Bulgaria in WWI

[MCP]

Hi all!
I'm an Italian teacher and since I was a boy I'm very interested in Bulgarian Army (expecialy Balkan wars and WWI). I have collected some information through western sources but it is very difficult to have complete a and correct outline about Bulgarian effort in WWI in Italy. So I can offer to this forum a lot of question, but only few answers.
I found this Forum thanks to Dibo's Bulgarian generals biographies, that are really very interesting (and can be understand even by an Italian with a little dictionary). About the organisation of Bulgarian High Command I could know more with these biographies than in years of research! Only a question about it: what calendar is used in the biographies? It is not easy to see the correct way when you have both western and Bulgarian sources.
I would like to put a question to this Forum members.
What was the weapons situation (artillery and machine guns) of Bulgaria Army when it entered into WWI? About this topic western sources are poor informed and contradictory. I was not even able to know how many field guns or machine guns a Bulgarian Infantry Division had in 1915. And the situation is worse for howitzers and heavy and mountain artillery. Another question. Did Bulgarian Army use slow firing guns like in 1912-13? These are a great problems, I think, because I know that Armйe d’Orient had from the beginning had a lot of modern guns.
In January 1916 French Army alone (57e, 122e, 156e DI and 17e DIC) had :
36 Schneider Mountain guns
154 75mm Field guns
48 105mm Schneider Mle. 1913 long guns
56 120mm De Bange Mle. 1878 long guns
24 120mm De Bange Mle. 1881/1912 short guns
56 155mm Schneider Mle. 1877/1914 short guns
42 trench mortars.
And the number of guns constantly increased. What could Bulgarian Army oppose to such a power?
When Italy entered in WWI, the first problem that the Army had was the lack of modern weapons (expecially machine guns and heavy artillery). So Austrian Army could halt the attack of Italian Army, that had more than twice as many soldiers. It is a mystery how and with what kind of weapons Bulgaria could obtain so great victories against so powerfull ennemies.

Best.

[dibo]

Hi all!
I’m an Italian teacher and since I was a boy I’m very interested in Bulgarian Army (expecialy Balkan wars and WWI). I have collected some information through western sources but it is very difficult to have complete a and correct outline about Bulgarian effort in WWI in Italy.

Italy We never had troops there

So I can offer to this forum a lot of question, but only few answers. I found this Forum thanks to Dibo’s Bulgarian generals biographies, that are really very interesting (and can be understand even by an Italian with a little dictionary). About the organisation of Bulgarian High Comman I could know more with these biographies than in years of research! Only a question about it: what calendar is used in the biographies? It is not easy to see the correct way when you have both western and Bulgarian sources.

Both calendars are used. Bulgaria switched the calendars in 1916.

I would like to put a question to this Forum members.
What was the weapons situation (artillery and machine guns) of Bulgaria Army when it entered into WWI? About this topic western sources are poor informed and contradictory. I was not even able to know how many field guns or machine guns a Bulgarian Infantry Division had in 1915. And the situation is worse for howitzers and heavy and mountain artillery. Another question. Did Bulgarian Army use slow firing guns like in 1912-13? These are a great problems, I think, because I know that Armйe d’Orient had from the beginning had a lot of modern guns.
In January 1916 French Army alone (57e, 122e, 156e DI and 17e DIC) had :
36 Schneider Mountain guns
154 75mm Field guns
48 105mm Schneider Mle. 1913 long guns
56 120mm De Bange Mle. 1878 long guns
24 120mm De Bange Mle. 1881/1912 short guns
56 155mm Schneider Mle. 1877/1914 short guns
42 trench mortars.
And the number of guns constantly increased. What could Bulgarian Army oppose to such a power?
When Italy entered in WWI, the first problem that the Army had was the lack of modern weapons (expecially machine guns and heavy artillery). So Austrian Army could halt the attack of Italian Army, that had more than twice as many soldiers. It is a mystery how and with what kind of weapons Bulgaria could obtain so great victories against so powerfull ennemies.
Best.

Will answer this batch of questions in the evening when I get at my Home PC.

[dibo]

I would like to put a question to this Forum members.
What was the weapons situation (artillery and machine guns) of Bulgaria Army when it entered into WWI? About this topic western sources are poor informed and contradictory. I was not even able to know how many field guns or machine guns a Bulgarian Infantry Division had in 1915. And the situation is worse for howitzers and heavy and mountain artillery. Another question. Did Bulgarian Army use slow firing guns like in 1912-13?

248 "Maxim" HMG at 10.09.1915 (4 at regimental level, late war 32 in each regiment). More MG supplied during the war.

09.1915 - 240 batteries (960 pieces) 10.1918 - 320 batteries (1280 pieces) This number does not include fortress, shore, anti-air batteries.

09.1915:

Field artillery

75mm quick-firing guns - 288 pcs.;
84mm slow-firing guns - 162;
120mm quick-firing howitzers - 34;
120mm slow-firing guns - 30;
87mm slow-firing guns (reserve batteries) - 60;

Mountain artillery
75mm quick-firing guns - 103;

Fortress and Heavy guns
150mm quick-firing howitzers - 14;
150mm slow-firing howitzers - 24;
150mm guns - 10;
120mm slow-firing guns - 22;
150mm slow-firing guns - 9;
105mm quick-firing guns - 12;
87mm slow-firing guns - 78;
75mm slow-firing guns - 60;
75mm mountain guns - 42;
Reserve guns -16;
57mm turret quick-firing guns - 26;
75mm quick-firing guns - 2;
Various others (mostly trophies)- 39

[dibo]

Regarding your Balkan war question:

http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/prm/blsplendidfellows1.htm

[MCP]

Thanks, Dibo, for your very delailed answer. I must admit that seems almost incredible that Bulgarian Army had so few modern guns in 1915! 288 field and 103 mountain quick-firing guns means an average of less than 40 quickfiring guns for every Infantry Division. And a Bulgarian Inf. Div. had at least 24,000 rifles! Of course Germany and Austria send a lot of weapons to Bulgaria during the war, but I think that could arrive immediately. So Bulgarian Army had to sustain his first battles with a great disadvantage of modern weapons. According with the information I have (I’m trying to list every German unit used in Balkan Front in WWI), in May 1916 Germany had only a little division in Macedonia and some support units (I think not more than one hundred guns and 60/80 MGs). So Bulgarian had to rely only on his forces and I think that at beginning of the 1916 Great Britain and France had more or less the same number of modern field/mountain guns than the whole Bulgarian Army and a great in howitzers, heavy guns and MGs.


[QUOTE=dibo]Italy We never had troops there
QUOTE]

Excuse me. I made a mistake. I would write “it is very difficult IN ITALY to have complete a and correct outline about Bulgarian effort“.

[MCP]

Regarding your Balkan war question:
http://europeanhistory.about.com/lib...idfellows1.htm

Thanks, but I know that article. I have some (I think well-informed) books about Balkan Wars. In Italy too were written varoius books and articles about them and they are all pro-Bulgarian (My interest for Bulgarian Army rose when I found a book about what the book called “War between Bulgaria and Turkey“, the 1912 campaign). I think that such an interest about Bulgaria may be explain with the great numbers of Bulgarian officiers that studied at Torino Royal Military. About WW1 there are three interesting articles written in ’30 about 1915 campaign against Serbia, Tutrakan and the partecipation of Bulgaria in the war. But even if during WW1 Italy sent a division in Macedonia, Italian writers were more interested in Albanian campaign, where Italy wanted to put in his sphere of influence.

[Imperial]

Hello and welcome.

My question is what is your general view on the objectiveness of western literature about the Balkan wars and the WWI on the Balkans. My very general impression is that most authors on the subject are serbians (at least those published in the US) and so I believe the general view must be slanted. What do you think?

[MCP]

I might simply answer that Western sources are not interested at all in Bulgarian partecipation in WWI. There are only few book about Balkan front in WWI and they are focus only in Western Armies. In a recent, very interesting, book about British Salonika Force there is not even a word about Bulgarian Army. What you can find is some informations from Nedev’s book about Dorian. That’s all. Bulgarian Army is simply the ennemy, but the author pays attention only to British or Allied Forces. More or less the same in a French book published in 1998 about “Les Poilus d’Orient“, that is French soldiers that fighted in the Armйe d’Orient.
Books about Bulgaria in 1912-1919 were written mostly in ’20 and ’30 and I think they can be classed in three group.
1st - books written, often by reporters, after Balkan wars : authors’ attitude greatly depends on the army they were attached to. They are inclined to admire the Army of whom thew saw the battles. But there also some political motivations : in general Frenchs are strongly pro-Serbian and Germans are pro-Turks. Italian sources are all strongly pro-Bulgarian. You can find a great admiration for generals that studied in Italy. For exemple the real author of Bulgarian victories is always Fičev, and non Savov or Dimitriev. There are only few books about Interallied war (only one in Italian). Here Serbian propaganda did very well. They were able to persuade everybody that the true winner of the war against Turkey was Serbia and Bulgaria effort was negligible. You can always read that Bulgarian did not send in Macedonia the Army that promised to send; that 7th Rylska Division did almost nothing for the allied victory in Macedonia; that Kumanovo was a victory more important than Lozengrad or Lule Burgas; that Odrin was conquered only thanks to Serbia effort (reading these books you can think that the only heavy artillery at Odrin was Serbian). But the two most important topics are Bulgarian treachery (war was not declared etc.) and Bulgarian atrocities against Serbian civilians. In Barby’s book “Brйgalnitsa“ there are more than 30 pages describing Bulgarian Army atrocities.
2nd : books about WWI : Bulgaria was an ennemy, Serbia an allied. So it is unavoidable that Serbian point of view is prevalent. However usually there is not great interest in Bulgaria Army in itself. Expecially in French sources - but also in British ones - the ennemy in Macedonia and in Dobrudja was Germany and its great generals: Mackense, Below, Scholtz. The first reason of Bulgarian defeat in 1916 (Bitolj) and expecially in 1918 (Dobropolje) was the German decision to send his troops to Western Front. We can see to the denunciation of Bulgarian crimes and barbarity. An exception are the three articles about Bulgarian Army written in ’30 by Missana on Italian magazine “Esercito e Nazione“ (Army and Nation). BTW Do you know anything about him? It seems of Bulgarian origin since his name is “Jvan Vassiliev Missana“. Another clearly pro-Bulgarian book is Manuel Lon’s “Bulgaria in la guerra europea“. He was Spanish miltar-attachй at Sofia during the war and wrote a long book (more than 400 pages). It is well informed only about campaign against Serbia (1915) and Romania (1916), his description of war in Macedonia is inadequate. Austro-ungarian sources are not interested in Bulgarian Army (and have also little liking for it). One interesting exception is Alfred Jansa’s Memoires. He was liason officier at 1st Bulgarian Army in 1916. You can found his book at: www.diemorgengab.at/fmljansa/aljamem00.htm
German sources usually have little esteem for Bulgarian Army (except for Nikola Žekov).
3rd: official histories of the war : they pay not attention at all to Bulgarian Army. Usually they say that Bulgarian soldiers are strong and know very well the field of the war. They were powerfull in attack with bayonets and well supported by artillery (this is the reason of my interest in Bulgarian artillery).
I think the best and most equilibrate modern source is Richard Hall, Bulgarian’s Road to the First World War. But unfortunately it stops at the beginning of WWI.
I think that Bulgarian Army effort in WWI is greatly understimates in West Europa and I hope that many mistakes and wrong clichйs may be correct thanks to Internet.

[TVV]

I am by no means an expert on the issue, but I just want to add a few points that might help explain some of the success of the Bulgarian army in WWI.
1. The Bulgarian soldiers and officers had extensive experience in warfare from the Balkan Wars, and this should have been a major advantage. Also, their morale was superb, especially in 1915. Bulgaria lost the Second Balkan War, but its forces were never defeated in major battle, and an opportunity to avenge to Serbia and Romania certainly provided great motivation.
2. Not to underestimate the feats of the Bulgarian army, Serbia's main forces were concentrated against Austria-Hungary in 1915 and the attack of the Bulgarian army was simply overwhelming for the Serbs. The Romanian army was also initially sent to the North-East to face the Hungarians, I believe, and then it was too slow to move south and face The Bulgarian, German and Turkish forces. At the same time the Bulgarian offensive there was superbly planned and executed: the Danube was forced extremely quickly, there was a landing in Northern Dobrudja supported by the Bulgarian navy, simply the speed of the Bulgarian advance was greater than what the Romanians could handle. By the time Russian reinforcements arrived, they were both late and insufficient.
3. The quick Bulgarian victories in Serbia and Romania led to the capture of lots of enemy eqipment, including artillery. Therefore the Bulgarian army could have been better equipped in the later stages of the war when it was able to hold off the allies and inflict heavy casualties to them.
Usually there is not one single factor that explains why one army wins, and another one loses, but rather a combination of factors. I just added a few points that you may find interesting.

[rhlv]

2nd division 1916-17

Am trying to find out who commanded the Bulgarian 2nd infantry division between September 1916 and May 1917 (between Geshov and Burmov)
Thanks
Rich

[MCP]

I think he was col. Ivan Angelov Petrov. According with L.CORDIER, Victoire eclaire en Orient, Aurillac, Editions U.S.H.A 1968, p.46 in 1917 the German Command required that he was replaced by general Burmov.
That's all.
But the true expert is Dibo. :nworthy:

[dibo]

I'll check.

[rhlv]

Thanks to MCP for the info and to Dibo for promising to check.

For anyone interested there's a reason for this request. With the centennial of the First World War upon us, the university system for which I work is joining with other universities to form a database that will provide information concerning the location of the papers of major (and not so major) political and military leaders of the period. Of course to do that, we first have to know who we're looking for (thus the request for who commands 2nd infantry division). Once we find that, we get to start looking for who has surviving papers and where they are located. The university where I work seems to have drawn the Balkans. So far we've done well with Montenegro and Bulgaria (a helpful attorney at the Bulgarian ministry of defense gave us a lot the the Bulgarian info), and are about half through with the Romanians and Serbs (as for the Greeks, forget it :lol: ). Just thought some of you might like to know.
Best wishes,
Dr. Richard H.L. Verdun

[Nick]

So, you drew the short straw, eh?

When and where are you going to publish the information you compile? Many thanks for your work, doc!

[Imperial]

Sounds seriously intriguing