This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Swedish Armed Forces article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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:
I removed these tables because they were plain wrong and not reflecting reality.
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)
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
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)
' 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))
-- Malin Lindquist ( 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Since no one has responded for a long time to my notes, I am changing the section now. -- Malin Lindquist ( talk) 01:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Malin Lindquist ( talk) 02:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Lindquist ( talk) 00:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Why is the Home Defense called milita and not Home Defense? -- Malin Lindquist ( talk) 06:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hans Engstrom ( talk) 22:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
Hans Engstrom ( talk) 22:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
TEA ( talk) 03:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This article's factual accuracy is
disputed. (March 2009) |
![]() |
![]() | A major contributor to this article appears to have a
close connection with its subject. (March 2009) |
I have removed some obsolete parts and reported the distribution of personnel vs rank. -- Malin Lindquist ( talk) 05:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
Hans Engstrom ( talk) 19:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hans Engstrom ( talk) 20:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
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).
• 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)
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)
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)
Most appears correct. However,
-- Malin Lindquist ( talk) 07:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed your changes. This looks a lot better, thank you.
You
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- Malin Lindquist ( talk) 07:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Your explanation make sense and I fully support your point. Malin Lindquist-- 110.4.233.122 ( talk) 00:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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.
/Sergaeant in the Swedish Army — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.199.131.224 ( talk) 07:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Swedish Armed Forces article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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:
I removed these tables because they were plain wrong and not reflecting reality.
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)
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
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)
' 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))
-- Malin Lindquist ( 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Since no one has responded for a long time to my notes, I am changing the section now. -- Malin Lindquist ( talk) 01:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Malin Lindquist ( talk) 02:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Lindquist ( talk) 00:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Why is the Home Defense called milita and not Home Defense? -- Malin Lindquist ( talk) 06:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hans Engstrom ( talk) 22:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
Hans Engstrom ( talk) 22:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
TEA ( talk) 03:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This article's factual accuracy is
disputed. (March 2009) |
![]() |
![]() | A major contributor to this article appears to have a
close connection with its subject. (March 2009) |
I have removed some obsolete parts and reported the distribution of personnel vs rank. -- Malin Lindquist ( talk) 05:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
Hans Engstrom ( talk) 19:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hans Engstrom ( talk) 20:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
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).
• 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)
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)
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)
Most appears correct. However,
-- Malin Lindquist ( talk) 07:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed your changes. This looks a lot better, thank you.
You
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- Malin Lindquist ( talk) 07:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Your explanation make sense and I fully support your point. Malin Lindquist-- 110.4.233.122 ( talk) 00:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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.
/Sergaeant in the Swedish Army — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.199.131.224 ( talk) 07:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
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)