The article analyzes the studies of contemporary Russian historians (Y. Z. Kantor, S. T. Minakov, B. V. Sokolov, N. I. Shilo and A. V. Glushko) on various aspects of the biography of Marshall M. N. Tukhachevsky. The analyze of this personality is can help to understand political choice of officers of the 'old' Russian army during the revolution, the assessment of the role of the military leaders of the Civil War, a military construction and development issues of military theory in 20'30th., the struggle for power in the leadership of the USSR, the repression of 1930s and also the problem of defeat of the Red Army in the initial period of World War II. It is necessary to find a strict distinction between the different aspects of the activity of military leaders - their military leadership, military-administrative, military-theoretical and political activity. The author points to the large number of myths and statements, which are prevailing in historiography, but did not favor by the facts. It reveals a number of problems of contemporary Russian historiography, for example, the extreme diversity of opinions, leading to the coexistence of the concepts that have been generated in different eras and stages of development of historical science, the weak links between historians, unwillingness to get into argument, following prejudiced attitudes. The author makes a conclusion about necessity of study the organizational structure of headquarters and troops in comparison with the similar structures of the other countries' armed forces, daily management of troops and material certifications, as well as the study of the first operations plans, which were developed by the Soviet military leadership in 1920'1930s in the context of military construction and military planning of the potential enemies of the USSR.