the difference between a veteran and a recruit!
      The atomic charge destroys a strong spirit division with the same indiscrimination as slamming a brave mosquito.
      Good to all! Nagan under the pillow and a machine gun in the barn ...

      Generals are taught, and long and hard! As the phrase is not hackneyed, but I repeat. I did not meet fools in general uniforms!
      1. 0
        15 June 2017 15: 31
        Quote: Kotischa
        Smart DotA will not work, smart DotA will go around

        This is good when you can get around or have something to suppress the firing point.

        Front line - implies that there is no getting around, there is no support and what's next? If this is not a search operation, not a maneuvering war and not get around? - Fuck a machine gun, sheltered in an armored fortification like CRAB - as a trained or motivated fighter.
      2. +1
        15 June 2017 16: 39
        Means with a small number of generals communicated. laughing
    4. +2
      15 June 2017 13: 57
      "Fighting is a machine gun - if a rod is thrown against it.
      The projectile equally tears the veteran and the recruit "////

      I would call such a modern proportion.
      20% - fighting spirit.
      30% - training.
      50% - firepower.
      1. +1
        15 June 2017 15: 36
        Quote: voyaka uh
        I would call such a modern proportion.
        20% - fighting spirit.
        30% - training.
        50% - firepower.

        You are trying to try on circumstances as usual, but it doesn’t always work out that way.

        Tactical environment:
        you are in the desert, armed with automatic guns, experienced, motivated - above you at an altitude of 1500 m, an unmanned aerial vehicle armed with a Helfire type ATGM.
        Question - do you have time to dig a trench using your experience before the rocket reaches? How 20% of fighting spirit and 30% of training will help you destroy a drone and "get" a botanist-operator who controls it - 15 seconds off ...
        1. 0
          15 June 2017 15: 42
          Learning will make me lie on the ground with my head to the ground
          legs together, as if threatened by a grenade explosion. That's all you can do.
          in this situation. If not a direct hit, then you can survive.
          I gave some average approximate data.
          1. 0
            15 June 2017 16: 01
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Learning will make me lie on the ground with my head to the ground
            legs together, as if threatened by a grenade explosion. That's all you can do.
            in this situation. If not a direct hit, then you can survive.
            I gave some average approximate data.


            Agree - the chances of a trained and motivated unit, against a robotic and remotely controlled or unmanned-autonomous - are not many.
            Partisan warfare in the forest - gives more chances.
            The presence of infrared detectors on drones, high-precision weapons or cluster munitions, volume-detonating, incendiary - sharply reduce the chances of survival, reducing them to chance.
            That is why the development of the armed forces goes from the war of motors to the remote war, the war of robots.

            I would say that a motivated and well-trained, experienced military is an inadmissible luxury to put him in obviously losing situations.
            1. +2
              15 June 2017 16: 22
              “That’s why the development of the armed forces goes from the war of motors
              to the remote war, the war of robots "///

              Yes, I’m for it with two hands. And the IDF in this direction is moving with all its might.
              But things are going slowly. That's why I made an estimate
              20-30-50 - on what is (in my opinion).
            2. +1
              15 June 2017 16: 36
              Quote: DimerVladimer
              Agree - the chances of a trained and motivated unit, against a robotic and remotely controlled or unmanned-autonomous - are not many.


              I read all your comments. And before .. and after.
              -------------------------
              We are talking about the confrontation of the armies located on equal .. approximately technical level.
              Therefore - your theories are worthless.
              ----------------------
              What the hell !! One writes that trained soldiers are certainly with spears.
              You write that trained soldiers with some guns-)) naked- barefoot .. in the desert-))
              Write that with spears. What is already there .-))
          2. +1
            15 June 2017 16: 09
            "Escape the Chase" - a popular series on Discovery.
            A well-trained and experienced fur seal breaks away from the unit pursuing him.
            They lift the drone - it is very quickly detected, even in the presence of trees and shelters in the stones. Be it a combat mission, and the drone is armed - live for him 15 seconds after the operator presses the trigger.
        2. +1
          15 June 2017 19: 37
          Experience will not allow me to leave the forest without a reservation in a pure field ....
        3. +3
          15 June 2017 19: 39
          Spherical horses breed in a vacuum of clever thoughts from couch experts.
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          you are in the desert, armed with automatic guns, experienced, motivated - above you at an altitude of 1500 m, an unmanned aerial vehicle armed with a Helfire type ATGM.

          First, explain to me what I am doing (for example) a simple line infantryman alone in the desert? And even a simple infantryman may have something like "MANPADS Strela". And if I'm not a downtime infantryman, then I may have a wide range of weapons.
          In addition, shooting a helfire at individual infantrymen - no printing press will help here.
          1. 0
            16 June 2017 14: 07
            Quote: Setrac
            First, explain to me what I am doing (for example) a simple line infantryman alone in the desert? And even a simple infantryman may have something like "MANPADS Strela". And if I'm not a downtime infantryman, then I may have a wide range of weapons.
            In addition, shoot Helfire at selected infantrymen


            The question in the title of the article is what is more important than morale or technique?
            You can also sit in the jungle with excellent morale, if you do not like the wilderness.
            I will pick up the drone with an infrared scanner, find your unit and "fold" the BC on it. Whatever you dissipate — I’ll throw several cassettes with anti-personnel mines into the area — while you pick them, I’ll clarify your position and work with cash firepower — the MTSA-S division or the GRAD division, VIENNA — one hell. Everyone who is lucky to get out of this meat grinder is lucky, regardless of combat experience.

            You don’t even need a helicopter - only target designation from the drone, this is enough to lay shell after shell, mine after mine - until the whole spirit with shit is knocked out.
            1. +2
              16 June 2017 16: 30
              Quote: DimerVladimer
              You can also sit in the jungle with excellent morale, if you do not like the wilderness.

              Apparently spherical horse breeding is your specialty.
              Quote: DimerVladimer
              I'll lift a drone

              Quote: DimerVladimer
              until the whole spirit with shit beat out

              Everything is clear with you, you heroically kill unarmed people. And what will you do if the enemy also has UAVs, aircraft, artillery?
              So I’ll tell you - you’ll be dragging, because in order to fight with an equal adversary you need that same fortitude, the need for which you so strongly deny.
  9. +7
    15 June 2017 11: 41
    I remember, in history there was one army with the highest fighting spirit. Her formations walked through the impenetrable jungle, her soldiers cost a bowl of rice a day and could sit for a day in a swamp, devoured by mosquitoes, her officers could kill the one who brought the order to retreat. An indestructible fighting spirit led this army from victory to victory ... exactly until the colonial units that fought against it were replaced by normally equipped regulars.
    And then it turned out that fighting spirit alone was worthless when, at the exit from the jungle, a detachment came across equipped positions with machine gun nests. And that the readiness to rise with hostility gives nothing when, in response, the enemy rolls out several “Shermans”. And that the willingness to die for the Emperor has little to do when the enemy builds a layered air defense and massively uses projectiles with radio fuses.
    And as a result, the "effeminate Yankees" accept the surrender of "highly spiritual samurai."

    But why go far:
    11.8.45 three Japanese soldiers quietly entered the area of ​​the NP of the artillery commander of the 63rd regiment, Colonel Kuchin, chose a convenient moment and attacked Colonel Kuchin with knives. The nearby Red Army soldier 1627, iptap Inyakin, point-blank shot all three Japanese from a machine gun.

    © Consolidated report on combat experience 5 A during the fighting in August 1945.
    To a shootout with knivesyeah ... smile
    1. +2
      15 June 2017 12: 00
      Yes, in the same report there was an indicative conclusion:
      Nevertheless, despite the literally Phonetic [so in the text] courage and self-sacrifice, these "suicide bombers" did not justify themselves. The vast majority of them were shot by machine gun fire and only in exceptional isolated cases did they do their job.
  10. +9
    15 June 2017 12: 21
    Great article. To the author - my gratitude for the description of the feat of Siberian riflemen in 1914! hi
  11. +2
    15 June 2017 13: 45
    Quote: Theseus
    and the rank and file is capable of marching to its full height under dense fire.

    The fact is that trained troops do not allow themselves this type of battle if it is not imposed by the enemy. Mental attacks are kitsch and nothing more.
    1. 0
      15 June 2017 15: 52
      Quote: Love is
      The fact is that trained troops do not allow themselves this type of battle if it is not imposed by the enemy. Mental attacks are kitsch and nothing more.


      That is, you refuse to obey the order?
      The unit was given the task, within the framework of the offensive ... division ... corps ... of the front - who will listen to your noah - that you are “trained” troops and you not allowed to use to solve a specific problem - take s..uka height now!
      Do not tell my footcloths "trained troops do not allow themselves" ...
      1. +2
        15 June 2017 17: 10
        "take a b ... u height now!" it’s hysteria or work with an unsure subordinate. Which often causes a chain of tragic consequences. Unprofessional people allow themselves to do this. And this does not help the case. Example. You brought your son to the garden, gave him a shovel and time. And since you don’t know how long it takes for your son to be 15 years old, you set the time to 2 hours and left. Upon your return, the son did not complete even half the work. And this is motivated by the lack of gloves, ground shovels, and fever. The task failed. You have several reaction options. Scream and say that the son is squishy and leave, forcing him to work until evening. Or, having made conclusions about your personal, mistake in planning and securing work, correct the situation yourself. It may be a curiosity for you, but it’s right to do just that and not otherwise. For, the work must be done. hi
  12. +2
    15 June 2017 14: 42
    Some kind of children's question and the same childish, and even controversial, conclusion.
    1) In addition to questions of the spirit and quality of weapons, there are also questions of troop training, organizational and managerial issues, quality of command, logistics support, etc. Success in war depends on complex all these questions. One of the aspects cannot be torn out like raisins from a loaf.
    2) First, the author, on an arbitrary interpretation of a couple of examples from the war a hundred years ago, "proved" the superiority of spirit over matter. And then he talks about a balance (which implies equality) between spirit and technology. Of course, you can’t argue with balance, but he himself would have determined own answers to your own question.
    3) In fact, even if one talks in an extremely abstract way and compares only “spirit” and “technology”, then of course you need both, but the exact relationship between them is simply impossible to determine. You can only say that in the wars of antiquity it clearly prevailed "spirit", and over time, "technology" began to gain more and more strength. And in the WWI, technology already dominated, with a pure "spirit" you can’t get into machine guns. In the future, the role of technology is becoming more and more strengthened, although now the "spirit" is strictly necessary. But his role is becoming less and less.
    1. +3
      15 June 2017 15: 07
      Quote: Odyssey
      And in WWI, technology already dominated, with a pure “spirit” you won’t get into machine guns.

      The French tried. Before the war, they just emphasized fighting spirit.
      The “idea with the sword” met this requirement. Expressed by Bergson, it was called "Elan vital" - an all-conquering impulse. Faith in his strength convinced France that the human spirit does not need to bow before the previously foretold forces of evolution, which Schopenhauer and Hegel proclaimed invincible. The spirit of France will play the role of a decisive factor. The will to win, "Elan", will enable France to defeat the enemy. Her genius was in this spirit, the spirit of glory, glory of 1792, in the incomparable Marseillaise, the dashing attack of General Marguerite - the heroic onslaught of the cavalry near Sedan. Then even William I, who watched the course of the battle, could not help exclaiming: “Oh, these brave guys!”
      Belief in the spirit of France revived the confidence in the fate of their country in the French generation of the postwar years. It was this faith that unfurled its banners, sounded in its horns, armed a soldier, and would have led France to victory if “again” had struck her hour.
      Translated into the language of military terms, Bergson's “Elan vital” has become an offensive military doctrine.
      (...)
      The principles of Foch became a trap for France, not because they were confused and incomprehensible, but because of their special attractiveness. They were especially enthusiastically picked up by Colonel Granmeson, an “ardent and brilliant officer” who was the head of the Third Bureau, or the operations department. In 1911, he gave two lectures at the Military Academy, which had far-reaching consequences.
      Colonel Granmeson took only the very top, and not the foundation of Foch's theory. Magnifying only the "elan", the will to win, without taking into account defense, he proposed a military philosophy that electrified his listeners. He waved before their excited gaze an "idea with a sword," showing them how France could win. Its essence boiled down to “offensive a utrans” - offensive to the limit. Only in this way was it possible to come to the decisive battle of Clausewitz, which, “used to the end, is the main act of war” and which, having begun, should have been brought to the end without hesitation, with the utmost use of all human capabilities. Capturing the initiative is absolutely necessary. Predeveloped activities based on dogmatic judgments about how the adversary will act are premature. Freedom of action is achieved only by imposing one’s will on the enemy. “All command orders should be inspired by a determination to seize and hold the initiative.” The defense is forgotten, disregarded, the only excuse for it can only be "saving power in some areas in terms of connecting them to the offensive."
      These principles had a great influence on the General Staff, which prepared on the basis of them over the next two years the Field Charter and a new campaign plan called “Plan-17”, which was approved in May 1913.
      (...)
      The new Field Charter, introduced by the government in October 1913 as the main guide to the training and operation of the French army, began with a loud and pompous statement: "The French army, returning to its tradition, does not recognize any law other than the law of offensive." This was followed by the eight commandments composed of such loud phrases as “decisive battle”, “offensive without hesitation”, “fury and perseverance”, “breaking the will of the enemy”, “ruthless and relentless persecution” with all the ardor of a believer destroying heresy. The charter supplanted and discredited the defensive concept.
      “Only an offensive,” he announced, “leads to positive results.”
      The seventh commandment, highlighted in italics by the authors, stated: “Battles, like nothing else, are a struggle of moral principles. Defeat is inevitable as soon as the will to win disappears. Success does not come to those who suffer less, but to those whose will is firmer and whose morale is stronger. ”
      Nowhere in these eight commandments was it mentioned firepower or what Foch called "surte" - defense or defense. The idea of ​​this charter was immortalized in the famous phrase that became popular among the French officer corps - “lecran” - courage, courage, or, more simply, “not to be a coward”. Under this motto, the French army went to war in 1914.

      © B. Tuckman
      1. +1
        15 June 2017 15: 49
        Quote: Alexey RA
        The French tried. Before the war, they just emphasized fighting spirit.

        Let's just say that they really paid exaggerated attention to the “spirit” as opposed to all the other factors necessary in the war. Although they were also actively involved in technology. But their organizational and managerial readiness for war and the quality of the command staff were frankly weak. This was the reason for their most cruel defeat in 1914.
  13. +2
    15 June 2017 14: 57
    The problem was the estate structure of society. One of the reasons for the disintegration of the army was the lack of leadership. The officers were from the noblemen, who were a tiny fraction of the population, the war was dragging on, the officers were over, and there was no replacement for the officers. By the way, the Germans did not have a shortage of commanders; they taught officers from commoners as much as needed.
    1. +7
      15 June 2017 16: 42
      Stop posting fairy tales, hereditary nobles in the army infantry in RIA before the war were 42, 7%. The rest are bourgeois, Cossacks, peasants, honorary citizens and others.
    2. +1
      15 June 2017 19: 17
      Quote: nickname7
      officers were taught from commoners, as much as needed.

      and the draftees were of very high quality. In both wars in the 20th century.
  14. +7
    15 June 2017 16: 41
    Quote: Curious
    And the soldiers on the battlefield were paying for these "creative searches" with blood.

    Killing twice as many enemies on your front.
    Red Army killed 4 times less than lost recourse
    1. +1
      15 June 2017 18: 34
      Quote: Koshnitsa
      Red Army killed 4 times less than lost

      Mmmm ... was there somewhere a complete set of German loss reports for the second half of 1944 and 1945? wink
    2. 0
      15 June 2017 19: 49
      In what, excuse me, year?
      Even in 1941 they lost recruits, knocking out veterans from the Wehrmacht.
    3. +1
      16 June 2017 00: 55
      So two times more or four less - decide
  15. 0
    15 June 2017 19: 18
    Quote: Koshnitsa
    Red Army killed 4 times less than lost

    The corned beef isn’t like that.
  16. +1
    15 June 2017 22: 07
    The samurai had high morale and skill, but they were also forced to bow their heads before European weapons.
    In the Russian army in 1914 there was order with fighting spirit. But the technical equipment, the level of planning was much inferior to the German army (also a highly motivated army). The author is right in one thing, some advantage of the enemy can be leveled by fighting spirit (and who argues with these!) ... Well, historical examples of the death of brave men in a war are a complete library.
  17. 0
    15 June 2017 23: 17
    Quote: soldier
    After reading this - I see what a mess really in my head.

    Excuses in a self-style will not help you.
    The fact is that you do not know the simplest facts. They exist even before any interpretation of these facts.
    Here is what you write- “Your Tsar too — unless you are of course a citizen of Russia.” As you can see, there is no “common history,” but there is Russian citizenship
    And this is a gross error, for
    1) As a citizen Russian Federation Diana Ilyina is obliged to consider Lenin, Stalin, etc. as her own. But Nicholas 2 is not. For the Russian Federation is the legal successor of the RSFSR-USSR, which were not the legal successors of the RI-RR and deliberately refused the contracts and obligations of the former government.
    2) She cannot consider Nikolay 2 as her own and how simple citizen . For Nicholas 2 is a monarch, and they have nothing in common. This is how to say that citizen Robespierre should consider as citizen his Louis 16. That is, this is a deliberate absurdity.
    1. +17
      16 June 2017 08: 40
      Odysseus Yesterday, 23:17 New
      Quote: soldier
      After reading this - I see what a mess really in my head.
      Excuses in a self-style will not help you.
      The fact is that you do not know the simplest facts. They exist even before any interpretation of these facts.
      Here is what you write- “Your Tsar, too — unless you are of course a citizen of Russia.” As you see, there is no “common history” here, but Russian citizenship
      And this is a gross error, for
      1) As a citizen of the Russian Federation, Diana Ilyina is obliged to consider Lenin, Stalin, etc. to be her, as you are obliged to do. But Nicholas 2 is not. For the Russian Federation is the legal successor of the RSFSR-USSR, which were not the legal successors of the RI-RR and deliberately refused the contracts and obligations of the former government.
      2) She cannot consider Nicholas 2 to be her own and just like a citizen. For Nicholas 2 is a monarch, and they have nothing in common. This is how to say that citizen Robespierre should consider Louis 16 as his citizen. That is, this is a deliberate absurdity.

      Yeah...
      I repeat for the gifted.
      The facts of the succession are well known to everyone, and not just to lawyers. Maybe you found out about this recently and are now sparkling with knowledge?
      I do not need to ascribe those fabrications that you yourself think about. I did not write about the succession of the USSR - the Russian Federation or the USSR-RI (although I repeat, although the USSR renounced the latter, but de jure it was, in a number of respects, the legal successor of the RI).
      If a person is a citizen of a state, then the history of that state has significance for him. This is exactly what he meant when he said that all the kings are our common ones.
      You can count anything with Ilyina, remembering both Louis and Robespierre - it is absurd to engage in unnecessary flood and look for a black cat in a dark room, especially if it is not there
      1. +1
        16 June 2017 19: 32
        Quote: soldier
        If a person is a citizen of a state, then the history of that state has significance for him. This is exactly what he meant when he said that all the kings are our common ones.

        Then I could not help smiling. Then I looked at your posts in the subject and saw this “Toak are fighting only for their homeland, not for power or order.” After that, everything became clear. I was wrong to scold you for the obvious absurdities and chaos in the head.
        You are just a child (not by age, but by the perception and understanding of life). It’s even good, it’s better to be a naive child who is a million unsolved opportunities than a smart, corrupt old bastard. So you have everything ahead. But if you want to speak out about social problems, you still should gradually begin to find out how life works. Let’s say, according to your quotes, I’ll explain everything to you, and you remember. But then try to start learning yourself. Start studying social sciences (history, philosophy, etc.) .d.) I advise not from school books, but from the Ancient Greeks (from Heraclitus and Herodotus to Plotinus) .Then go to the Middle Ages, etc.
        1) Abstract concepts do not have a separate entity located outside of time and space, that is, there does not exist a separate Motherland located outside of time and space, there is no abstract State and abstract Russia.
        2) Therefore, it is impossible to fight for the abstract "Homeland", in principle, a priori. They are fighting for a specific state, for a specific Motherland (that is, for a concrete understanding of this word), and for a certain Russia, as well as for a certain Germany, etc. That is, they are fighting precisely for power and order .
        A simple example, if there were an abstract "homeland", then white could not have fought the Reds, for abstractly they have one homeland, but they killed each other with the greatest enthusiasm, because both their homeland and Russia different They fought precisely for their Russia, for their system of life, just as Pugachev fought for their Russia with the Tsar’s troops, General Krasnov and Vlasov’s with the Red Army, etc. Abramovich robbing his own interests and his own Russia of Soviet production assets and simple hard workers who, thanks to this, became unemployed, etc.
        Read for example (since you are interested in pre-revolutionary archaic) the text of the old oath, there with naive old simplicity (without trying to deceive) clearly indicated who serves whom.
        I, below, promise and swear by the Almighty God, before His Holy Gospel, that I want and owe His Imperial Majesty the autocrat the All-Russian and His Imperial Majesty the All-Russian Throne it is faithful and unprincipled to serve the Heir, not sparing his stomach, to the last drop of blood and all to To the high His Imperial Majesty Autocracy, power and authority, the rights and advantages belonging, legitimized and henceforth legalized, according to extreme understanding, strength and the ability to fulfill. Well, etc.
        3) Of course (since abstract Russia cannot exist), the RI-USSR-RF are three
        different states rather than one abstract state. Moreover, they are hostile to each other states (although the Russian Federation de jure recognized succession from the USSR for the privatization of Soviet assets). Moreover, the Russian Federation is more hostile to the USSR and the Republic of Ingushetia than they do to each other.
        And for example, the Civil War in Russia was a clash of two radically different February-Russian states (RR) and Soviet Russia (RSFSR).
        There is still much to write, but for now, remember this.
        Quote: soldier
        although I repeat, even though the USSR renounced the latter, de jure was, in a number of positions, the legal successor of the Republic of Ingushetia)

        This is not true. But while you do not understand the simple, do not try to move on to the more complex. If, briefly, the act of succession is primarily an act of free will, that is, in order to be a successor, you must first state it. Here we have the opposite situation. third parties in which they agreed with the USSR on the resolution of various disputes over the assets and debts of the Republic of Ingushetia (since there was no one else to negotiate) have nothing to do with this. But for now, do not even bother with this.
        Quote: soldier
        You can count anything with Ilyina,

        But I didn’t express my position on this issue at all. I only pointed out that the statement ““ Your Tsar, too, if you are of course a citizen of Russia. ”Is essentially false and shows that you don’t understand what you are writing about. By the way, even if if the Russian Federation suddenly declared continuity to the Republic of Ingushetia, this statement would become correct in form, essentially it would be wrong anyway. For you can live even in one country and not even assume that we say Yeltsin-Putin-Navalny or Berezovsky-Rottenberg are also "ours "
        1. +17
          16 June 2017 20: 54
          Thanks of course for the recommendations. laughing hi
          I, too, could give out a whole bunch - but I do not want to spend time on this hopeless business.
          Who is yours and who is ours - sort it out yourself and keep smiling lol
          As for legal succession - this is true. Study the question carefully, I will not help.
          Good luck!
        2. +17
          16 June 2017 21: 06
          And - many thanks to you (except for jokes) for the time spent - on letters, communication and so on.
          It is felt that you are a thorough and competent person.
          But the story is still, since we live on the same earth - a common one. Without any casuistry.
          Reds, whites is history, and worthy people fought on both sides, who saw different perspectives on Russia's development prospects.
          When the Civil War finally ends in the minds of our people, then everything will slowly begin to improve. No other way
        3. +16
          17 June 2017 08: 45
          it is impossible to fight for the abstract "Homeland", in principle, a priori. They are fighting for a specific state, for a specific Motherland (that is, for a concrete understanding of this word), and for a certain Russia, as well as for a specific Germany, etc. That is, they are fighting precisely for power and order .

          In the memoirs of the Russian military agent in France, Count A. A. Ignatiev, there is a characteristic episode when Russian political emigrants (including those who escaped during the 1914 revolution) came to the mission in 1905 and asked the colonel to help them get into their ranks Russian army. These people just explained to the surprised count that they were going to fight for the TsAR REGIME, which they did not accept, but for the MOTHERLAND. That is, they distinguished between these concepts.
          A similar situation was in 1941 - only with other emigrants.
          That is, the concepts of Homeland and power and system are still different. The first category is unchanged, the second is transitory.
          1. 0
            18 June 2017 13: 58
            Quote: soldier
            These people just explained to the surprised count that they were going to fight for the TsAR REGIME, which they did not accept, but for the MOTHERLAND. That is, they distinguished between these concepts.

            Oh, this is a great example. Thank you. Indeed, there are such people. How are people who believe that the whole world is a derivative of their consciousness (a whole direction in philosophy is based on this, subjective idealism is called), and how there are a huge number of people who believe in old Shiva, or global warming. people believe in what. Moreover, this belief can be very effective in practice and even very socially useful. But I wrote that there is objectively. In fact.
            So, returning to our topic, in fact, there is no abstract homeland, and all those people who went to serve the homeland, and not the regime, nevertheless served in the Tsar’s army, estate-monarchist Russia, and no other. Just like White Guard, Cossack General Krasnov subjectively believing that they are serving the Motherland (against the Bolsheviks), actually just served the Nazi troops and no one else.
            In general, people who believe in abstract ideals are a gift for any power, because they can be very easily manipulated, but for capitalist power it is simply heavenly manna.
            What are the American occupiers fighting for all over the world? Behind Freedom and Democracy. Many of them think so, and so their propaganda makes them think, if they knew how things really were, they would immediately drop automatic machines.
            Or for example, why do unfortunate boys (by the way Russians) die in Ukraine, whom the Americans use as cannon fodder in the ATO? They think just like you do, and as a friend with the nickname Soldier thinks. They think they are fighting for Homeland , for Nenko, although in reality it’s just cannon fodder dying for US interests.
            1. +16
              18 June 2017 16: 43
              Speaking about the correlation of power and the homeland, one can cite the words of Joseph Vissarionovich (I can be mistaken in the arrangement of words, but the meaning is this): Hitlers come and go, but Germany remains.
              In general, this is indeed the case: the Gorbachevs, Yeltsins, Medvedevs and Putin have left, are leaving or will leave - and Russia will remain. So this is not such an abstraction - a service to the Fatherland, and not to a specific government. Moreover, there are state interests that are higher than clan, class, etc. It is not for nothing that in Soviet times Peter and Catherine the Great were revered.
              And about pragmatics, you're right, who argues - about the death of Russian boys in Ukraine, etc.
  18. +4
    16 June 2017 04: 33
    This is a typical manipulation: the truth was hidden, and instead the people were presented with "False No. 1" and "False No. 2", and then they said, let’s say, choose from these two false allegations, fight for them. True, in fact, that fighting spirit should not be opposed to firepower, but supplemented (and provided) to it. Conversely, high morale will best enable the realization of high firepower. The latter, yes, was partially indicated in the text, but as a single and integral one is no longer perceived, because at the beginning of the article the reader was already charged for opposition.
  19. +2
    16 June 2017 20: 10
    Curious,
    Can you tell me the name?
  20. 0
    11 July 2017 16: 47
    Very strange publication.
    The author took as an example the events of the First World War, when our troops fought by no means for their native land. That is, the very basis of the “analysis” was initially incorrectly accepted. Whose morale? practically, mercenaries who fought for interests alien to them. Somehow, excuse me, of course, gives away masturbation. He irritated himself, but what's the point? alien, empty.
    Technique ... fighting spirit ...
    What a fresh look :)))), and the topic is almost untouched :)))
    Lubok article.