In other Suvorov's own statements as if to discover a contradiction, stating that "the soldiers teaching love, if only briefly and plainly. " It agree, a special weight in the organization battle training is not intended. But common thought, you come to the next conclusion: training with the fighters must be painstakingly obmysleny, organized, carried out within the stipulated time and with adequate efficiency. That's what he meant favorite famous Poles, Turks and French. If the word "crusade" in the generalissimo all the same training means marching troops, and here with the words "hard to learn" something not quite add up. Referring to the "Science of Victory" (under "Three military art"), where so much attention is paid to the redeployment of troops on the scheduled item. Namely, providing guidance on the plan of the march, the commander concludes: "At this speed, and people are tired." In other words, was not going to Alexander Suvorov so famous passages personnel bring to the complete physical exhaustion.
But it should be noted subsequently. Everyday life of Russian and modern Russian army testify: the first half of the Tipo phrases uttered by Suvorov (about getting on the teaching was hard) — a kind of a soft instruction that turns constantly and necessarily. And what about the second half — the ease in battle, especially in the initial period of at least some of the armed conflict — for some reason this does not really come out. Usually not ready for anything, although "gravity" of the organization and operational battle training paid in peacetime focus. Samples confirmed that even the soldiers folklore. Confusion in the course of employment there is usually found in abundance, but the battle is not easy to meet.
Not entirely clear why the doctrine should in principle be hard without fail. For what reasons such? And that, in fact, want to define this word? Fully explainable lethargy after all the planned tasks in a timely manner or weariness of people due to ignorance of the commanders, without spinning their usefulness and their wing? In a word, the covenant "is hard to learn — just in battle" to be used with very great caution. A sense of proportion is needed here is, for sure, anywhere.
Moreover, it is often readily used generals and senior officers, whose organizational capabilities do not meet the post. Since that teaching must necessarily be a "heavy" like "Fathers commanders' tend to write off all the excesses that usually take place during the maneuvers of various sizes. Do not feed the staff of a hot meal after hours of march — "Train hard," froze fighters in the organization instead of heat — again "hard in the doctrine "does not let anyone sleep for 3 days instead of the rational organization of shift battle activity — and again, "is hard to learn."
Perfectly clear that part of the unit and will operate in the war exactly as they had previously mastered combat training (and the entire military history confirms that there are no other options here and there can not be). If Ratna study in companies, battalions and regiments only transformed into a test of endurance and survival, no skills and abilities they did not fight on the show. In short, if all the wisdom of the military in peacetime nail down a fighter and sergeants only "a bum" and besides, with great difficulty, then a corresponding "skill" they yavyat and during the armed struggle. Because the highest organization combat training yet still better than the miserable "hard to learn."