Talk:Swedish Armed Forces

message: 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)
thread_title:  Number of aircrafts in the swedish Air force during the Cold war 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Brigades 

message: Almost every single one of the 128 articles in :Category:Militaries is in the form 'Military of country</i>'.  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: So it is correct... In all it´s incorrectness... Perhaps someone should tell them? 213.100.43.90 09:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish Armed Forces to Military of Sweden? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Change "non-navy Marine Forces" to "Naval amphibious forces" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion - ranks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Logo proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The use of the word Comission (fullmakt) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Translations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Different approaches 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reply -- Different approaches 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The real power of the armed forces 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding the section Commissioned Ranks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removing Comissioned Ranks 

message: --Malin Lindquist (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added the "Capacity of the Army" paragrah 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The info box 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding critizism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Included new ranks 2009 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More facts 

message: Why is the Home Defense called milita and not Home Defense? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be called neither. First of all, it's "militia", not milita. Home Defense is a US concept regarding defending ones domicile. The Home Guard is the Home Guard. Home Guard is acceptable military terminology.
Hans Engstrom (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Home Guard are regular forces, not irregular milita.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.130.26 (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home Guard 

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

message: I have noticed your changes. This looks a lot better, thank you. 
You
* verified all the numbers and added 2 more Fanrik in the CO category ... good job.
* separated the table into smaller tables ... nice!
* removed possible troops that Sweden may mobilize in the futue ... that is very good as it should reflect current personnel. 
* split reserve officers in active service and those in reserve... also very good. 
* split conscripts into Navy, Air force and Army... lovely?
One thing, those 770 soldiers are contractors ( for a year or so)  as far as I know. 
Good job and thank you for all your time on this..
Regards,
--Malin Lindquist (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution of personnel: Edits by User:Magnus242 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Again, dont missuse the term comissioned officer 

message: 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) 
Ref: 
--Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admission requirements for officer schools at primary school level

message: 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)
thread_title:  Distribution of personnel has been updated 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changing name 

message: 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)
replies: text: Nope, the offical English language translation for "Försvarsdepartementet" is Ministry of Defence, according to Utrikes namnbok published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Although I agree with the Swedish language nuance you raised, the fact is that Wikipedia is not the place to change established facts. RicJac (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ministry to Department 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re-evaluating the article? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Swedish Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090603164432/http://www.mil.se:80/en/Organisation/Units-on-standby/Nordic-Battlegroup/ to http://www.mil.se/en/Organisation/Units-on-standby/Nordic-Battlegroup/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Structure of the Swedish Armed Forces in 1989