Talk:Swedish Armed Forces
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] 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
- Swedish Armed Forces
- Security policy of Sweden
- Security policy by country
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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.
[edit] lang-se is wrong
Using lang-se (Northern Sami: Försvarsmakten) shows us the wrong language. The language of Sweden is swedish, not northen sami. What can be done about it? (I have not yet an account) 213.113.216.87
- That's because the ISO language code for Swedish is sv and not se. Fixed. – Elisson • Talk 11:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Gotta forward this to the Swedish Army HQ as a suggestion for cipher code ;-) Strausszek October 1, 2006 07:40 (CEST)
[edit] 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)
'
[edit] 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)
