Bulgaria: we need to abandon Russian military equipments or face catastrophe

[Aru]

Because a military of a modern country shouldn't have to depend on same black market and plunder weapons that rebels and terrorists around the world use and should always strive to have the best and most modern equipment they can afford. Old equipment may get a job done, against certain kind of enemy, but it carries risks of misfiring, it has lower precision, less safety and will always be less effective than new stuff.

In 1990's wars in Yugoslavia stuff like old Soviet t-34's were used, the post war versions. They were in Yugoslav army reserve. Used doesn't mean they did the same stuff that, at the time modern, M-84 main battle tanks did. T-34's were used for attacking fortified positions from sufficient distance and cover to avoid retaliation by modern anti-armour weapons. They were basically low caliber mobile artillery. They were never taken into situation where they might have to fight against T-55's, and T-55's avoided M-84's. So in war every kind of gun has use, but it doesn't mean it's the most efficient weapon. Most of the time it means you have nothing better to shoot with.

Good army shouldn't have to improvise like that and always have sufficient number of most updated weapons and equipment to finish the conflict as quickly as possible with minimum casualties.

[The Despondent Mind]

Because a military of a modern country shouldn't have to depend on same black market and plunder weapons that rebels and terrorists around the world use and should always strive to have the best and most modern equipment they can afford. Old equipment may get a job done, against certain kind of enemy, but it carries risks of misfiring, it has lower precision, less safety and will always be less effective than new stuff.

In 1990's wars in Yugoslavia stuff like old Soviet t-34's were used, the post war versions. They were in Yugoslav army reserve. Used doesn't mean they did the same stuff that, at the time modern, M-84 main battle tanks did. T-34's were used for attacking fortified positions from sufficient distance and cover to avoid retaliation by modern anti-armour weapons. They were basically low caliber mobile artillery. They were never taken into situation where they might have to fight against T-55's, and T-55's avoided M-84's. So in war every kind of gun has use, but it doesn't mean it's the most efficient weapon. Most of the time it means you have nothing better to shoot with.

Good army shouldn't have to improvise like that and always have sufficient number of most updated weapons and equipment to finish the conflict as quickly as possible with minimum casualties.

There was tank warfare in the 90's Yugoslavian wars ???

Anyway I don't see any other way for Bulgaria other then to gradually dump the old Russian weapons and start acquiring new modern ones from around the world.

[Sir Adrian]

You're going to have to clarify your stance a bit here. From what I can gather, you say Bulgaria needs to "modernise" their arsenal of military equipment since they're old, outdated and etc. The part where i'm confused is that despite that equipment being "outdated" and old, that very equipment is being used to successfully win battles against regimes and armies that are supplied modern weapons by the US. Why should Bulgaria get rid of perfectly fine weapons? If ISIS soldiers can kill professionally trained troops of the Iraqi Army and the elite units of Iraq, then why won't old Russian military equipment serve the Bulgarians well? Does Bulgaria plan to face off against the PLA, the French Army or the Canadian Army?

EDIT: I'm drinking tonight so spelling errors are likely and etc..

Look at how that equipment is used. Most of those regimes and armies you mention are fought in guerilla and asymetrical warfare, whose specific purpose is to aid the less equiped side. If the PLA or ISIS fought a convenrional war against even a moderatly equiped modern army with 1980s soviet weapons they would be obliterated. Case in point Iraq, who were using 2 decades old weapons during the first gulf war and got beaten by a much smaller modern force

[Aru]

Equiment wasn't major problem in that war, 2 decades is not much equipment wise (if regularly maintained). Iraqis lost to air strikes which overwhelmed their air defenses and destroyed their command centers. After that Iraqi army was disorganized and in chaos, mostly thanks to useless officer corps.

[Vanoi]

Look at how that equipment is used. Most of those regimes and armies you mention are fought in guerilla and asymetrical warfare, whose specific purpose is to aid the less equiped side. If the PLA or ISIS fought a convenrional war against even a moderatly equiped modern army with 1980s soviet weapons they would be obliterated. Case in point Iraq, who were using 2 decades old weapons during the first gulf war and got beaten by a much smaller modern force

The Iraqi Army before it was routed by the ISIS were using modern American weapons including M1 Abrams tanks. Not 1980s soviet equipment.

[Gertrudius]

The Iraqi Army before it was routed by the ISIS were using modern American weapons including M1 Abrams tanks. Not 1980s soviet equipment.

He was specifically mentioning the first Gulf war.

[Vanoi]

He was specifically mentioning the first Gulf war.

His point was that if the ISIS went up against a "modern" military with 1980s Soviet equipment that the ISIS would lose. But as shown, the ISIS can beat you whatever technology you are using.

[Gertrudius]

His point was that if the ISIS went up against a "modern" military with 1980s Soviet equipment that the ISIS would lose. But as shown, the ISIS can beat you whatever technology you are using.

My bad. However I should point out that strictly speaking ISIS hasn't been fighting an exclusively conventional campaign throughout the whole course of recent events. The capture of Iraqi equipment has helped facilitate a more traditional use of conventional forces. But I certainly would submit that the capability of the forces operating said equipment and its state of repair is far more important than where or when it was constructed (to a point).

[Holger Danske]

There was tank warfare in the 90's Yugoslavian wars ???

Yup. The Danes were the first to use the Leopard in anger. Turned out very badly for the +150 serbs and several T-55/64 that tried to ambush them.

[Sir Adrian]

His point was that if the ISIS went up against a "modern" military with 1980s Soviet equipment that the ISIS would lose. But as shown, the ISIS can beat you whatever technology you are using.

Because ISIS has been fighting a conventional warfare instead of relying on hit and run attacks and using mostly local insurgents against the army. You can't kill an enemy if you don't know he is an enemy regardless of how big your guns are. That's why the Iraqi army is losing.

To prove my point in the later battles ISIS used for the most part US equipment - most captured from the Iraqi army and a few gifted by the US government prior to 2012 when they were still affiliated with the Syrian rebels. If you look at the history of the conflict as whole you will see that they shifted their focus from guerilla tactics to a more conventional approach as they captured more equipment. I wonder why they did not do that previously.

[conon394]

The part where i'm confused is that despite that equipment being "outdated" and old, that very equipment is being used to successfully win battles against regimes and armies that are supplied modern weapons by the US.

I think you are missing a bit here - aside from fact that US or European or Soviet equipment is less important tan the quality of the army.

But stuff does were out, and refurbishments expensive. You give an aircraft or a tank a rip down and rebuild but that is expensive ad you need to have a system of depots and industrial base to do it. Sure the US and Russia and China can but for its army size does Bulgaria want to sustain that level of commitment. Also there a big different between a piece of equipment left out in the yard for 30 years nd one that is maintained. Which again comes back to budget compare say the US bone yard (plane storage) the planes are carefully decommissioned, sealed and stored/plastic wrapped etc in places with ideal climate. Such that the US can still dust off old F-4s to use as test targets for new weapons (The same really goes for all the excess M1s in storage) say to real cheap storage of tanks in the Ukraine:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-escalate.html


Poland was able to upgrade a lot its gear to some extent locally as in:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-escalate.html

..but its economy is ~10 times larger and spends more on defense a % of GDP. Also Poland as made a significant effort to sell abroad some all of the upgrade package. Which makes more feasible to keep upgrading.

Bulgaria is a NATO and EU member which makes the choice of having Russia simply do upgrades a problematic now in particular or in general it also causes issues with interoperability as a NATO member and a logistical problems as well.

[Dromikaites]

Add to the equation the fact that while there is a general positive attitude towards Russia in Bulgaria, the Russians enjoy less popularity there than they do in Serbia.

The Bulgarian elites have a long list of grievances towards Russia since the beginning of modern Bulgaria. In a nutshell, prior to WW2 the Bulgarian elites resented the Russian attempts to use Bulgaria as a tool to facilitate the Russian expansion into the Balkans while supporting the Serbians and the Greeks to limit the Bulgarians' own expansion. After WW2 the resentments were mainly based on what the Bulgarian top communist elites perceived as an insufficient Russian involvement into industrializing Bulgaria while using the Bulgarians to do the Soviet dirty work and placing Bulgaria in NATO's harm way by operating a submarine base from Burgas.

As a result the current Bulgarian reactions are not really surprising. The Bulgarian leaders, just like everybody else in Eastern Europe, see more benefits in being in the Western camp. And they are not willing to give an arm and a leg in order to continue to be supplied with Russian military equipment.

[white-wolf]

I think AK-74 is standard army rifle, it can be manufactured easily. Turkey can supply light shielded vehicles like Otokar Cobra, middle shielded vehicles like Arma. As MBT Altay will be in production soon, Bulgaria can get it if she wants. As attack helos come T-129 Atak is not a bad solution either. Fighter aircraft Europe can supply or USA. Zıpkın, Cirit, Fırtına are good solutions also.

[Stavroforos]

I think AK-74 is standard army rifle, it can be manufactured easily. Turkey can supply light shielded vehicles like Otokar Cobra, middle shielded vehicles like Arma. As MBT Altay will be in production soon, Bulgaria can get it if she wants. As attack helos come T-129 Atak is not a bad solution either. Fighter aircraft Europe can supply or USA. Zıpkın, Cirit, Fırtına are good solutions also.

I have a hard time imagining Bulgaria equipping itself with so many Turkish weapons. Then again, there aren't many cheaper options within NATO countries.