Serbian Armed Forces

"The great success of the Army of Serbia

A ten-member team of the Army of Serbia (Special Brigade) was in the UK where they took part in the marksmanship competition organized by the First Division of the Army of Great Britain. The competition included two categories, pistol Glock 17 and the gun SA 80. During the competition, participants performed in ten very demanding tactical situations with both types of weapons. In the competition of 23 teams, in handgun category Serbian team won first place in the team standings, a sergeant first class Jovica Bubalo first place in the individual standings. In the discipline assault rifle, team of the Serbian Army took the seventh place.

Major General Giles Hill, stressed the importance of fire training for each army and also commended members of the Army of Serbia for the results achieved. To the Members of the Serbian Special Brigade, the hosts were the members of the Royal Irish Regiment ( "1 IRISH"), which continues the tradition of 10th, 16th and 36th divisions, units that together with Serbian army fought during WW1 on Greek front."



Not bad considering fact our guys never had chance to train with SA80.

International Military exercise "Platinum Wolf 16", Serbian Army base "Jug" and proving grounds "Borovac":

From todays military live fire exercise on Pešter, freshly returned to service Praga M53/59 AA gun. Those were retired after NATO bombing and just recently returned into service, 48 of them and are attached in batteries of 6 per each of 8 mechanised batallions.

Serbian peacekeepers dispatched to peacekeeping mission to Lebanon, ceremony:

so it seems that the Serbs like their AT-3 sagger's, not only do they mount them on just about any armoured vehicle and helicopter, and have upgraded to the Malyutka-2T, but they have done another upgrade (which was news to me Sorry if its old news) the 2T5 which extends the range of the the current version 2T, the range iw now 5 kilometers, which is a guided missile via radio control. The current stats of the 2T are as follows SACLOS 4.4 kg tandem HEAT warhead 1,000 mm penetration versus RHA, improved capability against ERA. Weight 13.7 kg. Speed 120 m/s.

So some may ask is it worth upgrading these or would it be better to purchase more Bumbar or another ATGW?

But actually think this new system (2T5) is a pretty good system especially compared the original system. But i actually think that a mix of the two Bumbar and 2T5 is the way to go for Serbia, as the 2T5 has the advantage of range and cost on its side while the Bumbar has a range of only 1000m, but has the advantages of being more accurate, can be launched in confined spaces, and has a much lower minimum range than the 2T5. I remember reading that the AT-3 was the cheapest ATGW available, obviously the 2T5 would be more expensive than the normal version however i wouldn't expect it to much more expensive than the original. And if we take into account of the most recent types of warfare being experienced in the recent conflict zones around the world, neither of them has called for Sophisticated ATGW systems, just look at Syria for example AT-3 sagger, AT-4 Spigot, and AT-5 spandrel, have all been very useful, and not just destroying armour but buildings and enemy positions where the use of Sophisticated ATGW would be a waste of money in these situations.

Serbia also has the AT-4 Spigot and although i am surprised that they didn't choose this instead of the AT-3 Sagger for upgrading, I think that it came down to cost, like i said the AT-3 seems to be cheap to produce and giving it some simple but effective upgrades would still keep it cheap, where to upgrade the AT-4 might have cost more, and with Bumbar now in production i think it won't be long before they have an upgraded missile on this extending the range to the same as the AT-4 (2.5km) so therefore they will eventually have a two systems in their inventory, one with a high degree of accuracy being able to operate in any weather situations, and the other a cheap effective system with a decent range ideal for destroying buildings, bunkers, positions, and static armoured vehicles.

whats peoples views on the Serbian Malyutka-2 and 2T5???

below a pictures of both missiles

2T and 2F


2T5.

d_taddei2 wrote:so it seems that the Serbs like their AT-3 sagger's, not only do they mount them on just about any armoured vehicle and helicopter, and have upgraded to the Malyutka-2T, but they have done another upgrade (which was news to me Sorry if its old news) the 2T5 which extends the range of the the current version 2T, the range iw now 5 kilometers, which is a guided missile via radio control. The current stats of the 2T are as follows SACLOS 4.4 kg tandem HEAT warhead 1,000 mm penetration versus RHA, improved capability against ERA. Weight 13.7 kg. Speed 120 m/s.

So some may ask is it worth upgrading these or would it be better to purchase more Bumbar or another ATGW?

But actually think this new system (2T5) is a pretty good system especially compared the original system. But i actually think that a mix of the two Bumbar and 2T5 is the way to go for Serbia, as the 2T5 has the advantage of range and cost on its side while the Bumbar has a range of only 1000m, but has the advantages of being more accurate, can be launched in confined spaces, and has a much lower minimum range than the 2T5. I remember reading that the AT-3 was the cheapest ATGW available, obviously the 2T5 would be more expensive than the normal version however i wouldn't expect it to much more expensive than the original. And if we take into account of the most recent types of warfare being experienced in the recent conflict zones around the world, neither of them has called for Sophisticated ATGW systems, just look at Syria for example AT-3 sagger, AT-4 Spigot, and AT-5 spandrel, have all been very useful, and not just destroying armour but buildings and enemy positions where the use of Sophisticated ATGW would be a waste of money in these situations.

Serbia also has the AT-4 Spigot and although i am surprised that they didn't choose this instead of the AT-3 Sagger for upgrading, I think that it came down to cost, like i said the AT-3 seems to be cheap to produce and giving it some simple but effective upgrades would still keep it cheap, where to upgrade the AT-4 might have cost more, and with Bumbar now in production i think it won't be long before they have an upgraded missile on this extending the range to the same as the AT-4 (2.5km) so therefore they will eventually have a two systems in their inventory, one with a high degree of accuracy being able to operate in any weather situations, and the other a cheap effective system with a decent range ideal for destroying buildings, bunkers, positions, and static armoured vehicles.

whats peoples views on the Serbian Malyutka-2 and 2T5???

below a pictures of both missiles

2T and 2F


2T5.

Malytka is mounted in field only on BVP-80, BOV-1 and Gazella-Gama helicopters.

Also it seems that Bumbar will be shelved, apparently they are having issues with stability of missile in flight and price tag is way too high for our armed forces. Also it has 600m range not 1000m, variant with 1000m range was proposed for development but it was never made. Reason was that it would add 2kg to the missile and it would go above weight limitations required by Serbian Army.

There also was word of Bumbar "3000" as they called it which was supposed to grow into vehicle carried 3000m range missile with same warhead however it never went further than words.

Serbian company Krušik obtained licence for AT-4 Spigot (allegedly) but never produced even a single unit ever, as war in 90s and financial issues made it impossible. There was also domestic development in same class called DRUG, which went fairly far away but then was stopped somewhere in the 90s due to financial reasons.

These modifications of Malytka are just ways to slightly improve badly outdated equipment we have without spending huge amounts of money for real decent systems, money which we do not have. Last year Serbian army spent i belive 12 million USD on procurement of new equipment. For that kind of money in terms of military equipment you can buy..well...nothing.

Militarov wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:so it seems that the Serbs like their AT-3 sagger's, not only do they mount them on just about any armoured vehicle and helicopter, and have upgraded to the Malyutka-2T, but they have done another upgrade (which was news to me Sorry if its old news) the 2T5 which extends the range of the the current version 2T, the range iw now 5 kilometers, which is a guided missile via radio control. The current stats of the 2T are as follows SACLOS 4.4 kg tandem HEAT warhead 1,000 mm penetration versus RHA, improved capability against ERA. Weight 13.7 kg. Speed 120 m/s.

So some may ask is it worth upgrading these or would it be better to purchase more Bumbar or another ATGW?

But actually think this new system (2T5) is a pretty good system especially compared the original system. But i actually think that a mix of the two Bumbar and 2T5 is the way to go for Serbia, as the 2T5 has the advantage of range and cost on its side while the Bumbar has a range of only 1000m, but has the advantages of being more accurate, can be launched in confined spaces, and has a much lower minimum range than the 2T5. I remember reading that the AT-3 was the cheapest ATGW available, obviously the 2T5 would be more expensive than the normal version however i wouldn't expect it to much more expensive than the original. And if we take into account of the most recent types of warfare being experienced in the recent conflict zones around the world, neither of them has called for Sophisticated ATGW systems, just look at Syria for example AT-3 sagger, AT-4 Spigot, and AT-5 spandrel, have all been very useful, and not just destroying armour but buildings and enemy positions where the use of Sophisticated ATGW would be a waste of money in these situations.

Serbia also has the AT-4 Spigot and although i am surprised that they didn't choose this instead of the AT-3 Sagger for upgrading, I think that it came down to cost, like i said the AT-3 seems to be cheap to produce and giving it some simple but effective upgrades would still keep it cheap, where to upgrade the AT-4 might have cost more, and with Bumbar now in production i think it won't be long before they have an upgraded missile on this extending the range to the same as the AT-4 (2.5km) so therefore they will eventually have a two systems in their inventory, one with a high degree of accuracy being able to operate in any weather situations, and the other a cheap effective system with a decent range ideal for destroying buildings, bunkers, positions, and static armoured vehicles.

whats peoples views on the Serbian Malyutka-2 and 2T5???

below a pictures of both missiles

2T and 2F


2T5.

Malytka is mounted in field only on BVP-80, BOV-1 and Gazella-Gama helicopters.

Also it seems that Bumbar will be shelved, apparently they are having issues with stability of missile in flight and price tag is way too high for our armed forces. Also it has 600m range not 1000m, variant with 1000m range was proposed for development but it was never made. Reason was that it would add 2kg to the missile and it would go above weight limitations required by Serbian Army.

There also was word of Bumbar "3000" as they called it which was supposed to grow into vehicle carried 3000m range missile with same warhead however it never went further than words.

Serbian company Krušik obtained licence for AT-4 Spigot (allegedly) but never produced even a single unit ever, as war in 90s and financial issues made it impossible. There was also domestic development in same class called DRUG, which went fairly far away but then was stopped somewhere in the 90s due to financial reasons.

These modifications of Malytka are just ways to slightly improve badly outdated equipment we have without spending huge amounts of money for real decent systems, money which we do not have. Last year Serbian army spent i belive 12 million USD on procurement of new equipment. For that kind of money in terms of military equipment you can buy..well...nothing.

wow $12m that really is next to nothing, its a shame as i actually think for single small country Serbia comes up with some decent stuff but just doesn't have the cash to put it into full production or to buy it in good numbers, the Nora 52-B and Sora 122mm are good.

I did think the Bumbar was 600m but when i went onto manufacturer website it stated 1000m but like you said this must have been a different version.

i once saw a picture of a Serbian Mi-8 with AT-3 on it but i think the picture was taken at some sort of promo fair/show.

also do you know if Serbia ever upgraded any of its BTR-50 to BTR-50S??? which i kinda felt was quite a good upgrade for something so outdated but then i thought the armour of the vehicle was a bit of draw back, and the vehicle being pretty big would be an easy target. The only thing really the BTR-50 can be useful for now is either command, comms, ambulance, transport of ammo or some sort of engineer vehicle, but i would say ambulance would be best suited due its size which is ideal for stretchers and medical equipment, but obviously this would require some modifications to the hull, i believe there was a Lebanese version which was turned into medivac.

but anyway i actually think the 2T5 isn't all that bad and its good that they are making use of what they have. Its a real shame about the budget, as Serbian forces seem pretty professional and capable.

d_taddei2 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:so it seems that the Serbs like their AT-3 sagger's, not only do they mount them on just about any armoured vehicle and helicopter, and have upgraded to the Malyutka-2T, but they have done another upgrade (which was news to me Sorry if its old news) the 2T5 which extends the range of the the current version 2T, the range iw now 5 kilometers, which is a guided missile via radio control. The current stats of the 2T are as follows SACLOS 4.4 kg tandem HEAT warhead 1,000 mm penetration versus RHA, improved capability against ERA. Weight 13.7 kg. Speed 120 m/s.

So some may ask is it worth upgrading these or would it be better to purchase more Bumbar or another ATGW?

But actually think this new system (2T5) is a pretty good system especially compared the original system. But i actually think that a mix of the two Bumbar and 2T5 is the way to go for Serbia, as the 2T5 has the advantage of range and cost on its side while the Bumbar has a range of only 1000m, but has the advantages of being more accurate, can be launched in confined spaces, and has a much lower minimum range than the 2T5. I remember reading that the AT-3 was the cheapest ATGW available, obviously the 2T5 would be more expensive than the normal version however i wouldn't expect it to much more expensive than the original. And if we take into account of the most recent types of warfare being experienced in the recent conflict zones around the world, neither of them has called for Sophisticated ATGW systems, just look at Syria for example AT-3 sagger, AT-4 Spigot, and AT-5 spandrel, have all been very useful, and not just destroying armour but buildings and enemy positions where the use of Sophisticated ATGW would be a waste of money in these situations.

Serbia also has the AT-4 Spigot and although i am surprised that they didn't choose this instead of the AT-3 Sagger for upgrading, I think that it came down to cost, like i said the AT-3 seems to be cheap to produce and giving it some simple but effective upgrades would still keep it cheap, where to upgrade the AT-4 might have cost more, and with Bumbar now in production i think it won't be long before they have an upgraded missile on this extending the range to the same as the AT-4 (2.5km) so therefore they will eventually have a two systems in their inventory, one with a high degree of accuracy being able to operate in any weather situations, and the other a cheap effective system with a decent range ideal for destroying buildings, bunkers, positions, and static armoured vehicles.

whats peoples views on the Serbian Malyutka-2 and 2T5???

below a pictures of both missiles

2T and 2F


2T5.

Malytka is mounted in field only on BVP-80, BOV-1 and Gazella-Gama helicopters.

Also it seems that Bumbar will be shelved, apparently they are having issues with stability of missile in flight and price tag is way too high for our armed forces. Also it has 600m range not 1000m, variant with 1000m range was proposed for development but it was never made. Reason was that it would add 2kg to the missile and it would go above weight limitations required by Serbian Army.

There also was word of Bumbar "3000" as they called it which was supposed to grow into vehicle carried 3000m range missile with same warhead however it never went further than words.

Serbian company Krušik obtained licence for AT-4 Spigot (allegedly) but never produced even a single unit ever, as war in 90s and financial issues made it impossible. There was also domestic development in same class called DRUG, which went fairly far away but then was stopped somewhere in the 90s due to financial reasons.

These modifications of Malytka are just ways to slightly improve badly outdated equipment we have without spending huge amounts of money for real decent systems, money which we do not have. Last year Serbian army spent i belive 12 million USD on procurement of new equipment. For that kind of money in terms of military equipment you can buy..well...nothing.

wow $12m that really is next to nothing, its a shame as i actually think for single small country Serbia comes up with some decent stuff but just doesn't have the cash to put it into full production or to buy it in good numbers, the Nora 52-B and Sora 122mm are good.

I did think the Bumbar was 600m but when i went onto manufacturer website it stated 1000m but like you said this must have been a different version.

i once saw a picture of a Serbian Mi-8 with AT-3 on it but i think the picture was taken at some sort of promo fair/show.

also do you know if Serbia ever upgraded any of its BTR-50 to BTR-50S??? which i kinda felt was quite a good upgrade for something so outdated but then i thought the armour of the vehicle was a bit of draw back, and the vehicle being pretty big would be an easy target. The only thing really the BTR-50 can be useful for now is either command, comms, ambulance, transport of ammo or some sort of engineer vehicle, but i would say ambulance would be best suited due its size which is ideal for stretchers and medical equipment, but obviously this would require some modifications to the hull, i believe there was a Lebanese version which was turned into medivac.

but anyway i actually think the 2T5 isn't all that bad and its good that they are making use of what they have. Its a real shame about the budget, as Serbian forces seem pretty professional and capable.    

Well this year they spent abit more, as they obtained two new helicopters and ordered some items from YUGOIMPORT but still its far, far below what would be required.

Yeah, that Mi-8 you saw is probably some Photoshop Frankenstein of Yugoimport, Photoshop company.

No, i am not aware of command BTRs ever being modernised or updated. Some of those were attached to AAA units that used 20mm cannons back in time i remember sitting in one in Novi Sad.

2T5 is okay if it ends up being used on vehicles, however if they try forcing it into infantry in AT squads that wont go well.

@d_taddei2
The Serbian army has been reduced to a level of a firefighter brigade, no more no less. Thousands of former members of the army are still waiting for justified salary compensation, living below the existence minimum. Active sf members living with wife and child in 1 room appartements because the wage is not enough for more. Know enough such cases in my circle of friends. That says everything about the Serbian army and its possibility to acquire new heavy caliber...its a shame but we do not seem to deserve anything better...

GarryB wrote:

a shame but we do not seem to deserve anything better...

Of course you deserve better... and the shame is on the politicians.

The NATO war crimes against Serbia prove it is about people... if you had the weapons of Saudi Arabia and the soldiers of Saudi Arabia they probably would have defeated you in two weeks.

They had to resort to all sorts of war crimes to get you to the table to talk in the end... promising Russia would be part of the solution and then reneging on that like the cowards they are.

Regarding the equipment... what they have done with the AT_3 is rather impressive, but the low flight speed would be a problem in combat... a target at 5km would take quite some time to get to at 120m/s... a target moving from cover to cover would be almost impossible to engage near max range simply because the window of opportunity would be too short.

The Soviets replaced the AT-3 with a combination of AT-4 and AT-7 and later AT-13, with medium range targets being dealt with using AT-5 and later Kornet.

The AT-13 is cheap and simple and has excellent penetration and is totally man portable... a three man team can carry the launcher with bipod and a missile plus two other men each with two missiles each for a pack weight of about 25kgs per man where the missiles are about 13kgs each and the launcher is about the same.

i agree very impressive for such an old system, but like i said these older systems have proven to be valuable in Syria, and like i also said the 2T5 is cheap effective system with a decent range ideal for destroying buildings, bunkers, positions, and static armoured vehicles. As like you said moving vehicles would have to be going very slow in order to hit as trying to hit a normal moving vehicle would be very hard, and would be better to use more hi tech systems for this, which makes perfect sense why waste an expensive missile on a building, enemy position or static vehicle when a cheaper one will do the same effect

GarryB wrote:

a shame but we do not seem to deserve anything better...

Of course you deserve better... and the shame is on the politicians.

The NATO war crimes against Serbia prove it is about people... if you had the weapons of Saudi Arabia and the soldiers of Saudi Arabia they probably would have defeated you in two weeks.

They had to resort to all sorts of war crimes to get you to the table to talk in the end... promising Russia would be part of the solution and then reneging on that like the cowards they are.

Regarding the equipment... what they have done with the AT_3 is rather impressive, but the low flight speed would be a problem in combat... a target at 5km would take quite some time to get to at 120m/s... a target moving from cover to cover would be almost impossible to engage near max range simply because the window of opportunity would be too short.

The Soviets replaced the AT-3 with a combination of AT-4 and AT-7 and later AT-13, with medium range targets being dealt with using AT-5 and later Kornet.

The AT-13 is cheap and simple and has excellent penetration and is totally man portable... a three man team can carry the launcher with bipod and a missile plus two other men each with two missiles each for a pack weight of about 25kgs per man where the missiles are about 13kgs each and the launcher is about the same.

Speed is increased dramatically if we belive claims by VTI, they claim current average speed of this new "big" Malytka is between 180 and 200 m/s. However in Serbian military forum circles, some people that worked for decades in missile development have certain...doubts about whole thing but we shall see.

200m/s with the same old guidance? we cursed enough with the classic maljutka...
I still not belive that reliable hits are possible on 5km with the new rocket (same guidance) on targets 1,5 x 2m. Perhaps under perfectly test conditions (Perfect sight, weather, brightness). Operating the old one was already a challenge. That will confirm each who have ever guide this system. Updating maljutkas is in my opinion the wrong way.

cheesfactory wrote:200m/s with the same old guidance? we cursed enough with the classic maljutka...
I still not belive that reliable hits are possible on 5km with the new rocket (same guidance) on targets 1,5 x 2m. Perhaps under perfectly test conditions (Perfect sight, weather, brightness). Operating the old one was already a challenge. That will confirm each who have ever guide this system. Updating maljutkas is in my opinion the wrong way.

It does not use same "wire" guidance previous types used, its using radio-command guidance.

Interior Ministry of Serbia received armored vehicles LAZAR 3

March 25, 2017 in the Serbian capital of Belgrade, the ceremony of swearing in by the new police officers who served in the bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Serbia. About 1,100 employees of various structures of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Serbia took part in the ceremony, and members of the Serbian government, including Prime Minister Alexander Vucic, were present.

Simultaneously, at the ceremony, the new equipment for the Serbian military-industrial association "Јgoimport - SDPR" was submitted for equipping the Ministry of Interior of Serbia. Among them were seven LAZAR armored personnel carriers with the 8x8 wheel formula, one of which is the LAZAR 2 version, equipped with a combat module produced by the Russian JSC "Muromteplovoz" with a 30-mm automatic gun 2A42, and six new LAZAR 3 equipped with the "Јgoimport - SDPR" Remotely controlled combat module M15 with a 12.7-mm M87 machine gun (licensed version of the NSVT machine gun). Ten light armored vehicles BOV M with the same M15 combat module with a 12.7 mm M87 machine gun and one newly delivered BOV M16 Miloš armored vehicle of the MRAP class took part in the demonstration.





http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2538477.html

A new Serbian modification of the M-84 tank is presented

On the page in the Facebook social network of the Ministry of Defense of Serbia a photo of the new modification of the M-84 tank of the former Yugoslavian production - M-84 AS1 was published.

On the website of the Serb military industrial association "Jugoimport-SDPR" there is information about the tank modification of the M-84 AS. The upgraded tank is equipped with a 24-hour DNNS 2ATK sight with an infrared night vision device and an optional digital fire control system, the KIS M84 information management system, the TOMS commander's observation device, the SOFTKIL system of active interference in the optical range, the 2nd generation dynamic protection, the engine protection From the wrong actions of the driver-mechanic during the pre-start and engine start-up, communication facilities manufactured by Thales, a remotely controlled module with a 12.7mm machine gun.



http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2602613.html

George1 wrote:A new Serbian modification of the M-84 tank is presented

On the page in the Facebook social network of the Ministry of Defense of Serbia a photo of the new modification of the M-84 tank of the former Yugoslavian production - M-84 AS1 was published.

On the website of the Serb military industrial association "Jugoimport-SDPR" there is information about the tank modification of the M-84 AS. The upgraded tank is equipped with a 24-hour DNNS 2ATK sight with an infrared night vision device and an optional digital fire control system, the KIS M84 information management system, the TOMS commander's observation device, the SOFTKIL system of active interference in the optical range, the 2nd generation dynamic protection, the engine protection From the wrong actions of the driver-mechanic during the pre-start and engine start-up, communication facilities manufactured by Thales, a remotely controlled module with a 12.7mm machine gun.



http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2602613.html

It would be about... 4th modernisation in a row that never reached service

Sorry if this has been already posted
China donates military equipment to Serbia
http://defence-blog.com/army/china-donates-military-equipment-to-serbia.html

What are you guys sporting for an AD anyway?

littlerabbit wrote:Looks like we will have some new acquisitions in our AF...4 new Mi-17's and 4 new Mi-35's and some stuff for the Army.

http://tass.com/defense/997538

Obtaining T-72s while we have dozens of M-84s that can be overhauled and placed back in service, and are younger than those T-72s... and obtaining BMP-2s while we have dozens of M-80s that also can be overhauled and modernised. Sounds like logistic nightmare, even worse than one we already had.

Militarov wrote:

littlerabbit wrote:Looks like we will have some new acquisitions in our AF...4 new Mi-17's and 4 new Mi-35's and some stuff for the Army.

http://tass.com/defense/997538

Obtaining T-72s while we have dozens of M-84s that can be overhauled and placed back in service, and are younger than those T-72s... and obtaining BMP-2s while we have dozens of M-80s that also can be overhauled and modernised. Sounds like logistic nightmare, even worse than one we already had.

From what I gather, there is already a T-72 company (with a few more in storage) which will become an armoured battalion with these additional T-72's and BMP-2's

Cyberspec wrote:

Militarov wrote:

littlerabbit wrote:Looks like we will have some new acquisitions in our AF...4 new Mi-17's and 4 new Mi-35's and some stuff for the Army.

http://tass.com/defense/997538

Obtaining T-72s while we have dozens of M-84s that can be overhauled and placed back in service, and are younger than those T-72s... and obtaining BMP-2s while we have dozens of M-80s that also can be overhauled and modernised. Sounds like logistic nightmare, even worse than one we already had.

From what I gather, there is already a T-72 company (with a few more in storage) which will become an armoured battalion with these additional T-72's and BMP-2's

One training T-72M unit exists, serviced by canibalisation of T-72s that are in storage. But its not combat ready unit. These T-72s are also of different variant it seems, most likely T-72S. We never operated BMP-2s, so thats a new weird decision.

And we have like... probably over 200 M-80s that lay around rotting in "reserve".

Militarov wrote:

littlerabbit wrote:Looks like we will have some new acquisitions in our AF...4 new Mi-17's and 4 new Mi-35's and some stuff for the Army.

http://tass.com/defense/997538

Obtaining T-72s while we have dozens of M-84s that can be overhauled and placed back in service, and are younger than those T-72s... and obtaining BMP-2s while we have dozens of M-80s that also can be overhauled and modernised. Sounds like logistic nightmare, even worse than one we already had.

I quite agree. The T-72 in service could be upgraded and the M-84 also could be upgraded they have the skills to do it. T-72 with help from Russia or Belarus  could be upgraded. I believe that the T-72 their getting were gifted or bought at token price. The
M-80 could easily be upgraded similar to berezhok. They already have M-80AB1 30mm gun and 2T5 anti tank missiles. I would upgrade on this with an AGS and an another variant of M-80 armed with a mix of malyutka with following variants:
2T5(radio guided 5km range for long range sniping)
9M14-2T (tandem warhead improved penetration)
9M14-2F (thermobaric warhead)
this would give theM a multi purpose missile carrier the malyutka still (in upgraded form) a fairly decent ATGW it's cheap  (probably the cheapest) and they have the means to produce it. Serbia should spend money on upgrading current equipment that still is useful rather than one off prototypes that they will never buy. They have many vehicles in storage mainly M-80, M-84, T-55, BTR-60, BTR-50. M-84 could be upgraded and there's no reason why Serbia couldn't make their own TOS or BMPT (using upgraded malyutka) using M-84 or T-55 chassis.
M-80 could also be upgraded or used ATGW.
BTR-60 as command or ATGW or Air defence with strelets or zu-23-2ZOM type upgrade and as for
BTR-50 they showcased a turret version with 20 or 30 mm gun and malyutka although i think this vehicles armour is took week to be a good AFV but i rather think it would be more suited as a mortar carrier with it roof opening doors a 120mm mortar or an 82mm automatic mortar would be ideal. these dont have to be expensive upgrades and nothing outwith there technology know how. This would allow them to field a capable ground  force.