Talk:Serbian Armed Forces/Archive 1

Archive 1

Error in historical information

The Kingdom of Serbia did not join the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1918. The state of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes requested to the Serbian King to unify with the Kingdom of Serbia and they formed the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes which underwent changes to its name later. I will have to change this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Australianhistorian (talk • contribs) 12:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The article imply that the reason for the Treaty of Bucharest is the Battle of Bregalnica, but this is just not true. The main reason is that Bulgaria was not able to fight with ALL neighbors simultaneously. In fact Romanian army achieve the capital Sofia - this may be considered as the main reason for the surrender.130.204.235.163 (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Serbia's Defense Budget

Can someone post accurate Defense spending's, Serbia's defense budget (looking at 2006 Budget) was only 660 million USD (44.2 billion Dinar) I am trying to find more accurate data for 2007 and projected data for 2008. 1.2 billion is not accurate figure and I won't change it at this time, as this is only data we've got. I know Budget for 2008 might be in region of 900 million USD, but I need verifiable source.

Also Serbian GDP data is also inaccurate, PPP data should stand at 6600 USD and Nominal income was only 36.2 billion USD in 2007 (Excluding Kosova), including Kosova GDP did reach 41.1 Billion USD, so 1.2 billion USD budget as stated there represents far bigger chunk of National GDP, roughly 3.3 % of GDP, highly unlikely IMHO.

Also can someone update Serb Army reserves, how many and what units are in the reserve status. thanx.

Serbian Budget for 2008 - [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.154.228 (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions

• Should we move all Air Force-Air Defense information into Serbian Air Force page as to clear up this current page? Buttons 23:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Ko je napisao ovaj clanak vidim da je dobro upucen samo oznake brigada nisu zvanicno usvojene ili se varam?

• Modernization is deleted from the original article. I would really like to know why. Especially sentence "The existing conscription is very unpopular among young Serbian people and many of them would see it as a violation of their human rights". Thanx.

Where are the pictures?

• That is nice idea,. but Serbian Army (KoV-ground forces) is also using some air defense weapon's, and we don't know wich are in army air defense, and witch are in air defense. Where are the pictures from Uniforms section? Srđan Popović 14:53,16. Jun 2007

Why is Domobran deleting pictures?

• Why is Domobran deleting pictures? Srđan Popović, 15:15 17. June, 2007.

Structure

According to the information contained in this interview of the Serbia's Ministry's of Defence information magazine, in 2010 the Field Forces shall consist of:

• 1st Brigade, 2nd Brigade, 3rd Brigade and 4th Brigade - (I have seen no official appelation, as in tank/mechanised/infantry, just numeral+brigade). The 4th Brigade has been activated as of June 30.
• Special Brigade
• Mixed Artillery Brigade
• River Flotilla
• MP Battalion
• Signals Battalion
• NBC Def. Battalion
• Field Forces Staff units

The interview also says that the four standard brigades shall have each 10-11 battalions of different specialisation. But does not give the exact composition, nor says much about the rest. I'll try to dig about the other interviews in the coming days, see if I can squeeze anything out. Odbrana has a nice online archive, after all. Any native speakers wish to help a confused Swissoslav? Russoswiss 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Organization

You can find new structure of Serbian Army on it's website.

Guess they have updated the site then. Too bad its down for me right now. I've replaced "Divisions" with "Battalions", because "Дивизион" and its various local slavic forms is what many slavic nations call a battalion of artillery. And Eskadriles are, obviously, Squadrons. Russoswiss 03:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Divizion isn't pure battalion, it is old French artillery organization, I remember that Slovenia reorganized its artillery "divizion" into battalion organization after joining NATO. I'm still trying to find exact difference between the two organizations. :-) --Ivan Bajlo 07:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What is a "Make Shift Battalion"??? --noclador 10:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't even see that one, replaced with correct translation Pontoon Battalion. --Ivan Bajlo 12:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Make Shift Battalions are staffed exclusively with MacGyvers! On a more serious note, while a "дивизион" (+slavic variations) has a different number of men from, say, infantry counterparts, as far as I could see it is the equivalent of a battalion on the general hierarchy level. Russoswiss 11:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And just a little correction to make. According to this link here, the 1st Brigade has a Tank Battalion 15, not a Transport Battalion 15. Russoswiss 08:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Boy, are you fast O.o Russoswiss 17:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:-) noclador 20:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Serbian military ranks

I think that this two article should be together.

--I agree the two should be combined, the ranks page is too small to justify for a whole new article. Buttons 10:54 sept 8, 2007 (UTC)

---I agree too. user:Kos93 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kos93 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

-- Ja se neslazem posto sam ja napravio tu stranu,i ta strana ce biti unapredjena novim oznakama i zastavama i obelezjem cim se uskoro bude usvojilo,sta sve da trpamo na stranu Military of Serbia. Boki13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boki13 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Kako vam se sada čini stranica? Može li neko da nacrta činove za podoficire? talk

Photos and images

-- Ej, na slici Lađevci Air Base nije aerodrom Lađevci već batajnica.Kos93

-- Kos93 is correct, An-26's without propellers won't get very far... Buttons

First Sentence

The first sentence makes no sense what so ever? Kukar 00:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Entire article makes no sense, I won't bother though, have better things to do with my time. BTW, there are so many lies in this article, makes me think why bother at all.

-- Ever wonder why Wikipedia is not to be used as a primary source? Sources are made available in most cases you just have to pay attention. Since you claim this article is a lie it would be helpful if you summarized which part/'s are so we may determine if they are lies or not, every little bit helps. Buttons —Preceding comment was added at 03:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Error in three finger salute interpretation.

Whatever the true origin of the Serbian three fingered hand signal is, it has existed since long before the 1990's. This clearly conflicts with opinion that the salute is a symbol of their three losses. If it were in fact the case that signal was originated after the losses in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, then the signal would not be evidenced in photographs until 1999 at the earliest. Many photographs of Serbian soldiers during the period of on-going war clearly display the three fingered signal.

I question the labeling of the hand signal as a "salute." It is in fact not a formal military salute and has never been in a manner of addressing a higher ranking officer.

The three fingered hand signal has always been an informal gesture used by politicians, athletes, youth, and finally Serbian soldiers in a nationalistic tradition. Think of how the two finger peace sign became symbolic of Americans in the 1970's.

Please correct this section of the article. Yes the symbol is nationalistic, yes it incites strong and provocative feelings in Bosnians and Croatians, but it is not a official salute of the of the Serbian.

You can reference this article on wikipedia: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Three-finger_salute_%28Serbian%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Focusing (talk • contribs) 04:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

-- That was a case of vandalism, don't think too much of it, it happens. Also you are fully entitled to edit the article yourself so long as its sensible it will be fine, if you stumble on a article that clearly has questionable content or conflicting views by all means revert the edit to the previous post, no need to wait for others to do it. Buttons

Conscription

There is no section about mandatory military service in Serbia. All males between 19 and 27 are expected to serve 6 months in the Serbian military or in civil service. What is even more interesting is that individuals of direct Serbian descent (one or more parents) who are not citizens of Serbia may still be conscripted, according to the US Embassy in Belgrade. Expatriates and foreign-born Serbian males who visit the country for more than 90 days are at risk of being detained until they completed their service, although to my knowledge this has never actually been carried out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.109.113 (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is very bad example of state oppresion against its own citizens - we can just hope that this violation of human rights will end in 2010 as state leaders declared (the state that oppress you does not deserve that you defend its existence, especially if that state failed to provide jobs for the young people). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.5.24 (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

THanks for pointing that out. This is not true anymore. I will add the new information. Mike Babic (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am soory, but you from diaspora who live in your western utopia have no right to speak about living and social conditions in Serbia. You simply have no idea how this conscription damage lives of young Serbian people and how much they hate it. 212.69.4.242 (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not shure, the last month about 92% of men on military service has select to serve in the military, only 8% has select civil service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.152.70 (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

$$$

Under the draft budget for 2008 the Army of Serbia will dispose of somewhat more than 67 billion dinars, or $1.2 billion dollars.

It is envisaged that [of the total figure] 65.3 billion dinars come from the state budget and that the Army itself secures somewhat less than 1.8 billion.

Source: Beta news agency, Belgrade, in Serbian 0927 gmt 28 Nov 07Mike Babic (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)3

Overmuch

I think this all i overmuch, for the Operational experience there is a Military history of Serbia, for the Weapons of Mass Destruction, Serbia, like independent state never had them, and about Transformation there is enogiht in the Serbian Land Forces and Serbian Air Force and Air Defense.--Kos93 (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Evo da budem precizniji, mislim da deo o tradiciji može da se prebaci u istoriju, onda o naoružanju i modernizaciji (Weapons and equipment, Cepotina military base, Radar system, anti-aircraft systems, G-4M Super Galeb,Acquisition of trainer aircraft, Mobile Equipment) već ima dovoljno u stranicama o kopnenoj vojsci i V i PVO, a u delu o strukturnim promenama piše da su "Serbian Armed Forces" započele strukturne promene 2003. mada je to tada bila VSCG. Takođe mislim da uopšte nije potrebno spominjati nuklearno oružije, a nisam primetio da se npr. u stranici o Slovačkoj ili Belgijskoj vojsci napominje da Slovačka/Belgija nema u planu da razvija nuklearno oružije, potpuno bespotrebna informacija. Mislim da ova stranica trebala da bude uređena slično stranici Military of Croatia, znači osnovne informacije o vojsci, budžet, u kratkim crtama o reformi, o komandnom lancu i organizaciji, učešću u mirovnim operacijama i međunarodnoj saradnji, i možda da napravimo i malu listu o modernizaciji po rodovima. Nego zar se Vosjak Srbije na Engleskom ne kaže Military of Serbia? --Kos93 (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Volim sto ima puno informacije na strani. Naprimer German Army i Bundeswehr stranice su mi ok. Stranica je dobra kakva jeste. Moze li neko da doda Vojne Skole i Centrove u Srbiji kao Swedish Military Schools?

Pa volim i ja kada je strana puna informacija, ali mislim da je glupo da se neke stvari dvaputa spominju. Ja mislim da strana o kopnenim snagama treba da bude poput German Army ili još bolje Romanian Land Forces, a da o istoriji bude uglavnom na Military history of Serbia, o planu da se modernizuje G-4 na strani o vazduhoplovstvu itd. Što se tiče vojnih škola, tu su Vojna akademija i gimnazija, a nisam siguran kako funkcionišu škola rezervnih oficira, škola nacionalne odbrane i sl. mada mislim da su valjda kako bi se smanjili troškovi skoro pa deo VA. Centre mislim da nemamo, ali tu su institucije poput VMA, vojne bolnice i medicinski centri, tehničko remontni zavodi, vazduhoplovni zavod, tehničko opitni centar, vojno tehnički institut kao i mnoge ostale vojne ustanove o kojima bi moglo mnogo što šta da se kaže. --Kos93 (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Super idea. Pazite, nemojte izbrisati dobru informaciju. Posebno u vezi sekcije o moderaciji.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[Ovo] je super link.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Tako je ova stranica izgledala do nedavno (kada su slike sa sajta VS izbrisane zbog autorskih prava), a kao uzor je poslužila stranica o Jermenskoj vojsci. --Kos93 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Name

Dobro ljudi, pa zar naziv nije Vojska Srbije, a ne oružane snage Republike Srbije? I čemnu personifikacija artikla, pa predsednici i komadanti gerelaštaba će se često menjati. A Rečna flotila nije vid vojske, poput vazduhoplovstva i PVO i KoV, već jedinica u okviru KoV.--Kos93 (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Major changes

I restored the stable version of the article after major changes made without previous discussion. Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. - The subject of this article is army established in 2006. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The subject of this article is the "Serbian armed forces". Since multiple reliable sources discuss Serbian armed forces before your 2006 cutoff date, I'm skeptical about the notion that Serbian armed forces were established from scratch in 2006.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrayner (talk • contribs) 10:03, 12 March 2013

The text you inserted refer to army of another country. A couple of sources you inserted confirm that the text is not about the topic of this article. Your skepticism is not valid argument to insert unrelated text.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This is getting repetitive and ridiculous. On en.wikipedia it goes like this: in articles concerning countries which no longer exist (i.e. the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia [all three]) we use the official names of these countries in order to describe their involvement in history. The Republic of Serbia (2006-present) did not exist during the time-period that we are talking about (the '90s.) As such, to the editors who are insisting that content relating to the '90s be included, I suggest that you cut your POV-pushing and if you want to help make this a quality article then help with the citations for when this army was active (1882-1918, 2006-present). 23 editor (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

References regarding reserve - Read

Reference about reserve contains 20 pages. It is imperative that you read all of them and also to visit Serbian Training Command wiki to understand remarks considering reserve forces. Loesorion (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)