Talk:Swiss Armed Forces

message: The statement that was removed by me contains two false or misleading statements: first there is not a fully automatic assault rifle (or any other kind of rifle/gun) in EVERY household in Switzerland, but merely in those in which there is one (or several) active serving member(s) of the swiss military, or the (few) one who chose, asked and where deemed as fit, to retain such a weapon in there homes after retirement from armed service. Second, even though Switzerland does not have a staggeringly high crime rate, claiming that in Switzerland "some time periods have no crime rate at all" is totatally disingenuous because "some time periods" is not defined. If we talk minutes or hours or even in some case days, that statement might be true but formulated as it is, it gives the false impression that Switzerland is some kind of a crime ridden Shangri-la. Oh yes, and there aren't any official statistics about murders committed with army issued guns in Switzerland (my guess about why this is so is as good as yours). Moumine 22:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed false statement

message: There's a link in this section to the AAD, a new SAS type division, but the disambiguation page it links to has nothing about Switzerland. Whoever put the link on there, could you please fix the link, remove it, or create a new page for it as you see fit?
Archtemplar 17:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Mirage (Fighter and Reconaisseurs) are not in service anymore in the swiss airforce.
Goniometer
:Anybody can edit this article, Just provide a source. If you don't know how to do the footnotes, just add the source within the text of the article itself. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mirage 

message: Hi, I was reading the article, and the author mentions something about the AAD, Switzerland's new SAS-type Special Forces unit. However, I cannot find any reference to this on Google, or even on Wikipedia. Could someone help me out please? Thanks. --Tom Black 11:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, here is the link to their official homepage; the German wikipedia contains a small article. 193.74.151.194 09:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swiss Special Forces - Some help please 

message: "only officers are allowed to carry the knife with the opener"
As a conscript I've never been told that I'm not allowed to carry a wine opener. Maybe it stands somewhere in the "Réglement de Service", but I doubt it. 128.178.26.187 14:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't. I checked. It's also not in the "Bekleidungsvorschriften" or in the "Brevier". However, the one with the wine opener is coloquially called "Offiziersmesser" (="Officers knives"), which might have given rise to this misconception. ;-) Every ADA (Member of the Swiss Army) regardles of rank is issued the same knive wihout wine opener, but may privatly purchase and use in service any knive which fits the regulations, includinge those with wine opener, usb stick or nose hair scissor.... `[User:Halbwolf|Halbwolf] Halbwolf (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  section popular culture 

message: I am confused as the difference between regular Swiss conscripts and the reserves. When is does a soldier in the militia become a reservist? I would appriciate any information in this matter, thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.48.170 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 26 December 2006
:A soldier in the militia becomes a reservist as soon as he has passed a certain amount of days in the army. For the time being (2007), these are 300 days for a private (150 days basic training, and 7 annual repetition courses, each about 20 days/year), 430 days for a sergeant (longer basic training, 7 repetition courses, each about 24 days/year), and 600 days for a lieutenant (still longer basic trainings and repetition courses). Higher ranked officers stay in duty as and when required. So, privates and sergeants serve in active duty at least until they are 27 years old, (but in practice rather until 30, since courses can be postponed for important job, health or family reasons) and stay in the reserve until the age of 34. Until 1994, as a relict of the cold war, one had to serve up to the age of 45 and was kept in the reserve until 55 (I'm not totally sure about these last two numbers, but it was much more than nowadays). Being a reservist, one still has to care for the rifle, the uniform and other equipment, but has not to go to the training courses anymore. --CHamul 20:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of Military 

message: On March 1, 2007, Switzerland accidentally invaded the neighbouring nation of Liechtenstein. This happened when a Swiss Army unit took a wrong turn during a training exercise.  Both countries immediately dismissed the incident despite the 170 armed Swiss troops which marched across the border into the neighboring country. The incident will most likely be forgotten in history, but it is the only example of aggression from either European country in modern history.
Where in this article should this little tidbit be mantioned, if at all? CeeWhy2 11:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion of Liechtenstein 

message: Two articles: List of countries by number of active troops and List of countries by size of armed forces put the number of active troops in Switzerland at 3,000-4,000 only, as compared to 220,000 in this article. Can someone verify and correct? --Vsion 18:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active troops number 

message: I'm 34 and still in the force as simple soldier until December. 34 is the age limit.
Nmacpherson 14:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of serving soldiers 

message: 205.228.74.13 (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody who wants to can add info to this article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Afghanistan?! 

message: The maximum age is not 26, it's 34 as far as i know. furhter i have never heard so far, that italian speaking soldiers are overproportionally forced to do a career. the statement, that many prefer the rank of a seargant (to an officer) because of the closer contact to the troops is highly questionable. mostly, it's because seargants just don't want to serve a longer term (soldier: 300 days, seargant: 450 days, (first) lieutnant: 600 days) or because they simply failed the selective procedure for officers school. the fact that should be stressed more regarding military careers, is that hardly anyone nowadays volunteers for higher officer ranks (such as major, lieutnant-colonel, colonel). even already to be a captain brings a lot of administrative work outside the repetition courses, which makes service more or less a hobby one has to follow all year long. only 20/30 years ago, military career and being at least a lieutnant was essential for the private career, especially in higher management in branches as banking and insurance (which are kind of important in switzerland ;-)). the armed forces (especially the officer schools) used to be the most important networking platform in swiss economy. this is not like that anymore, even though many companies still accept military training in a leading rank as a meaningful reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.176.157 (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age 26? 

message: "Wille subsequently was put in command of the second complete mobilization, and Switzerland escaped invasion in the course of World War I." This implies that Wille's leadership is what prevented an invasion. But would either side have gained a strategic advantage by invading? Belgium was the obvious route for a German invasion of France, since the French-German border was short and rugged, and the goal was Paris. Did Germany actually consider the Swiss route? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynzmoar (talk • contribs) 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War I 

message: Why is there no mention of their involvement in Afghanistan? I thought i heard they were sent out there with German troops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.216.73 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because there wasn't any. It wasn't even discussed in the swiss parlament at anytime in the past and would have been a clear breach of the swiss military doctrine. The only thing the swiss army is participating in a bigger scale is the KFOR and they also have a bunch of military observers around the world.--2A02:120B:2C74:CBA0:E48D:2ADD:7292:C19E (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned above, anybody can add well-sourced info to this article, Feel free. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Afghanistan

message: The article and photographs have undoubtedly improved, but nevertheless I'm wondering if there is any need for KKdt Keckeis' portrait and what signification the picture of the Taschenmunition/Munitions de poche has since it's neither issued anymore and currently being withdrawn from servicemen.
From my point of view the photos of the patrol boat and "army exercise" are nice, but could be left away in favour of, for instance, an image showing a vehicle/APC (i.e. Piranha or Spz 2000).
Before I just fiddle around with the article, I'd like to hear comments by others.
Zigibumbala (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures/Illutstrations 

message: I've read the article several times and I can't find anything about the Swiss Army rank structure including illustrations. Am I overlooking something such as a link? The article seems incomplete without it. Yes, there is mention of the very senior ranks -- Brigadier, etc.--TGC55 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Found link Military ranks of the Swiss Armed Forces and added it to "See also".--TGC55 (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank structure? 

message: To Swiss Armed Forces, as it is clearly stated that that is the real name.--RM (Be my friend) 16:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: The main page can likely use a paragraph on the relation of the Swiss Armed forces to the Papal Swiss Guard. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that relation is quite loose, actually. Except for the requirement, that applicands for the swiss guard must have served in the swiss army, there's no direct relationship. Officialy, the swiss guard is also not called an army in switzerland, because it's prohibited for swiss soldiers to serve for foreign countries (the age of Swiss mercenaries is long gone). The swiss guard uses the same weapons as the swiss army (no, not counting the Halberd), the main reason for this being that the applicands already know how to handle these when they enter service for the swiss guard. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 07:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

text: How about a "See also" link to the Swiss Guard? HiFiGuy (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to Papal Swiss Guard 

message: The name of the Army in Romansch is in English?
Why does that seem highly unlikely?
Varlaam (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romansch 

message: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland#cite_note-basics-1">"The basic organisation of the Swiss Armed Forces"</a>
 Meevinman (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reporting broken link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Military of Switzerland. 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/20090115062722/http://www.lba.admin.ch:80/internet/lba/de/home/themen/ausrue/pers0/bewaffnung.html to http://www.lba.admin.ch/internet/lba/de/home/themen/ausrue/pers0/bewaffnung.html
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 15:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the archived URL works, and I believe it is useful. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is among Wikipedia's oldest articles, dating to May 2001:
* Started at Switzerland/Military on 28 May 2001
* 19:55, 15 August 2002‎  moved  to 
* 15:32, 24 November 2013 Cut-paste to 
* 07:06, 5 January 2014 Reverted cut-paste; back to 
* 12:03, 2 May 2016  moved page  to 
I'm finding this last move of this longstanding stable title to be problematic for a couple of reasons:
* The implication that the Swiss Air Force is part of the 
*  is probably the more common name
– wbm1058 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it back. "Military of Switzerland" is the commonsense title, at least in my view. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title history 

message: Stop removing this section. The info is properly sourced and has a clear relation to the Swiss Navy/Swiss Armed Forces. That you do not like it, User:FFA P-16, is not a reason to remove this sourced information. The Banner talk 19:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Several people have re-added it, not only me. Are we all wrong with this? And when you start reading the article: it is now under "trivia". The Banner talk 21:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it is from US Military Slang, it has not realy something to do with th swiss Military. So yes it is here on the wrong place, no one in Switzerland civil or in Military use this or knew this "Admiral of the Swiss Navy" US-Joke. Yes now I had seen that you moved it to Trivia. FFA P-16 (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us wait for the comments of others. The Banner talk 21:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  BTW: If it is clear written that this is used only in the US-Military and is not known /used in Switzerland, i think it is OK.FFA P-16 (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

text: I agree. --Novarupta (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Our friend FFA P-16 was not happy when the admiral was mentioned in the section "Lakes flotilla". To my opinion it belongs there, but seeing the objections of FFA a trivia section is a good compromise. The Banner talk 21:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admiral of the Swiss Navy 

message: This article states that Guillaume Henri Dufour served as the Federal General of Switzerland twice in his career: 1847–1848 and 1856–1857. However, the article General (Switzerland) states that he served three times: beginning in 1849, 27 December 1856, and 1859. There are at least two discrepancies between these two articles. Additionally, the source this article cites for this can only be accessed if one is subscribed, and the other article cites no source at all. Even worse, Dufour's own article does not mention his two/three terms as general at all. Some help would be greatly appreciated.
One more thing: because more editors will likely see this talk page than the other ones that I will post on, I noticed that the article of Christophe Keckeis still shows him as currently serving in the Swiss military, while André Blattmann's article shows him completely retired from the Swiss military (something I did as an assumption). Does Keckeis still serve in the military, and is Blattmann retired from the military (and not just as Chief of the Armed Forces)? --1990'sguy (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Christophe Keckeis is definitely in retirement and gets his proper pension. since 1.Januar 2008 Since 31.12.2007 he don't serve in the military anymore.André Blattmann would had have his regular retirement on the 31.December 2017, but he had already quit his job as Chief of the Armed Forces to the 31.12.2016. Blattmann is now acting from the 01.01.2017 to the 31.12.2017 as advisor for the new Chief of the Armed Forces. André Blattmann will still get in this time the 100% Salery like he got before as Chief of the Armed Forces.FFA P-16 (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So is it correct to say that Blattmann's years of service in the Swiss military are over, as I changed his infobox to say? --1990'sguy (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Actually, I changed it to "present", as he does not appear to have completely retired, unless you object. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

text:  Thank you,and yes that is right. BTW  "Bis zu seiner Pensionierung werde Blattmann der Armee als Berater dienen." He will work as advisor for the Swiss Military."Nach seinem Austritt werde Blattmann ein Jahressalär erhalten." He will get one year his salery. "Blattmann wird Mitte 2018 pensioniert..." He would  have his regular retirement in 2018. FFA P-16 (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I appreciate your help, FFA P-16. Can you explain my first question by any chance? --1990'sguy (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello 1990'sguy. I am not so into the old history of the swiss military.. more in the after ww2 military aviatic of Switzerland.So my knowleg about Guillaume Henri Dufour is not big. I had a look at the german Wikipedia pages and French Wikipedia pages about Guillaume Henri Dufour and General (Switzerland) it looks like he was General in 1847, 1849, 1856 and 1859. As I understand the german text (my native language, he was 4 times General, just for the time the conflict was heat, I never had the rank of General for more than 1 year (in 1849 it was les than a half month.)FFA P-16 (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you FFA P-16 for your explanation. The discrepency is very odd. I tagged the articles in question, and if I have enough time, I will research this question. I should note that 1847 was a year before the Switzerland's current form of goernment was established, so I don't know if his first tenure should count? --1990'sguy (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

text: I think we can count his first tenure. He was promotet to General then like the 3 times later, he got this rank 4 times, only the first time it was a other institution of the goverment but the rank of general it self did not get any changes in the reform of the goverment. The first time it was the "Tagsatzung" the other 3 times (and would be today) the  Bundesversammlung afterthis reform the "Tagsatzung" did not exist anymore. So in my opinion I would say he was 4 times (even they where very short) General.FFA P-16 (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Thank you for finding those sources, FFA P-16! I added this information, along with Dufour's Historical Dictionary of Switzerland article, to the three articles in question. It appears this problem is solved as well, unless I'm mistaken. :) --1990'sguy (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy in Guillaume Henri Dufour and other questions 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: Yes 86.97.11.207 (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saicology 

message: Yes 86.97.11.207 (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saicology 

message: Yes 86.97.11.207 (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sociology 

message: Yes 86.97.11.207 (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic 

message: Yes 86.97.11.207 (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English 

message: Yes 86.97.11.207 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accounding 

message: Why not 😐🤣 86.97.11.207 (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  My subject sociology 

message: Yes 86.97.11.207 (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everything