This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Number of aircrafts in the swedish Air force during the Cold war[edit]
Curently its stated in the desciption that the Swedish airforce was the fourth largest in the world during a part of the Cold war and that it contained over 3500 armed fighters and attack aircrafts. Its true that Sweden produced a total of 3-4000 aircrafts during the whole Cold war in several generation, but only a fraction of these was active at any point. I found the statement somewhat false. Thoughts?Walle83 (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no brigade units on the blue print from the HQ of the Swedish Armed Forces. Yes there are two offices that are wrongly named Brigade HQ, yet there are no units that this HQ may command efficiently in a fully collaborative fashion and tactically as a Brigade, such with an integrated team structure of several maneuver battalions supported by artillery, air defense, intelligence, logistics, engineering battalions, etc. Those reduced battalions that exists today and may materialize around 2020 may in no way operate as a brigade and may only operate as individual units with no possible ways to support each other, replace each other, or use as reserves. Moreover they may neither interact nor coordinate with each other. Please remove the Brigade as units of 1919. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.54.147 (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every single one of the 128 articles in Category:Militaries is in the form 'Military of country'. Sweden should probably also be. Lets move it back to 'Military of Sweden' •→Iñgólemo←• 04:08, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
No, lets not do that. I think we should move all those articles from their generic "Military of XYZ" to their proper names instead. I guess most militaries have official english names we can use. -- Jniemenmaa 07:13, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Agreeing with Jniemenmaa. Military of country sounds very generic. When an armed force of a country has an official name in English, why not use it? Maybe remove the redirect from Military of Sweden, and write a short article about the history of the SAF and what it has done through the centuries, with links to the proper pages of the Armed Forces, Army, Air Force and Navy? feldgrau 19:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article covers a specific agency of the Swedish government; The Swedish Armed Forces, or Försvarsmakten. Virtually no military activity in Sweden exists outside it. There are other agencies under the ministry of defense however they primarily relate to security policy and defense, and defense is an issue which is wider than military defense. What is really lacking is a comprehensive structure to cover this. However, the main problem seems to be that this information and these articles have not been written yet. A possible stucture for this would be:
Security policy
Security policy by country
Security policy of Sweden
Swedish neutrality
...
Swedish Department of Defense
Swedish Emergency Management Agency
...
Military of Sweden
Swedish Armed Forces
Swedish Army
...
Swedish military history
A Military of Sweden entry would presently be little more than a stub linking to this article and to military history, but perhaps that is needed. Anything more that fits under it? -- Mic 21:48, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Swedish Defence Forces, not Swedish Armed Forces? Sweden has a long tradition of peace, 180+ years and in 1974 we changed from "Krigsmakten" (War-) till "Försvarsmakten" (Defence-). 213.100.43.90 19:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it is correct... In all it´s incorrectness... Perhaps someone should tell them? 213.100.43.90 09:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change "non-navy Marine Forces" to "Naval amphibious forces"[edit]
Under Military Ranks the article says "non-navy Marine Forces" when referring to the Amfibiebataljon. Considering that the Amfibiebataljon is part of the Navy, shouldn't this be renamed to Naval amphibious forces? --Edward Sandstig 22:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the ranks at Swedish Army rank insignia with the table on this page. They do not match.
I have been looking into the ranks, comparing them with the US system, and the ones at Swedish Army rank insignia seems to be more correct, looking at the actual responsibility by the different ranks. Why not just link to the latter page? 216.111.97.126 20:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article you mention does only describe the Swedish Army ranks. The table in this article are for all branches, until better information is available for the other branches, the table should be kept. But yes, keep the translations. The translations in Swedish Army rank insignia article are from an official Swedish Armed Forces publication, so they are correct. Faffia 09:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed these tables because they were plain wrong and not reflecting reality.
Using lang-se (Northern Sami: Försvarsmakten) shows us the wrong language. The language of Sweden is swedish, not northen sami. What can be done about it? (I have not yet an account) 213.113.216.87
That's because the ISO language code for Swedish is sv and not se. Fixed. – Elisson•Talk 11:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta forward this to the Swedish Army HQ as a suggestion for cipher code ;-) Strausszek October 1, 2006 07:40 (CEST)
The no. of personell in the army (mobilized) etc cannot be true.
Reading "The Facts 2006/2007"(PDF). the Armed Forces claims itself having 11.260 regular officers, reserve officers make out an additional 1.603 officers and 9.132 civilian employees (numbers from 31 Dec 2005).
The article (in Wikipedia) claims that the Armed Forces would have a total of 4.500 officers when fully mobilized. So given that the number of officers in peace time exceeds the number of officers in war time, fully mobilized, the conclusion can only be that those numbers in the article are very inaccurate and certainly out of date.
I note however that the numbers, according to the article, are being cited from the magazine Hemvärnet (2007 issue). Although the Home Guard isn't known to get things right... After all, it's the HG that constitue the militia, i.e. the least professional (being regular) soldiers in a mobilized army. I'll have to check my copy of the magazine when I get home from work... :-)
Or is it possible that [a part of] the officers might serve as officers in peace time, like Captains and Lieutenants, but being busted down to Sergant in wartime?
I can understand if the number of available (combat ready) officers might drop the first months, as some of them must spend time training the troops mobilizing. The fact that it takes such a long time to mobilize is not because people are being late to duty, but that they have to be re-trained. The national service is only basic training.
If mobilization was only constitued by putting people in a line to a Army depot and then hand out uniforms and weapons, it doesn't take a year to hand out 20.000-30.000 weapons. They have to be re-trained.
The numbers make sense looking at conscripts and militia (Home Guard). The HG is used to be called in for service within hours, that's what they do pretty much on a day-to-day basis. Thus they are the first to be able to mobilize.
Secondly, about 7.000 regulars (conscripts) can be mobilized (according to the article) within a month. I'd guess that these would be the conscripts presently in service. That leaves 12.000 regulars to mobilize the next months, which would be conscripts from last year etc.
But still, the officers number doesn't add up!
On a side note, in 2006 the no of conscripts drafted was 9.939. That leaves approx. 1.13 officer per conscript. Sweden must be the only country in the world having more officers than conscripts.
Historically there would be more officers close to the troops to make sure the troops did as they were told. If the troops on the other hand could be trusted with tasks, there would be less officers.
Compare to the French 13e DBLE that in 1940 had 55 officers, 210 sous-officers (NCOs), and 1,984 legionnaires. That gives 0,025 officer per legionnaire(+NCO).
So does this mean the Swedish Authorities/HQ doesn't trust the Swedish soldier? :-)
Well I asked the guy who wrote the article, and I got an answer - sort of... He said the numbers was from a paper given to him by ÖB (Supreme Commander), and that probably 10.000 officers are not fit for command(!), because they're simply too old... Well, I have to say, he might be right :) He seemed to agree (he didn't reject) my proposition that the calculations are just for the army, thus not including the Navy or the Air Force, as the numbers of officers, 4500 can be found in both sources. In "The Facts 2006/2007", the number of Regular Army Officers are listed as 4,454.
I may contact HKV/Info (those who don't understand the abbreviation, don't bother...) , as he recommended, for better info on the subject. --Faffia 09:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'
Why are the "reserve" numbers of the Swedish Army mentioned (321 500)? If it takes more than a year to mobilize and there is no plan how to do it is the reserve real or virtual?
In the light of recent events in Georgia and recent talks of Nordic collaboration in defence, I wish there would be some base for that reserve figure. Who would like to have treaty with a country that is talking though to the Russians while having basically abolished their army (creating a 449,964 square kilometers security vacuum in Northern Europe)? Scary reading an article about company and platoon sized units being "mobilized" in times of crisis...
(194.252.5.66 (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The reserve figure is very virtual and means that there is equipment but no personnel to fill those positions. Why it takes 1 year, is because it takes one year to recruit and train personnel. Note that this only includes soldiers and squad leaders. Bear in mind that those square leaders are brand new and far from the squad leaders you find in the USMC or Army with over 5 years of experience. A much more serious factor is that there are no officers capable of commanding platoon, company or higher formations and for them it will take several years to gain sufficient experiences. Thus, besides the Home Guard there will only be a handful companies to defend Sweden during all those years it take to mobilize the rest. .... The information in the table that describes military units and their time for mobilization has been very hard for me to acquire from the Swedish armed forces.
Be realistic, a nation with roughly 9 million people can't win against an amry with the size of Russia's. --94.255.146.181 (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've again removed the "button" logo that was proposed in 2005, but never accepted. I think this page should reflect relevant and up-to-date information about the subject, so I see no reason to keep a years old never-to-be-accepted proposal for a logo.
europrobe 09:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ever since 1982, new officers are not made comissioned officers. I would, therefore, suggest to remove the word comission.
--Malin Lindquist (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though these ranks are in accordance with official translations by the Swedish armed forces, translastions here are meaningless and misleading.
For example, a Swdish Kapten lacks a college degree and may train a platoon of conscripts and in some rare cases even actively command a platoon.
A captain of the USMC/USA, however, has a college degree and actively commands a company.
This reveals the absurdity in translating a Swedish Kapten to Captain.
--Malin Lindquist (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny that you have to go the English wikipedia article to get a proper, wiki standard entry on this subject. The Swedish version is just a bland press released put out by the army.
Generally, as a Swedish journalist based in England and looking at Swedish topics, I find web research very disappointing. There are lots of unreliable blogs instead. Perhaps Sweden is not such an open society as it thinks? pn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.53.252 (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of low quality articles about the Swedish armed forces on wiki pages, which are just bad copies of Swedish Armed forces web pages. Even those official webpages do not give much information. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the tradition of the ministry of defense, before the inception of major wars, is to declare that wars won’t happen again; it would be most interesting to know how defenseless Sweden has become by reading what tiny units Sweden may mobilize now at R10, R30, R90, and R360.
As far as I can see, a mechanized company is ready to roll now, NBG is operation at R10, a couple of mechanized battalions at R90 and the remaining six at R360. I am digging into public documents produced by the Ministry of Defense, FM and Försvarsutskottet, but I don’t get a clear picture. Is this a secret? Any ideas!
Regards,
--Malin Lindquist (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is compleately missleading... First of all, the last officer to become a comissioned officer was prior the
abolishmenet of the system to appoint military personell as comissiond officer (fullmakt) as early as in the end of 1970.
Secondly, ranks are translated the way they related during the 1970s and not what they represent today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malin Tokyo (talk • contribs) 16:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Number of troops ready should be after one year and not after one month. I am correcting this.
--Malin Lindquist (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph should to be more general and include more criticism.
Criticism has existed for many decenniums and the major actor in reducing the Armed forces has been the social democratic party under the leadership of, among others, Goran Person. The article is basically also criticizing, indirectly, his’ own party’s stand on the matter. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Facts are based on mail correspondence with the headquarters of the Swedish Armed Forces with attached documents. Document: 16100:66576 2008-04-09
--Malin Lindquist (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to official English Wikipedia policy, all Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. The passage about Personnel and ranks starting with "The Swedish defense force is an enormous career system for desk officers ..." is not neutral. The passage is infact more or less a translation of parts of a debate articel by two scientists. The article is based on a Ph.D. thesis, but it is nevertheless biased. It is obvious that the opinion of the two scientists is not shared by all and sundry (especially not statements like "The Defense force is preoccupied with providing its officers with high titles, building a nice façade and in changing logotypes"). The passage is thus inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. /B****n (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply regarding your personal opinion about scientists of Goteborg and Lund universites[edit]
Representing significant views fairly
The article is a summation of research paper that has been published and subject to criticism with the participation of leading scientists on the subject. The academic institutions behind those reports (Lund and Goteborg universities) are one of the most respected research institutions in Europa. It is thus based on significant view of the research community. If you have other facts published by first class institutions you should quote and refer to them instead of merely stating your own opinion such as “It is obvious that the opinion of the two scientists is not shared by all and sundry”. What is “obvious”, who are “all”? who are the “others”? You have not cited any first grade public materials that represent your population of “all” or “others”.
Without bias.
The basic principle of published research paper is the absence of biases and the report has passed the most rigorous tests wrt biases in any form.
Translation/Extract
The paragraph does not neccessarily represent my own opinion. You may file complaints regarding my extract/translation and I will correct accordingly, but you should never ever include your personal opinion in wikipeida by deleting parts that don't suit your personal opinion.
The paragraph will remain. If you find errors, then you may correct those, but I don't want any more deletions of entire paragraphs from your side.
First thing first. I have not stated my own opinion on the Swedish armed forces. You don't know anything about my opinion and you should not speak of what you do not know. To accuse me of merely stating my own opinion or imply that I have deleted parts that don't suit my personal opinion is just a vulgar way of diminishing my arguments. A paragraph that isn't consistent with official Wikipedia policy can and should either be rewritten or deleted. You seem to treat this article like your own. I don't need to "file complaints". I'm allowed to edit your contributions myself. It is not relevant that you don't want any deletions of entire paragraphs from my side. I'm allowed to delete a paragraphs if it makes the article better and more neutral.
The referred article is not a summation of research paper. It is a debate article which uses a research paper for support. You haven't cited "any first grade public material" yourself, but only a secondary source. This source is more or less by definition biased, since it is supposed to express the personal view of its authors. Furthermore, the results of social science is not the absolute truth and should not be treated as such. The research paper is just one scientist's view. It should not be treated as a general opinion. We can of course relate the results of the report, but only as one of several possible positions.
I agree with B****n. The current text reads as biased writing from a party who holds a grudge and doesn't stand up to the quality standards we're trying to achieve on WP. It needs to be fixed. For now, I'll add a POV header. Let's try and get this fixed, shall we? Genome82 (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Randstrom's defence, Ydén's views don't seem marginal (a commentator refers to his thesis as "fearless speech", boldly stating conventional wisdom in a new context), and I have nothing against their inclusion. That doesn't mean they should not be attributed inline, though. There's absolutely no reason to say "The Swedish defense force is an enormous career system for desk officers" when we can say "In a 2008 doctoral dissertation, Karl Ydén described the Swedish defense force as an enormous career system for desk officers", etc. -- Jao (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind alternation of the text to better translate what those researchers really say. Since the research is about the Swedish armed forces and is one of the very few unique unbiased description of its personnel; it is valuable source of information for wikipedian articles like this. It is unbiased in the sense that the sponsor is the Government of Sweden and carried out by the most respectable academical institutions in Sweden. What else can you ask for? Information regarding the Swedish armed forces is too often one- sided coming from the Armed forces itself with very little or no proofs at all. What I or we need to do, as indicated by Jao above, is to make those lines as full quotes to emphasis that those do not necessarily represent the opinion of me.--Malin Lindquist (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It makes more sense in the context of the article to move this to a part concerning criticism and just renaming the section to "Ranks". The text needs to be fixed as well, I don't have the time at the moment but I could fix it for you during the weekend if you want me to, the source may be very unbiased as you say, but the current wording of the text most certainly is not.
If you want to indent, by the way, it's done by adding a number of colons at the beginning of the first line of every paragraph in your reply. I took the liberty of doing it for this discussion since it makes it easier to follow. The more you know! :D Genome82 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Genome, I went ahead and put the "critizism and research" and "rank" parts under separate headings. Even though the text appears biased for some; my recommendations is to keep it as close as possible to what those researchers say and/or report. This has been my approach and I have not attempted any filtering of their expressions even if they appear strong. Every help in improvig this is welcomed and I am sure that your contributions will bring it to the next level :) --Malin Lindquist (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, there are other parts of the article that needs fixing ASAP due to outdated information, statements without referenses, etc. Work on those first, please! --Malin Lindquist (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have included figures from the armed forces in the article about ranks. Those figures strengthen those researchers’ statements. Statements such as "enormous" and "desk officers" are reflections on a system with 20,000 officers but hardly any real military units. It raises the question what those officers actually do and whether they have experiences in commanding troops. However, I will not include any conclusions or implications of this as that may be original research. My approach is instead to provide facts and references to those facts. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/artikel_2379547.svd
Svenska Dagbladet states that 38.9 billion SEK will be cut annually from the army until the year 2014 because of the swedish government's news politics. The army will also lose one third of it's current employees. Ameki (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that military spending will be cut from present to 38.9 billion SEK for the entire defense force, not only the army. When the article mentions 8 battalions, those are ready after 360 days. The article is confusing. It states that there will be 6000 employed soldiers and 6000 contracted soldiers, but according to the new ranking system soldiers will all be contracted. I assume that both are contracted, but at different R levels. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have no idea what you just said, I havn't done any military training. I just saw the article while looking through SvD so I just thought it might be interesting for the people on this wiki-page. Ameki (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
R levels mean "Ready" levels. That is, how many days it takes to mobilize. Hope this clarifies! --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those who are interested, employed means full time, contracted means you can perform your ordinary job until called upon.
Why is the Home Defense called milita and not Home Defense? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be called neither. First of all, it's "militia", not milita. Home Defense is a US concept regarding defending ones domicile. The Home Guard is the Home Guard. Home Guard is acceptable military terminology.
Analyzing the unit more closely, it looks like a classic Japanese poorly supported fragmented suicidal battalion on its last mission deep inside a jungle or on an island cut off from all supply lines, artillery, antitank support and insufficent knowledge about the terrain. Isnt this just only a show battalion?
Can anyone add more details how the group is going to be transported? Also, I don't see any antitank weapons except for GRG. An airborne company usuaslly has one Robot 56 platoon and mortar platoon, but as far as I see there is no Robot56 platoon in NBG. The group appears to suffer from the lack of artillery support, medical care, and antitank capabilities. Anyone ?!?
--Malin Lindquist (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We would if you actually were interested, but, alas, the article would revert as it would not support your prejudices. Also, anyone with half a real interest would be able to find that information.
You can't have analyzed it very closely if you so utterly failed to grasp the basic concept of the Battle Group especially since every pamphlet/magazine article that the army sent out concerning it adressed the issues you didn't understand. And from your description of it I am starting to believe that you are a mere troll who is simply looking for a heated argument. But you have half a point the NBG 08 was a practice run to see what it would take to setup a battle group in Sweden after the training period it was serving as one of two rapid reaction battalions standing in readyness in the european union.
In case you missed the torrent of information spewed from HQ (well you do live in Japan) I will provide you with two links in Swedish but that should not pose a problem for you since you seem to understand it well.
You can find the organisation and some additional information for NBG 08 here: NBG 08
Is there any reason why the "National military infobox" isn't used. If not, I suggest a change.GBPY (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I´ve now added the infobox. Figures are taken from the "CIA world factbook" and the official webpage of the swedish armed forces.
GBPY (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks’, This info box looks much better and seem accurate.
Regarding conscription: You basically only serve, if you want to and the conscription based system will officially end soon.
Yeah I was unsure about that one but since it´s still officially based on conscription I think we should keep it.GBPY (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moving parts of the beginnning to personnel-section[edit]
I suggest we move the more detailed information about the strength of the armed forces to the Personnel-section. Thus the introduction will be more reader-friendly IMO. //GBPY (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at your changes and they are looking good... it looks better this way, thanks.
Hans Engstrom has inserted a box on the top where he states "confict of interests"... Is this relevant?
He has inserted this kind of boxes and dispute boxes on lots of articles that do not have any discussions at all.
Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rustm%C3%A4stare -- This is what the article reads: "Rustmästare is a former Swedish rank that literally means the one responsible for the armory" and for this he inserted a full load of boxes. Boxes refer to the dicussion forum, which is empty.
There were no girls when I served in light infantry. I got a 9 on my condition tests at the examination facilities, but still the service was very tough for me and it is hard to imagine girls being able to go through the same stuff as I did. Upon this, cavalry is even harder, harder than my training in the infantry. How is it possible to have girls undertaking training in the cavlary? I am very interested. Are they really doing OK? Please educate me on this case I am very interested especially since I am a transsexual woman, who has lost all her muscles due to female hormone injections. Being as weak as an average girl, I cant carry heavy stuff anymore. Is serving the cavalry a piece of cace these days or are there lots of strong boyz around to assist those girls by carrying their stuff! Thanks :)
--Malin Lindquist (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment, whilst sexist and stupid, does serve the useful fact to prove that you are out of touch completely with the current training, roles, capabilities and policies of the Swedish Armed Forces.
However, since someone might be interested, the answer is that few qualify, fewer pass through training, but those that do, do just fine. Besides, cavalry (learn to spell), is more than rangers, as anyone who actually knew the current strucutre of the Armed Forces would be aware of.
Stop those unpleasant comments since you don't have anything useful to say. You seem full of hate --Malin Lindquist (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're insulting a whole group of military personnel who daily risk their lives in places such as Afghanistan. Carrying their weight. I
wonder if you understand how unpleasant your opinions actually are.
You are turning this into an emotional political discussion. We are trying to describe an organization here. If you want to earn money as a soldier and risk your life, it's your own private matters. No one has asked them to, contrary many are against using taxpayers money to pay for this. If you want money to be spent abroad instead of on defending Sweden, then it is your own political opinion which a majority of Swedes don't share..... I have in no way described the situation in Afganistan, I have informed you that rifle squadleaders in Swedish units in Afganistan will have the rank Corporal and that a similar role in Sweden is held by a First Sergeant. Simply, Corporal(abroad) = First Sergeant(Sweden) -- thats all. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're the one who is out of touch. Read the referenced website. Corporal in Sweden, Corporal abroad.
It's just a conclusion: physical requirments for serving cavalry (K3,K4) today seems lower than requirements for serving light arctic infantry during the 1980s. A don't think squads with girls from K4 or K3 today can ski as long as we did with all the equipment - no way. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On what do you base that conclusion? Original research?
Agian, what do you base your comments on? Your experience working with fenale conscripts at K3 and K4? Your intimate knowlkedge of how selection is performed?Hans Engstrom (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is, I believe, the latest numbers regarding Swedens military readiness. I dont have time to update the article right now, but I'm sure Malin does. [1]
Europrobe: I cannot find a readiness report as of 2009-01-10. Your link points to the following units at R90. This is the closest we have so far and I will include those units in the table and revise it later when I get hold of more precise information. One mechanized compnay in the mech battalion may be counted twice, once at R30 and once at R90.
Army: 2 mechanized battalions, 1 engineering company, 1 tank company, 1 mechanized company, 1 air-defense platoon, 1 jaeger platoon, MP unit, CBRN unit, artillery location squad, special unit. Navy: Part of amphibious battalion, two corvettes ships, two mine destroyer ships, one submarine, and support boats. Air force: Airbase unit APOD, air combat wing JAS39, air-transport unit Tp82, surveillance airplanes S102B,
The article referenced (in its english version, so all can read it, ) states that "The following units are registered with UNSAS (United Nations Standby Arrangements System) and the NATO/Partnership for Peace (PfP) Planning and Review Process (PARP) at 30 days notice, as well as with the EU with a high state of readiness:
• Special units
• Mechanised company
The following units are registered with the UNSAS and PARP at 90 days notice as well as with the EU at medium notice:
• Mechanised battalion
• Engineer company
• Military Police unit
• CBRN response force
• Artillery location radar group
• Ranger platoon
• Corvette division with two corvettes and support vessel
• Mine clearance division consisting of two MCMV mine countermeasures vessels and support vessel and a submarine with support unit
• Amphibious battalion (part)
• Combat aircraft division JAS 39
• Transport aircraft unit Tp 84
• SIGINT aircraft S102B
• Airborne Surveillance and Control group ASC 890 as from 1 January 2010
• Armoured company with transport platoon
• Light mechanised battalion
• Air defence platoon
• Tactical Air Control party (TACP) as from 1 January 2010
• Air point of disembarkation (APOD)
The following unit is registered with the UNSAS and PARP force registers at 360 days notice as well with the EU at long notice:
• Operational command and control unit (F)HQ
The following units are registered with the EU as rotatable units at a low state of readiness:
• Mine clearance division consisting of two MCMV mine countermeasures vessels and support vessel
• Amphibious battalion (part)
• Light mechanised battalion"
It does not state that these are the only units available, as you have implied.
Amongst many other units, there are the following:
4 Battle Group command units (equivalent to NBG2008 (F)HQ)
6 mechanized battalions
2 light mechanized battalions
2 artillery battalions
3 AD battalions
1 Airmobile battalion
1 Air Force base protection battalion
2 Naval Base defense battalions
1 Security battalion
60 Home Guard battalions
etc. etc.
Give up yet?
Hans Engstrom (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question is how far we can go including possible units that Sweden may create in the future.
I have included all units that are ready within 90 days. Dear sisters, that is a very long time to be considred part of what Sweden has in terms of troops for defending itself considering how the world looks like now... but, ok, lets report them... For units that Sweden may create in one to three years time, personnel needs to be trained from scrach during a period of one to three years. Well, any nation can claim having huge armies under such conditions. Look how Germany, Japan and the US could create lots and lots of divisions withn a year before and during WWII... Includng units that Sweden may be able to produce in three years time won't help in a comparision between the Swedish Armed Forces relatively to ohter natiolns that report current standing troops or troops that are avaialbe after some days of mobilization. Right! --Malin Lindquist (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really now, aren't you being a bit more ridiculous than usual. The units that I have listed and that I have referenced, exist. Just like every unit since the conscript system began has existed in a rediness state. You have argued that all 18000 or so officers have no units to command, I have posted proof that there are units for them to command, units which they are assigned to. These are not units that will be created from nothing. There readiness state are a result of a series of decisions regarding how equipment is to be stockpiled, wether or not officers may fulfill other requirements in peacetime, and so on. I have proven that you consistently falsify information regarding the officer corps of the Swedish Army. I'd love to see you dare to do the same thing in a discussion regarding the Finnish Army, which also has varying degrees of readiness. Your selective quoting of documents, whilst amusing, is wearing thin.
None of the people you vilify dispute that, as a cosnequence of the restrucuturing of the Armed Forces, we have too many officers with high rank, and not enough at a lower rank. However, to claim that the Armed Forces do not exist is merely the act of a simpleton.
Hans Engstrom (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t really understand what you try to say. You repeated the R90 units that I listed and you are referring to a system that could mobilize brigades within days, which existed 25 years ago. The invasion defense system does not exist anymore. To run the Army part of the war organization at R90 requires not more than 150 officers. Keep in mind, that those officers will never command those units as compared with officers in other countries, who are commanding troops today. Does the size of the Army really justify having 18,656 officers + 700 officer candidates? How do all those officers maintain their skills when there are barely any troops to practice with? What if we get rid of say 17,000 officers just keeping the most suitable for commanding troops, ships, piloting our planes? ... what will be the impacts of the ability to defend Sweden? My guess is that such a cut will have no negative impact. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I repeated the units you mentioned, and then explained why they were singled out in reports (due to their being held at readiness for NATO, UN and EU. Then I enumerated some of the other units available in less than one year.
4 Battle Group command units (equivalent to NBG2008 (F)HQ)
After 90 days Sweden may moblize 2 battalions and in 1 and 3 years time it may crate some more. After 3 - 6 years more and after 6 - 9 years even more. -- where is the end?
If the US spends 1-3 year in producing as many military units as posssible, how many will there be? Do they publish such info?
Read the directives form the Government I posted a link too. It's not a question of what we could produce, but what we have trained, equipped and set in storage. These units could immeditely be set at R30 if the funds were released from the Swedish MoD.
If I included units who could exist, thre'd be many more. We have the equipment and the personnel for it. There exists equipment for 3 armoured brigades if we wanted to create them. The equipment exists (160 MBTs, several hundred combat vehicles and APCs, personnel trained during the last 10 years and enough officers to man them.
Now, read through the links I'm posting slowly, and either change the article, or I'll change it for you.
All references are to http://www.mil.se/upload/dokumentfiler/regleringsbrev/regleringsbrev_08.pdf
Regeringsbeslut
-Regeringen beslutar att följande skall gälla under budgetåret 2008 för
Försvarsmakten och nedan angivna anslag. (page 1)
-Under 2008 ska insatsorganisation ha
en utformning och beredskap som framgår nedan. (page 5 and onwards to page 11)
Hans Engstrom (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easy boy and pls indent your posts
If it states 30, 90 or 360, it means 30, 90, or 360 and nothing less. If war breaks out, then all poosible funds will be used to get peps to fight.
In the section about Swedish miltary personnel we should only include fully trained personnel who fill roles today or in the war-organization.
Pool of people that needs training don't count and should part of the military box above.
As far as I know, only R90 units have fully trained personnel. 360+R units don't.
Forget about those brigades ,,, ha ha,,, I wish we had our NBs thou .. that was a joke, right?
Note. I am not 100% sure about my statment that all those R360+ units consists of equimpent only -- sister, this is for you to find out -- don't forget the refernce where I may have a look? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wheter there are trained personnel for those mobilized units needs clarifications.
The rank furir needs clarification... Furir was either a soldier, soldier with a specialization or deputy squad leader.
the translation from Fanrik to 2Lt needs clarifications and proofs.
The roles of a Korpral and Forste Sergeant are in most the same. First Sergeant may also be set to lead a squad that requires specalized knowledge. references need to be added.
Home Defense should be separated from the regular troops table and the usage of the term battalion clarifyed. Battalion in HD terms is an Home Defence area and not a maneuver unit. The number of battalions (areas) will be reduced to 30.If no references or proofs are given, I will recommend the entry to be removed.
Any unit at R360 or less will have recently trained conscripts assigned to it, there is a reason why we train 7000 soldiers a year.
I'm not sure I understand what your point is regarding Furir.
It's the central bone of contention between us, well, actually between you and everybody else.
What references would you wish to have. I posted the requiremnts by rank for Afghanistan elsewhere.
It's been some 10 years since the Home Guard abandoned a purely geographical AoR. Every battalion is able to move 300km per 24 hour period.
Reducing to 30 battalions is set to happen in the future. Kep the table updated as the changes occur. currently, there are some 60 Home Guard battalions.
It's Home Guard, a standard military term. Where do you get Home Defense from, that's the concept of shooting peoprle who trespass.
In the text under the table with the available units, it says that an Air Force Division is 8 aircraft and and that a Navy Division is 6 ships. The Navy part is not true, most divisions has 2, 4 or even 1 ship. No division has 6 ships today.
31. korvettdivisionen (31st Corvette Squadron) has 2+2 ships, HMS Stockholm and HMS Malmö active and HMS Göteborg and HMS Kalmar inactive and set to be decommissioned.
32. korvettdivisionen (32nd Corvette Squadron) is inactive, but is set to have 2 or 3 ships of Visby class.
33. minröjningsdivisionen (33rd Mine Hunting Division) is a bit unclear now, but they operate HMS Styrsö, HMS Sturkö and a number of Koster class minehunters. HMS Styrsö is set to be decommissioned this year.
34. underhållsdivisionen has one ship, HMS Trossö.
41. korvettdivisionen (41st Corvette Squadron) has 2 ships, HMS Gävle and HMS Sundsvall.
42. minröjningsdivisionen (42nd Mine Hunting Division) has four ships at the moment. HMS Arholma, HMS Koster, HMS Skaftö and HMS Spårö. HMS Skaftö will be replaced by a Koster class minehunter after this summer.
43. underhållsdivisionen has one ship, HMS Visborg.
The 1st Submarine Flottila doesn't use the division organisation, from what I know.
About the Air Force. I read that one proposal for future organisation was 3 divisions within 60 air craft in total. Even if some are used for training, it seems that a normal division is a bit larger then 8. This is just speculation though. 83.251.229.73 (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Navy and Ariforce pars where put added by Hans Engstrom -- I am focused on getting the Army part correct 'case I am an Army girl.
Good observations -- can you correct the information about those Navy Divisions?
It is common to use the word command or commander when refering to company or higher formations. For example, squad leader and not squad commander; platoon leader, not platoon commander. I hope that Hans Engstrom can correct those himself. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In english parlance, Commander as a military title
In the British Army, the term "commander" is officially applied to the non-commissioned officer in charge of a section (section commander), vehicle (vehicle commander) or gun (gun commander), to the subaltern or captain commanding a platoon (platoon commander), or to the brigadier commanding a brigade (brigade commander). Other officers commanding units are usually referred to as the Officer Commanding (OC), Commanding Officer (CO), General Officer Commanding (GOC), or General Officer Commanding-in-Chief (GOC-C), depending on rank and position, although the term "commander" may be applied to them informally. (from Wikipedia)
What Malin is saying is true for the US Army. 83.251.229.73 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point being? We are members of the European Union, not the United States. English as spelled and spoken in the United Kingdom is the reference in translations.
It is not irrelevalt as it proves that you have not red any books on army tactics published by English speaking nations. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It proves nothing of the sort. Rather, as I mentioned, British English is waht we translate Swedish into. US Army terminology is not a world standard by any means, nor is it accepted as such by other english speaking nations. Whereas the US Army reserves the title "commander" to an officer commanding a combat team, the British use commander at squad level.Hans Engstrom (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was a reform for employed personnel only with no impact on conscript officers or reserve officers. During peace time, employed personnel called officers were drilling recruits or working as administrators and the hours spend in leading troops was not very different from hours conscript officers spent during their repeated exercises. To become a conscript officer, you had to scores very high on the aptitude, IQ and leadership tests and have a high GPA from a good school. Therefore, the track to become conscript officer was much faster than professional officer. Those requirements were waived for Professional officers.
--Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The top 4-5% of conscripts annualy were selected for KB (platoon command school). OHS required KB selection or GBS (squad command school) with FOK (Förberedande Officers kurs, preparatory officer course). FOK was also required for officer candidates who were not rifle or anti-tank platoon command trained (ie mortar KBS until 1987, after that also logistics KBS).
I firmly reject the suggestion that professional officers had less knowledge and less experience than conscript officers.
What little you know! KBS stands from Kompanibefalsskolan, which is Company Commander School in English. OHS required GBS. Logistic leaders such as company quartermasters were PBS (Platoon Commander School) grade. You have to understand that the purpose of KBS was to produce commanders for the war organization and OHS (NCO course) to produce instructors (drill serges) for the peace organization. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why were these "administrators" participating in excercises as platoon and company commanders, then? europrobe (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, as you should know, Company Commanders School is incorrect. Command at Company level (ie platoon command) is what KBS taught.Hans Engstrom (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got you! KadS taught up to battalion level tactics and cadets were trained to command company level formations. However, they were placed as platoon leaders in the war org. Please ask anyone who is a former KBS cadet. What kind of KadS did you go through? Not in Umea, that's for sure. Can you locate the tactics sandbox in Umea? Where is it? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, find one other KB elev who thinks they were taught to command a company and I will recuse myself from the debate. Also, you moron, as I have stated, I was KB at I5, which was in which MILO? KadS for MILO NN was where?Hans Engstrom (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a volunteer militia organization for defending their homes, looking for lost people, assisting during disasters, and protecting surrounding facilities from sabotage. The organization practices a couple of weekends every year. I would like to move those 60 so called "battalions" to a separate section that describes volunteer organizations with a military profile. OK?! --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be correct. The Home Guard battalions are military units that belongs to their different training regiments and are thus considered a part :of the Army (even those who has another kind of unit as training unit). I'd be the first to agree that the Home Guard battalions need a lot more :equipment and training to function at their best, but the SAF considers them military units.
The frivilligorganisationer like Försvarsutbildarna, FRO, SVK, Lottakåren and so on are volunteer organizations with a military profile. 83.251.229.73 (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Malin is the only one claiming that commission must equal fullmakt, I removed that artificial distinction.
Hans Engstrom (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the closest translation. The origin is exactly the same if you read your history more carefully. Swedish officers received a letter from the King the same way as officers in the US received a letter from the President granting them a commission (fullmakt). There are two categories officers in Sweden today: comissioned officers (graduates from War College) = those who are trained solely to command troops and have a formal letter that declares them as comissioned officer; and Non Comissioned Officers (graduates from OHS) = those who are trained to drill conscript recruits and have an ordinary enlistment (employment) certificate. The former category has an education that is equivalent of a University degree today (Student examen) and the latter category an education that corresponds to the first year of high school (se B-math level). Swedish OHS graduates are thus very far from meeting the scholastic requirements set out for being comissioned in the US, Britain and most other countries. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is your contention, and up to you to prove. Fullmakt was a form of employment.Hans Engstrom (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the correct translation. Graudates from the OHS course are NCOs and their lines of duties are classifyed as NCO jobs even thought every one in the Swedish Armed forces were given old officer ranks as of 1983. Don't change the article unless you have sufficient evidences.
Sorry Malin, Hans is right and you are wrong. Ghostrider (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is meaningless. Wiki is based on facts and not on your opinion. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking, right? Everything you write is based on your opinion. Have you noticed that no editor has ever supported your contentions?Hans Engstrom (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hans, I think you're right in your last comment. Malins opinion is that it should be based on her opinion. Ghostrider (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Swedish system with Officers employed with fullmakt has nothing to do with being a commissioned officer or not, it’s a special form of employment, fullmaktsanställning. If employed with fullmakt you couldn’t be fired or forced to resign unless you had been found guilty of a serious crime, you where employed until the legal retirement age. This system of fullmaktsanställning was used for professors, judges and part of the officers, it was a safe-guard system to ensure that a single minority government couldn’t purge the educational, legal and military system to paw the way for a totalitarian government, like in Germany in the 1930’s. The system is still at use for new judges today, but is no longer in use for officers and professors.Magnus242 (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malin, what do you have to say about this quote from Nordisk Familjebok(1892)
Regementschefen utnämner till sergeant någon af manskapet, som aflagt föreskrifna kunskapsprof, och förser honom med konstitutorial. Inom två år kan sergeanten afskedas, men erhåller, om detta icke skett, fullmakt och kan sedan icke aflägsnas utan efter laga dom eller for undergångna bestraffningar. Till fanjunkare utnämner regementschefen sergeanter på grund af ådagalagd duglighet.
Was a Swedish sergeant or fanjunkare a commissioned officer? They had a fullmakt so according to your logic it's the only possible translation.
Now, about the academic requirements for officer education. You claim that Swedish standard are below those of the "US, UK and most other countries" I couldn't find the requirements of RMAS but the USMA web page says the following
To prepare yourself for the academic curriculum at West Point, you should complete four years of English with a strong emphasis on composition, grammar, literature and speech; four years of college preparatory mathematics, to include algebra, geometry, intermediate algebra, and trigonometry as a minimum; two years of a foreign language; two years of a laboratory science such as chemistry and physics, and one year of U.S. history, including courses in geography, government and economics. If your school includes a course in precalculus and calculus in its curriculum, and a basic computing course, these courses will be helpful in preparing you for your first year at West Point.
That is, calculus is NOT a requirement as you have claimed. To study the "krigsvetenskaplig" and "nautisk" programme, Swedish high school maths course B(trigonometry) is required. To study the "militärteknisk" programme you also need the C course(calculus). In what way are then the Swedish officer cadets "very far from meeting" the requirements of other countries? Perhaps you should show us some proof! Why don't you compile a list of academic requirements for entry to the Military Academy of 10-15 countries and compare them to FHS. If such a list shows that the requirements of FHS are much lower than what is normal in industrialised nations, then you might have a point.--Stulfsten (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is far from being the truth. MathB does not contain any trigonometry and the most advanced geomoetrical formula is the basic Phytagoras formula. Math B corresponds to primary education in most nations. --122.249.239.124 (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you completely ignored the substance of the post which was that
1. Your reasoning regarding the fullmakt=commission issue is wrong, as evidenced by Magnus comments and the fact that sergeant also had fullmakt.
2. You have provided no proof whatsoever that Swedish officer education has lower standards than normal. Nor have you provided any proof that calculus at the tertiary or even secondary level is a normal requirement for officer education.
However, you are right that there is no trigonometry in Matte B. It is in fact in the A course, for those students studying the studieförberedande(college preparatory) education at high school.
Again, dont missuse the term comissioned officer[edit]
There is no point in calling officers in Sweden for commissioned officers for the purpose of clarification, since the term officer in Sweden includes all NCO, WO and CO. The definition of an officer according to Swedish law is simply: “A serviceman employed by the Swedish Defense Forces with lowest rank set to Fanrik”. There are 18,710 officer and 770 troops and all Fanrik/Lotjant and most Kapten/Major/Övlt serve as NCOs, thus calling them commissioned officers is very confusing.
An officer with fullmakt was an officer who received a letter from the Swedish king granting him special privileges to use force in order to achieve military objectives. He was furnished with the right to employ soldiers and NCOs to staff his company. In Sweden, officers with fullmakt were commissioned to serve at least as 3ic or 2ic of a company. This is also the original meaning of commissioning officers in the US and Briton except that commissions is granted by the President in the US instead of a King. Kapten and Captain have the same origin yes, but are totally different today. Presently, the title Kapten in Sweden denotes length of service and a Kapten may serve as a single soldier as seen in the Kongo expedition and as teamleader (of 5 men) as seen in Afghanistan. Kapten is thus not really a military rank, but a title given serviceman having spent about 5 years in the military.
“Förordnad som” does not mean “commissioned as” in the context of military personnel. You may be förordnad as private in the Swedish home defense, but I have never heard something like: “he/she was commissioned as private in the Home Guard by the president.”
--Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Admission requirements for officer schools at primary school level[edit]
The scholastic admission requirements are basically at primary education level. That is, below High School. Thus, FHS should not be regarded as tertiary education, but rather as High School. Still, FHS should not be regarded as even High School since graduates still lack Math C, D and E.
Specialist Officers School = Math B = Primary School
Officers School (FHS) = Math B = Primary School
Technical Officers School (FHS)= Math C = First year of secondary school (High School)
Math B Primary school (Functions, Straight line equations, Conjugation)
Math C High School 1st year (Exponential functions, Pythagoras Theorem, polynomials)
Math D High School 2nd year (Logarithms, Trigonometry, Integration, Derivation)
Math E High School 3rd year (Imaginary numbers, Differential equations, vector algebra, mat stat)
That the Swedish Armed forces has a lot of officers is mostly a remnant of the cold war, and of the fact that until recently there was the "enbefälssystemet". The large number of officers was needed for tasks that would have been performed by other ranks in other militaries. And the "700 troop" statement is very misleading, since there are thousands more soldiers in the armed forces. I imagine that "700 troops" would mean the number that is currently serving abroad, which ignores all the troops in training, and all the troops on vacation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Europrobe (talk • contribs) 17:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During the one-personnel-category-system, permanently employed soldiers, NCO, WO and CO were all named officers and given officers ranks. That explains partly the huge population of officers. The drastic reduction of troops that began in the beginning of 1980 ending up with almost no troops today did not stop The Swedish Defense Forces from hiring officers and promoting officers to phony higher ranks. Most of the officers who served during the 70s are now retired, thus the excuse of having a legacy (remnant) cadre of active officers from this period is no longer valid.
It's not the individuals that I'm referring to, but the system of manning the forces which until recently was a remnant of the cold war.
Do you mean the remnant of the NBO(1983) system? The system that existed prior that assumed an Army of 1000 battalions. Is that the system you refer to? --122.249.239.124 (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as peace time and war time ranks. Ranks are ranks.
Not really. As I'm sure you are aware, soldiers and officers going abroad will receive a temporary rank based on their command position and duties during that service.
As far as I know, officers keep their rank and salary (times 1.3 plus 8000) when sent on missions abroad regardless of the position they are set to serve in. peace-time-rank = war-time-rank = rank-abroad = rank. So, let’s drop the peace part! --Malin Lindquist (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not correct. Most of the time, the "temporary rank" will be the same as their regular rank, but when assigned a position where their current rank is considered "inappropriate", they will have their rank changed. Consider an experienced (peace time) lieutenant being assigned platoon commander. He (or she) may very well receive the temporary rank of captain during his service. I have witnessed this first hand on several occations.
So, let's not drop the peace part! europrobe (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Captain in most major countries is a rank for Company Commander, First Lieutenant a rank for deputy Company Commander and Second Lieutenant a rank for platoon leaders. Thus, to temporarily promote a Lieutenant to Captain because it is more appropriate that platoon leaders have the rank Captain, does not make sense at all. Would it be necessary to adjust the rank according to position, in accordance with international standards; it should make more sense to temporarily demote the subject to Second Lieutenant. Besides, I have never heard of temporary ranks of Swedish professional military personnel serving abroad. Please provide proofs of your claim by including references. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following passage lacks references and is just an assumption: the assumption being that having an application for a course granted would be a reward for relative competency and good service record.
Well, it's my personal experience that courses are used as a reward for good service.
The following paragraph is therefore, what I recommend
However, the meanings of Swedish ranks remain fundamentally different from major NATO members. For example, US ranks are assigned based on command position of actual units. Swedish ranks, on the other hand, on length in service and completed courses. This has resulted in a very high officers per troops ratio; which is evident considering that there are 18,710 active officers and 770 standing troops. Sweden may, however, after 30 to 90 days of full mobilization of conscripts create two battalions (600 troops each) and eight companies (120 troop each).
That paragraph completely ignores the fact that the officers are used for training the troops that will one day be placed into reserves or deployed abroad. We are talking about almost 8000 conscript troops during 2009 wich you do not even mention! It is very misleading to simply count the number of troops that are presently deployed or in reserve. Also, officers are used for a great many tasks besides simply commanding troops, wich I'm sure you know. Whether this is good or bad is another discussion, and not subject for an encyclopedia. europrobe (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are partly correct, however, the task of an officer (OF) is to command troops or to act ass HQ officers in combat/battle units, not to train them. Training is delegated to NCOs. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be your opinion on what the officers should be doing, but that's just not the way the Swedish Armed Forces have chosen to organize itself. Since there have been no NCOs until recently, regular officers have been assigned to those tasks. If you don't like it, feel free to start your own army. europrobe (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose is to describe the Swedish military for others to understand. A way to effectively convey what it is like is to describe it relative relatively to other nations. In that way, readers will appreciate how very different the Swedish Defense Forces is, as a result of how it has chosen to structure itself.
There are hardly any troops in Sweden and the huge legacy surpluses of officers are seated in front of desks. Some very few lucky ones are drilling recruits as NCOs, though. If regular officers are trained to work as NCO, work as NCO and have the same responsibility as a NCO, then they are simply regarded as pure NCOs abroad. That Swedish military personnel have very high officers ranks is because they love having them, no other reason. Simple as that! --Malin Lindquist (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)--Malin Lindquist (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree in principle that there has been rank inflation and that ranks and command positions no longer correspond to for example WWII standards, or the 750,000 organisation that theoretically (it was never tried...) could have been mobilised by Sweden during the cold war. However, the essence of your assertions seem to be that the current situation in Sweden is vastly different from the actual current situation in other countries. Is that based on reliable sources actually making these comparisons across a representative sample of countries? My impression is that there are in fact many more highly inflated armed forces in the western world than you seem to think... Tomas e (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minor rank inflation in the USA and the UK
Officers: In the UK, the rank Major has become a rank for Company Commander and Captain a rank for the second in command. Moreover, I have heard that Colonel may act as battalion commander. That's all. The USA, on the other hand, has not experienced any inflation of their officer’s ranks since the creating of their Armed forces, except for an increase in officers serving in battalion/brigade/division head quarters. NCO: No rank inflation in the USMC and the BA. The US Army has faced rank inflation from corporal to staff sergeant as a rank for squad leaders. That's basically it.
The difference must be considered more than wast: As you may know, Swedish rank inflation has been so severe that ranks now lacks relevance as military ranks. For example, In the UK, the rank captain has fallen from being a Company Commander rank to a rank for deputy Company Commanders. Swedish Captains and Majors, on the other hand, have fallen all the way to the bottom as they don't command any troops at all. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When will you realize that your notion of how ranks "should" be used, just is not the way the Swedish army has chosen to organize. There is simply no facts to support your claim that the ranks are no longer relevant "as military ranks", just a heap of your own opinion. Please, by all means, start your own blog about your opinion-of-the-day regarding the Swedish armed forces, but do not use Wikipedia for that. Go ahead, why not start your own army and organize it the way you see fit?
Ok, maybe I'm pushing it, but just imagine claims such as yours appearing in traditional encyclopedias. It would never happen, just because they are encyclopedias! As I'm sure you've heard, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.europrobe (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be very confused about the subject under discussion and why I am doing all this efforts in explaining how the Swedish Defense Forces is organized. By no means, I am telling how it should look like; I am comparing it to classic ways militaries are organized to make it easier for readers to understand. We basically don’t know what a Swedish Kapten, Major, and Överstelöjtnant are other than that they differ in length of service. If none of them have commanded troops, or acted as HQ officer and are currently not having such a role, what are they really? Can u explain? No, you cannot! Consider the following picture and you'll get an idea of what I mean:
Most staff in the Swedish Armed Forces are officers unlike staff in other traditional military organizations. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the conscript system winds down and our first professional soldier for some time sign their contracts (actually receive their orders, no signing is done) it is time for this article to be completely redone.
Currently it shows the wrong distribution of personel, the mobilization schedule is extremely outdated (IO12 should be shown, as well as IO14), and there are various strange assertions popping up out of the blue.
Additionally, we can perhaps find a strucutre where Malins ludicrous assertions can more easily be removed (I note the claim that she/he is very familiar with the British Army, but she/he still can't spell Britain).
We could perhaps start this work after JC10, when some 5000 nonexistent soldiers will be on exercises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.71.1 (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot point out mistakes in the current article backed up by evidences, then what you state is meaningless.
The mobilization schedule is correct according to the most recent reports published by the Swedish Armed Forces February, 2010. The distribution of personnel is correct as of 2009 and we are not going to include troops Sweden desires to have 2014, 2019 or whatever, especially when there is no budget for realizing those political desires. We should only include what exist and rely on official reports from the Swedish Government and not on what’s on your wishful mind.
It is true that the last cadre of conscripts will graduate this year, but no one has been hired so far as a professional solider (serving under AGSS or KGSS agreements)to be part of the new IO14 and IO19 (25 battalions and 12 companies).
Your sarcastic statement,”non existent”, is pointless. JC10 (Joint Challenge 2010) involves 4,500 troops (not 5,000 as you say) and is an exercise where the home guard and ALL the ground force units in Sweden participate. The number of troops is consistent with the number of staff as reported by the article, so what's your point? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
193.241.245.8 (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Sorry, this isn't vandalism. As I speak, IE10 is in full swing, all of whose soldiers are under contract. The 2009 reports are completely outdated, and actual numbers are availble on request.[reply]
The numbers reflect annual reports released by the Swedish Defense Forces [| Annual report 2010-02-19 ]. If you find any errors, please let us know. The number of First Sergeants may seem strange (I do find it strange) but that is the number according to the reports. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Försvarsmakten literary means Defence-power, a suitable translation would be Defence forces. So why not call the article "Swedish Defence Forces"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.250.131 (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation make sense and I fully support your point. Malin Lindquist--110.4.233.122 (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sweden doesnt have ministries it has departments. The difference is that in a ministry the minister in charge is the chief of the authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.250.131 (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the offical English language translation for "Försvarsdepartementet" isMinistry of Defence, according to Utrikes namnbok published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Although I agree with the Swedish language nuance you raised, the fact is that Wikipedia is not the place to change established facts. RicJac (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article needs a lot of rework, im a contracted soldier in the Swedish Armed Forces and the Swedish Armed Forces is undergoing a lot of change and is in great turmoil right now. What was true a year ago is not true any more. I whould rather see the article being shorter and easier to overlook with clear structure tables (see article on Netherlands Armed Forces and their Army). And the base for the organisational structure should be IO14.
It is also disturbing to see that a heavy contributor to this article is Malin Lindquist known from forums such as "flashback" for her very negative stance against the proffesional army, sure im not a fan of the changes the army has gone thru but this article should not be based on a biased writer.
Secondly i refrain from writing anything in this article since im not used to editting wikipedia articles.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Swedish Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Structure of the Swedish Armed Forces in 1989[edit]
I created the article Structure of the Swedish Armed Forces in 1989, which contains a complete overview of the Swedish Armed Forces in 1989. The information comes from Arméhandboks of the army, from the Swedish wiki, and from government defense bills. As far as I can tell army and air force are complete and 100% correct. As for the navy: all in 1989 commissioned ships are listed, but some flotillas and divisions are missing. The coastal artillery is nearly complete, although there are some of the Spärrbataljon and Rörliga Spärrbataljon missing. Also missing for all three services are some of the schools. The Home Guard is missing as I could not find info on the ~85 battalions the Home Guard would field. Also missing are the designations/numbers/locations of the independent artillery, engineer, signal, air defense, etc. battalions that would be activated in war (except for the 3x Bandkanon 1 battalions of Milo ÖN). Even though these parts are missing, this is the most comprehensive/detailed/full listing of Swedish forces in 1989 ever.
However: if you have some more information, especially about the above mentioned stuff that is missing, please feel free to add this information to the article, or leave a message with the info on my talk page. Thank you, noclador (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
