Talk:Forsvarets Spesialkommando

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

'They are, however, by many experts considered to be the premier special force in the world.' this needs a citation. Considering the fact the SAS/SBS ( ie: Uk special forces ) are regularly cited as the word premier spec ops grouping

Forsvarets Spesialkommando redirect[edit]

Forsvarets Spesialkommando was redirected here per AfD. -- Jonel | Speak 04:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Hvorfor er ikke HV ulykken på ørlandet med i deres sider en av forsvaret store ulykker etter 1945 skulle vært ved denne kanonen men ble forhinret, for min far døde og ble begravet samme dag. Forøvrig så var jeg Kanonkoandør ved denne kanonen dær ulykken skjdde. Vil gjerne ha en tilbaemelding.

med hilsen

TERJE SAKSEN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Number of SOF soldiers[edit]

Hey, it says that there are less than xxx soldiers on contract in FSK?!That is incorrect!! The number is in fact closer to xxx. Don't know where the hell the number xxx came from, as supposedly it's confidential, but xxx is way off. Would be grateful if something could be done about it.

  • I'd like to know what source you have for this speculation, given that there is no information on this subject. The exact number of operators remain a closely guarded military secret, and it is highly unlikely that this information will ever be released. If you should happen to know the exact number of operators, this means that you're inside FSK or the Ministry of Defense, and you should therefore seriously remember TTT (Tenk-Trykk-Tal) before you type another word. Remember that PST can lock you up for a long long time for revealing military secrets.... - Eeob, 25.03.08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I want you to remember and respect that the Norwegian Government has classified information regarding the size of FSK. Allthough you might speculate/know about this info, do not post it. Also, this is only of minor interest for the most of us.

The original post has been vandalized. Here is a copy of the text:[edit]

"Hey, it says that there are less than 50 soldiers on contract in FSK?!That is incorrect!! The number is in fact closer to 250. Don't know where the hell the number 50 came from, as supposedly it's confidential, but 50 is way off. Would be grateful if something could be done about it. " --Kingdom of Norw. desss-machines (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


As of 2007 the following statement from the article is no longer correct: Soldiers signed to FSK are only recruited internally from the Norwegian Army and Royal Norwegian Navy.

As of 2007 any person that meets the requirements can apply and go through the training.

    Where do you get the year 2007 from? Air Force and Home Guard personnel have been able to apply for several years.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 

HK 416[edit]

Heckler & Koch HK 416 - Assault rifle not approved by photos (the first units that'll get HK-416 are Air Force, Navy and Home Guard) <- I thought the home guard were supposed to be the last to get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The Home Guard Intervention Forces (Innsatsstyrker), which are smaller, better trained and equipped forces that are called up first in the event of conflict or crisis, will be given the HK 416. The Home Guard Reinforcement Forces (Forsterkningsstyrker) will still retain the AG-3 for the foreseeable future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FSK Insignia.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:FSK Insignia.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"The" special forces of Norway?[edit]

Guys: I assume you know that there are two special forces units in Norway, recognized by the government. As for now, this statement: "Forsvarets Spesialkommando (FSK) are the special forces of the Norwegian Ministry of Defence." contributes to false facts spread out through Wikipedia as it more or less clearly states there is only one special forces unit in Norway.

A correct way of stating the facts could be like this: "Forsvarets Spesialkommando (FSK) are one of two special forces units of the Norwegian Ministry of Defence."

Regards, Sleif. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleif (talkcontribs) 22:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  • The following text is correct, and now part of the article: "...a special forces unit of the Norwegian Ministry of Defence"
  • I am somewhat intrigued by your phrase "... false facts ...". (Maybe your native language uses the term false facts, in some way. However, native English-speakers are probably less familiar with that term.) In English, a fact is, well, - it ain't false. And that's a fact ! --Kingdom of Norw. desss-machines (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Various claims regarding relationship between HJK and FSK[edit]

FSK is part of HJK?[edit]

  • They are seperate units, who at times(if not today) have had a commanding officer, who lead both units.
  • At times when HJK and FSK "share" a commanding officer, one can argue that both units have the same administration. (And therefore, one can arguable claim that the chain of command of both organizations, can not be seperated. And thereby, arguably, the one unit is part of the other. And the other way around.
  • My conclusion: Both units have, have at times, had a commanding officer that lead both units. And that is the only manner in which FSK formally has "been a part of" HJK. (I expect that references already are availbable, that will substanstiate my view. Maybe I can "dig up" something more, eventually.

--7 hav (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What is "FSK/HJK" ?[edit]

  • I can find references to the name-change that lead to the unit, today known as HJK.
  • I can not find any references to HJK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7 hav (talkcontribs) 18:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Text moved to discussion page[edit]

"Afterward, speculation about their past involvement in similar hostage situations flourished. "[edit]

This text probably needs something more (references, examples)? --Cashier dream (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

First inside Pristina?[edit]

"It is rumored that they were among the first soldiers inside Pristina during the Kosovo conflict, but this is based only on photographs taken, and articles written by Norwegian, British and American journalists ."

The above text might need some work. Or at least a reference. --Turbo brakes (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


"On August 20, 2007 Norwegian special forces soldiers helped Afghan police storm a house in Kabul to free kidnapped German aid worker Christina Meier. Meier had been kidnapped by a criminal gang on August 18 while working for Ora International. [The Norwegians had snipers on standby, ready to kill the hostage takers at a moment's notice. However, that was not necessary; the snipers provided the assaulting team with surveillance. [1] [2]"

No mention of FSK. A reference might be needed, that can specify which (of at least 3) Norw.spec.forces, has been involved. --Turbo brakes (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sitting ducks exercise??[edit]

I do not know where this came from, but it has no records of it so why is it on there? Hope I added this question the correct way, first time doing this -NordicWiki, 2 August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by NordicWiki (talkcontribs) 11:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


Re:Former commando Bjørn Sagvolden; notable references being removed[edit]

There is an edit war going on in this article. And notable references have been removed.

There have been at least 3 articles in national print newspapers, regarding former commando Sagvolden and/or the court-case that he lost against Norwegian authorities. And facsimiles of 3 of these following articles, have been removed from our article about special forces-FSK.

Further references can be found upon googling. The following article, is the second entry on Google, and it provides some more references:

  • The reasons for removing references, are fleeting. Cited reasons include "propaganda". (The 3 national print newspapers that are the references, do not have a reputation for disseminating propaganda, as far as I know.)

Anti-vandalizition measures for this article, might need to be ramped up, seemingly.

And please be aware of that there might be a few Norwegian-speakers out there, who are sensitive about the subject of commandos; even the article about Ben Griffin (soldier) has been purged from wiki-Norwegian, because he was found to be non-notable !

S(l)ick nation (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Another sockpuppet of user:Sju hav, trying to promote that Bjørn Sagvolden is notable for a wikipedia-article. Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to give the admins a notice Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav. Let's hope they see it. 3s (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this the reference-removers convention? How about adding notable references to the article, instead of removing them.

--S(l)ick nation (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Notable references[edit]

These references are probably notable:

  1. ^ Gjernes, Knut; Hustadnes, Halldor (2003-04-16). "Regjeringens drapsmaskiner". Dagens Næringsliv (in Norwegian). pp. 27–M, 28–M. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-02-02. [translation to English: With a closed circuit rebreather, no bubbles would break the water surface and reveal the divers ... When Bjørn Sagvolden was pulled onboard, he had no vital signs ... They removed his mouthpiece and started attempts at resuscitation ... He vomited a bloody liquid. Bjørn Sagvolden was immediately transported to the Naval base where the diving chamber was manned and ready. — A Nitrogen bubble had reached the brain [via blood vessels]. In the diving chamber the air bubble loosened, and Bjørn Sagvolden was born again. He was nauseous and dizzy. A half hour had passed since he fell unconscious, and he remembered nothing of what had happened. He was taken to Horten sykehus [a hospital], where he remained for observation thru the night. — A few days later, he had returned to duty. As a commando without a certificate for diving. - A fact-finding commission, manned by employees of Norway's military and police services, was established to find the cause of the accident. Two weeks later a report, from Norsk Undervannsteknologisk Senter, showed that Bjørn Sagvolden should not have been in the water. The oxygen content of the diving cylinders was not 100 %, but 89 %.The fact-finding commission concluded that the direct cause of the accident was that the gas for breathing was contaminated with nitrogen. But the fact-finding commission's report was not complete (fullstendig). Because who really had the responsibility? The report from 1983, stated that: "Due to the group's special function, one did not find it advisable to discuss its composition, tasks or general training procedures." Those who led the secretive commando unit, were not held accountable. - Three weeks later Bjørn Sagvolden was fired as a commando of FSK, for disciplinary reasons ... In the 1990's he tried to find out if the event, in a non-illuminated "Killing House" where 30 bullets where placed so that they passed a few centimeters from his head, was illegal and could give the right to tortious compensation for work-related injury. But Forsvarsdepartementet dropped the case in 1993. A letter from Forsvarsdepartementet states that "nothing that was worthy of criticism or abnormal during the exercise", has taken place. FSK's instruction for live fire, he has never been allowed to see. For reasons of national security. — Sagvolden has tried to find out who had the responsibility for the diving accident. But the investigations have been stopped. He wants to know who had the responsibility for it, and if he has received senskader ["late" + "injuries"]. And he wants a decision about when his diving license will be returned. ... In our minds, we will always be members of FSK, says Sagvolden.] Bjørn Sagvolden ... Med lukket oksygensystem ville ingen bobler bryte vannoverflaten og avsløre dem ... Da Bjørn Sagvolden ble trukket ombord var han livløs ... De fjernet munnstykket og startet opplivningsforsøk ... Han kastet opp blodig væske. Bjørn Sagvolden ble umiddelbart transportert inn til marinebasen hvor trykktanken sto i beredskap. — En nitrogenboble hadde gått opp til hjernen. I trykktanken løsnet luftboblen og Bjørn Sagvolden ble født på ny. Han var kvalm og omtåket. Nå hadde det gått en halv time siden han besvimte og han husket ingenting av det som hadde skjedd. Han ble lagt inn på Horten sykehus for observajon over natten. — Noen dager senere var han tilbake i tjeneste. Som kommandosoldat uten dykkersertifikat. - En granskingskommisjon, med folk fra Forsvaret og politiet, ble nedsatt for å finne årsaken til ulykken. To uker etter ulykken kom en rapport fra Norsk Undervannsteknologisk Senter som viste at Bjørn Sagvolden aldri skulle ha vært i vannet. Det var ikke 100 prosent oksygen på flaskene, men 89 prosent. Granskingskommisjonen konkluderte med at den direkte årsaken til ulykken var at puste-gassen var forurenset med nitrogen. Men rapporten fra granskingskommisjonen var ikke fullstendig. For hvem hadde det egentlige ansvaret? I rapporten fra 1983 sto det: "Av hensyn til gruppens spesielle funksjon fant man det ikke tilrådelig å gå nærmere inn på dens sammensetning, oppgaver eller generelle treningsopplegg". De som ledet den hemmelighetsfulle kommandotroppen slapp å svare for seg. - Tre uker senere ble Bjørn Sagvolden oppsagt som kommandosoldat i FSK av disiplinære årsaker. ... På 90-tallet forsøkte han å finne ut om episoden i et mørklagt "Killing House", hvor 30 skudd ble plassert få centimeter fra hodet, var ulovlig og kunne gi rett til yrkesskadeerstatnin. Men Forsvarsdepartementet skrinla saken i 1993. I et brev fra Forsvarsdepartementet står det at det ikke er funnet sted "noe kritikkverdig eller unormalt ved denne øvelse". Skyteinstruksen for FSK har han aldri fått se. På grunn av rikets sikkerhet. — Sagvolden har forsøkt å finne ut hvem som har ansvaret for dykkerulykken. Men undersøkelsene stoppet opp. Han vil vite hvem som hadde ansvaret for den, og om han har fått senskader. Og han vil ha en avgjørelse om når han kan få dykkersertifikatet tilbake. ... I hodet er vi FSK-ere resten av livet, sier Sagvolden. 
  2. ^ Dagbladet, 2009-11-13 "- Mannen min er slett ikke død": (Title and quotes translated): "My husband definitely is not dead" ... "«During the trial, your lawyer demanded (framprovoserte ) medical records that Dr. Eidsvik ought to have about you. Forsvarets attempt at finding these documents have been without results (...) Dr. Eidsvik has died, and thereby the department does not have any opportunity to examine the matter any further", wrote avdelingsdirektør Severin Vikanes, chief of juridisk seksjon of Forsvarsdepartementet."
  3. ^ Sykepleien 15/08 (Claims about nurses' insurance related to "risikodykking", made by Bjørn Sagvolden — printed in "Sykepleien" (and written by Sykepleien's editorial board), page 82: translation to English: "victory in the Diving chamber trial (trykkammer-saken)" ... [Bjørn Sagvolden called to congratulate] "after having read the article in Sykepleien 13/2008 about the nurses from Bergen who were awarded tortious compensation of 5.5 million in Norwegian kroner because they were injured by "dykkersyke" while at work. Sagvolden is a former Navy diver, and he was injured when he fainted while diving in 1983. In 2005 his injury was approved as a work-related injury, and in November there will be a trial regarding tortious compensation." ... "That the employer insured the nurses against "risikodykking" ... "must be the first time that Norway's government claims responsibility for "risikodykking" i "avtaleverket" ("Bjørn Sagvolden som ringer til Sykepleien etter å ha lest saken i 13/2008 om Bergenssykepleierne som fikk 5,5 millioner kroner i erstatning fordi de ble dykkersyke på jobben. Sagvolden er tidligere marinedykker og ble skadet da han besvimte under dykking i 1983. I 2005 fikk han godkjent dette som yrkesskade, men i november blir det rettssak i Oslo tingrett om erstatning." ... "At arbeidsgiver forsikret sykepleierne for risikodykking, synes han er svært interessant. – Dette må være første gang at staten erkjenner ansvar for risikodykking i avtaleverket")
  4. ^ VG, November 14, 2008 (Facsimile:
  5. ^ (translation: "Lost against the Government - Oslo/Ellingsrud: In November 2008 Oslo tingrett, a ... trial started. Bjørn Sagvolden sued the Government for what he regards as violations of civil liberties and other violations thru 25 years. The starting point was a diving accident in 1983, that nearly killed him. Information (related to his military service) that did not benefit him, was supposedly leaked to civillian employers and borettslag to purposely harass Sagvolden. He claimed tortious compensation [amounting to Norwegian kroner] 17 million, but now he is running the risk of (instead) having to pay the [court] costs of the Government.) Tapte mot staten - Bjørn Sagvolden fra Ellingsrud har tapt saken som han anla mot staten. Sagvolden vil anke dommen. - OSLO/ELLINGSRUD: I november 2008 åpnet Oslo tingrett en meget omfattende sak. Bjørn Sagvolden gikk til sak mot staten for det han mener er menneskerettighetsbrudd og krenkelser gjennom 25 år. - Utgangspunktet var en dykkerulykke i 1983, som var nær ved å ta livet hans. Ufordelaktige opplysninger fra tiden i Forsvaret skulle angivelig ha lekket til sivile arbeidsgivere og borettslag i den hensikt å trakassere Sagvolden. - Han krevde 17 millioner i erstatning, men risikerer i stedet å måtte betale statens kostnader."

-- (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

POV, sock puppets and agenda pushing[edit]

There seems to be some name calling in this discussion. Could those claims maybe be debated in one specific section — this one?-- (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A US special forces veteran killed in an experimental boat (operated by a commando from FSK) in 2010[edit]

A decorated US special forces veteran was killed when he was riding along in an experimental boat in 2010. The boat was on a mission for FSK, with an FSK-commando operating it. The boat operator was reported to police.

Does anyone have any references?

And does anyone know the name of the victim?

(The mentioned veteran was in the boat, in the capacity of being a civillian contractor. I read a story in Dagbladet or VG in print this year — possibly in March 2011.) --Ønography (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Forsvarets Spesialkommando. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)