Talk:Swedish Armed Forces

Swedish Armed Forces to Military of Sweden?

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)

Yes, it's Försvarsmakten in Swedish, but for some reason the English name is "Swedish Armed Forces"; see http://www.mil.se/?lang=E -- Jao 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So it is correct... In all it´s incorrectness... Perhaps someone should tell them? 213.100.43.90 09:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Change "non-navy Marine Forces" to "Naval amphibious forces"

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)

Change the table to look like this

Military Servie and Home Defence Ranks
Swedish	English US Army	English British Army
Sergeant	Sergeant	Corporal
Furir	Corproal, Private First Class	Lance Corporal
Korpral	Trainee
Menig	Private

Rationale:

• Classifications such as “underofficer” and “underbefal” were abolished some 30 years ago.
• No military personnel with the rank of Fanjunkare, Overfurir, Vice Korpral anyomore
• Sergeant does not correspond to Master Sergeant, Furir to Sergeant, and Korpral to Corporal.

I removed these tables because they were plain wrong and not reflecting reality.

Discussion - ranks

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)

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)

I removed these tables because they were plain wrong and not reflecting reality.

lang-se is wrong

Using lang-se (Template:Lang-se) 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)

Gotta forward this to the Swedish Army HQ as a suggestion for cipher code ;-) Strausszek October 1, 2006 07:40 (CEST)

The Numbers...

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? :-)

Faffia 04:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

' 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))

• 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.

--Malin Randstrom (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Logo proposal

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)

The use of the word Comission (fullmakt)

Ever since 1982, new officers are not made comissioned officers. I would, therefore, suggest to remove the word comission. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Translations

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 Randstrom (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Different approaches

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 -- Different approaches

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 Randstrom (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The real power of the armed forces

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 Randstrom (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the section Commissioned Ranks

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)

Removing Comissioned Ranks

Since no one has responded for a long time to my notes, I am changing the section now. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Added the "Capacity of the Army" paragrah

--Malin Randstrom (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The info box

Number of troops ready should be after one year and not after one month. I am correcting this. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding critizism

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 Randstrom (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Included new ranks 2009

Facts are based on mail correspondence with the headquarters of the Swedish Armed Forces with attached documents. Document: 16100:66576 2008-04-09 --Malin Randstrom (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Personnel and ranks

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 regarding your personal opinion about scientists of Goteborg and Lund universites

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.

Regards, --Malin Randstrom (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

Finally: please learn to indent! /B****n (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Randstrom (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 Randstrom (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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 Randstrom (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

More facts

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 Randstrom (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Money cut

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)

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 Randstrom (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

R levels mean "Ready" levels. That is, how many days it takes to mobilize. Hope this clarifies! --Malin Randstrom (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

For those who are interested, employed means full time, contracted means you can perform your ordinary job until called upon.

Hans Engstrom (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Home Guard

Why is the Home Defense called milita and not Home Defense? --Malin Randstrom (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

Hans Engstrom (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Home Guard are regular forces, not irregular milita. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.130.26 (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nordic Battle Group 08 and 11

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 Randstrom (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

Hans Engstrom (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

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

and NBG 11 here: NBG 11

TEA (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Inserting "National military infobox" ?

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)

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)

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.

--Malin Lindquist (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Moving parts of the beginnning to personnel-section

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)

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.

Shall we really keep his box? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Rearranged the page a bit

I have removed some obsolete parts and reported the distribution of personnel vs rank. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Girls in the infantry and cavalry

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)

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.

Hans Engstrom (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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.

Hans Engstrom (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

No, you're the one who is out of touch. Read the referenced website. Corporal in Sweden, Corporal abroad.

Hans Engstrom (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

On what do you base that conclusion? Original research?

Hans Engstrom (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That is very original research --Malin Lindquist (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Number of forces

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 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for the tip... that information has about 1.5 battalions more than my figures... my figures are 2 years old and I have to revise them.

I will update the figures as soon as I have red throught the latest report.

Regards --Malin Lindquist (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother, you'll only get it wrong (again). Unless of course you'll actually admit that there are units totalling

17 500 men at R10, R30, R90 and R360 readyness with an additional 20 000 available at between R360 and R3Y.

Hans Engstrom (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to deal with trolls like Hans.

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,

--Malin Lindquist (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

Correct current status of forces can be found at http://www.mil.se/upload/dokumentfiler/regleringsbrev/regleringsbrev_08.pdf

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Hans Engstrom (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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?

--Malin Lindquist (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Edits by Hans Engstrom

Most appears correct. However,

• 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.

--Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

Hans Engstrom (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Distribution of personnel: Edits by User:Magnus242

I have noticed your changes. This looks a lot better, thank you.

You

• verified all the numbers and added 2 more Fanrik in the CO category ... good job.
• separated the table into smaller tables ... nice!
• removed possible troops that Sweden may mobilize in the futue ... that is very good as it should reflect current personnel.
• split reserve officers in active service and those in reserve... also very good.
• split conscripts into Navy, Air force and Army... lovely?

One thing, those 770 soldiers are contractors ( for a year or so) as far as I know.

Good job and thank you for all your time on this..

Regards, --Malin Lindquist (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Division

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)

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?

btw, were you in the Nawy?

--Malin Lindquist (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, last year. HMS Sundsvall. 83.251.229.73 (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Terminology

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)

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)

Hans Engstrom (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What Malin is saying is true for the US Army. 83.251.229.73 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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.

Hans Engstrom (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there some truth behind what she said, for once. 83.251.229.73 (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, agreed, but it's actually irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Engstrom (talk • contribs) 08:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Reform 1983 NBO

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)

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.

Hans Engstrom (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Then why were these "administrators" participating in excercises as platoon and company commanders, then? europrobe (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Home Defense - Home Guard

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)

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)

Number of Officers edited

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)

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)

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)