I was referring to Alexei Isaev's book Antisuvorov (Russian). He lists a bunch of falsifications in the preface of his book. First example is Suvorov's quoting of colonel S. Hvalei's book (approximate translation):
It happened that the division was immediately behind the frontier posts at the start of the war, meaning right next to the state border.
Isaev explains (and the online version of the book proves him right) that Hvalei doesn't actually say that. Instead, he says that his division met Germans after they passed the frontier posts and defeated another division. And Hvalei even mentions where it was: Kelmė, Lithuania. If I read the map correctly, this is around 70 km from the state border (the area around Kaliningrad which is Russia now belonged to Germany back then, this should be the direction from where the German forces attacked Kelmė).
The book mentions lots of similar cases. You have to consider that Icebreaker was first published in 1987 and verifying the sources was a lot harder back then. So Suvorov had no problem to adjust citations to better fit his idea.
Isaev's book also goes into more general issues. For example, one of Suvorov's core points was that the Soviet Union didn't have any defense plans - only attack plans. Isaev notes that this statement is useless if one doesn't compare to other countries. As it turns out, neither Poland nor France had defense plans - attacking the enemy regardless of who starts the war was apparently the dominating war theory at the time (and likely still is).
Isaev also explains how merely comparing the number of tanks and their technical parameters is useless. After all, all these tanks didn't help the Soviet Union at the start of the war. He notes how the Soviets didn't have proper tactics of using tanks at the beginning of the war, unlike Germans who already had lots of experience using them.
Isaev discredits a bunch of Suvorov's myths about Soviet tanks, airplanes, lines of defense and many more, his arguments are easy to verify thanks to the internet. But I cannot translate it all - it is probably easier if you ask questions about specific claims Suvorov made.
Addendum (2015-12-06): Isaev claims that the Hvalei quote I mentioned above isn't an isolated incident, rather that Suvorov's books are full of falsifications and quoting out of context. I must say that I didn't actually believe that. However, over the past years I had to check a bunch of quotes used by Suvorov - and realized that every single one of them has been modified to better support his theories.
Just a single example, a rather spectacular claim from "Suicide" (approximate translation):
Main question: which conclusions did Hitler and his wise generals draw from the first catastrophic winter in the Soviet Union? ... He thought. And found a brilliant solution. "Hitler's table talks," record from April 5th, 1942: "In the central part we should as the first thing on all the swamped territories plant reed and similar, so that it will be easier to survive the horrible cold when the next winter comes."
He uses this quote to support the idea of Hitler being a crazy idiot. But what did Hitler really say? I managed to find the original on Google Books, it says:
Im Übrigen sei der russische Raum, der untere unsere Hoheit komme, so voll von Problemen, dass wir für die nächsten Jahrhunderte genügend Arbeit hätten. Im Mittelabschnitt müssen zunächst die unendlichen Sümpfe durch Bepflanzung mit Schilf usw. kultiviert werden, damit die außerordentliche russischen Kälteeinbrüche für künftige Winter eingedämmt würden.
Other than that the Russian territories, that come under our reign, are so full of problems that we would have more than enough work for the coming centuries. In the central part the infinite swamps first have to be cultivated by planting reed and similar, so that the extreme Russian colds are confined in the winters to come.
The differences here cannot be explained merely by different translations, e.g. Hitler clearly doesn't talk about the next winter as Suvorov suggests. But even assuming that Suvorov was reading a translated version (I somehow assumed that he knew German and read the original) and that the translator made a mistake here - the context makes it very obvious that this is just some theoretical thoughts about something that could be done over centuries. It was by no means a strategy for the ongoing war. But that context was omitted because otherwise this nice quote would become boring.
As I said, it seems that all "facts" listed in the books got the same treatment. That explains why real historians scoff at them - it is hard to take somebody seriously who has to invent things in order to support his claims.