Suddenness in the tactics of Suvorov

62
Suddenness in the tactics of Suvorov


Suddenness as a means of achieving the fastest and most complete success in battle and operations sought to use all the outstanding commanders and military leaders. In different periods of the development of military art, the forms, methods and techniques for achieving surprise were different. Particularly high skill in their application made A.V. Suvorov. Among the great commanders of the military story it's hard to find the second such creator of victories. All his military enterprises, both tactical and strategic, are permeated with the idea of ​​surprise; all his military teachings left to contemporaries and descendants are saturated.



In varying degrees, the surprise factor is present in all the battles, battles and military campaigns conducted by Suvorov. The essence of surprise lies primarily in innovation, in the unexpected use of new tactical means of combat or unusual methods and techniques of warfare for the enemy, the absence of a pattern in them. A.V. Suvorov entered military history precisely as an innovative commander, a carrier of advanced Russian military thought, many of whose principles of military art were ahead of their time and were incomprehensible to his opponents. To beat the opponent with what he doesn’t have, “surprise-win” is one of Suvorov’s mottos.

New original methods and techniques for conducting military operations commander sharply differed from the adopted tactical and strategic systems of the time, used by almost all other armies. He denied the foundations of the generally accepted modern military theory and "overthrew the theory of his century" practice. The principle of surprise organically flowed and was inextricably linked with the main principles of warfare, set out by Suvorov in the Science of Victory: an eye, speed and onslaught. The particular merit of these three principles, the Russian commander saw precisely in that they ensured the attainment of surprise and the effective use of the advantages obtained as a result of its advantages over the enemy. "... Complete surprise," wrote Suvorov, "which we use everywhere, will consist in the speed of assessments of the value of time, the onslaught." And further: “... in military actions one should quickly figure out - and immediately execute, in order for the enemy not to give time to come to his senses”.

The great commander was well aware that the factor of surprise is a temporary factor. Its action lasts until such time as the enemy is stunned by a sudden attack or by unexpected methods and methods of armed struggle that are unusual for him. But as soon as he overcomes confusion, he can eliminate the inequality caused by them in the context of the struggle, the suddenness factor will exhaust itself. Therefore, Suvorov demanded the immediate realization of the advantages achieved by surprise. “Time is the most precious,” he said.



To overwhelm the enemy with swiftness and surprise is the credo of Suvorov's commanding art. "One minute decides the outcome of the battle, one hour - the success of the campaign ..." This rule was strictly followed by the commander in all wars and battles. With sudden actions, he always seized the initiative and did not release it until the end of the battle, and in order to prolong the effect of the surprise factor, he sought, after one surprise, to use another. The arsenal of his receptions was inexhaustible. It is hardly possible to find two battles conducted by him, which would repeat one another.

Suvorov had to lead the fighting in a variety of conditions. And he always knew how to benefit from their features. His decisions were often the most unexpected, always daring, based on the principle that what the enemy considers impossible to do in war. The speed and decisiveness of action, combined with surprise, filled Suvorov with a shortage of troops and allowed him in almost all battles to achieve victory over the superior forces of the enemy. "Speed ​​and suddenness replace the number." Suvorov gave amazing and unique examples confirming this thesis. From the 63 battles and battles he conducted, in 60, he defeated an enemy that was superior to his forces sometimes by 3-4 times or more. Moreover, Suvorov won the most brilliant victories over one of the strongest Turkish armies and the best French armies in Europe.

Even more surprising was that their victories were achieved with little blood, with significant losses to the enemy. So, in the battle of Rymnik in 1789, he defeated the 100000 of the Turkish army, which was four times more numerous than Russian troops. Even more surprising is the victory at Ishmael. One of the strongest fortresses of that time, which had a 35-thousandth garrison and was considered impregnable, Suvorov took by storm with the 31-thousandth army, destroying 26 thousand in battle and capturing 9 thousand enemy soldiers and officers. Suvorov’s army lost 4 thousand people killed and 6 thousand wounded.



Detractors and enviers, who did not understand the uncommonness of Suvorov’s fighting techniques, who were unable to appreciate the role in them of speed and surprise, considered his victories over the Turkish army just luck, and when the Russian commander in 1799 took the lead of the Allied forces in Italy, they did not believe that he to get the upper hand and win equally brilliant victories over the French, with triumph past in many European countries. However, they could not counter anything with Suvorov tactics. Thus, in the battle at Trebbia, he defeated MacDonald’s 33-thousand army, having 22 thousand; lost 6 thousand, the French - 18 thousand soldiers. In the battle of Novi, his army, storming the fortified positions of the enemy, lost 8 thousand, and the French lost 13 thousand.

These are the results and the price of Suvorov victories. They certainly consisted of many factors, but suddenness played a pivotal role in them. It was not the result of an instantaneous improvisation of the commander, but consciously prepared in advance based on the prediction of the upcoming battle. Only knowledge of the situation, military art and the psychology of the enemy, its weaknesses, the continuity of intelligence, as well as well-trained, well-trained, high-morale, highly combat-ready troops, can achieve the effect of surprise.

All this perfectly understood Suvorov, and above all, with his system of training and educating the troops, he was preparing the Russian “miracle heroes” who were able to quickly accomplish any of his plans, any maneuvers, and go for any feat. Fostering courage and courage, self-confidence in his soldiers, Suvorov was guided by the principle that “nature rarely gives birth to brave men, they are created in a multitude by work and education”. The army, prepared by Suvorov, was a reliable guarantor of the successful implementation of the brilliant ideas of the commander. Suvorov was also an innovator in management. To skillfully use the situation and stun the enemy with surprise, he not only gave his subordinates the right to broad initiative, but demanded it. However, this right of “private initiative” was still strictly stipulated in 1770 year by the requirement: to use it “with reason, art, and under the answer”. The ability of the initiative to be used by private commanders — the innovator commander — ensured that he abandoned the principles of linear tactics — to keep the ulnar relationship between individual units of the army in combat.

The basis of Suvorov’s sudden actions was a quick and correct assessment of the situation and the boldness of the decisions made (such as attacking superior forces of the enemy with small forces); swift and secretive march to the battlefield; the use of new, unexpected for the enemy battle formations; unusual use of types of troops; the direction of attacks, unexpected for the enemy, including from the rear, the overwhelming rapidity of attack and attack, the use of a bayonet strike, unusual and inaccessible to other armies; a bold and unexpected maneuver on the battlefield; surprise counterattacks; the use of night attacks; skillful use of the terrain, weather, psychology and mistakes of the enemy.



In each battle, Suvorov sought to use almost a whole range of techniques to achieve surprise, skillfully combining them depending on the current situation and instantly reacting to any changes, any adversity of the enemy, did not miss a single incident that allowed him to snatch victory. Suvorov’s ability to instantly grasp all the subtleties of the situation, foresee the intentions and possible actions of the enemy, notice his weaknesses and failures, capture his psychology amazed contemporaries and instilled confidence in the correctness of his decisions to the troops, no matter how risky they seemed. This opened up ample opportunities for Suvorov to act suddenly.

Take at least his decision to assault Ishmael. During the year, the Russian army unsuccessfully besieged this fortress and twice retreated from its walls. The military council that met shortly before Suvorov’s arrival acknowledged the impossibility of active actions against Ishmael. A completely different decision was made by Suvorov, joining the command of the army. It was so unusual and unexpected that the commander himself admitted: this can only be decided once in a lifetime. Suvorov chose the assault. This was contrary to the rules of the "classical" art of the serf war of that time, which were reduced to a methodical engineering attack of the fortress. Even more unexpected was the decision of Suvorov for the enemy, who was already convinced of the inaccessibility of the Izmail walls by experience.

Huge importance in achieving surprise gave Suvorov speed and secrecy of the march to the battlefield. In order to secure the possibility of “falling on” the enemy “like snow on his head”, Suvorov developed and set forth his own march rules in “Science to win”, and by persistent training of the troops he achieved amazing results. The normal transfer of troops under the command of Suvorov was from 28 to 35 versts per day, that is, it was 3-4 times more common than the norm of such transfers in the West at that time, and even the Friedrichs' standard was 2 times. But this was not the limit. With a forced march, Suvorov troops marched up to 50 versts. In anticipation of the enemy, Suvorov built the marching order closer to the battle order, so as not to waste time on rebuilding, to ensure the surprise of the attack and to seize the initiative in battle. Usually they were platoon columns or quads (Suvorov’s battle formations were used depending on the nature of the enemy). Most of the marches were held secretly, at night, regardless of any weather.

Especially characterized by the sudden actions achieved as a result of the rapid marches, the 1789 campaign of the year. The appearance of the Russians on the battlefield during the battles of Focsani and Rymnik was completely unexpected for the Turks. In the first battle, the 5-thousandth Suvorov detachment, which left 17 in July from Barlad to assist the allies - the Austrians, overcame on very bad roads with a crossing over the r. Gray for 28 hours 50 km. Having quickly dealt with the situation, the next day Suvorov proposed a bold plan of attack. In order to hide from the Turks until the decisive moment the appearance of Russian troops on the battlefield, the Austrians were put in the vanguard of the column. In September of the same year, again responding to the Austrians' request for help, the 7-thousandth division of Suvorov made, under even more difficult conditions, an 100-kilometer march from Barlad to Ramnic for more than two days. Even the commander-in-chief of the Russian army, Potemkin, did not believe in the possibility that Suvorov would be able to arrive in time to help the Austrians, as he wrote to Catherine II on September 10. Meanwhile, Suvorov was already in the camp of the Austrians this morning.

The speed of the marches was of paramount importance in other military campaigns. In the Italian campaign 1799, the 80-kilometer transition to the scorching heat of the 22-thousandth Russian army from Alexandria to r. Trebbia, done in 36 an hour, allowed Suvorov to preempt the unification of two French armies and defeat them one by one.



In each battle, Suvorov stunned the enemy with unusual and new tactics. Even on the experience of the Seven Years' War of 1756-1763, recognizing the unsuitability of linear tactics for decisive and sudden actions, he later boldly rejected her templates, primarily outdated forms of battle formations that limited the maneuver of troops on the battlefield.

In May, 1773, in the battles for Turtukai, when the Turks during the night raid discovered a Suvorov detachment, secretly preparing to cross the Danube, he decided not to lose the surprise factor, to attack the enemy that night. His calculation, based on the fact that the Turks do not expect such a quick Russian attack, was fully justified. In the battle under Turtukai, he first attacked the platoon columns that acted together with the rangers of the rangers, and contrary to the general rule, he categorically forbade stopping before throwing an attack to wait for the lagging behind.

No less successfully, Suvorov used night attacks in other battles and battles. Contrary to the opinion of the Western European authorities, the Russian commander believed that night battles and marches with their skilful organization were the best way to achieve surprise and quick success. The night battles available to Suvorov with his “wonder-knights” turned out to be beyond the power of most other commanders of the time, and therefore were an unusual phenomenon and had a stunning effect on the enemy. They were especially unacceptable for mercenary armies.

Full of tactical surprises were the battles of Focsani and Rymnik. Alexander Vasilievich used here new battle formations. In conditions of severely rugged terrain and in the presence of numerous cavalry among the Turks, Russian troops advanced with two lines of infantry squares, behind which cavalry lined up in one or two lines, ready for sudden attacks. Suvorov also retreated from the fundamental positions of linear tactics - a close elbow connection between separate parts of the army. Having smashed the Turkish troops in the field, he immediately attacked their fortified camps. In the Battle of Rymnik, the main fortified positions — trenches reinforced with chasers, were also attacked by cavalry, contrary to the rules, which led the enemy, who had not yet managed to gain a foothold, into complete confusion.



With the defense of Girsovo in 1773 and Kinburn in 1787, Suvorov used pre-prepared counterattacks to defeat superior enemy forces. In Girisovo, with the help of deliberately retreating Cossacks, he lured the advancing Turkish troops under fire, who had been silent before, with serf batteries, and at the time of the Turks' confusion, suddenly attacked the enemy. At Kinburn he did not hinder the landing of the Turkish troops from the sea. When the Turks approached the walls of the fortress, the Russian troops secretly concentrated to counterattack unexpectedly fell on them.

The Italian and Swiss campaigns were the crown of A.V. Suvorov. In them, he proved himself to be not only an unsurpassed tactician, but also an outstanding strategist, a great and inexhaustible master of innovation in the use of not only tactical, but also strategic surprise.

Already the general plan and the principles of warfare set forth in Suvorov in Northern Italy turned out to be unexpected for the French. Instead of passive, sluggish, methodical actions that boiled down mainly to fighting for individual fortresses (their siege) and leading to dispersal of forces, Suvorov immediately demanded an offensive in order to attack the enemy and “beat everywhere”, not to waste time on sieges and not divide forces. At the same time, he recalled his main rule, which provides for suddenness: "Speed ​​in hikes, swiftness."

The very beginning of active offensive actions in the spring thaw, during the flood of the rivers, was unusual for the French in its uniqueness. Retreating from the generally accepted rule - waiting for good weather, Suvorov demanded from his subordinates not to be afraid that the infantry would wet their feet. Nor was he embarrassed by the need to force several rivers on the way to the offensive. In his opinion, not only the rivers Adda and Po, but all the other rivers in the world are passable.

Starting the Italian campaign, Suvorov was not slow to take advantage of the enemy’s miscalculation - the dispersion of his forces; moreover, he took into account some of the individual characteristics of the French army commander, General Scherer - his pedantry and slowness. The character of the offensive launched by Suvorov 8 on April 1799 of the year p. Adda He abandoned the normally accepted collection of all forces of the army for an offensive in one point (the original area) and was the first to use the concentration of offensive forces during the operation. Having thus won the time, he deprived the enemy of the possibility of taking countermeasures and was able to reach the intended section of the forcing of the r. Adda focus 55-60%, the composition of the advancing troops. In the battle on Adda 15-17 on April, where the enemy tried to stop the rapid advance of the Suvorov troops, the French lost 3 thousand people killed and 2 thousand prisoners with a total loss of allies, slightly exceeding a thousand people. The speed of action, multiplied by surprise, ensured success. Having accomplished the 36 march in 24 hours, and having misled the enemy with his skillful maneuver, Suvorov brilliantly realized the victory on Adda and on April 18 joined the troops in Milan.



Worried about defeat, Paris replaced Scherer with a talented General Moreau and sent the second French army, led by MacDonald, against Suvorov from Naples. But even in a changed, more complex situation, when Suvorov’s troops found themselves between two enemy armies operating along external operational lines, the great commander used speed and surprise, found new tactical solutions that were unexpected to his opponents and defeated both their armies in turn.

In a battle on the rivers Tidone and Trebbii, he attacked the enemy, making a counter march, and immediately seized the initiative. Such an option Suvorov foresaw and pre-allocated a strong vanguard (Ott's division), was with him and personally led the ensuing battle. The oncoming battle brilliantly carried out by Suvorov was a new phenomenon at that time and, as we know, was not repeated by any of his contemporaries, including Napoleon.

The character of the offensive of the main forces of the Russian-Austrian forces also turned out to be just as unusual for the French - in three columns (divisions) without an ulnar link, each of which was indicated by an independent direction and tasked to the depth of 20 km. Thus, Suvorov raised the art of maneuvering troops on the battlefield to a height unattainable for that time. He managed to focus on the 3-kilometer stretch against the enemy’s open left flank, where the main attack was delivered, 24 thousand people, leaving the rest of the 6-kilometer front no more than 6 thousand. Such a decisive concentration of forces was just as unusual as other tactical decisions commander. Quite differently, and again unexpectedly for the enemy, Suvorov acted against the second French army. When, filled with fresh forces and reorganized by the new commander Joubert, in July 1799, she began to move four columns across the mountains from the region of Genoa, the Russian commander could break one of her columns, which reached open terrain. However, Suvorov did not do this so that the French would not withdraw to Genoa by the rest of the forces and thus retain their fighting capacity. On the contrary, he ordered his avant-garde to retreat, luring the enemy from the mountains. This created a more favorable position for the Russian army for the defeat of all Joubert's forces at once. When Joubert understood Suvorov’s maneuver and went on the defensive of Novi, the Russian-Austrian troops, preventing him from gaining a foothold in advantageous fortified positions, launched an offensive and on August 4 defeated the French army. By the time of the battle, Suvorov had managed against 35 thousand French troops to concentrate 50 thousand people. Demonstrating the intention to deliver the main blow to the left flank of the French and forcing them to transfer the main forces, including the reserve, the Russian commander directed the main forces against the right flank of the enemy at the height of the battle, putting him again in surprise. Unusual for that time, the deep structure of the troops (up to 10 km) allowed Suvorov to increase the force of the strike, and at the crucial moment to engage almost all the troops at once. The battle of Novi entered the history as a brilliant example of misleading the enemy with a skillful maneuver and skillful use of the element of surprise.

The basis of the entire Swiss campaign A.V. Suvorov 1799 of the year was a requirement: "Fast, not weakened and non-stop striking the enemy blow by blow, confusing him ...". Suvorov sought to stun the enemy with an unexpected appearance in Switzerland, thanks to the rapid march through the Alps in autumn. However, the forced 5-day delay in Tavern, due to the betrayal of the Austrian command, prevented him from reaching full surprise. Yet brilliantly using tactical surprise, skillfully combining frontal attacks with detours along the mountain tracks of the flanks and unexpected strikes from the rear for the French, the Russian army defeated the enemy troops standing on its way in the Alps, thereby refuting the views on the limited actions on high mountain theaters of war.



Until the end of his days, Suvorov remained faithful to the principles of warfare, among which surprise was so important. For all the years of his leadership activity, the most diverse highly experienced opponents in none of the battles have managed to solve his “surprises” and “inadversions” in time and oppose them in order to avoid defeat. Better than others, Napoleon Bonaparte, who was already renowned at that time, noticed the secret of Suvorov’s successive victories. He saw him in the unusual and unexpected Suvorov actions, in his distinctive martial art. With caution and interest following the unchanged successes of the great Russian commander, Napoleon, in his Directorate of the Directorate, indicated that no one could stop Suvorov on the path of victories until they understood and comprehend his special art of war, and would not oppose his own rules to the Russian commander. Napoleon himself, took over part of the tactics from Suvorov, and above all his speed and surprise in the attacks.

More than two centuries separates us from the military events associated with the general activity of Suvorov. However, the experience of the brilliant Russian commander, who is our national pride, like many of his thoughts about the role of surprise and how to achieve it in combat, has not lost its meaning until today. During the Great Patriotic War, the Order of Suvorov was established by decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR as the embodiment of supreme military valor and glory. They were awarded commanders for outstanding successes in command and control, excellent organization of military operations and the determination and perseverance shown in their conduct. During the war years, the Order of Suvorov was awarded 7111 people, 1528 parts and connections.



Sources:
Rakhmatullin M. Generalissimus A.V. Suvorov. His art to win // History of the USSR. 1980. No.5. C.64-90.
Lobov V. Military trick. M .: Moscow Military Historical Society; Logos, 2001. C. 58-70.
Ivanov V. Suddenness in military art // Military-Historical Journal. 1979. No.6. C. 86-91.
Semenov K. 100 of the great commanders of Russia // M .: Veche, 2014. C. 171-179.
Mikhailov O. Suvorov. ZHZL. M .: Young Guard, 1973. C. 214-219.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +15
    4 March 2016 07: 30
    How many times Europe was grateful to Russia. And everyone forgets about it.
    And Suvorov, definitely a genius.
    1. -6
      4 March 2016 09: 24
      Suvorov is a genius commander, but he often participated in punitive campaigns. This side of his "service" is not disclosed, although those who wish can find information. At least take Suvorov's campaign in 1783 to pacify the Nogai, where in fact this people was destroyed.
      1. +3
        4 March 2016 09: 57
        what is it right now?
        1. -5
          4 March 2016 11: 40
          Quote: Staffa
          what is it right now?

          This is to say that it would be better if Europe did not remember Suvorov.

          Because if they remember him, then the first thing that will be pulled into the light is all the tales and tales about the pacification of Poland by Suvorov. Remember the cartoons of those times:
          1. +6
            4 March 2016 11: 52
            This is in order to spoil the name of Suvorov. Why do you think the traitor Rezun took the pseudonym "Suvorov"? Yes, yes, and for this too.
          2. +1
            April 28 2016 17: 19
            Suvorov pacified the Poles, because the latter oppressed the Orthodox. And he acted with the Poles very generously, unlike the Prussians.
      2. +9
        4 March 2016 11: 36
        And you would not suppress a riot ??? Suvorov beat both the regular army and the regular ..... Poles of the Turks .. of the French ....
      3. +1
        4 March 2016 13: 39
        They were enemies. And they destroy enemies.
      4. +3
        4 March 2016 20: 24
        ShturmKGB
        At least take Suvorov’s 1783 campaign to pacify the Nogais, where in fact this people was destroyed.

        The Nogais lived for themselves peacefully and did not touch anyone, and then bam - the evil Suvorov interrupted everyone. So what? And there were no destroyed Russian troops and villages. Suvorov, first of all, an excellent commander, and he did his job well. They ordered to pacify, he pacified.
      5. 0
        5 March 2016 08: 43
        Suvorov is a brilliant commander, but he often participated in punitive campaigns.


        Suvorov soldier, he is in active military service, what else do you want to add to this?
      6. +1
        April 28 2016 17: 22
        Kara in Russian means retribution for unseemly deeds.
    2. 0
      4 March 2016 21: 28
      Remembers. Definitely and unconditionally. Therefore, shit comes to this day.
  2. +2
    4 March 2016 07: 37
    The forces of the demand were approximately equal, this manner tires one’s own strength to count the first line troops on the battlefield, and the enemy’s payroll with rear
  3. +2
    4 March 2016 07: 41
    So, in the battle of Rymnich in 1789... There’s also an assessment of the situation ... intelligence .. I beat the Turks at Rymnik in parts .. without letting the Turkish army become one whole .. Thank you ..
    1. +6
      4 March 2016 11: 50
      I would also add that most of the troops subordinated to Suvorov near Fokshany and Ramnik were Austrian. And these are not proven Suvorov miracles-heroes, which further adorns the glory of Suvorov.
      1. 0
        4 March 2016 18: 12
        Directly removed from the language ... Under Rymnik (if memory serves), there were only about 7 thousand Russians (division) and 18 thousand corps of the Austrians Prince Koburgsky. That is, less than 1/3 of Russians and 2/3 of Austrians.
        1. 0
          4 March 2016 21: 33
          Not really wanting, A.V. so lifted this sucker that in the history of AVI there are few who can be put with him now. Well, at least I did not interfere with the matter.
  4. +6
    4 March 2016 09: 20
    The ill-wishers and envious people, who did not understand the unusualness of Suvorov’s fighting methods, who were unable to appreciate the role of speed and surprise in them, considered his victory over the Turkish army simply luck

    Well, so Alexander Vasilievich answered during his lifetime:
    "Once you are lucky, two times you are lucky - have mercy on God, you also need skill!" - © A.V. Suvorov.
    The great Russian commander was distinguished not only by the speed and swiftness of the marches, when his miraculous heroes fell headlong on the enemy, not only the swiftness in making decisions, but also a sober and timely assessment of the situation, which made it possible to quickly make error-free decisions and smash the enemy, even superior in number, in parts. For the sake of fairness, it should be noted that the number of troops under the command of A.V. Suvorova was never tall and rarely exceeded the number of the regular army corps. One can only guess how Suvorov would command an army of a couple hundred thousand people, fighting, for example, with Napoleon.
    I have the honor.
    1. +1
      4 March 2016 11: 40
      Most likely it would be normal for him to command them in an Italian company of troops, there were a lot of paper on paper and Klasevitz generally approves of Suvorov’s orders, only the Austrians were conditionally subordinate because Suvorov had to spin with 20 thousand Russians
    2. 0
      4 March 2016 11: 54
      Well, Suvorov devoted a lot of time to the teachings of her soldiers, including in peacetime. And it was precisely the coherence of the aforementioned night marches and attacks that was honed in the exercises. In this regard, Suvorov's genius was manifested in the training of his soldiers - these were the best soldiers of that time and in their fighting qualities entirely. The words about Genghis Khan that "if he orders his soldiers to attack a thousand, they will not hesitate to attack, since they are sure of his invincibility" can be unambiguously applied to Alexander Vasilyevich soldier
      1. 0
        4 March 2016 15: 30
        Quote: Stirbjorn
        Words about Genghis Khan that if he orders the attack of his soldiers to attack a thousand, they will not hesitate to attack
        meant ten of his soldiers to attack a thousand
    3. 0
      4 March 2016 14: 52
      "One can only guess how Suvorov would command an army of a couple of hundred thousand people, fighting Napoleon, for example."

      Then his talent for a commander would be revealed in all its glory
  5. -8
    4 March 2016 09: 26
    Quote: qwert
    How many times Europe was grateful to Russia. And everyone forgets about it.
    And Suvorov, definitely a genius.

    And why should Europe be grateful to Russia?
    1. +2
      4 March 2016 14: 54
      Well, at least for the fact that during the wars, Russian troops did not razed their cities to the ground, did not root out the population, which enlightened Europeans loved to do
      1. -1
        6 March 2016 14: 19
        The Russian army defended the FEUDAL ORDERS - THIS IS MUCH WORSE.
  6. +5
    4 March 2016 10: 07
    I liked the article very much, everything is described in detail and intelligibly. The author is a plus. As for Vasily Surikov's painting "Suvorov's Crossing the Alps", there is one significant blunder - soldiers descend from the mountain with bayonets attached, in fact, this was not.
    1. 0
      4 March 2016 14: 06
      Quote: Sargaras
      a significant blunder - soldiers descend from the mountain with joined bayonets, in fact, this was not.

      And why did you get that it was a blunder - the bayonets were attached so that you could sometimes use them for insurance as an alpenstock (which is sometimes called a bayonet, by the way), because in fact there was no other mountain equipment ...
  7. +7
    4 March 2016 12: 09
    Quote: Alekst
    And why should Europe be grateful to Russia?

    And that is true. Why was Suvorov so greeted in Milan (see picture in article)? Why put the monument in Switzerland (see photo in the article)?
    Why did ours die at Shipka? What is Shipka in Russia? The Maltese also erected monuments to the Russian sailors. Well, they were fools in Europe, even though they saw with their own eyes those events and themselves evaluated the Russians when they erected the monuments (note the Russian troops were no longer in Switzerland, otherwise they could have said that they were forcing us with bayonets). Okay, at least you and the Europeans Solzhenitsyn, Goebels and other historians and politicians
    eyes opened that the Russians are evil, and the Nazis, nationalists and other trash are good.
    1. +2
      4 March 2016 12: 33
      In Milan, Bonaparte was also greeted, in general, the idea of ​​how gratitude is stupidity, we must fight for our own interests, and not out of charity.
    2. 0
      4 March 2016 12: 39
      well, what immediately to throw such accusations, it’s just become interesting what people mean by the term Europe
  8. +1
    4 March 2016 12: 26
    It is a pity that there are no more generals like Suvorov in the Russian army.
    1. 0
      4 March 2016 12: 36
      Where are they? For such constant wars are needed
    2. +2
      4 March 2016 14: 58
      God forbid, but if a serious military mess happened, there will be Suvorovs, Kutuzovs, and Zhukovs. The talent of the commander manifests itself only during the war, and nobility is always.
  9. +1
    4 March 2016 15: 54
    The successes of the great commander are associated with the attacking nature of the action. Thinking outside the box is the key to success. With a strategic retreat, as at the beginning of the OV-1812, achieving stunning victories is problematic. But on the Borodino field, the victory could have been much more convincing and Moscow could have been defended.
    1. 0
      4 March 2016 16: 01
      Quote: Hurray
      With a strategic retreat, as at the beginning of OB-1812, achieving stunning victories is problematic. But on the Borodino field the victory could be much more convincing and Moscow could be defended

      There, actually, it was not Suvorov who commanded .. request
  10. -1
    4 March 2016 16: 44
    I respect the author, our great forumchanin, but the article as a whole is somewhere on 4 from 5 points.
    Even more surprising was that their victories were achieved with little blood, with significant enemy losses.
    Even more surprising is the victory at Ishmael.

    Do you think a little blood under Ishmael? loss in 30% ?!
    And regarding the awesomeness - the GENIEST VICTORY is Rymnik. There is more, but I will not mention, because the author apparently does not know them at all. And Ishmael, in general, the main factor is decisiveness + ABSOLUTE superiority in artillery; Without crushing fire training, nothing would have happened ...

    The normal transfer of troops under the command of Suvorov was from 28 to 35 versts per day, that is, it was 3-4 times more common than the norm of such transfers in the West at that time, and even the Friedrichs' standard was 2 times.

    The author apparently does not know that Suvorov was in the course of the Seven Years' War in several battles against the army of Frederick II and personally, as a cavalry officer, observed her on the march. And it was then that, comparing the virtuoso pirouettes of the Prussians with the slow and clumsy maneuvers of the Russian regiments, he plotted to implement the speed of the Frederick army in Russian soil! And another amendment - 25 km. - a normal march in the European armies of that era ... Another thing is that Frederick II, that Suvorov could not only force but also train the troops so that those LESS OF CREATION could make ESPECIALLY FORCED MARSHES and come when they are not expected!

    Quote: Alexander72
    To be fair, it should be noted that the number of troops under the command of A.V. Suvorov was never high and rarely outnumbered the usual army corps.

    Actually, in actions in Northern Italy, up to 65 thousands under his command ...

    Quote: uskrabut
    that during the wars, Russian troops did not level their cities to the ground, did not cut out the population at the root, than enlightened Europeans loved to do
    Examples of this, as Europeans compare their own cities with the land - in the era of Suvorov - in the studio!

    Quote: Cartalon
    In Milan, Bonaparte was also greeted, in general, the idea of ​​how gratitude is stupidity, we must fight for our own interests, and not out of charity.
    Here is a really, very true comment! Remind what all the victims of the Italian and Swiss campaign ended for Russia and the Russian people? ANYTHING except tens of thousands of victims and huge expenses of the state, where 95% of the population were poor serfs!

    Quote: uskrabut
    but if there were a serious military turmoil, there would be Suvorov, Kutuzov, and Zhukov.
    Dear, if you do not know, it is better not to write. These are three completely different names. If the first is a brilliant commander and essentially a monastic behavior personality, then the second is a mediocre commander, but a cunning courtier, a glutton and a libertine. The third one - I don’t comment at all ... It would be more correct to replace Kutuzov’s names with Miloradovich or Barclay de Tolly, and Zhukov with Vasilevsky or Katukov, if you want to show REALLY SKILLED CROWDOWERS of Russia and not pop names.
    1. 0
      4 March 2016 18: 55
      What is the mediocrity of Kutuzov? The question on Zhukov is ideological, God be with him.
      1. 0
        6 March 2016 14: 23
        What merged at Borodin, merged tactically under Maloyaroslavets, built a golden bridge under Berezina.
    2. +1
      4 March 2016 22: 11
      Well, how can one not cheat the Russian commanders Kutuzov and Zhukov with a liberal, smoking brown heap, right? What is your assessment of the slander of the Russian military?
  11. +2
    4 March 2016 17: 52
    Eternal memory and glory to A.V. Suvorov.
  12. +1
    4 March 2016 19: 42
    I believe that many lovers of military history regret that Suvorov did not meet Napoleon in battle. It would be a battle of the titans ... with unpredictable results. Although many believe that the genius of Napoleon is superior to Suvorovsky, nevertheless, Kutuzov (under Borodino) and Benigsen (under Eilau), although they did not win, but resisted Bonaparte, essentially reducing the matter to a draw. And Suvorov, whatever one may say, excelled both Kutuzov and Benigsen (and, as it were, not taken together) in the military talent.
    1. +1
      4 March 2016 19: 49
      Well, this question is so guessing that it’s not worth guessing, with a purely Russian army somewhere in eastern Europe, Suvorov has more chances, Napoleon is more likely to dominate in Italy or on the Rhine and a half of the army from the Austrians.
      1. 0
        4 March 2016 20: 06
        Quote: Cartalon
        Well, this question is so guessing that it’s not worth guessing,

        As you can see, I'm not trying :)))
    2. 0
      4 March 2016 22: 13
      Let's be honest, under Borodino Napoleon was not given another day. He chose the winning tactics for the battle. Losses in the Russian army were 2 times greater.
      1. +1
        4 March 2016 22: 24
        Do you seriously believe that the Russian army lost 60% of its personnel in one day? And at the same time, she kept herself from fleeing. Losses were approximately equal Napoleon did not spare his soldiers
        1. 0
          6 March 2016 14: 25
          That is exactly what happened. The Russian army was completely defeated, like all defensive positions. And do you think Kutuzov surrendered Moscow at his whim.
  13. 0
    4 March 2016 19: 46
    Wow, minusculeers perked up! In a quiet crap - everyone is happy, but in the case, as usual, everyone is silent? We are at the Military Review and discuss the REALITIES OF WAR and OBJECTIVELY FACTORS OF MILITARY ART.

    Quote: Cartalon
    What is the mediocrity of Kutuzov?

    He lost all his battles to Napoleon. And it was precisely the main battles of the companies that were losing - Austerlitz, Borodino and Maloyaroslavets.
    Bonaparty himself repeatedly showed how to fight a numerically superior enemy in the 1813-1815 years.

    "And Suvorov did not lose battles!"

    NOBODY except Kutuzov thought of HALF Russian artillery at Borodino to RESERVE and she did NOT TAKE PART IN THE BATTLE AT ALL! And our troops before the battle had fire superiority in numbers and in the caliber of guns!

    And how could one think of leaving his troops with half the available artillery when it is well known that Napoleon is a genius in the field of artillery use and the French literally mowed our regiments on the Borodino field precisely from light guns in the first line, having their multiple concentration!?

    Well, read more about coffee, like an expert in the Turkish way of brewing coffee, "who will serve breakfast in the bedroom to the" young dog "Platosha Zubov and" Mother Ekaterina "... Ugh, writing about this is disgusting, let alone say! general ...

    For some reason, everyone thinks that the one who loves to drink and fuck a gesheft is a full-bodied, but brave commander of foot rangers, remained the same valiant officer and after 30 years of court intrigue and Petersburg life ...

    For contrast, you can read Suvorov's instructions to the French educator of his son (or the instructions of his daughter-"suvorochka") and the opinion of our military genius about the capital's debauchery and money-grubbing.

    Therefore, compared with Kutuzov, for example, Barclay de Tolly is seen as a truly brilliant military and commander, and organizer. As a Minister of War, he probably could only surpass Davout, and even that is a question.

    And Suvorov is a truly immortal genius of our military glory. We had few like him.
    1. 0
      4 March 2016 20: 09
      Quote: Warrior2015
      He lost all his battles to Napoleon.

      Strictly speaking, this is not evidence of Kutuzov’s failure as a military leader — everyone lost to Bonaparte :)))
      But the rest ...
    2. +2
      4 March 2016 20: 18
      The company 1805 performed by Kutuzov is brilliant Austerlitz reproaching him ridiculously, 12 years old Kutuzov was old and sick and did not reach himself in 1805, the opinion of Ermolov, The fact that the artillery was not used was most likely to be caused by the stupid structure of the Russian army, two armies with military commanders, the beginning headquarters which in itself, well, the death of Kutaisov, Maloyaroslavets not defeat Kutuzov did not consider it necessary to give a general battle to the corpses, let his line be gone.
  14. +1
    4 March 2016 20: 39
    Sechas googled on artillery in the Borodino battle, rarely meticulously studying tactical moments, it seems everything was fine there. Toll didn’t give the correct numbers for the reserve, all the artillery of the 2nd army was withdrawn to positions immediately, and regular reinforcements were sent from the 1st Army reserve. But where would the depletion of charges come from if a third of the artillery did not shoot?
  15. 0
    4 March 2016 20: 47
    In general, a whole controversy arose from my answer to one apparently not particularly knowledgeable comrade.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Everyone lost to Bonaparte :)))
    Yes, I get tired of writing the names of those who defeated him - Wellington, Archduke Karl, Bennigsen, Barclay de Tolly, etc. It is important for us that Mikhailo Illarionych has never supported the honor of his great teacher! (remember "A boy is walking far away! We ought to calm him down!" - this is exactly Suvorov about Napoleon).

    Quote: Cartalon
    12year Kutuzov was old and sick and did not reach 1805 of the year
    If you are old and sick, then give up, and do not take on the role of the Savior of the Fatherland and the commander-in-chief, on whom the fate of the Motherland depends. And "if he took up a tug, don't say that he is not hefty."

    Quote: Cartalon
    The fact that the artillery was not used is most likely guilty of the stupid structure of the Russian army
    No, the whole plan was approved by Kutuzov. And it was he who allocated 50% artillery to the reserve! In advance, I just thought that we would lose, and so at least half of the guns will survive. Yes, for such a mood, Suvorov would have simply broken it! The behavior of Kutuzov in front of Borodino in the face of an equal army of the enemy is many times worse than the behavior of Prince Coburg in the face of a four-fold superior army of the Turks in front of Ramnik!

    And who, if not Kutuzov, appointed the son of a captive Turkish barber to such a young incompetent general to command all the artillery?!? Ah, they didn’t finish academies, and so what? but the "little Corsican" graduated several and was engaged in self-education very diligently ...

    He was damn poor, he sat at books, did not walk with the girls, often did not eat even once a day, he harassed everything with books. And some young courtiers were seeking big posts, drinking balls - and as a result, the modest "little colonel of foot rangers of the Guard" beat them all.
    1. 0
      4 March 2016 20: 54
      The tale is about a reserve that was not used, and in general you are biased and not correct for the first time I hear that Kutaisov is not competent and I doubt that Kutuzov appointed him
      1. 0
        6 March 2016 14: 32
        It is a fact. Russian artillery only worked halfway, while the Grand Battery shot Russian regiments in the second line.
        1. 0
          6 March 2016 14: 49
          And where did the charges disappear in the Moscow river?
    2. +1
      5 March 2016 23: 50
      Quote: Warrior2015
      Yes, I’m tired of writing the names of those who defeated him

      Throw it :)))
      Quote: Warrior2015
      Wellington

      This is yes.
      Quote: Warrior2015
      Archduke Karl

      ??? Are you talking about Lobau or something? So Napoleon was not defeated there, the armies returned to their original.
      Quote: Warrior2015
      Bennigsen, Barclay de Tolly

      And when are they? I hope you won’t put Eilau in victory for Benigsen?
      Quote: Warrior2015
      It is important for us that Mikhailo Illarionych never once supported the honor of his great teacher

      Maybe I don’t know something (I don’t know much at all), but I don’t understand why you rate Borodino so low. Tactics - understood, but the final result?
  16. -2
    5 March 2016 19: 48
    Quote: Cartalon
    Maloyaroslavets not defeat Kutuzov did not consider it necessary to give a general battle to the corpses, let his line be gone.

    A strange point of view for the commander - who POSSESSING THE WHOLE AUTHORITY OF THE CHIEF COMMANDING UNITED ARMY does not want to allegedly give TWO general battles, but still gives them. And in both cases, it loses - in one case, handing over the ancient capital for reproach, in the other opening the way to the central provinces.

    I note that Suvorov never gave general battles - if he himself did not want to give them. And he always won, even with a multiple superiority in strength. Of course, the Napoleonic French were not like the Turks before the introduction of Nizam, but even under Rymnik there were four of them, and Suvorov from 25 thousand 18 thousand - Austrians, Croats, Czechs, Serbs, etc., Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians in total 7 thousand
    1. +2
      6 March 2016 14: 38
      Kutuzov was a skilled courtier. He always knew how to save face. He was not to blame under Dürrenstein in 1805, he was not to blame under Austerlitz, he allegedly won a victory near Borodin (then the Austrians won near Wagram), he was also not to blame for Maloyaroslavets that he was essentially defeated by looters. And on Berezina he is not to blame. Kutuzov is not to blame for anything, while the army suffered terrible defeats.
      1. 0
        6 March 2016 14: 47
        Wow, the scary Maloyaroslavets and Dürrenstein, okay.
        1. 0
          7 March 2016 13: 23
          He piled the whole army on the Mortier corps and missed it! The corps was defeated, but not destroyed! The whole army! How to manage it? just drunk.
    2. 0
      6 March 2016 14: 44
      What is the place of Maloyaroslavets general battle? there is such a thing called depletion strategy read Svechin
  17. 0
    6 March 2016 16: 16
    Quote: Cartalon
    there is such a thing called depletion strategy read Svechin

    I will open a small piece of historical and objective truth - the depletion strategy in 1812 certainly depleted the French, but it also depleted the Russian army almost in the same way. Look how much came out of the Tarutino camp - and how many came to the Polish border. And this is generally without a general battle or major battles with huge losses for the Russians.

    And letting Bonopartia out of the trap on the Berezina is generally a shame and a truly unique manifestation of the "little Corsican's" operational talent.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And Suvorov, whatever one may say, excelled both Kutuzov and Benigsen (and, as it were, not taken together) in the military talent.
    I agree completely! Yes, Napoleon sorry did not meet with Suvorov.

    Under Lobau, the French suffered heavy losses and instead of triumph retreated to the other side of the Danube, burning bridges behind them. Is this not a defeat?

    In fact, Eilau Bennigsen is roughly equivalent to Borodino Kutuzov. But Bennigsen still had something else.

    Unfortunately, Kutuzov is to blame for many defeats; he has very few good victories, mainly when he was under the command of other generals (the same Suvorov when Izmail stormed).

    If anyone can be compared with Suvorov, then the half-forgotten Count Rumyantsev-Zadunaysky. But how, it’s impossible, it’s impossible, because he generally considered the Prussian army to be exemplary, in the end he dressed up his army in general in the Prussian style, and even went to visit Frederick II, who gave parades in his honor. But only a triple victory of Rumyantsev Larg-Ryabyaya grave-Cahul is comparable in surprise with the Rymnik triumph of Alexander Vasilyevich.
  18. 0
    9 March 2016 08: 31
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Quote: Staffa
    what is it right now?

    This is to say that it would be better if Europe did not remember Suvorov.

    Because if they remember him, then the first thing that will be pulled into the light is all the tales and tales about the pacification of Poland by Suvorov. Remember the cartoons of those times:


    No, let these suks remember and tremble ...

    I would look at the expression of your face / face, if in your state riots began that threatened the existence of the state ...
    Remember the suppression of the Pugachev riot.
    There was such a time, such were landmarks ... Having given what to say more recently - Chechen companies ... So what officers and soldiers should be considered scum for not letting the state collapse?
    And the cartoons of these bastards in the west are enough now ...

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"