Talk:Military ranks of the Swedish Armed Forces/Archive 2

reply by militaryguy
According to NATO "STANAG 2116", that is an agreement between NATO and other armed forces an OR6 in the Swedish armed forces is the same as an OR6 in both the USMC and British army. There for this whole article is wrong. It’s just your personal thoughts in it! Keep it to facts! You have done many wrong on wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Militaryguy (talk • contribs) 16:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PERS department of the Swedish Armed Headquarters have used STANG as a base to harmonize with NATO. Nevertheless, Sweden is not part of NATO and has not been asked to ratify STANG. Anyway, the information in STANG is very sparse and lacks real definitions. I have described, based on public available information and correspondence with PERS HKV, what each OR level represent wrt the USMC, the BA and the Swedish Army. You have stated: "an OR6 in the Swedish armed forces is the same as an OR6 in both the USMC and British army!" Hmmm ,,, don't you agree that you need to explain WHY it is so! Can you, for example, define a Swedish OR6, a USMC OR6, as well as OR6 and OR8? Also, please point out what you think is incorrect in the article so that we may proceed!  Regards, --Malin Randstrom (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Remake!
An almost total remake of the article has been made.

I hope this version is better to explain every branch of the Armed Forces.

The table of ranks and insignia is inspired by the table table in the official publication by the Supreme Commander. Thus, the Amfibiekåren is seperate from the Army/Navy (respectivly). If the Supreme Commander feels they should be distinct ( at least the insignias/ranks) so should this article.

Request for help I would like to request help to make better references/citations. Also, help with making graphics for the missing insignias is appriciated.

I will do this myself, when I have more available time.

Translations? A note about the translations I've used, I consider translation to not only be linguistic, but also cultural. As such, Specialistofficerare does translate to Non-Commissioned Officer. I've tried to explain this translation in a not so personal note in the article. However, I remain somewhat reserved about my translation of Amfibiekåren to Marine Corps. If someone feels this should instead be translated to Amphibious Corps, feel free to do so. Finally, in lack of a better translation Tjänsteställning to english, I've used the U.S. term paygrade. Please, if you know a better word/term for it. Please edit the article and fix it.

Oh, I've not included translations of each respective rank into english. I have yet to read official documents concerning english translation of the new ranks (used in international service), thus any translation made by me would by a fair chance be incorrect. And if a Italian speaking person reads this article, I belive it's more fair to just include the nato codes and let the reader themself make the comparison, rather than dictating english translations of the ranks. If anyone has seen official documents (which can be referenced), please, include the translations.

Additional Comments Other comments or ideas about this new article? I've tried to make it neutral, and more fact-based. IMHO the new up-downward table is far more better than the previous left-to-right.

And I didn't include the cap insignias (mössmärke) because we can't include all officer/other rank specific uniform item. If so, we might as well also include the difference why Sergeants and ranks above wear a hat and others wear a beret with the parade M/86 uniform. But as this is a article for the ranks, not uniform, I chose to exclude them.

Best regards, Faffia (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Remake by Faffia
First, the table you created is too large and clumsy and occupies almost the entire article. It also misleads reader to believe that all specialist officers are junior to all generalist officers, which is not the case. Thirdly, why do you duplicated work and reinvent the wheal by creating a table that is twice as large with the same information? Lastly, this is no good in a maintenance perspective as this sort of table may be part of several articles. For such reasons there should be only one table written as a template and kept as small as possible.

Faffia, still, you don't understand that new officers as of 1983 are not privileged as commissioned officers anymore. It was abolished all together !!!! 3000 out of 7000 officers are indeed commissioned officers, but those became officers before 1983. That is, Sweden has 3,000 commissioned officers (mostly with the rank of Major and above) and 7000 non-commissioned officers. You try to conceal what each officer does in general and what each rank really represents in particular. I have not translated ranks, I have commented what each person of a certain rank does such as being a team leader, instructor or responsible for the training of a platoon.

'''So, tell me! What makes you think that a drill sergeant should be categorized as commissioned officer; and a company executive officer as a non-commissioned, who may command Majors and Kaptens?''' You are categorizing a fänrik as commissioned officer and a regementsförvaltare as non-commissioned officer. A fänrik may be asked to drill recruits just like a sergeant while a regementsvförvaltare may act as executive officer of a company, which may involve commanding Majors, Kaptens or other officers you call COs.

I have all working documents regarding the new ranking system, including all opinions from all parts of the Swedish defense forces as provided me personally by the HKV-PERS.

The previous table describes ranks and their seniority as decided by the Armed forces. That is, Fanjunkare is more senior than a Fänrik, a Förvatlare more senior than a Löjtnant, and a Regementsförvaltare more senior than a Major, etc. Officersförbundet has been very keen in stressing that there should be no B or A team and that is what the table represents with two kinds of officers. Calling one part for non-commissioned and the other for commissioned serves no purpose and is against the purpose and intentions of the new system! You don’t even know what a commissioned officer is as you leave it completely undefined.

Tjäsnsteställning should be translated as seniority and not as pay grade since pay does not necessarily translates into who is the more senior. All personnel above Swedish OR5 are officers. One kind is specialist (specialistofficer) while the other generalist (taktikofficer). A specialistofficer may give order to a taktikofficer and vice versa. This is absolutely not the case in the US. In Sweden, a Fänrik(taktikofficerare) is a lover ranked officer than Fanjukare(specialistofficerare). Agree!? Why do you mess up with introducing NCO an CO terms here?

OR and OF codes: Those codes that are presented in official documents look like NATO codes, but are actually Swedish codes and NOT NATO codes as staded by HKV-PERS.

You are actually vandalizing by not taking part in any discussions prior replacing and nullifying all the work that has been done previously on this article. Do you know how much I argue, discuss and seek consensus before I change any other articles even the slightest? You run ahead and do as you like it seems.

We can make use of some of your content, but I will restore the article for now. You should do as everyone else here at wikipedia. That is, to discuss, seek consensus, present evidences, etc, etc. OK?

Wiki is a teamwork!

Regards, --Malin Randstrom (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Language
There are still many problems with the text, but I think it is necessary to discuss the issues one at a time because otherwise we will never get anything done as Malin keeps adding all sorts of random nonsense. I want to start with the most basic of things, the language. This is ENGLISH-language wikipedia, those who do not speak English can go edit the wikipedia pages of whatever language they can speak. Malin, militaryguy, PLEASE try to limit your errors to one per sentence. Malin, put some effing effort into your writing, it took me 2 seconds to find the correct translation of stridsfordon 90.(about the same time it took to find 10+ errors in your last post)

The two most important errors in my view is:

1. Förste Sergeant is NOT translated First Sergeant. That's the LITERAL translation. I tried to explain it at least two times earlier, but I will try once more. If an English person asks you what the Swedish expression "lika som bär" means, do you say "alike as berries"? Of course not, the correct translation is "Like peas in a pod" even if it is nothing like the Swedish expression word-by-word. In the Spanish and Portugese army(and in armies in Latin America) there are ranks that can be translated (literally) as first sergeant. But that doesn't mean that the rank correspond to the US rank First Sergeant. As I also mentioned before, armies in different countries have different traditions, and no one but you expect all armies to have the same names and numbers for everything. I think Staff Sergeant is a much more apropriate translation for förste sergeant and the American First Sergeant I would say can be translated as förvaltare.

2. Look up officer or military officer in an English dictionary and you'll find it does not mean what you think it means. The word officer means the same thing in Sweden as in other countries. As I have said earlier, you place too much importance on the commission (fullmakt). As you know, generally officers are divided into two categories. In English these are called commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers. Whether or not the officers get an actual commission from the head of state is irrelevant to what word one should use when translating. Do German leutnants get a commission from the Bundespräsident? I don't know and I certainly wouldn't translate the German officer corps as NCOs until I have made sure I know if they do get a commission. In General, among the differences between NCOs and Commissioned officers are such things as i) commissioned officers have a longer formal education ii)only the commissioned officers can take the senior positions in the hierarchy iii) NCOs are more focused on day to day operations. Now, I don't see how one can look at the Swedish situation and say that the Swedish officers are all NCOs. No army can function without senior leadership. You write that "A fänrik may be asked to drill recruits just like a sergeant while a regementsvförvaltare may act as executive officer of a company, which may involve commanding Majors, Kaptens or other officers you call COs." I do not have the same inside knowledge that you have so could you please back this up with some evidence? I have not seen any information that suggests that Fänrik will in the future drill new recruits(except the old pre 2008 ones who choose not to adopt the new rank) nor any evidence that the senior specialistofficerare will have formal authority over junior officerare.

--Stulfsten (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Reply to Remake by Faffia

 * First, the table you created is too large and clumsy and occupies almost the entire article.

The table is large in size because it's not horizontal, but vertical in design. I've noticed that the horizontal tables are more difficult to read when using the smaller standard resolutions (1024x786). There are many ranks, and a horizontal-orientated table would require a reader to scroll both horizontal and vertical. This design, IMHO, is easier to navigate. And it is an accepted concept to try to design webpages in a vertical -not horizontal- fashion. If this concept is established in the Wikipedia community, I don't know. I tried to make it as easy as possible to navigate.


 * It also misleads reader to believe that all specialist officers are junior to all generalist officers, which is not the case.

No matter how you try to present the ranks, there will be people of higher rank who are junior to persons with lower rank. The fact remains that the way the table is designed is the chain-of-command. I will return on this subject further down when commenting the Tjänsteställning.


 * Thirdly, why do you duplicated work and reinvent the wheal by creating a table that is twice as large with the same information? Lastly, this is no good in a maintenance perspective as this sort of table may be part of several articles. For such reasons there should be only one table written as a template and kept as small as possible.

As stated above, the size was due to it's vertical design. I agree it should be as small as possible. One way to reduce it's size would be to rotate the rank insignias. On the point of maintance I do feel I must emphasize the fact that the comfort of the reader should not be affected by codingstyle. Many of the tables included using templates (see Historical ranks) are in fact incomplete! No wonder they are so much smaller!


 * Faffia, still, you don't understand that new officers as of 1983 are not privileged as commissioned officers anymore. It was abolished all together !!!! 3000 out of 7000 officers are indeed commissioned officers, but those became officers before 1983. That is, Sweden has 3,000 commissioned officers (mostly with the rank of Major and above) and 7000 non-commissioned officers. You try to conceal what each officer does in general and what each rank really represents in particular. I have not translated ranks, I have attached what a typical person of such a rank does such as being a team leader, instructor or responsible for the training of a platoon.

Humbly and with all respect, I don't really care! Well, to a certain point I agree. First, I belive the facts concerning the ranks should be first in the article. Most readers doesn't care about wether a Captain commands a batallion or a platoon (etc) but rather just the ranks. Hence i put the table first.

Comments about the implementation of ranks can be included, but not first in the article. I don't find it impressive with the leading text in the article (incorrect) states that officers are all salaried military personel.

I fully agree that text that explains the implementation of the ranks should be included. But as many others has pointed out (as many of your contributions are, Malin), the text are bias and not neutral!


 * So, tell me! What makes you think that a drill sergeant should be categorized as commissioned officer; and a company executive officer as a non-commissioned, who may command Majors and Kaptens? You are categorizing a fänrik as commissioned officer and a regementsförvaltare as non-commissioned officer. A fänrik may be asked to drill recruits just like a sergeant while a regementsvförvaltare may act as executive officer of a company, which may involve commanding Majors, Kaptens or other officers you call COs.


 * I have all working documents regarding the new ranking system, including all opinions from all parts of the Swedish defense forces as provided me personally by the HKV-PERS.


 * The previous table describes ranks and their seniority as decided by the Armed forces that is Fanjunkare is more senior than a Fänrik, a Förvatlare more senior than a Löjtnant, and a Regementsförvaltare more senior than a Major, etc. Officersförbundet has been very keen in stressing that there should be no B or A team and that is what the table represents with two kinds of officers. Calling one part for non-commissioned and the other for commissioned serves no purpose and is against the purpose and intentions of the new system! You don’t even know what a commissioned officer is as you leave it completely undefined.

Calm down! The table is based on the chain of command. Not the Tjänsteställning, in other words not oriented by the status or seniority of the different ranks. Table should be oriented by chain of command, as with all other tables concerning ranks on WP. Any other way would be misinformation. This is why I did include a table after the ranks explaining the Tjänsteställning.

I quote the publication of the Armed Forces HQ "Missiv utveckling tvåbefälssystem", page 2.


 * Begreppet tjänsteställning ska inte förväxlas med uttrycket befälsrätt som reglerar militär personals rätt och skyldigheter att i tjänsten föra befäl över annan militär personal.

which translates into The term paygrade should not be confused with the expression chain-of-command which regulates military personels right and obligations in service to command other military personel.

Even if a Regementsförvaltare may be career-comparable to a Major (etc), the fact still stands, a Fänrik (OF-1) have a higher rank than OR-9!

However, and here you are correct, a OF-1 who may serve in a position were, say, a OR-7 are in command, and have to obey orders given by the OR-7. But this is not regulated by the tjänsteställning, but rather the current position in service. This is in effect everywere without the Army. As even as a Major may attend training, he is still subject of the chain-of-command by the instructor for the training as the instructor has ben put in charge. But, however, this is still restricted to this single instance.

Even a private are note rarley put in charge for some tasks, does that mean the others, even if they may be a OR-3, should not follow his orders?

If you read the text of the ''3 kap. Befälsrätt/Förordning (1996:927)'', it does not mention anything about OR or OF; who will follow whose orders depending on rank. You have to distinguish the instances where a person has been appointed in charge and the ranks.

If do you have evidence for fact supporting anything else, please, enlighten me! I belive I just proven my point of chain-of-command.


 * Tjäsnsteställning should be translated as seniority and not as pay grade since pay does not necessarily translates into who is the more senior. All personnel above Swedish OR5 are officers. One kind is specialist (specialistofficer) while the other generalist (taktikofficer). A specialistofficer may give order to a taktikofficer and vice versa. This is absolutely not the case in the US. In Sweden, a Fänrik(taktikofficerare) is a lover ranked officer than Fanjukare(specialistofficerare). Agree!? Why do you mess up with introducing NCO an CO terms here?

First, I did state in my comment on this talk page I didn't know a better english word/term than paygrade!. And I did say I welcomed suggestions and/or edits to change it.

Second, Because NCO and CO are the terms that english-speaking readers understand. How do you translate NCO into a swedish reader so he/she may understand you? You do not say icke-fullmaktsofficerare, but rather underofficerare and most people would understand

Now the HKV chose to use the term Specialistofficerare. But that I belive, along with others, that this is just because they fear it won't be as cool to call oneself underofficerare. It draws more attention and recruits if called Specialistofficerare. Frankly, it's a PR-trick. I know for a fact that many of the persons who completed the SOU (Specialistofficerarutbildning) was surprised to find they weren't promoted to Fänrik (OF-1). Well, big surprise given the fact that they spent a year in training while a OF-1 spent three years...

I have no objection in removing the word Commissioned in prefix to Officer. But there is no better term that describes Specialistofficer than NCO. I pointed this out, as well as in the text of the article as my comment in this talk page.


 * Those OR and OF codes that are presented in official documents look like NATO codes but are actually Swedish codes and NOT NATO codes as staded by HKV-PERS.

Where did I wrote NATO Code? If I did it was a mistake on my part. I re-labled the column to 'Rank' and not NATO Code because of this.


 * You are actually vandalizing by not taking part in any discussions prior replacing and nullifying all the work that has been done previously on this article. You have by sheer anger gone astray this time. Do you know how much I argue, discuss and seek consensus before I change any other articles even the slightest? You run ahead and do as you like it seems.

If you belive my work was vandalizing, then I'm sorry but I cannot agree. I have for quite some time read comments on this talk page by people not expressing the comparison and statements you have written are non-neutral and frankly bias. The change I did was, I belive, constructive as it

1) displayed ranks in chain of command 2) included all ranks of all branches (well, not all graphic was done...) 3) put rank table first in article as most readers seek this information, not article text. 4) more neutral as the articles/sections I wrote following the ranks was almost a direct quote from publications. 5) I did wrote a section trying to explain the complexity of translations as the culture of Swedish and US/British Armed Forces is so different


 * We can make use of some of your content, but I will restore the article for now. You should do as everyone else here at wikipedia. That is, to discuss, seek consensus, present evidences, etc, etc. OK?

I find it funny you say this, because I can find comments on almost every article you've made contributions to about the bias and straight out incorrect text you add. As I said before, many people had expressed here the need for change of this article because of all the incorrect information.

If you find any of my claims to be unsupported, please, prove it to me and I will comment it.

Faffia (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Partial reply
My approach now is to provide proof of facts.


 * Stulfsten -- regarding English... Both your and my English need improvements, so what! (Finnish is my native langaue, then Swedish, then Japanese and lastly English). If you find errors please rephrase and change wordings in order to improve the article further. You wrote a whole paragraph judging people without working for a solution.

[]
 * "En fanjunkare kan alltsa mycketval vara chef over fanrikar, kaptener och majorer." = "A fanjunkare (Specialist Officer) may therefore be in charge of fanrikar, kaptener, och majorer." -- Överste Johan Fölstad, architect of the new officer system. This statement makes SO very different from NCOs of the US.
 * "Det ar darfor vi vill behalla begreppet yrkesofficer som samlingsnamn" = "... we are going to keep the term professional officer as a collective name". -- Överste Johan Fölstad, architect of the new officer system. That is, SO and OF = professional officer.
 * specialistofficer may be confusing as Fiffa explains, but that's what we have for now. We need a section to explain the differences between those categories.

I have removed all translations and positions from the table moving forward and minimized it further. The chain of command is left to right. I agree that we should not translate, but attempt to describe what each rank represent. If the translation is done by a Swedish officer, he/she will attempt to choose a much higher rank than what it really represents. If the translation is done by a person not having a Swedish rank, Swedish officers may get upset. We are deadlocked! Can we agree not to translate them ?

Faffia ... yes, I have the letter sent from SO students to the supreme commander June 2008 expressing their deep frustration over not being promoted to fanrik upon graduation. SO officers graduated instead as sergeants. The supreme commander decided to change the title from Sergeant to First sergeant in October. This change was not part of the request for comments (remiss) that was sent to all units of the defense forces. The "remiss" only stated "sergeant" as a entry rank for SOs. My theory is that First sergeant was given soley to make SOs happy. No investigations whatsoever have been carried out to find out whether the rank is appropriate in a global sense. FM simply ended up with a rank that cannot be translated directly. Worse, in the "remiss", Fanjukare is tranlsated as staff sergeant and will most likely be translated that way by the FM. The problem is that a First Sergeant is senior to a Staff Sergeant, but in Sweden the other way around. IMO, this is a great misstake and for me to try to describe how Swedish ranks relate a nightmare. Once a First sergeant is out on an international mission she will lead a team of 6 men and work alongside squadleaders who are corporals or at most sergeants. My goal is to make it as correct as possilbe and I do lots of compromizes not to upset Swedish officers. Lets find a way out! Regards, --Malin Randstrom (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

reply by stulfsten
Malin, don't be absurd! I have not judged anyone. I am just pointing out that language is important, because it is. I don't see how you can say that I am not "working for a solution", when BOTH paragraphs contained suggestions how to improve the article. You still haven't explained why you think it is appropriate to translate Förste Sergeant, a mid level position attainable after one year of school with First Sergeant, a senior NCO rank which requires many years of service to attain. As I have tried to explain four times now, the fact that First Sergeant is the literal translation of Förste Sergeant is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stulfsten (talk • contribs) 02:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have expalined enough that the rank Förste sergeant is a misstake by the Swedish defense forces because it cannot be translated directly to First Sergeant just as you explain. We are on the same page here. Förste sergeant is an entry level professional rank the same way a Corporal is in the USA. Therefore Corporal or at most Sergeant is a more suitable translation, IMO. Those who push for a translation from Förste sergeant to First Sergeant are SO officers themselves and some within PERS. The absolut best solution is to make the entry level SO rank korpral, so it may be direct translatable to corporal, but this will surely upset SOs as explained below. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you have not "explained enough" and no, we are not on the same page. If we were, you would immediately change the article to say Staff Sergeant instead of First Sergeant. I couldn't care less if some Swedish officer gets upset at the CORRECT translation. Förste Sergeant is NOT First Sergeant. Period. I also disagree with your opinion that Corporal or Sergeant is the best translation, a Swedish Förste Sergeant has one year of officers training, something a US Corporal does not have.


 * There is only one correct English translation and that is from Förste sergeant to First Sergeant. This is just how English translation works. However, we may interpret Förste sergeant as Corporal or whatever. You have to know the difference between translation and interpretation. Experience in commanding troops is regarded higher than dry training. In this respect, a USMC Corporal has an edge over a Förste sergeant. Key: Officers primary skill is to command troops. Commanders are born on the battlefield not in a classroom. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I think it is you who must learn the difference between LITERAL TRANSLATION and TRANSLATION. But I guess that is too much to ask of someone who translates Swedish högskola with high school. --Stulfsten (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Malin by Faffia
Thank you! But I've already read this.

However, as you quote, Överste Johan Fölstad says; fanjunkare kan alltså mycket väl vara chef över fänrikar, kaptener och majorer. I never intended to say otherwise (if you read my reply to your reply (!)), in fact I also said this was true. But this statement does not automatically mean that a fanjunkare is higher in command than a fänrik. Still, a Fanjunkare has not a higher tjänsteställning as a Kapten or Major, just Fänrik. This does not change the fact that a Fanjunkare may in some cases give orders to a Major. The facts pointed out by Övt. Fölstad is not new with the new ranks, but has been this way for a long time, regulated by the Befälsrätt. If we were to design the table based on Övt. Fölstads comment, a Fanjunkare should be put above Major. But this is not the case.
 * He stated this at the time when the rank was a proposal and not assigned an OR code or exact tjäsnsteställning yet. The following was part of the initial proposal for SOs after his article: (OR6 Sergeant, OR7 Översergeant, OR8 Fanjukare....). His point is that SO may command OF. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Befälsrätt (chain of command) states that any person put in charge of other persons have the right to issue orders to those serving under him/her. Regardless of rank. In fact, the Befälsrätt even leaves it open for a private to command senior officers. Rank does not matter in this case. In reality, a private is rarly (or propably never) put in charge over a Major, as a Major always has more experience anyways. But it's legal and possible.

I may have been unclear about my reasons for placing the SO "beneith" OF. Well, one reason is the education. A SO still attends one year of officer training, while OF attends three years. This is an distinction, and I firmly belive we should keep it that way. Merging the two rank systems, OR and OF is, AFAIC, messy.

Yes, a person is able to alternate between the two systems. But even if, formally, there is a significant difference in education (1 year vs. 3 years), FM leaves the option open for superior officers to decide wether a SO is still as competent and able to do a OF job (and as such be promoted from SO to OF). We both know that there will always be people brighter than some, regardless of formal education.

So, we can't change the displayed order of ranks based on tjänsteställning, and we cant use a established chain of command as there in fact is none. Because of this, the only really liable way of displaying the ranks are in the traditional Soldier-NCO-Officer fashion. I know you aren't fond of the NCO term, but I used it here to clarify the three categories. The Officer issues the orders, the NCO (or in Sweden, OR 5-6/OF 1-3) makes sure the orders are followed, and the soldiers carry them out. Please excuse if I was blunt in this explaination, but basically it's how all armies work, one way or another.

p.s. Just as Övt Fölstad says that SO are still Yrkesofficerare, well of course they are. NCO and CO in U.S. are both Yrkesofficerare. This does not change anything, really. Historically, an officer was anyone who commanded troops. Everyone was soldiers and did not have any authority over anyone else. Hell, that's where the term Non-Commissioned, and Commissioned Officer was invented. A non-commissioned officer was one "from the ranks" and as such knew how things should operate. They are they know-how guys. The COs on the other hand attended a school/education from the king/president (etc) and as such they were tutored into the politics and belifs of the regime. They are know-why guys. The rest, the soldiers, have no say and just follow orders. So, how is this different to Soldiers/SO/OF ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faffia (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How the rank First Sergeant was invented, I don't know; and I don't care. It simply exists now and that's a fact. But I don't really understand why you bring the translations of the ranks into this. I did not include translations of the ranks in the edition I published. Simply because of all these problems regarding the translations.

I'm sure FM will publish an official policy on how to translate the ranks, until, yes I agree we won't or even should translate.

Finally, I would like to talk about the design of the article. Most people visiting this article was searching information about swedish ranks. Either it's a swedish soldier wanting to study the ranks, I know I had to search the internet for ranks when I did my service as we was not given any information from our officers. Or it may be a young recruit waiting for the training to begin (Inryck) and want to learn the ranks. Or it may be a Counter-Strike playing clan wanting to assign real ranks to their members (Redicilus isn't it?).

I know when I was serving, many people (myself included...) studied U.S. rank insignias to gloat when watching military movies in the Soldathem and being able to tell the difference between a Staff Sergeant and a First Sergeant.

My point is, most readers just want read the rank insignias and titles. Many aren't really intereseted how many soldiers a Corporal or Sergeant commands, or how the titles are translated. They just want to see the ranks. This is in my opinion further reading. And as such, they should follow after the facts.

As always, comments and comparison to other cultures or systems are to be last.

I've made a edit to the rank insignia table. Mainly it's just a clean-up 1) Many sup numbers were explained, but nothing referenced them. 2) Added a row for OR and OF definitions. These are official definitions, and used frequently now to describe swedish ranks. 3) Re-labled the column headers for Officers and non-officers (soldiers). I felt it was unneccesary to have the term "Conscripted and contracted"; because it doesn't matter how they are involved. Also, removed the term "Employed military personel" for the same reasons. I know that a SO or OF may be charge of squads, but the OR 1-5 are mainly used for this purpose. It's a general description. 4) Cleaned up WP-code. It's much more manuevreable now. 5) Above each branch, I added the OR/OF definitions row. It may look a bit messier, but it was hard to read the OR/OF code when readint the last rows of insignias.

Furthermore, I've said before that there is no need to display cap-insignias mössmärke. Objections? ... And of course, I would like to put all OR ranks to the left of OF ranks. As they are mixed up now, it's not easy to read.
 * Since cap signs separates SO from OF it serves its purposes. Ranks follow seniority and putting all SO between soldiers and OFs makes all SO appear junior to all OF, which is not the case in Sweden. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But why don't you add symbols representing wether the rank should be complemented with a beret or a hat when wearing the M/86. Besides, NCOs in US/UK are probably senior to their officers, still, the ranks are displayed beneith the officer ranks. Also, if you add cap signs for the Army, similar items should be added for the other branches aswell. And, it's simply too much information. 194.17.163.26 (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The crest of the hat contains a white or blue button just like the field uniform cap. Yes, I know: In Sweden, most wear a baret when walking the streets in uniform for some reasons, even desk officers (HKV). However, the baret is not practical for field use and when the helmet is off, cap is more practical. The NCO only applies to those without a comission! Please correct me if I am wrong, but all the branches of the armed forces wear caps with those insignias when in field uniform except for the Air force. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Faffia (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Faffia
Commissioned officers were appointed by the King/Queen with extraordinary authority and the right to hire soldiers to fight on behalf of him/her. The commission was a lifelong right and even a tradable instrument for about a couple of hundred years. Officers in turn hired underofficers and privates. Today, both OS and OF are hired exactly the same way in Sweden and may command units.

The word comissioned officer (fullmatks officerare) should be used exclusively for those who are comissioend officers (fullmakts officerare). That is, about 3,000 out of 7,000 officers.

How relevant the 3 year officer school is for commanding troops is yet to be proven. It would be very informative if you could add a section about the officer’s school as I know too little about it to write it myself. My impression is that SO learn by experience what OF learn at school. Officers abroad are mostly recruited from the population of university graduates. Yes, the OF school has been upgraded to college status by the government to attract applicants. What I am concerned about is the extremely low scholastic admission requirements to the school and for this reason may not qualify as a college level education abroad.

Your additions look good. I have some points.

 * The HTML code looks more maintainable and easier to work with.


 * By Conscripted and contracted personnel, I mean a category of personnel distinct from yrkesofficerare. Almost all ranking table states "enlisted personnel" so why are we making an exception here? Ranks on he left are contracted and on the right employed personnel.


 * Adding OR and OF codes may confuse the reader to believe that those are NATO codes, which they are not. However, since these are official Swedish codes I will keep them, yet add an explanation that these are not NATO codes.

--Malin Randstrom (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sergeant is a former Furir rank and as far as I know most furir do not lead any troops but are soldiers with a specialization. In the cavalry, all soldiers are(where) GBS and hence Furir at graduation. Some few are deputy section leaders. I will therefore, change it to Soldiers and soldiers with a specialization. Forste sergeant and Fanjunkare are squadleader ranks.

Thank, you. Here's my answer

 * Sure, change it to Enlisted Personnel.


 * Yea, it may confuse the reader. U.S. makes the distinction by using "E-4" (etc) for their own ranks, and added NATO codes (OR/OF) to compare ranks international. It's sad that the HKV did make use of this idea. And unfortunate they chose to use codes which is expressed/written the same way as NATO codes. Not our fault though, and as such we should not hide it from the users.


 * A Furir is a squad leader. At least according to Infantry school. (I did my conscription service in a light infantry platoon attached to a heavy tank company). AFAIK, a Sergeant (now 1:e Sergeant) are in the mechanized infantry the commander of a IFV (Strf90), and as such have much more responsibility as he's in charge of the veichle (hence the higher rank). The infantry riding in the back are commanded by a Furir (now Sergeant).


 * Of course, it's not unusual for an OF to get "their hands dirty" and command a Strf90 or a Strv122/121 etc. And obviously, the platoon commander in a Strv122 platoon is still in charge of the Strv122/IFV he's riding in. And as such, he has in most cases a higher rank (vpl fänrik). And during conscription service, everyone except privates still wears one rank beneith the rank he/she receives after graduation (MUCK). In other words, the commander of a Srf90 may be a Furir (MUCK Sergeant), and the platoon commander may be a sergeant (MUCK Vpl. Fänrik).


 * This statement is based on my own experience and I haven't been able to find any sources on the web which I can reference, sorry. And as it was a couple of years ago I did my service, this is according to the 'old' ranks. I guess that it may be different between the different specialization of the batallions (cavalry (K), mechanized (P) etc). Most probably, as the cavalry usually have a higher standard in their training of soldiers, all soldiers attend GBS as you say. I don't know. P-regiments are the now modern infantry with it's Strv9040 veichles and soldiers.


 * However, the National Guard is pure light infantry, and I found this course catalouge for 2009 (this is written for the old ranks though). And here it states that a Squad Leader who attended a squad leader course and a UGL-course (Utveckling Grupp Ledare) is promoted to Furir (now Sergeant), see page 8.


 * http://www.mil.se/upload/Forband/Skolor/Hemvarnets_stridsskola_HvSS/kurskatalog-2009.pdf


 * In addition, see this document published also by the National Guard. Here is basically the same info as above, but describes the implementation of the new ranks in National Guard in more detail.
 * This document tells us that both a Corporal and Furir (now Sergeant) are squad leaders. Also note that a National Guard contracted soldier cannt reach higher than OR-7, and OR-7 requires the decision by the Rikshemvärnschef. And that OR-4 will not be used.


 * http://rikshv.hemvarnet.se/filer/NTbYfI/HKV_2008-12-09_16790.900988.pdf


 * The problem with the National Guard is that chain-of-command changes regurarly (nearly yearly) because of people quitting, joining, too little free time to attend the national guard. As such, many soldiers have in past years been promoted but has not been demoted. So it's not uncommon for an ex. quarter master (Löjtnant) to now be serving as a soldier and has to obey the orders of a Furir or even Corporal.


 * Faffia (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Specialist officers
I agree, this term is confusing and may be seen as a doc with a officers rank or something. Can we change it to Specialized officers to indicate that those are officers, who are specialized. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I belive Specialist Officer is a better description than Specialized Officer. Why? Because it's the official name, translated directly into english. Awaiting official translation, and to avoid conflicts amongst ourselfs we should not translate anything on our own. Faffia (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, lets keep specialistofficer for now. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

translation, again
this has already been discussed several times, I am pleased Malin has now adopted my view which is the only logical one. A Specialist officer is an officer with special skills such as doctor, lawyer etc. i.e. something very different from the Swedish specialistofficer. I think the best solution is to translate it as NCO or not translate it at all and use the Swedish word.

Malin, you have still not explained why the historical context of the commission(fullmakt) is relevant TODAY. In modern armies today, how many officers get a personal warrant/commission from the head of state with special privileges? Do Norwegian, Danish, German, French etc get this? Do they have the right to employ additional soldiers on behalf of the government? Can't you see that the term commissioned officer is the best ENGLISH language word for the Swedish category even if they do not get a commission like in UK or like they used to get in Sweden prior to 83? If someone translates Swedish Riksdag to Parliament he/she is NOT implying that the Swedish Legislature has hereditary members or church apointees like the UK parliament. The word parliament is simply a good translation because then an English speaking person would know what the riksdag is, in contrast to your translation method; nobody would understand what a Realm Day is or what is does. --Stulfsten (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, I have not adopted your view, as there is only one English translation (no context) and that is to First Sergeant. The point is that the rank does not correspond to a First Sergeant, but to a Corporal in the context of the British Army.


 * The term commissioned officer is valid today as there are still commissioned officers in Sweden. 3,000 out of 10,000 officers are commissioned officers the rest are not. Best is NOT to use the word commission at all (except for separating those 3000 officer who have a comission), because it will case confusion. For example, in the new system, all documents state that Förvaltare is a more senior officer than both Fänrik and Löjtnant; and there is no document that states the opposite. Provided that FM would start to grant officers with the privilege of being commissioned officers; Förvaltare would, according to prevailing definition of ranks, better qualify as commissioned officers than Fänrik and Löjtnant. Hope you understand now! --Malin Randstrom (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It does not matter wether they get an actual comission today or not. For a native english speaking person to understand you have to describe it in a way they understand. Better to put an explaination under a "historic" context that officers today does not receive a commission.


 * Does U.S. Officers receive a commission? If not, why don't you edit those articles?
 * Also, seniority does not matter when displaying ranks. Even in U.S. a lower-ranking officer may command a higher-ranking one (ref. "Lone Survivor" by Marcus Luttrell, Chapter 1, page 15. A Petty Officer commands a squad of Navy Seals, in which a CO Lieutenant serves). And still, tables describing those ranks place NCO (Swedish SO) ranks below CO. Whos commanding who has nothing to do with seniority or ranks. But rather the competence of the individuals. As such, ranks should be displayed in the order they always has been, Full grade officers above other officers!Faffia (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You cant say that "seniority does not matter when describing ranks" as ranks are basically the same as seniority levels. Rank = seniority. What makes a Fänrik a more "full grade officer" than a Fanjunkare? Can you explain more?
 * US officers receive a commission directly from the president and a document stating that they are now "commissioned" officers. Just like Swedish commissioned officer it is life long and provides the CO exclusive command authority. If you are hired as an officer like all Swedish officers are(without the commission privilege) you are not a commissioned officer and can be hired and fired as anyone else. Swedish officers after 1983 are NCOs and basically correspond to the old under officers and undebefäls corps and given duties and authorities just like corporals and sergeants of the US. Definition and authority wise; Fänrik, Löjtnant, Kapten and Majors are a lot closer to NCOs than COs. If you want to help the English reader you should call all those officers NCOs! --Malin Randstrom (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Officers(SO) frustration over the sergeant title
Officer(SO) candidates expected all through their training to graduate as fänrik,,,,, Here is the copy-and-paste version (Swedish only) of the letter from SO students May 2008 Specialistofficerares besvikelse över sergeant graden. If you want the word version or any of the 30 documents that were used as base to make a decision regarding the new officers system, pls let me know. Militaryguy is a Swedish officer (claims to), who objects to that there is a relationship between avbove and the creation of the First sergeant rank. However, it seems hihgly likely to be the case since no other expalations exists or are given at this point. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 05:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Btw, Faffia. Are you like militaryguy also a Swedish officer? I am intereted.


 * The reasons does not concern me. One reason may be simply to fill out 9 ranks, as there are no numbers left to use with ranks 1-9 (unless adding another digit). Anyhow, it does not matter. However, I was not happy to read that Furir is no more. I like the name! :-) I'd preffered keeping the name Furir and having 1:e Sergeant be named Sergeant instead. Simply to keep the tradidional Swedish titles.
 * There were indeed many objections to the removal of Furir when the system was in its proposal state. Furir has been inflated from a section leader rank to a rank for "first grade solders" and at most deputy section leaders. When you served it was probably also a section leader rank. What happened was that part of GBS were made PBS for those who were designated to become section leaders. Your GBS might be the new PBS. So, if you graduated as section leader with the rank of Furir, your rank should equal a PBS Sergeant. Hope this make sense. Because of the rank inflation, it is very important to know WHEN you graduated as a Furir, Sergeant or whatever. I am very frustrated over the rank inflation as it has reduced my rank as well. It surely hurts when I have to describe my own rank as being so low in an global comparison, but I do it. Those who have spent 11 month of military service ending up as a soldier w/o command fight fiercely for their Furir rank to be translated to Sergeant. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I did my service 2005. Nothing has changed since then until the introduction of SO and these new ranks. The ranks were used as following:
 * {| border=1


 * Inryck KBS||Inryck PBS||Inryck GBS||Inryck Soldiers||MUCK
 * KBS||Menig||Korpral||Furir||Sergeant||Vpl Fänrik
 * PBS||||Menig||Korpral||Furir||Sergeant
 * GBS||||||Menig||Korpral||Furir
 * Soldiers||||||||Menig||Menig
 * }
 * GBS||||||Menig||Korpral||Furir
 * Soldiers||||||||Menig||Menig
 * }
 * Soldiers||||||||Menig||Menig
 * }


 * As per description above, Korpral was never used as something but a trainee-rank for conscripts. And as I've said before, Furir are (were) squadleaders! Faffia (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand from what I read today, most GBS students after 2000 were trained as cavalry soldiers, soldiers with a specialization and some deputy section leaders. PBS students were trained to become section leaders. Can you provide me with a link that describes a Furir assinged as a section leader during your time in service?
 * During the time I served (1985), a KBS student (15 months) became platoon leaders, deputy platoon leaders or artillery support officer, and a GBS student (10 months) section leaders (8 men), deputy section leaders(8men), platoon corpsman, sniper, artillery fire assistants, staff assistants. PBS (12 months) was mostly a training for company quartermasters and company level corpsmen. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not an Officer. These days I am a simple deputy squad leader in the national guard. However, I have considered to apply for SOU or OF school many times. But both my familiy and my civilian occupation as software developer [better pay] keeps me from doing it. :-) Faffia (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Insignia images
I have drawn all the Swedish rank insignias from scratch and at the moment I don't have time for drawing navy cap insignias. Drawing the remaining air force insignias should be very easy. I have not released the SVG image of air force wings case I don't trust wikis copyright policy fully. If you want to use the SVG image, I can provide it to you personally with promises that it wont be uploaded to wiki. You should use the SVG image and export it to png and upload the png image. Thanks --Malin Randstrom (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Airforce insignias
I have drawn the remaining OF ranks except for generals. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Conscripted personnel
Is this term still valid considering that the service has been optional during the last years? ...any better ways to describe those who choose to serve? --Malin Randstrom (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Enlisted? To engage (persons or a person) for service in the armed forces. or To enter the armed forces. No matter wether they are conscripted, contracted for international missions or full time employed soldiers, this term still applies to them all. And its a well established term for non-Officer personnel. Agree? (ref. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enlisted) Faffia (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving SO to the left of OF
Faffia: Actually, I want to put all SOs to the left of OF to make it look better as you suggests. However, I am not sure wheter it is correct. By no means I want SO to appear as NCOs. Can we remove OR and OF codes and move specialist officer ranks as you suggest? --Malin Randstrom (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we should remove the OR/OF codes as they are official, even if we don't like it (and like a true Swedish soldier says, bara att gilla läget). If we removed them from the template User_SwedishMilitaryRanks2009, we'd have to add a table for the OR/OF codes, as they should be explained; and that's simply a waste of space. I belive it to be suitable to put SO to the left of OF, keep the OR/OF codes, and have a table describing the Tjänsteställning, just like the table in the official publications. Comments? Faffia (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Soldier, team, section, squad grade ranks
Your comparision between light infantry and mechanized infantry is wrong. It would be more accurate to compare a swedish mechanized section with a US army mechanized squad (6 men) and a brittish mechanized section (7 men) and make a separate comparison between light infantry sections. And also i would like to see you back up your assertions with some sources. And you should clarify that a section is the same as a squad. TEA (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are aiming your critizism on my comments on this talk page, here's my reply. I never intended to claim I was correct. I said based my statements on my own experience, and that I didn't have any sources to reference. Also, I tried to clarify that I don't know how it works/worked on Cavalry (K) or Artillery (A) etc regiments. Or do your comment refer to the article? Faffia (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Faffia, I think he refers to the article and here is my comments: TEA, your comments are partly correct. Light infantry historically is fast moving and more agile infantry, which was not part of main more heavy and less mobile infantry. Light infantry is somewhat closer to what cavalry is today and what Lapplands Jägar regiment was then. Well, what is the diff today? All units are fast agile and transported by armored vehicles, even the marines. Faffia may explain this much better, but as far as I know, the diff is that strf90 based soldiers mostly fire from the strf90 and less frequent run alongside. In addition, there is an automatic canon that provides increased firing power. What else? Would you please provide us with a link to a US mechanized section and platoon with ranks? We may include that in the picture as well. I think we should stick with section as the definition is narrower and limited around 8 soldiers. The definition of a squad is broad and could mean 9 to 13 soldiers. Some may call 6 soldiers a fireteam rather than a section or squad. Sure, I will add more references! --Malin Randstrom (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I was refering to the article. Light infantry in a modern army is defined by lack of heavy weapons and/or lacking in heavy vehicles (Combat Vehicle 90, M2 Bradley, warrior, or tanks). They will often have vehicles but they will be lightly armoured and armed, whereas Mechanized infantry will be equipped with IFVs and often have organic tank support at higher levels. Marines will tend to be equipped with amphibious vehicles with light armor. The trade off between Light infantry and Mechanized infantry is that IFVs often have a limited amount of space for soldiers therefore they often have to fight with fewer soldiers but on the positive side they have better protection for their soldiers and can beef up their firepower with automatic cannon fire.


 * Section directly corresponds with Squad there is no differense but for simplicity (and because its an english term whereas squad is a yank term) we can stick to section. Anyone who calls a 6 man section a fire team based on their size don't understand what a fire team is or doesn't understand military organisation.


 * Here is an american mechanized platoon straight from the US army field manual: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-71/ch1.htm#sec2


 * And if you need a refresher in military organization and/or ranks check this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_organisation


 * TEA (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool,,, I will include that squad in the picture assuming the squad leader of the US Army is a Staff Sergeant.
 * Regarding the tactics of a strf90 based section. I want to understand more whether the section operates in two small fire teams or just as a large fire team. During mounted combat it surely operates as one whole fire team with one KSP58 on each side. Is the section split into two, when running alongside to increase firing power at 11 and 1 o'clock? One team may use a GRG and the other a KSP and in this case each team becomes distinct. Actually, one senior officer of the USMC wrote a long paper suggesting to increase the fire-team from 4 to 6 to make it more durable in case of casualties.
 * --Malin Randstrom (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The definition of the term Officer and other categories of rank
There is some great confusion in this article about who is an officer an who is not. There is a necessity for a distinction between officerare (officers), underofficerare (warrant officers) and underbefäl (non-commissioned officers). This distinction is made necessary by the Geneva Convention part III Articles 43, 44, 49 and 50. The term non-commissioned is internationally accepted and has nothing whatsoever to do with the swedish abolishment of officersfullmakt in 1983. This fullmakt only regulated under what conditions the officers were employed, it does not affect their status as officers.

The ranks Fänrik, Löjtnant, Kapten, Major, Överstelöjtnant, Överste, Överste av 1:a graden (no longer used) and all ranks of General are officers. It does not matter how or when they reached their rank. They may be conscripts sent to Kadettskola, they may be old fanjunkare promoted to Lieutenant or they may have studied at the Military Academy Karlberg. To describe any one of them as a Non-commissioned Officer is a grave insult.
 * Officers

The ranks Sergeant (before 2009), Förste Sergeant, Fanjunkare, Förvaltare and Regementsförvaltare are Warrant Officers. Swedish terms are Underofficerare (before 2009) and Specialistofficerare (from 2009 and on). Warrant Officers are not Officerare. Just like an USMC grunt can make brilliant career and become Sergeant Major of the Corps and be saluted by Admirals and Generals alike, he is still not an Officer.
 * Warrant Officers

The ranks Vicekorpral (from 2009), Korpral (from 2009), Furir, Sergeant (from 2009), Överfurir (no longer used) and Rustmästare (no longer used) are Non-commissioned Officers (Underbefäl in swedish). Again, the term Non-commissioned has nothing whatsoever to do with the absence of officersfullmakt. It is simply the internationally accepted term for this category of military personal.
 * Non-commissioned Officers

This article as it is written now is an insult against all people who has devoted their lives to serve in the Swedish armed forces. I wish to make a thorough rewrite of this article, but I do not want to get involved into an edition-war with nosy people who think they know what they write about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.216.122 (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply: The definition of the term Officer and other categories of rank
First, welcome to the discussion and I am very happy to have a Swedish officer taking part in it. I hope you can help us with facts about the armed forces personnel to improve this article further. I don't intend to insult you in any way as I am sure that you are doing an excellent job as an officer. The reply is long because I feel that more detailed explanations are needed for those officers who love their profession and do a great job, but may feel a bit too exposed by the article. It must be said that conditions of being an officer have gradually worsen due to cuts and a great deal of mess. The mail from the deputy commander of Karlberg (MHS) decleares that about half of all the seets in the 3 year programme are not filled due to the lack of applicants. The profession is gettig less attractive due to uncertanities about the defense forces, very long education and a retirement age at 35. And as he points out, this is also because of SO being as great as OF and some SO even greater than some OF. Had Sweden reintroduced the underofficers corps, OF would have became more prestigious according to him. I agree, Sweden should have reintroduced an underofficers corps, but it did not.

I am so sorry that you feel this way. I am an ex Swedish conscript officer and I should be as insulted as you by the article. Sweden is special since all salaried military personnel are officers. I served during the transition from a four layer system to one whole inclusive system for everyone employed in green (1983 NBO), which originates from a social reformist social democratic politician 1947. It is because of this system the personnel structure went out of proportion and there is a great deal of confusion about what Swedish officers really represent. One of the main objectives of the new system (2009) is to correct this with reforms that will drastically reduce the number of officers. The remaining 70% officers will be classified as OR. What this means is that the defense forces itself do not recognize 70% to 90% of current Swedish officers as OF but as OR. When the transition is completed (maybe around 2020) we may start to call officers officers also outside Sweden. In the US and Briton, officers at least actively command a platoon and I would like to see this to become true for Swedden as well. You include too much feeling. Please understand that I have to stay objective no matter what. I am for the reinforcement of the Swedish armed forces to defend Sweden, not to help the US to protect their interests or showing Swedish flags abroad. However, politician keeps cutting in absurdum and spend the remaining on very expensive show-up pretentious units such as NBG. Sweden burn the defense budget in making NBG transportable across the globe ( with very expensive long distance transport planes), but on the other hand run out of money to keep an airborne battalion because helicopters are too expensive. Realistic exercises for officers are kept to a minimum because of unbalanced expenditures. To masquerade the current armed forces as great, will provide those politicians with more room to cut even more. Not until we start to describe the situation how it really is, will people start to understand the seriousness of the situation and demand for reinforcement. Sweden hardly has any officers capable of commanding troops. It is really, really serious. It takes 15 years to produce battalion level commands and above, but today that number is nil. Sweden is going to stay ready with eight battalions at R360, but who will command those battalions and companies? With this in mind, we cannot face an invasion within 15 years as we don’t have 1000 battalion grade and 60 brigade level commands including staff officers in such a timeframe. Politicians cannot project what is going to happen in six months time even; and as we know, Swedish politicians always declare that war is impossible just before the inception of major wars. Why Germany, the US and Japan could find commanders for their bat,brig,div units before WW2 was the supply of officers experienced from WWI. Since the USMC has been at war ever since, they have officers with more extensive experience than eneryone else. For this reason USMC is being used as a prime benchamrk for comparing officers all around the world. Officers there actively command a platoon or higher units.

The system that existed prior 1972 was almost perfect and originates from when Sweden was a military superpower. It consisted of three distinct categories each one being very proud of their own category. There you have underbefäl, underofficerare and officerare. The definition of officers then was hugely different from what it has become today. You have to examine closely what a Korpral and Furir did then and what a Fänrik and Löjtnant do today and you will discover that today’s officers are more like underbefäl and underofficerare in terms of responsibility, authority and civil education. Officers had a studentexamen which is equivalent of today’s universitetsexamen (science majors) and were company grade commanders or higher. The situation in Sweden is indeed absurd with 10,000 officers with merely one standing battalion (for each standing solider there are 10 officers). When Sweden sends naval ships abroad the crew is almost all officers. You want to add the name "commissioned" distinction to all those 10,000 officers. For what purpose, may I ask? And, how do you separate those 3,000 officers who indeed have a commission from those 7,000 who don’t?

Underofficerare... That category was formally removed 1972 and actually removed 1983. Yrkesofficerare since 1983 don’t want to be referred as underofficere and that’s why it is not being used. Warrant officers in the USArmy and USMC have a college degree and are usually helicopter pilots or something that requires advanced skills, but less command authority. In Sweden, those roles are held by Löjtnant, Kapten, etc and it will remain that way in the new system too. Why do you categorize vicekorpral, korpral etc as NCOs when they do not lead personnel and are basically contract based soldier ranks in the new system? The lowest NCO rank in the US is Corporal, who may be in charge of up to 13 soldiers.

The description about Swedish military personnel here in wiki is a lot more objective and accurate than what is being published by the Swedish armed forces through mil.se. Swedish armed forces don’t mention about the enormous rank inflation that has occurred. Where do you find what Sweden relay has in terms of military power? You have to dig very hard to understand what it is, and that is what I have done. I have all the working documents, letters and referrals, drafts related to Swedish officers and the new system, which I have published here upon request.

I have incorporated Fiffas points as I found those accurate based on the information I have at hand. He has more experiences with how mechanized units in Sweden operate today and the table reflect his contributions. I agree with him that SO should be put to the left of OF, but I am locked by the definition from the FM in general and Officersförbundet in particular that OF and SO should be two parallel systems with none being under or over one another. As strongly pointed out by the architects of the new system: both categories are officers. In the US, NCO or WO has no command authority over an OF, is required to salute OFs and obey his/her command. In Sweden, with the new system, this is not true. A Förvaltare may have command authority over Löjtnant and Fänrik; and in all instances regarded as a more senior officer. I have confirmed this with PERS-HKV and I can’t do anything about this until they release new documents that state differently.

Best Regards --Malin Randstrom (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC) --Malin Randstrom (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)== Reply2: The definition of the term Officer and other categories of rank == First, welcome to the discussion and I am very happy to have a Swedish officer taking part in it. I hope you can help us with facts about the armed forces personnel to improve this article further. I don't intend to insult you in any way as I am sure that you are doing an excellent job as an officer. The reply is long because I feel that more detailed explanations are needed for those officers who love their profession and do a great job, but may feel a bit too exposed by the article. It must be said that conditions of being an officer have gradually worsen due to cuts and a great deal of mess. The mail from the deputy commander of Karlberg (MHS) decleares that about half of all the seets in the 3 year programme are not filled due to the lack of applicants. The profession is gettig less attractive due to uncertanities about the defense forces, very long education and a retirement age at 35. And as he points out, this is also because of SO being as great as OF and some SO even greater than some OF. Had Sweden reintroduced the underofficers corps, OF would have became more prestigious according to him. I agree, Sweden should have reintroduced an underofficers corps, but it did not.
 * Sweden has reintroduced the underofficers corps, but under a different name: Specialistofficer.
 * Specialistofficers are employed just like regular officers, but has underofficer ranks (First Sergeant, Fanjunkare, Förvaltare etc)
 * The first class of SO was recruited with the prospect of achieve the rank of Fänrik on examination. This was changed during their education and they were (with some disappointment) examined as First Sergeants.
 * Nope, they graduated as Sergeants in June. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. Sergeants, not First Sergeants. But my point was they never became Fänrik.

I am so sorry that you feel this way. I am an ex Swedish conscript officer and I should be as insulted as you by the article. Sweden is special since all salaried military personnel are officers. I served during the transition from a four layer system to one whole inclusive system for everyone employed in green (1983 NBO), which originates from a social reformist social democratic politician 1947. It is because of this system the personnel structure went out of proportion and there is a great deal of confusion about what Swedish officers really represent. One of the main objectives of the new system is to correct this with reforms that will drastically reduce the number of officers. The remaining 70% officers will be classified as OR. What this means is that the defense forces itself do not recognize 70% to 90% of current Swedish officers as OF but as OR
 * What officers (apart from the newly introduced SO) are classified as OR?
 * All ranks from Fänrik and up are classified as OF and has (to my knowledge) always been.
 * 70% of Fänrik and above are classifyed below OF by the brass of the Swedish military. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your source for that statement?
 * All official documents classifies the rank Fänrik as OF-1. I have never seen any other classification.

When the transition is completed (maybe around 2020) we may start to call officers officers also outside Sweden.
 * Swedish officers serving with UN or the Swedish peace-keeping force has always been accepted and treated like peers by their foreign colleagues.
 * Yes, Swedish military personnel are treated well abroad! --Malin Randstrom (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In the US and Britain, officers at least actively command a platoon and I would like to see this to become true for Sweden as well. You include too much feeling. Please understand that I have to stay objective no matter what. I am for the reinforcement of the Swedish armed forces to defend Sweden, not only to help the US protect their interests abroad or show Swedish flags. However, politician keeps cutting in absurdum and spend the remaining on very expensive show-up pretentious units such as NBG. Sweden burn the defense budget in making NBG transportable across the globe ( with very expensive long distance transport planes), but on the other hand run out of money to keep an airborne battalion because helicopters are too expensive. Realistic exercises for officers are kept to a minimum because of unbalanced expenditures. To masquerade the current armed forces as great, will provide those politicians with more room to cut even more. Not until we start to describe the situation how it really is, will people start to understand the seriousness of the situation and demand for reinforcement.
 * Budget-cuts, the closure of regiments and adventurous Battlegroups are irrelevant. This article is about ranks, not politics.
 * No money left to train officers as commanders --Malin Randstrom (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sweden hardly has any officers capable of commanding troops. It is really, really serious. It takes 15 years to produce battalion level commands and above, but today that number is nil.
 * I personally know about a dozen officers that are very well capable of commanding their battalions. And I know there are at least hundreds of them. At brigade-level and higher we are a little thin, but the confusion in this article is not about the general staff.
 * There is no battalions in Sweden. Are you talking about Home Defense leaders who call themselves battalion commanders? --Malin Randstrom (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Call themselves!? Are you for real? Do you think the National Guard is some kind of militia that can call themselvs whatever they like?
 * There are no Brigades in Sweden, but there are plenty of battalions.

Sweden is going to stay ready with eight battalions at R360, but who will command those battalions and companies? With this in mind, we cannot face an invasion within 15 years as we don’t have 1000 battalion grade and 60 brigade level commands including staff officers in such a timeframe. Politicians cannot project what is going to happen in six months time even; and as we know, Swedish politicians always declare that war is impossible just before the inception of major wars. Why Germany, the US and Japan could find commanders for their bat,brig,div units before WW2 was the supply of officers experienced from WWI. Since the USMC has been at war ever since, they have officers with more extensive experience than eneryone else. For this reason USMC is being used as a prime benchamrk for comparing officers all around the world. Officers there actively command a platoon or higher units.
 * Come on and wake up! We have five National Guard Battalions in the Stockholm area alone (The Attundaland, Stockholm, Taelgehus, Roslagen and Södertörn battalions). They are not R360, they are R8 (and that is eight hours, not days! This has been confirmed by mobilization exercises)
 * The National Guards may be light on equipment, but not on people and definitely not on competence. If you wander where all the competence that was abandoned during the closure of regiments went, I can give you a hint.
 * Do you mean the Home Defense! They can't do much as there is no artillery, tanks, canons, enginnering, pioneering, airdefense, etc. An infanry company can't operate w/o artillery/canons or they will get killed! --Malin Randstrom (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you care to read the evaluation of the exercise CC06 perhaps you would reconsider. The National Home Guard (which is the official name in English by the way) managed to stop and defeat the mechanized battalion (Ah, see! Another battalion. And it is not even National guard) from P4 on all three locations where they put up resistance (Stäket, Ursvik and Ulvsunda). The National Guards used ambush tactics and (surprise!) battlefield engineering.
 * My knowledge about the Home Defense (HV) might be outdated and I am interested to know more about that exercise. Yes, HV knows their own terrain the best and has high morale and motivation -- very important factors indeed. The scope of this article is Swedish military personnel, ranks and what those ranks represent; yet I can’t help rising questions about HV and their ability in delaying and stopping mechanized battalions that advances with more suppressing firing support than ever before. The time to locate your positions, calculate your coordinates and showering you with shells has been greatly reduced. There will be more blasts than during WW2 with much improve accuracy. P7 trains some 3-4 companies a year to populate a battalion and there is no standing mechanized battalion. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mechanized battalions can not advance behind a barrage of suppressing firepower for more than a few kilometers before they and/or their support elements run out of ammunition. Hence an advancing mechanized force relay more on mobility and reconnaissance than on suppressing firepower. Also, a defending force can take advantage of canaling terrain and battlefield engineering to reduce the mobility of the mechanized force to such a degree that ambushes and surprise attacks can be made with great efficency.
 * But my point was not to praise the abilities if the National Guard. My point was 1) There exists battalions in Sweden. Not just training battalions like 4th amphibious battalion or Army Ranger battalion that cycle through conscripts on yearly basis and are ready for action a few weeks a year at most, but battalions that are usable within hours notice. 2) Infantry without support is not dead meat. They are if they try to do something stupid like hold ground, but with wisely used tactics they can achieve great results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.216.122 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Firing support will be used a minute while infantry is advancing towards or around enemies. The duty of a Home Guard battalion is to defend faculties and buildings according to articles about it.
 * 2-3 companis are ready after 30 days. Where do you find that battalion? --Malin Randstrom (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The system that existed prior 1972 was almost perfect and originates from when Sweden was a military superpower. It consisted of three distinct categories each one being very proud of their own category. There you have underbefäl, underofficerare and officerare. The definition of officers then was hugely different from what it has become today. You have to examine closely what a Korpral and Furir did then and what a Fänrik and Löjtnant do today and you will discover that today’s officers are more like underbefäl and underofficerare in terms of responsibility, authority and civil education. Officers had a studentexamen which is equivalent of today’s universitetsexamen (science majors) and were company grade commanders or higher.
 * The system that existed prior 1972 was perfect...for a superpower like the Caroliner army. But things have developed some since. The introduction of conscription 1901 and the ever rising level of general education level in the population has made it possible to use conscripts as underbefäl. When NBO in 1983 made away with underofficerare as well, someone else had to do their job. In the cadre they were replaced by conscripts (PB and KB), but their everyday job had to be done by officers. This is not unique to Sweden. The Soviet Union used a similar system. But an officer is still an officer. You are confusing rank and assignment.
 * No change for conscripted KBS and PBS because of NBO. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The situation in Sweden is indeed absurd with 10,000 officers with merely one standing battalion (for each standing solider there are 10 officers). When Sweden sends naval ships abroad the crew is almost all officers. You want to add the name "commissioned" distinction to all those 10,000 officers. For what purpose, may I ask? And, how do you separate those 3,000 officers who indeed have a commission from those 7,000 who don’t?
 * You are using the word commission as a direct translation of officersfullmakt. That is wrong!
 * Yes, all those 10000 officers are commissioned unlike their subordinate non-commissioned officers that are conscripts.
 * Check it up in a dictionary! --Malin Randstrom (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean like Wikipedia?

Underofficerare... That category was formally removed 1972 and actually removed 1983. Yrkesofficerare since 1983 don’t want to be referred as underofficere and that’s why it is not being used.
 * Since 1983 Sweden has not had any underofficere. No one was fanjunkare, no one was förvaltare. Their place was taken partially by conscript sergeants (that is why sergeants since 1983 are the only ones wearing a silver agraff for example) and partially by yrkesofficerare.
 * Well, all white agraff changed color to blue over one night for those who were hired as Sergents and Fanjunkare. Don't you know that they just changed title from Sergeant to Fänrik and from Fanjunkare to Löjtnant. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I know all underofficere was promoted to Fänrik/Löjtnant. Sergeant that were conscripts was not affected and retained all the attributes of the underofficer corps.


 * 95 conscripts (GBS,PBS,KBS) have temporary severed as you say when vacancies occur among officers. That’s all. I would not categorize those very few as the new under officers corps considering that there are almost 20,000 officers. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Warrant officers in the USArmy and USMC have a college degree and are usually helicopter pilots or something that requires advanced skills, but less command authority. In Sweden, those roles are held by Löjtnant, Kapten, etc and it will remain that way in the new system too. Why do you categorize vicekorpral, korpral etc as NCOs when they do not lead personnel and are basically contract based soldier ranks in the new system? The lowest NCO rank in the US is a Corporal, who may be in charge of up to 13 soldiers.
 * Who is in charge of a Swedish squad of eight men? A conscript Furir or Sergeant. He/she is commanding troops, but is not a commissioned officer. Thus he/she is a NCO.
 * PBS-grade conscipts today and SOs in the new system. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly.

The description about Swedish military personnel here in wiki is a lot more objective and accurate than what is being published by the Swedish armed forces through mil.se. Swedish armed forces don’t mention about the enormous rank inflation that has occurred. Where do you find what Sweden relay has in terms of military power? You have to dig very hard to understand what it is, and that is what I have done. I have all the working documents, letters and referrals, drafts related to Swedish officers and the new system, which I have published here upon request.
 * On the contrary. I don't find the information in Wikipedia objective at all. It is a projection of some peoples personal opinion. The information published by Swedish armed forces through mil.se is official (look that work up in wiki)
 * mil.se is pure adverticement. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At least it is written by people of the Swedish Armed Forces with some insight in its business.
 * Perhaps you have not noticed that the PDFs linked from articles in mil.se are official HKV orders?

I have incorporated Fiffas points as I found those accurate based on the information I have at hand. He has more experiences with how mechanized units in Sweden operate today and the table reflect his contributions. I agree with him that SO should be put to the left of OF, but I am locked by the definition from the FM in general and Officersförbundet in particular that OF and SO should be two parallel systems with none being under or over one another. As strongly pointed out by the architects of the new system: both categories are officers. In the US, NCO or WO has no command authority over an OF, is required to salute OFs and obey his/her command. In Sweden, with the new system, this is not true. A Förvaltare may have command authority over Löjtnant and Fänrik; and in all instances regarded as a more senior officer. I have confirmed this with PERS-HKV and I can’t do anything about this until they release new documents that states differently.
 * You are wrong again. In the USMC a senior NCO often have authority over junior OFs, non in force by their rank, but in force of their assignment as deputy for a more senior officer. Also, it is not uncommon for a senior NCO to be saluted by officers, not because they are required to, but it is customary to show respect for a more experienced soldier regardless of rank.
 * In the new system adopted by the Swedish forces this relation is formalized. That is why a Förvaltare has higher authority than a Lieutenant even though he/she is OR. And no, both categories are officers. A swedish specialistofficer is no more an officer than a british Warrant Officer. Just because they have the word "offcier" in their label does not make them offciers. At least not in the sense of the Geneva Convention that I pointed out earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.216.122 (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * These are your personal opinions and I cant see any NCO in the USMC or US Army that apply to your description. Please provide us with references. The only NCO deputy is the platoon sergeant who is deputy platoon leader and below that level there is no OF. A First Sergeant is not a deputy to the commanding officer (CO) of a company, but the primary advicer to CO. The Sergeant Major is not deputy battalion or brigade commander, but the most senior NCO advicer to the commander, etc. An OF never ever salutes an OR. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not personal opinions, but personal first-hand experiences.

The rank of a BRADLEY based squad leader and fire-team leader of the US Army
I guessed wrong about Staff Sergeant. According to this, it is a Sergeant []. ... have included USArmy mechanized rifle squad and updated the squad(section) image accordinlgy. What is the rank of each fire-team leader, anyone? --Malin Randstrom (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

SO and OR
I want to modify those to (S)OR3. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 Swedish code not related to NATO codes.
 * Why do you think Swedish codes are not related to NATO codes? The very reason for the introduction of the new codes was interoperability with NATO. Do you really think someone just came up with the names OR-1 to OR-9 and OF-1 to OF-9, the very same codes NATO uses, without any relation at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.216.122 (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article
The neutrality of the article has been disputed according to an info box. Since I have not received any further responses regarding the accuracy of facts in the article, there are no outstanding disputes. I will wait for one more week for anyone to present facts that may contradict the article. If not, the box will be deleted. Whoever put boxes like this should clarify better what disputes that are not yet resolved. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC) --Malin Randstrom (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How about this entire discussion page?
 * I was asked by a number of Swedish officers to to add the POV-box to warn visitors that the information in this article is not correct and are not reflecting neither reality or the official standpoint of the Swedish Armed Forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.216.122 (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Swedish Armed Forces has published a number of documents that this article is based on. You have to point out what you think is "not correct" and why. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The term officer has a much broader meaning in Sweden than NATO in general and basically means any salaried military personnel.
 * BFAs (befälsförstärkningsavtal) are salaried military personnel, but they are not officers by any means. Neither are the solders (privates) employed to the 3rd Royal Guards Company (3. Högvaktskompaniet).
 * Current officer’s corps (Yrkesofficerare) originates from the Non Commissioned Officers (NCO) corps
 * I can not enough emphas this matter; specialistofficerare are not officers! SO's are OR's. Give me one single document from the Swedish Armed Forces that say they are officers. They are no more officers than old days underofficerare.
 * As stated above, there is a huge surplus of officers and the Swedish armed forces estimates that about 70% of their officers corps fall below the OF level of NATO.
 * This statement is absurde and is ony based on your (incorrect) assumption that all salaried military personnel are officers.
 * This article will keep the POV until you have added links to documents that proves your point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.130.26 (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with unsigned. This article is not neutral and many colleuges of mine (YOFF and ROFF) finds the text offensive. IMHO, section 1 to 2 should be removed. Faffia (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course the neutrality is disputed! Malin, can't you see that your credibility is near zero? You claimed to be better at assessing the quality of a Swedish university education than the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education. You claimed to know better than NATO what the definition of a general officer is. You use the most absurd translations never seen anywhere else etc etc. Let's just look at the first couple of sentences in your article. You write that Swedish ranks "differ significantly" from NATO. Well, this may be news to you but NATO IS NOT ONE ARMY! It is a alliance of MANY armies, all organised differently. There is no absolute standard. Can you say that for example the Swedish and Spanish ranks differ more than British and Norwegian? Or Estonian and Belgian? Do you even know anything about the ranks of all or most of the NATO countries? Then you say that the ranks have undergone several changes. Of course they have! The Swedish army is centuries old, it would be very disturbing if nothing had changed. Third sentence: "The term officer has a much broader meaning in Sweden than NATO in general and basically means any salaried military personnel." Unsigned is right, this is clearly wrong. Soldiers(privates) have NEVER been called officers in Sweden and are not called officers now. Your entire discussion about command experience is ridiculous. Do you not know that in ALL armies there are support troops? I don't think you can find one single military officer in the world who will agree with your idea that only officers in combat units are real officers. Especially in a conscript army in a neutral country, where is it perfectly normal that the great majority of troops never see any actual fighting. Your table about the number of officers is also misleading. The Swedish defence forces are slowly changing from a massive conscript army to a small volunteer army. You can't compare numbers left and right without explaining the context. The 20 000 total officers are not meant to command only 5000 troops. As is normal in a conscript army, the conscripts are only called up in case of war. I could go on, but you have shown several times already that your no1 priority is not to write a serious article, but to spread misinformation about the Swedish defence forces.--Stulfsten (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I applause your reply Stulfsten. That said, I propose we remove section 1 to 2. Majority vote? As far as I can tell, everyone posted comments on this discussion page wants to remove the incorrect and bias comments by Malin (except Malin herself, of course). Vote open a month (until 3 April 2009). Faffia (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to unsigned, Fiffa, Stulfsten
Based on the context, I assume that you are Swedish "officers". It is quite easy to figure out that you by all means try to translate your rank to an English rank that is much higher than what your rank really represent.
 * I can only speak for myself, but I am not an officer. My rank is OR-2, private first class.
 * Also, in contrast to Malin, i do not make up any translations myself. I follow the directions given to me by HKV.

Now, you want to remove facts that contradict and invalidates your translations. Well, we cannot remove facts that are published by the Swedish Armed forces and Swedish Universities on grounds that Swedish military personnel, like you, may feel offended by their own published facts.
 * No, I only want to remove the statements in this article that is wrong and contradicts the official policy of the Swedish Armed Forces. Which would apply to most of what's written in this article.

Your claim: BFA personnel are the NCO corps
YrkesOfficerae(YO) and ReservOfficerare(RO) are the successors of the NCO corps. YOs are thus corporals, sergeants just like any other military. Rank names such as Korpral, Furir, Overfurir, Sergeant were renamed to fancier titles such as Fanrik, Lojtnant, Kapten, etc. Officers titles were thus used for NCO personnel to make the job as underbefal (junior NCOs) more attractive without needing to increase salaries. A Lojtnant of today is by no means the same as a Lojtnant durig the 1960s or 1970s. A Lojtnant 1970 translated to Lieutenant, but since 1970s corporals are now called Lojtnant, the translation is no longer valid. Todays Lojtnant are not officers according to 1970s definitions and should be regarded as underbefal (Junior NCOs).
 * Are you totally out of your mind!? Corporals and Sergeants are not YOs, they never have been and they never will be. Not in Sweden. Not in any country.
 * Corporals and Sergeants are conscripts or employed soldiers. First Sergeants and Fanjunkare are SOs. Fänrik, Löjtnant and Kapten are YOs or ROs.

You strongly objected to this and went on trying too fool readers into believing that there has been a separate NCO corps (with korpraler, furier, sergeanter) since 1983 underneath YrkesOfficerare (YO) by inventing a Swedish NCO corps. Your claim is: Since there is a solid NCO corps like BFA, all 20,000 YO/RO are comissioned officers. Yes BFA existed. However, BFA consisted (2007) of some 90 temporarily short-term contracted conscripts with contracts that lasted for some months. Clearly, your statement is a fraud.
 * Do you claim that there have not been any Corporals or Sergeants in the Swedish Armed Forces at all since 1983?
 * That is absurd! They number in thousands even though they were conscripts.

Swedish officer also act as privates and admin assistants
An example: All soldiers (80 men) who were deployed in Kongo were officers according to Swedish standards, even though their roles were similar to privates in the USMC.
 * No they were not! State your source!

Your claim that Swedish officers correspond to US/BA comissined officers is absurd. All employed military personnel in Sweden are indeed called officers (even if they act as privtes or administrative assistants). If you are a police in the US, you are an officer -- same in Sweden.
 * To become a police officer you must have graduated a police academy. To become a military officer you must have graduated a military academy or another military training that leads to the rank of at least Fänrik. Very few other people become officers on civilian merits such as doctors or engineers.
 * The swedish word tjänsteman is not synonymous with officer.

Then you go on arguing that you can be an officer without commanding troops and that a person at the administration who is tasked to copy a number of documents is also an officer, etc. OK, so practically everyone is now an officer according to your claim.
 * It is only you who have made such claims.
 * Even though the majority of all senior officers (colonel and above) are paper-pushers, this is definitively not unique to Sweden.

This is not the place for you to advertise your own corps by providing a grandiose facade hiding the truth. To use an analogy, everyone working for an airline company do not make awkward claims, like you do for Swedish military personnel, such as that they are all pilots when they in reality are mailmen or flight attendants, etc.

OF/OR
Code names are the same as NATO but each code does not necessarily correspond to NATO according to PERS/HKV of the Swedish armed forces.
 * Still PERS/HKV have published official documents that establish the equality of Swedish ranks to NATO.

Differs significantly from the NATO
I base this statement on major members of the NATO such as the Briton and US.
 * Great Brittan and US are just as different to each other are they are to Sweden.

Lack of education amongst Swedish officers
Officers before 1983 had a solid High School Education. YO, SO (specialistofficerare) and OF (officers from the three year programme), however, lack a full High School education.
 * The Swedish National Agency for Higher Education does not agree with you.

To become conscript officer (KBS), conscript under-officer (PBS) or team leader (GBS) you have to score sufficently high on IQ, apitude and leadership tests. However, all those requirements were waived 1983 for the admission to become professional officer.
 * They were waived for the admission to the military academy. In stead, these tests was included in the education.

What about Swedish colleges?! The rule for getting a bachelors or masters degree in Sweden is to spend 3 to 4 years at an unemployment depot called College or University in Sweden. As you know, you can get a masters degree by spraying a subway car. A student just wrote “bla, bla, bla, bla” in his thesis and it got accepted as academical work. According to govt. plans: 50% of the youth should get some form of master’s degree after 3-4 years at a depot even without a solid high school education.
 * Several Swedish colleges have lost their examination rights due to low academic standards. For example, Karolinska Institutet lost their right to graduate nurses. The two military academies keep their examination rights. Go figure.

--Malin Randstrom (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Neutrality
First of all, thank you Malin for proving my point and reducing your credibility even more. Your posts are riddled with spelling errors, juvenile insults, emotional hyperbole and inaccuracies and/or lies.

Secondly, I am not an officer or even civilian employee of the Swedish Armed Forces. I do have a M.Sc. in Engineering degree (which recently was increased from 4.5 to 5 years, it's been several decades since it was 4 years) from a Swedish "unemployment depot". I can assure you, however, that I'm not in the least insulted/offended by your outlandish statements about the quality of my education and Swedish education in general. I don't think anyone takes you seriously after your latest remarks.

Now, about your assertions

1 and 2.

No one is disputing that after 1983 Sweden had no professional NCO corps. However, what you fail to realise is that parts of the tasks and duties carried out by the NCOs have 1983-2008 been performed by the conscript NCOs. Yes, some tasks were taken over by officers but to claim that a modern day löjtnant is equivalent to a 1960's korpral is ridiculous. You also lie about the reasons for the change. Obviously, the reasons were many, but a desire for the NCOs to have fancy titles was way down the list. In Sweden, as in Finland, Norway and the USSR, the change was politically motivated, particularly among the socialists. (Finland, Sweden and Russia are all transforming back to a salaried NCO corps while Norway has not yet done so) The fact that Sweden lacked employed privates since the late 1950's and employed NCOs after 1983 naturally led to strange results, like the Special Forces group consisting of 100% officers. But I think you are wrongly focusing on a small exception. Now when a professional NCO corps is reinstated the SF groups will also have members who are NCOs and when the employed privates return in large numbers in the coming years I'm sure there will be SF operatives with the rank of vicekorpral and korpral as well. The fact that some of the duties and tasks performed by the NCOs pre 1972 were until 2008 and now during the transition period performed by officers, doesn't make them any less officers. The Norwegian officers, part of NATO, are still classified as OF-1 and OF-2 regardless of their day to day responsibilities. Maybe you should picket the NATO HQ in Belgium until they see the error of their ways? I have never said that everyone who knows how to use a photocopier can call themselves an officer, but the truth is that the support troops outnumber the combat troops in all armies, even your beloved USMC. Your claim that only those officers who command troops in battle are real officers is absurd!

4.

I assume that by "the Briton" you mean the UK. But if you mean the American and British armed forces you should say so, and not write NATO which is an alliance of 26 nations, and as you may know 2 is not the same as 26. Even if you change NATO to UK and US you must show how they "differ significantly". Your assertion is not enough.

5.

You don't seem to understand that secondary education(gymnasium, lycee, high school etc) differs between countries. Your opinions on the quality of the Swedish gymnasieskola are just that, opinions. That you don't consider a swedish gymnasieexamen acceptable as "solid" or "full" (whatever that means) is of no interest here. To study at a Swedish college or university, including the military academy, you must have graduated the gymnasieskola. Your claim that Swedish officers don't have a "full high school education" is simply false. You can not get a Masters degree in Sweden by painting a subway car, nor is a thesis with only the five worlds "bla, bla, bla bla, bla" acceptable at any level of Swedish education. When we are still on the issue of education, how about you provide some evidence for your claim that it is standard requirement for an officer to have studied calculus at university or even high school level?

--Stulfsten (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Stulfsen
I urge you to refrain from using degrading wordings about others. We are discussing a subject and not about how others are as persons. Also, the article explains present and not how it may turn out to be in the future according to your guesses.

I don’t know how much math that is required for admission to your engineering school. Do you know anything about differential equations, trigonometry, shapes, complexity and linear algebra? Proficiency in those elements of math was the requirements for becoming an officer during the 1960s and 1970s. The admission requirement for becoming an officer today is as low as A for SO and B for OF – levels that I did in my 7th or 8th grade at Junior High School (Hogstadiet).

Anyone is an officer according to your definition. You have to define what an officer is according to your reqs.

The numbers, which you so desperately try to remove, reveals that your made-up NCO conscripts based corps never existed. About 90 conscripts were temporarily contracted (after their compulsory 11 months of service) for some months to do miscellaneous work during 2007. Do you really mean that the NCO corps consisted of only those!? Do the math! With 10,000 active officers, there should be at least four or five times as many NCOs – not only 90 temporarily contracted conscripts. With an armed forces consisting of 10,000 officers, 10 battalions could be fully staffed with officers only. However, Sweden has less than one standing battalion. Those 10,000 "officers" are, in reality, privates, clerks, NCOs and some even COs. Not only the force sent to Kongo, but also staff on naval vessels sent abroad, has/have "officers" as ordinary seamen and/or privates. Thus, corresponding privates and seamen abroad are called officer in Sweden. This may change in the future, but currently it is so. A Lojtnant today may be a Korpral tomorrw as you say, but we are not there yet.

As you should know, college students are given academical credits for their Bachelors or Masters projects and thesises; which in two cases consisted of (1) spraying a subway car and jumping out from one of its windows, (2) writing a thesis with only “bla, bla, ...”. Mentioning this is not off the topic as it must be clear that the very same authority that grants those art students accademical degrees also grants officer students academical degrees. Being an officer requires, according to standards set out by the USMC, the ability to make quality decisions quickly based on complex information. "A" and "B" math from High School is really drop-out level and for those who are challenged in math and problem solving. Admission requirements to officers schools are A or B math. I don’t know why you mention that officers in the future will get a M.Sc. degree. They may. That degree is, however, irrelevant if the examinee lacks a High School education. Or do you seriously consider that A or B math is High School level?

When we are talking about real commanding officers, we are talking in terms of conscript officers at platoon and company levels and regimental officers (Regements Officerare former Officers) at battalion and brigade levels. KBS (Company Commander School) was purely a school for the elite with high aptitude, intelligence, top scores from High School, and leadership skills. Those were fit for commanding troops. OHS on the other hand was open for everyone, including privates. OHS focused more on teaching how to drill recruits and was basically a NCO drill sergeant school. There you go, YO was the NCO corps of Sweden from 1983 to 2008. As a YO you drilled recruits for some years (Fanrik to Kapten) until you were promoted to clerk (Major and above). Commanding troops! NO way!

Finally, you have to provide more facts, numbers and references. Please do that.

Regards, --Malin Randstrom (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

NCOs, education etc
I think you should consult a dictionary since you obviously don’t know what degrading means. What I have written about your posting style is accurate and neutral.

I think you are mistaken about facts and numbers. The burden of proof is on YOU. You are the one making the extraordinary statements, seen nowhere else. You are the one making statements that go contrary to accepted opinion, in claiming e.g. that Norwegian officers are not real NATO officers, that officers in support branches are not real officers etc.

I think this discussion is getting out of hand. The reason this talk page is so long, is that you insist that the Swedish Armed Forces are in shambles and that it can be proved by you repeating made-up facts ad nauseam. Then you claimed that the entire Swedish university system is incompetent, that Swedish degrees are worthless and Swedish colleges and universities are really “unemployment depots”(sic). Now you say that a Swedish secondary education is not “real”. What’s next? Are you going to compare the Swedish police to a hall monitor in an American elementary school or the Swedish judiciary to Stalin’s show-trials? Wikipedia aims to be a serious encyclopedia. It is NOT a place for your crazy rants.

Swedish secondary and tertiary education
We already know what you think of it: Swedish universities, colleges and high schools as well as the degrees they confer are worthless. However, just because you repeat it doesn’t make it true. You claim that one can get a Masters degree in Sweden by painting a subway car or that a thesis consisting of five words is acceptable. However, you have provided no evidence of this. Now you claim that the maths formerly studied in primary education is now studied in secondary education. Again, you provide no evidence.

The important point I want to say about this is that we should not discuss your bizarre views on Swedish education any more. It is out of the scope of this article and if you want to continue to discuss it, why don’t you go vandalize the wiki page on higher education. (just kidding; please don’t ruin Wikipedia more that you already have)

Officers and education
What we can discuss, however, is your claims that

1. Knowledge of mathematics is vital for an officer

2. there exists an international standard that a person who wishes to serve as an officer in the armed forces must have studied calculus on an secondary or tertiary level(you were a bit unclear here). Again, you have provided no evidence whatsoever in support of these claims.

I don’t think ANY army would disagree with the claim that it is important for an officer to have the “the ability to make quality decisions quickly based on complex information.” If you want to prove that US officers must study tertiary school level calculus you must do much more than that. I can accept that for some type of officers knowledge of maths is needed and in Sweden you have (for some type of officer education) to have studied calculus in high school to be able to study at the military academy. I’m not sure what you mean by complexity (complex numbers?) and shapes (geometry?) but if you mean what I think you mean, all those five areas are studied in Swedish high school. (Although complex numbers and DEs are only studied by those who chose high level maths) The maths studied in the Swedish gymnasieskola is high school level, as the gymnasieskola is the Swedish equivalent of high school. I know you think differently but please let’s not discuss that particular point in this thread further.

I don’t know how you got the impression that I think that every Swedish officer will get a Master of Science in engineering degree. I certainly never said anything that can be interpreted that way.

NCO Corps
No one tries to “desperately remove” any numbers. We just want to show the correct numbers. You don’t seem to get how a conscript army works. It always consists of a small core of employed personnel that is expanded considerably by conscripts during war-time. Since the late 1950’s, Sweden hasn't had any employed privates (until now). That doesn’t mean that the hundreds of thousands of men who have served their conscript service are not privates. Likewise, the tens of thousands of men who have become conscript NCOs are not any less NCOs just because they are not employed full time. (There has always existed a debate about the merits of a conscript army vs. the merits of a volunteer army, but this is not the place for that debate. Also note that I'm not claiming that all conscripts since 1960 are part of the army now.) When you say that the Swedish army presently consists of 25000 men, of whom 5000 are privates, 20000 officers and 0 NCOs, you are simply lying.

Your gibberish about “real commanding officers” is very difficult to understand. You previously seemed to argue that only those officers who have been/currently are on a mission abroad are “real” officers, now you seem to be saying something about what school you have gone to.

I notice that you “forgot” to comment on the fact that NATO consists of more than 2 countries, that NATO members do not use the same definition of officer as you do, that you still haven’t changed your incorrect translation of Förste Sergeant, that the British armed forces differ from the US armed forces in many ways(including ranks), that there is no one who shares your negative view of support roles(music, medical, logistics, military police etc), the difference between befälsrätt and tjänsteställning etc etc

--Stulfsten (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, some really glaring errors, even worse than the last time. The term officer has a much broader meaning in Sweden than NATO in general and basically means any salaried military personnel. No it doesn't. The general term is "anställd militär personal", salaried military personnel. Out of a total of 19,144 officers and standing force of 615 troops, there are only two to three who actively command a company. There should be somewhere in the vicinity of some 80 company (or equivalent, battery or squadron) commanders plus 180 company commanders in the Home Guard. That not all of these are currently standing units seems slightly irrelevant. Aside from the 3 or 4 (depending on how you count) company commanders deployed abroad, each and every conscript belongs to a company, which has a company commander who will lead his unit during the company-phase and after of basic training. Admittedly, the army is slightly smaller than before, but I certainly saw more than one company during the ENDEXs of the last few years. ...leaving Sweden without any commander above company level. Well aside from the 8 battlegroup commanders, the brigade level commanders etc.

Do I really have to go on? Hans Engstrom (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Please verify the references. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is based on official documents published by the Armed forces.
 * Home guard is out of the scope of this article.
 * Employed military personnel are called officers in Sweden.
 * There is no battle group or brigade commander in Sweden.

RE: Reply
What!??! Excuse me, but are you ****? You actually make me mad this time Malin.


 * You may think it's based on official documents, but you clearly make your own conclusions and express your own personal opinions.
 * Various people have objected to your contributions. How come like everyone on this talk page objects, and it's only You're the only one who defends your contributions. Don't you see you're wrong?


 * The Home Guard IS covered by this article! "Military Ranks of the Swedish Armed Forces". If you claim the Home Guard isn't a part of the Armed Forces... gah, I don't know what to say. You're just ignorant.


 * Just because you're employed as military personnel you're an officer.
 * If that was true, all soldiers in NBG were officers.
 * Or all soldiers in the employed Högvaktskompaniet were officers.


 * However, many "civilians" who are employed by the Army do get the rank (tjänsteställning) as, for example, captain (whatever). The purpose is because the Armed Forces have difficulties to fill vacancies from within with people with the right qualifications (administration, music etc). Hence, this is why the Armed Forces felt the need for the new SO-ranks where one did not have to complete three years of officers training.

In Sweden we have term, KFÖ - Krigsförbandsövning. Even if I may be a Major who on a day-to-day basis is a paper pusher and write numbers in a budget, during a KFÖ, the organisation is changed from peace-oriented to war-oriented. And I as a Major now sits in a Strf90 telling people what hill or building to capture (example).
 * You have on a numerous occations proved to everyone you have not understood the concept of a Conscript army. The idea of a conscript army is that there is no active army; just basic training. In the event of war (or risk of war), the conscription army is assembled. Hence, we do not have employed privates on a permanent employement. And we do not have battle groups standing at attention. However, Sweden DO have battle group commanders. But there's no active battle group to command. Ever heard of the term "Krigsplacering"??


 * Also, you claim we don't have brigade commanders. You're Wrong! (yet again!). For example, Brigade Commander at Skaraborgs Regemente, P4 is Rickard Johansson.
 * See http://mil.se/sv/I-Sverige/Utbildningsforband/Skaraborgs-regemente-P-4/Nyheter/Brigadchefens-faltovning-pa--P-4/
 * See http://mil.se/sv/I-Sverige/Utbildningsforband/Skaraborgs-regemente-P-4/Nyheter/Brigadchefen-besokte-KS19/

I can only, tragically, conclude you're wrong. So utterly wrong. And you prove this point over, and over, and over again. Faffia (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite
Since a month has now passed and opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of rewriting the article to remove the speculation, guesses and outright distortions that are still left, I suggest that we use Faffia's remake as a starting point and expand the section about the transition currently in process. Since wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary I think it is important to include information about the ranks in addition to the insignias and titles. The old system should also be explained as the change is only in the start phase and for this reason it is important to note that positions, duties etc are subject to change. --Stulfsten (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That would also entail making sure Malin is unable to revert it back. Last time it took referencing "the Facts" in order for that too happen (and putting the article in lockdown). As "the Facts" haven't been published yet this year, I'm uncertain as to what needs to be done.

I'd suggest minimizing the amount of speculation and description, list the ranks, rank insignia and NATO OF and OR numbers. Hans Engstrom (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite, Sections removed
I have, for now, removed the sections 1 to 2. I agree with Stulfsten that the article should include information about the ranks. But I don't like it when the information is incorrect. It's better to have no information than misinformation.

Also, I have removed the row in the ranks table containing the text "SO" etc (in Army). Why? If it is to be included in the army ranks, it should also be included in the Navy and Airforce ranks. While I'm at the subject, the ranks for Amphibious and Home Guard should be included. Reasons? Because the HQ in it's own publications separates Army, Navy, Airforce and Amphibious. The Home Guard is a bit off, even though they make use of the Army ranks, it is separate from the Army. The Home Guard also uses the ranks differently, for example the Home Guard does not implement OR 3,8 or 9 (and no rank above OF 3). As well as OR 2, in the Home Guard receives one bar every second year instead of each year as in the Army.

I hope that someone could write a truthful article. I can attempt doing so, but it requires some time, also, my english isn't first class. But I'll suppose spelling and grammar can be edited by others more fluent in this foreign language than me. :-) Faffia (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your removal of references to advance your own opinion -- Fiffa
You have removed facts in the article that are based on documents from the Swedish Armed Forces. In addition, you have removed all the references. The references are neccessary as they invalidate false claims from Fiffa and Svulfsetn. Your writing style is premature, full of personal emotions, insluts and you invent elements of the Swedish Armed Forces that do not exist accoriding to references that you removed. One example is how references invalidated your claim that BFA is/was the NCO corps of Sweden. One of those references pointed to official document that reports the BFA category as consisting of 90 temporarily short-term contracted conscripts. This is out of proportion considering your claims that all military staff (about 20,000) should be translated as commissioned officers. You refuse to digest official documents that report Sweden as having barely 600 troops. There are no standing battalions, brigades or battle groups as you claim. The role of the Home Guard is to guard facilities and aid during disasters and the organization consists of volunteer senior citizen who are required some hours ever year to undertake exercises guarding an object or searching for a lost child. Renaming Home Guard districts to battalions do not change their role to maneuver battalions. Faffia. You are part of the Home Guard and I understand your desire to make it look like regular troops and a great Army in others eyes, but Home Guard has not been tasked to leave their objects to form maneuver companies or battalion for a number of reasons, such as: high age, lack of equipment, protection, training, support, artillery, and of course someone has to guard those facilities. Well trained conscripts leave maneuver units (Infantry/Arctic brigades) at the age of 30. The age of Home Guard soldier could reach up to 65 as far as I know. There are no battalions, brigades or battle groups as you claim according to the references that you removed. Sweden may be able to produce eight maneuver battalions in one to three years time. Those battalions are not staffed and staff need to be hired and trained. That is, those battalions do no exits and should be kept out from the count or any nation would be able to claim their possession of huge armies since they are also capable of producing lots of divisions given such timeframes.

I am a former conscript officer with several KFO and SOB behind. During the 1970s and 1980s Sweden was able to mobilize 30 brigades in one week’s time as those units were fully staffed and refreshed during reoccurring KFO. I was part of the core of the Swedish conscript army and basically knew every screw in a Swedish arctic brigade. Brigade and battalion commanders were mostly commissioned officers (Regementsofficerare) amd company and platoon commanders reseve and conscript officers. Those classes of officers were trained solely to command troops and were selected based on their high aptitude in problem solving, IQ, leadership, educational background, etc. Would you not meet those requirements, you may not become VO, RO or Commissioned Officer. However, to become a YO (YrkesOfficeare = NCOs + soldiers) all those requirements were waived as the primary role of a YO was to drill recruits and/or act as private soldiers, team-leaders during international missions. As an example, all the private soldiers in the force sent to Kongo were YOs. To summarize your quite funny claim: -- 20,000 commissioned officers to command 90 very young NCOs and 500 troops --. Allright, you removed the references that verifies those numbers. The vacancies in the royal guard were filled by temporary short-term contractors and the soldiers of the NBG were also short-term contractors who served some moths. Those were by no means employed. Everyone who wears military uniform and is employed is called officer in Sweden. A Swedish officer may serve as private soldier, administrative assistant or drill sergeant. Two to three "officers" command a company -- thats all.

Your act in removing proofs (references) that invalidates your claims is well enough for wiki to have the right to ignore you. Removal of references to advance personal opinions in wiki is one of the most serious offences and may result in you being blocked in order for wiki to maintain integrity.

I am restoring all the references and the rest of the article. The article needs those references to comply with wiki and to invalidate false claims from biased persons.

--Malin Randstrom (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Malin, you are so full of lies that I don't know to counter them all, but here are a few:
 * * It was unfortunate that the references was removed, but anyone who cared reading them would realize that they support the view of Ulfsten and Fiffa, and not yours. You are very alone with your delusions about the Swedish Military.
 * * The soldiers who fought in Congo as well as they who later served in Bosnia, Kosovo, Liberia and Afghanistan were employed, but they were not officers by no means whatsoever (unless they were YOs with at least the rank of Fänrik of course).
 * I assumed you were refering to the actions during the Congo crisis in the 1960's. If you were refering to Operation Artemis in 2003, please be mer specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.130.26 (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * * Not all persons employed by the Swedish Armed forces are officers. To be an officer you must have the rank of Fänrik or above. The clerk at the armory is not an officer. The garrison nurse is not an officer. No private, corporal or sergeant are ever an officer. The Swedish word tjänsteman is not synonymous with officer.
 * * Your statements about the National Home Guard are ridiculous. Senior citizens, huh? Do you have any idea about the average age in the National Home Guard? The Home Guard never exercises aid during disasters or organized search for lost persons. They carry it out if required, but never exercises it. All training time is concentrated on combat. Additionally, Home Guard battalions will never have the firepower of maneuver battalions, but they do have the mobility as they now are fully equipped with cross-terrain vehicles.
 * * I do not understand why you make a point about the number of BFAs. Do you really think they are the only employed soldiers in Sweden?

Do not restore the article
You have no right to restore the article, wikipedia is not your personal project. You had one month to reply to the challenges against your article but were not able to provide any proof. Instead you continue to repeat claims which have been proven false again and again. You are the one filling the article with your personal opinions, expressed in immature and emotional language. Yet you accuse others of doing the same when they present logical aguments against your biased interpretation of official documents.

Your articles contained countless unsourced claims, e.g. about the number of corporals and lance corporals in the USMC or the tasks assigned to Swedish sergeants and specialistofficerare. You continue to lie about the number of privates and NCOs(conscripts) in the Swedish army and describe the skills of the Swedish officers' corps in loaded words that clearly are your own opinions which do not belong on wikipedia.

You also continue to lie about the motivations of us who want to change the article, we do not want to hide any facts, we merely want to remove YOUR OPINIONS AND SPECULATION, which aren't facts.

In your latest reply you again lie about the intention of others and about basic facts.

1. No one has claimed that the Home Guard is of the same standard as the regular army, or that it is a "great Army in others eyes"(sic)

2. The Home Guard is not made up of senior citizens

3. The primary role of a YO is/was not to act as a private or section leader, that's the role of the CONSCRIPTS

4. There were thousands of NCOs educated after 1983, your claim that it is only 90 is absurd. What would you call the conscripts with the ranks of Furir, Sergeant and Fanjunkare that were educated after 1983? Privates?

5. The 20000 officers do not command only 500 troops and you know it. In case of mobilization, it will be much more than 500.

6. You have repeatedly shown that you lack basic English language skills. Please look up the word employed in a dictionary.

--Stulfsten (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My compliments on a great job, Stulfsten! Just a few notes about the graphics
 * * The nays "angel"-ranks (Vicekorpral, Korpral and Sergeant) re-use the old aspirant insignas with the anchor below the angels.
 * * The National Home Guard privates does not wear the infantries crossed rifles but the H-badge (if worn at all since there are no OR-1 in the Home Guards)
 * * Generals (OF-6 and above) have a different Agraff than lower ranked officers (OF-5 and below)
 * I beleve that Malin should be blocked from editing this article while the rewriting is taking place. Does anyone know how to achieve that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.216.122 (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to request arbitration on this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration and view history for my request. It has been requested that we try (yet again) the eralier stages in the process. Hans Engstrom (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

References restored
You have removed references to official Swedish Armed Forces documents, because those contradict your claims. Do you honestly believe that by removing references, sources and evidences that you will be able to maintain your claims?

Answers to your comments

 * 80 troops (all YOs) were sent to Congo and most served as soldiers similar to privates in the USMC. Yes, the lowest rank was probably Fanrik – so what?  As privates they served and that’s how we may compare Swedish soldiers with that of other nations such as France and the US. Swedish Fanrik(s) and Lojtnant(s) vs privates and corporals of the USMC.

“Your articles contained countless unsourced claims, e.g. about the number of corporals and lance corporals in the USMC”
 * I have not mentioned how many corporals or lance corporals there are in the USMC as I really don’t know how many they are. The illustration shows their usual roles in the organization. Btw, I would suggest you to write “unreferenced claims” instead of “unsourced claims” to make your English sound better and more logical.

''“…or the tasks assigned to Swedish sergeants and specialistofficerare. “''
 * Tasks assigned to Specialistofficerare can be found everywhere at http://mil.se/. Group leader is a typical role. If you don’t know that then you must have missed the announcements about the new organization.

“You continue to lie about the number of privates and NCOs(conscripts) in the Swedish army and describe the skills of the Swedish officers' corps in loaded words that clearly are your own opinions which do not belong on wikipedia.”
 * You should have verified the numbers by now instead of crying like a premature kid that I am lying. Numbers are found at http://www.mil.se/sv/Forsvarsmakten/Dokument/. You should rephrase your argumentations as follows “According to the following source ssss, the number of privates was nnn as of year YYYY… Therefore, your numbers are incorrect.” -- just a kind suggestion.

''“4. There were thousands of NCOs educated after 1983, your claim that it is only 90 is absurd. What would you call the conscripts with the ranks of Furir, Sergeant and Fanjunkare that were educated after 1983? Privates?”''
 * YO (OHS @ 1983) = NCOs. BFA = 95 (2007) according to official documents. Numbers are found at http://www.mil.se/sv/Forsvarsmakten/Dokument/

''“5. The 20000 officers do not command only 500 troops and you know it. In case of mobilization, it will be much more than 500.”''
 * Standing troops today = 600 men/women. In 1 to 3 years time, Sweden may have the capacity to produce 8 maneuver battalions. Read official documents at http://www.mil.se/sv/Forsvarsmakten/Dokument/

Finally
If you one day happens to be part of an academical organization, it is necessary for you to learn basic manners, follow protocols, analyze, verify sources and write consistent papers; or you will be treated as a delinquent and trouble maker who never does his/her homework. Stulfsten,,, You are calling me a liar without verifying my facts even though I have provided you all the references. Your task now is to find out if BFA = 95 2007. If it is correct, an apology from you would be appropriate. Go back and check how many BFAs there were 2007.

--Malin Lindquist (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, my experience is that academia is like everywhere else, good or bad. You are now referencing the website of the Swedish Armed Forces repeatedly with no documents linked. I would appreciate a KMÄ number for every staement I have asked for a reference for.

You claim that BFA are the only NCOS available during a certain period. Conscripts acted at NCO levels during this time as well.

Why are you arguing about standing forces? You yourself were trained during a period when there were no standing forces at all.

Seriously, you have no current experience with Försvarsmakten, you don't even live in the country, you post little fantasy pictures of assaults by fictitious Army groups into finland and Russia, you admit to sending suggestions on how to organize the Armed Forces (the word "rättshaverist" coems to mind) and you have no experience with a modern army (vy your own admission). What you have is a fetish for the USMC organization (which you have misunderstood) and an incapacity to accept any other viewpoint than your own.

Editing main page, again. Hans Engstrom (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your second attempt in removing facts and references
This is the second time you remove essential facts with supporting references. Trying to hide facts about the Swedish Armed forces won’t do you or anyone else any good.

No,no … The reference points to lots of documents… don't pretend being a fool, who doesn’t know how to use the internet. The number of BFAs 2007 was 95. Check that out!!!! In case it is the first time you use the internet, here are the steps for you to follow:
 * 1) 	click on the following link: http://www.mil.se/sv/Forsvarsmakten/Dokument/.
 * 2) 	on the left side there is a list of folders with all the documents
 * 3) 	Facts about personnel during 2007 is in Arsredovisningar 2007
 * 4) 	Open up documents for 2007
 * 5) 	click on appendix for personnel: Arsredovisning ubilaga 3.1
 * 6) 	Search for the table that contains BFA, which is on page 9.

If you fail the procedure, click on the following link: http://www.mil.se/upload/dokumentfiler/Årsredovisningar/Årsredovisning%202007/Årsredov%20ubilaga%203.1%20%20ÅR%2007.pdf I have provided you all the references on a silver plate, also explaining how to click on links to documents to read them. This is beyond what I am required to wrt providing references to my text.

Those 95 BFAs are not the NCO corps of the Swedish defense forces; the NCO corps consists of Yrkes Officeare (YO).

By now, do you agree that: "There were 95 BFAs" is not a lie?

What a waste of time this is! --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

more ad homs from Malin
Yawn. What a surprise. Malin, you are in no position to lecture me about manners, academic standards, the English language or anything else. Every time you are proven wrong you change the subject and/or throw a tantrum.

I accused you of lying because that is what you are doing. No one has claimed that the Swedish Home Guard is an SAS-style elite fighting force. What Faffia said is that it is a part of the armed forces. You said it isn't and you were wrong. Instead of admitting that, you start babbling about Rambo.

You know that a CONSCRIPT army works differently than a volunteer army. The active component in a conscript army is always small compared to the total number of troops, this is true about Finland, Germany, Norway and every other conscript army. Yet you continue to lie about the number of troops, claiming it is only those currently in conscript training and omitting the thousands of troops placed in the war-time organisation.

You have written that specialistofficerare in the mech inf are not going to be platoon leaders and that "some few" sergeants will be dep squad leaders. This is not finalised, you are simply posting your own opinions. You claimed that the standard rank of a squad leader in the USMC was a corporal and in your pictures your have indicated a ratio of lcpl to pvt that doesn't match the true numbers.

You keep mentioning the BFAs like it is some magic spell. I'm not arguing about the BFAs. In the Swedish army after 1983, conscripts had both ordinary soldier roles(the privates) and NCO roles(eg. Sergeants). You claim that the Swedish conscript NCO were not NCOs. You claim that the Swedish officers(fänrik to general) are NCOs. You are simply wrong, and you can't find one single credible source that support your fantasies.

There is no point continuing an edit war were you constantly repost your op ed style article. I think we should request a formal mediation to solve this dispute. It will require the approval of all editors, but since you think your article is unbiased and can withstand scrutiny, you should have no problem with it. However, since the meditation requires that other steps have been taken to solve the conflict, I think we should use the RfC(requests for comments) process first before we move to the meditation phase. --Stulfsten (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Stulfsten's claims: Swedish Armed Forces documets are full of lies
What Stulfsten is trying to say is that documents from the Swedish Armed forces are lies. All numbers are correct and all what he states have been proven wrong according to what has been documented by the Swedish Armed Forces. He should talk to the Swedish Armed Forces to sort things out.

Stuflstens descripion about high shcool math is inconsistent so he can stop advertising himself as having a Swedish graduate engineering degree. His math is A-level( elementary math) and he is most likely a Specialistofficer or an aspiring one.

Reply to Stulfsten
You have written that specialistofficerare in the mech inf are not going to be platoon leaders.
 * I understand. Since you are a specialistofficerare your dream is to become a platoon leader of a mech platoon one day. Are you so incredible naïve? OF are being trained to become deputy platoon leaders and platoon leaders of mechanized infantry platoons. The very few platoon leader roles will, of courses, be given to them (OFs). Mech inf platoons are tactical elements that is commanded by tactical officers = OFs just as in all other Armies on this plannet.

''and that "some few" sergeants will be dep squad leaders. This is not finalised, you are simply posting your own opinions.''
 * It has been proposed. Sergeants = deputy squad leaders. Read “remiss” documents about “tvabefalssytemet”.

You claimed that the standard rank of a squad leader in the USMC was a corporal and in your pictures your have indicated a ratio of lcpl to pvt that doesn't match the true numbers.
 * You don’t have the “true number”. Where is it?  References?
 * Squad leader roles are filled by Corporals and Sergeants
 * Fire team leader roles are filled by Corporals and Lance Corporals.

You claim that the Swedish conscript NCO were not NCOs. You claim that the Swedish officers(fänrik to general) are NCOs. You are simply wrong, and you can't find one single credible source that support your fantasies.


 * The table, which I extracted from official documents, reports generals as Comissioned Officers, not NCOs. You guys removed the table becase of your claim that all those numbers are lies. You ask this kind of question again and again because the table that defines personnel such as NCOs and COs has been removed. Silly you! Allow me to include the table that you guys removed form the article ... Can you find any generals as NCOs here? PLEASE NOTE THE REFERECE... If you cries out like inmature babies that those numbes are all lies without checking refrences or proving anything, you words are worth nothing and your act of erazing numbers fraudelent.


 * And in Årsredovisning 2008 (page 25), there are no generals as Comissioned Officers. Yet again you PROVE to us that you fail to understand the meaning of NCO and CO. The english term NCO, in context to international comparison, has NOTHING to do with an actual paper "fullmakt". Faffia (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Distribution of Swedish military personnel 2007
Average age of reserve officers is 47.2 and professional officers 42.
 * 1 Officers without comission. That is, enlisted officers according to the "Ny Befäls Ordning (NBO)". Ref:
 * 2 Including Överste 1 class
 * 3 Temporarily contracted personnel to fill vacancies among employed personnel.

I have to restore the article in order for you to read the table to put an end to your confusion.

--Malin Lindquist (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Important: SO are not to act as commanders of tactical elements
Svulfsten. This has been finalized long time ago and is one of the basic reasons for the split between SO and OF. If you dont know this, then your knowledge about this matter is ZERO and I don't know why you are here. I have corresponded with the architects of the new system for well over a year.

Ref: Ovlt Landström PERS-HKV, Swedish Armed Forces

Specialistofficeare may lead all kinds of squads or specialized platoons. Mechanized infantry platoons and companies are tactical maneuver units to be commanded by tactical officers such as OFs. You make a serious mistake if you believe that you as an SO will be able to become a platoon leader of a mechanized infantry platoon. However, if a SO chooses a career within a specialized platoon, he/she may end up as leader of such a platoon. Svulfsten, it is important to know the split between tactical maneuver units and the rest. Do your study!

If you despite this believe that SO may lead mechanized platoons, you have to confirm this with HKV/PERS (Ovlt Landström, Ov Frölstdet) immediately instead of spreading disinformation on the net planting false hopes among prospective SOs.

--Malin Lindquist (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, at least have the courtesy to reference an official published document. Faffia (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Home Guard and other voulunteer milita formations
I would suggest a removal of the section inside the insignia table that contains Home Guard ranks since those are redundant and do not convey more inforamtion than what is already there. Also, insignias of other nations do not include all the possible militia formations that a country may have.

Talking about the Home Guard.... I found the claim that a Home Guard platoon could ambush an entire mechanized battalion a bit too fantastic and Rambo like, considering that the Home Guard spends some hours a year in training how to guard facilities and their homes. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Do not remove the Home Guard from the rank insigna table
I do not agree. Simply because the Home Guard is a different military organisation and do not implement the ranks as the Army does. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I belive it's important to clarify the difference in the Military Ranks of the Swedish Armed Forces.

I don't know about other nations, so I won't reply your statement about other nations.

Your last comment about the Home Guard and Rambo... I have not made that comparison. I said that the Home Guard is a part of the Armed Forces. And you said it didn't. You're wrong.

Faffia (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My removal of the references, and other things
My edit was not intened to remove the references. But rather the body text (sv. brödtext). Within this body text the references were defines. As such, when deleted, the references unfortunate were deleted as well. However, a reference needs a context (a statement is supported by a reference). As there is no body text, there is no context, and therefor no references. These references may well be put, for the time being, under a section "Further reading"/"See also"/"External links". But these sections should ONLY include the links, their document title and date (etc). Nothing more.

Before I will meet the rest of your critisism, I have to reply to your statement that I have a writing style that is premature, full of personal emotions and insluts. It may be premature, full of personal emotions and insults because I am sincerely angry with you. EVERY one else on this talk page argues AGAINST you. Wikipedia is not a place for a single person to express his/hers opinions or belifs. The majority of those who are active in trying to develop this article argues AGAINST you and your claims. It is not I who invent elements of the Swedish Armed Forces. If you belive I do, I am sorry I am not more fluent in english and therefor may have been unclear in certain areas. I'll be more than happy to try to explain and answer any question you have, in Swedish.

Now I'll answer your critisism.

You are part of the Home Guard and I understand your desire to make it look like regular troops and a great Army


 * I have never tried and will not try to glorify the Home Guard. But you claimed it was not included in the Armed Forces, while it is.
 * And it is a de facto truth that the Home Guard is the only, somewhat, capable armed force who can assemble within hours. While the regular Army (as being a conscript army) has to spend a year or more to assemble.
 * It is true, however, that more senior members are active in lower ranks in the Home Guard. But the purpose of this is not for them to act as soldiers, but rather in "Stabs- och tross befattningar". Still, some senior members are serving as "soldiers" on the paper. But they don't participate in the exercises. And why aren't they removed? Simple, because no one wants to insult these senior members who have spent years in service by making them feel excluded. In the event of war, "eller i ofred", they will not be used in the ranks.
 * And why did they rename from Home Guard District to Company/Batallion? A Company/Batallion is simply a military quantity and organisational unit consisting of 100-300 people. A batallion 500 - 1500 people (reference: http://mil.se/sv/Ordbok/). It is true that when exercising, only about 25% of the enlisted persons in a Home Guard Company/Batallion shows up. But this is due to the Home Guard volountary organisation. Not everyone are able to attend every exercise.

your claim that BFA is/was the NCO corps of Sweden


 * Please, quote me. I have NOT claimed that BFA is/was the NCO corps. the BFA, is as you well know, primarily a method to fill vacancies for the following year, but also a useful tool to attract members to the officer corps.

A Swedish officer may serve as private soldier


 * Well, that's a truth with modification. An officer may well indeed take absence of leave (tjänstledigt) to, for example, take employment as a private and serve abroad in Utlandsstyrkan. Other than that, an officer isn't a private just because he takes his AK5 and do some legwork. An officer does not change ranks to a private!
 * To prove you wrong I suppose I'll have to quote the SFS (Svensk Författningssamling).
 * I can at least understand your claim by reading Officersförordning (2007:1268) http://www.riksdagen.se/Webbnav/index.aspx?nid=3911&bet=2007:1268

2 § yrkesofficer: den som är anställd som militär tjänsteman och inte är reservofficer eller beredskaps- eller förstärkningssoldat,
 * However, the same document also says

21 § För officerare ska finnas de tjänstegrader som framgår av bilagan till förordningen.
 * The appendix states that officers (YO, the now current OF ranks) may use the following ranks (tjänstegrad)

General/Amiral Generallöjtnant/Viceamiral Generalmajor/Konteramiral Brigadgeneral/Flottiljamiral Överste/Kommendör Överstelöjtnant/Kommendörkapten Major/Örlogskapten Kapten Löjtnant Fänrik
 * End of disscussion.

To summarize your quite funny claim: -- 20,000 commissioned officers to command 90 very young NCOs and 500 troops I NEVER said that 20 thousand officers command 90 NCO and 500 soldiers. Sweden have (or had, R.I.P.) a CONSCRIPTION army. And I don't know how many times I, and others, in this talk page has tried to explain this to you. A Conscription army DOES NOT have a standing force. At times of war or unpeace, the Pliktverket summons the soldiers and the army is expanded. The YO corps cannot be expanded, because of it's nature. They are employed on full time, they are the professional (Yrkes-) element in a conscription army.

And btw, Stulfsten, you have my approval. A RFC process, I belive, would not work since we'd had this discussion quite a while now, and it's not the first time or the first subject Malins contributions has been harshly critizied. Faffia (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

More lies by Malin
Malin, try to understand this: wikipedia is NOT your personal blog. You can't just write whatever nonsense pops up in your head. I am not arguing that the numbers found in the official annual report are wrong. I am arguing that your interpretations and made-up facts are wrong. In the annual report for 2007 one can read that there was a total of 3327 persons with the rank of Löjtnant employed as full time officers. I am not disputing this.

What we are discussing is the number of soldiers and NCOs. You claim that one should only count those that currently are in conscript training. I(and everyone else) says that those who have been educated previous years and placed in the war time organisation must also be included in the conscript troop total. You claim that since 1983 there has been no NCOs in the Swedish army. We say that there has been no professional (employed) NCOs 1983-2008. You chose to ignore tens of thousand of conscripts because they don't suit your made up reality. There is also the fact that you make up your own translations, seen nowhere else but on this page. As Faffia says, as as other have said numerou times, you don't understand the difference between a CO/NCO in the British tradition and when to use the English words CO/NCO to translate non-British ranks. Nowhere in official documents can one find support for your claim that "yrkesofficerare med fullmakt/särskilda villkor" should be translated as commissioned officers while the other 3/4 of officers should be translated as non-commissioned officers.

The official homepage of the armed forces contradict your claim about the duties of a specialistofficerare. It is possible someone made a mistake and put up wrong info, but as you have provided no evidence whatsoever for your claim that a specialistofficerare can not be a platoon leader in the infantry, I will accept the info on the official page.

For the rank Sergeant in the category "Contracted personnel - Soldiers and soldiers with a speciality" (incorrectly translated from Gruppbefäl, soldater och sjömän) you have stated that "some few" will be 2ic of a section and presumably most of the sergeants will function as ordinary soldiers. Where is the proof?

About the USMC: you were the one who said that an E-3 is dep squad leader and E-4 squad leader. You are the one who claims that there is roughly two times as many E-2 as E-3. You must provide the proof. --Stulfsten (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying agan
Good that you now admit that numbers in the table are real and not full of lies as you cried out previously. The table should not be removed anymore as it contains critical important information for readers and for our discussions to be constructive and accurate.

NCOs
We shall no longer state that BFA is the Swedish NCO corps. OK? A major portion of the 20,000 military staff, named “officers” in Sweden, were/are NCOs. I never wrote that there are no NCOs, did I?

Troops today
Sweden has about two standing companies: one in Kosovo and one in Afghanistan. Troops in Afghanistan will increase and my guesses are that there will be more than one company out there. Please check this up and educate me on this point.
 * No, those companies are not standing, they are deployed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.130.26 (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Troops in the future
A conscripted army of 30 brigades at R7 existed some 25 years ago, but today we cannot talk about having a conscripted army anymore. Consider the following extracts from the Swedish Armed Forces: Sweden claims that it has the capacity to create 8 maneuver battalions after some year(s) provided it succeeds in producing all the staff to populate those -- does that really count?
 * 1 maneuver company (mechanized) after 30 days
 * 1 mechanized company as well as a light mechanized battalion after 90 days.

Fiffa
I have not commented your English ability, I am irritated about Svulstens repeated insults regarding other member’s English language ability especially since his English is full of mistakes and not very logical IMO. I am thankful for your contributions and glad that wiki can take advantage of your programming skills, your knowledge in mechanized combat and inside info. about the HG.

Who does what?
Again, OF may lead tactical units such as mech inf platoons and companies. SO may lead all kinds of squads and specialized platoons, but not mech inf platoons. That is, if you want to lead a mech inf platoon, you should go the OF tactical route. If you want to lead a specialized platoon, you should go the SO route. Hope this helps.

Sergeants
We can't translate gruppbefal to squadleaders as the squadleader category is clearly on the SO level. As far as I see, all the squad leader roles will be taken by SOs in the futue. Don't confuse gruppbefal (GBS) with squadleaders as GBS in most cases means privates with a speciality such as Snipers, corpsmen, HQ assistands, fire support assistant and soldiers in the cavlary. Soldiers in cavlary squads were all gruppbefal (GBS) with the rank set to Furir (Sergeant), except for the leader who was a KBS Fanrik. Safest guess is to call them soldiers with a speciality or simply soldiers.

--Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Not much of a clarification
The only "clarification" I get is that you are still a liar. Malin, I NEVER said that the numbers in the annual report were wrong. I said that your interpretation of them is wrong. There's a huge differance.

Language
I have never insulted you, on the contrary you're the one who have repeatedly insulted others. I have only pointed out when you have made serious errors, like translating högskola with high school. When I point out your errors, you claim I have written about you in "degrading" language. Nothing could be further from the truth! You simply don't know what degrading means, just as you don't know what employed means either when you say that the BFAs are "by no means" employed. You have translated Förste Sergeant with First Sergeant, which is as stupid as translating the English language rank 2nd Lt to Andra Löjtnant when there is the rank fänrik. Actually, to mistranslate the sergeant rank is worse; if you translate 2nd Lt to andra löjtnant at least the Swedish person will have the (correct) impression that it is some kind of junior lieutenant, but if you translate Förste Sergeant to First Sergeant the English speaking person will get the impression that it is a senior NCO rank. Pointing out errors is not the same as name calling. I have never claimed to be an English expert, obviously I make mistakes since I'm not a native speaker. But at least I try to express myself in a way that will be understandable even for those not familiar with Swedish society. If your texts are more logical than mine, that question I will happily leave to the readers.

Army strength after mobilization
You may think that the Swedish army has low readiness and long mobilization time but that doesn't change the FACT that those who are part of the army, are part of the army. No matter how much you want to ignore them! There are more than 5000 conscripts in the Swedish army, although not all of them are in training at this very moment.
 * The numbers of recruits (conscrip) is about 4,000 to 5,000 and as far as I understand all those are being drilled to become soliders, squad leders and some few platoon leaders. If there is an organization that is called Army in Sweden, then those who are employed there belong to that organization called Army, but the organization that is called Army in Sweden does not have any troops. Thats the prob! Whem war breaks out, the organization that is called Army in Sweden may produce 4 companies and one battalion after 90 days of mobilization. Then mabye about 20 of those 19,114, who are called "comissioned officers" by themselves, may find something to lead.  --Malin Lindquist (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Specialistofficerare and Sergeants
Your clarification did not help one bit. All you did was to repeat what you've already said. Why don't you provide some evidence instead. Or as you would say: Silly You! Do Your Study!

--Stulfsten (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Officers as privates
There is one case where a squad will consist completely of officers and it si true that those were in Congo in conjunction with the French. However, as these were a unit of SSG, a Special Forces unit, this does not in any way invalidate my arguments. Similar units in other armies also consist of solely officers and very senior NCO's.


 * There were about 80 troops sent to Congo and all were officers (comissioned officers as some here claim). The nature of their mission seems more in line with classical USMC operations and in an UMSC platoon there is only one comissioned officer (Second/First Lieutenat) and one SSG. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll metareference here. From the Wiki article on "Squads";


 * In military terminology, a squad is a small military unit led by a non-commissioned officer (NCO) that is subordinate to an infantry platoon. In countries following the British Army tradition (Australian Army, Canadian Army, and others) this organization is referred to as a section. In most armies a squad consists of eight to fourteen soldiers, and may be further subdivided into fireteams.~

Oh by the way. Malin, if you ever find another reference, feel free to post it. Posting the website of the Swedish Armed Forces is somewhat silly. I'll accept a "SFS, FFS, FIB, FAR, reglemente, handbok" or other. Hans Engstrom (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Coments
In line with Wikipedias Dispute resolution policies I have filed a formal request for coments on this article and on Malins conduct.

Response to RfC from anonymous user
It's great that you took this initiative, I agree that we need to use the dipute resolution tools available to solve this conflict. However, it is difficult to agree to a dispute statement when I don't know what exactly you think the dispute is. You have not defined it in your addition to the article. If you would add a description of what you consider the dispute to be about(you mention Malin's conduct and I think I know what you mean) other editors can then indicate whether they agree or disagree. Also, I think it would make the dispute resolution process easier if you would register on wikipedia as it is easier to refer to a user name than an IP adress.
 * I believe that what this dispute is about is obvious for anyone who care to read through this discussion. One user (Malin Lindquist) is making false statements in this article, possibly with the intention to discredit Sweden in general and the Swedish Armed Forces in particular. She stubbornly insists on these false statements in contradiction with official documents from the Swedish Armed forces and statements from persons who obviously serve with the Swedish Armed forces or otherwise have deep insight in these matters (like yourself).
 * It is also quite clear that at least two users (Stulfsten and Faffia) have had the same dispute with Malin and with the same arguments.
 * Considering registration, In a anarcistic arena such as Wikipedia, I prefer to remain anonymous. Especially when participating in an inflamed debate like this one.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.130.26 (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You never seem to reach the point of informing us what you feel is incorrect and what is being disputed other than assessing me as a person. I am not the person to defend my own honor here, still I have to informe you that a peson that has
 * * a personal page at wiki where you may verfy who she is
 * * served the Swedish Defense forces as an officer and been honorable discharged;.
 * * drawn all the Swedish military related insignias from scratch putting her heart into making them looking good
 * has no reasn to lie to discredit the Swedish Defense Forces or to make her own Swedish officers rank sound cheaper than it is.


 * I am devestated by the fact that Sweden presently has no troops. After your claims that your home defense platoon could ambush an entire mech battalion (childish) and that HD is sufficient for defending Sweden, it will be harder to justigfy increases in defense speedings to reinforce the Army. You may be very proud of your HD, but you ruin for those who want people to realize that Sweden is defenseless and is in urgent needs for reinforcements. To say that I discredit the Swedish Armed forces is like accusing a doctor for discrediting your health after a diagnosis. Presentig figures as they are is enough, so why do I need to lie. By lying, I will basically risk my career since I keep my profile like an open book. I am against a 3 year officers school, the battlegroup concept, troops outside Sweden and a professional army. I am for a large conscripted army, reinforced Home Guard, a one-year officers school, recruiting officers with graduate math/engineering degrees, the establishment of 25+ brigades, more helicopters, full scale development of ARCHER, JAS and AMOS to defend Sweden with best possible personnel and firing power ready within days.
 * These are my opinions, which runs pretty much against what poliicians want and have not been part of the article. I am by no means against the Swedish army.


 * Remember, I was the one to copy information directly from documents of the Swedish Defense Forces, not you. I was the one to show you where to find those documents and the one to ask you read all those documents. The information in the table is no longer disputed as both Fiffan and Svulvsten have verified the numbers and as far as I understand they agree that those are correct.


 * Again, for me to respond, you have to tell what is disputed and what is incorrect.


 * I am just as upset as you about the state and funding of the Swedish Armed Forces. But I am just as upset about that you do not recognize me and my brothers in arms (both in HV and in regular units) for what we are and what we do.
 * Anyhow, this article is not about the funding of the Swedish Armed Forces. It is about ranks. Let me spell it out for you once more:
 * All persons employed by the Swedish Armed Forces are oficers <= wrong
 * Only persons endowed with officersfullmakt are oficers <= wrong
 * Persons endowed with an OF-rank such as Fänrik and above are oficers <= right
 * You are repeatedly confusing rank (grad), duty (befattning) and education (utbildning). Again, this article is called Military ranks of the Swedish armed forces. Not Military duties in the Swedish armed forces or Swedish military education.
 * If conscripts who became Fänrik by going to kadettskola are realy to be considered officers in the means of the Geneva Convention articles i have stated previously can be discussed. But not here.
 * (Totaly off-topic, but anyhow): Considering your comment about the HV efforts during excersice CC06. The mechanized force ambushed by each platoon was company size. The ambushes were successfull. Childish or not, that's what happend at Stäket and at Ursvik. Frihamnen was a bigger fight and it became more messy. As a former ranger you should be familiar with similar anti-armour tactics. I have never said that HV would be sufficient to defend Sweden against an invasion. But in case of an invasion, that's what we've got. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.130.26 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is consuming too much time. I regret my efforts creating this article since Sweden has no troops anyway, hence describing Swedish military ranks completely meaningless. That is, those ranks have no relevance as military ranks.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that the distribution of ranks is skewed does not make ranks meaningless. It is just as stupid as saying that nobody can be a professor if he/she does not have any students.


 * I agree with unsigned83, Malin's behaviour is unacceptable. No single wikipedia user has veto power over the content of an article, even if the user in question created the article. If something is found to be wrong or unsupported by evidence, the correct thing to do is to suggest an alternative text. If editors still can't agree the disputed sections should be removed, if a majority supports it. I would also like to point out again that the facts in the official annual report, which is not hard to find, have never been in dispute. The disagreement concern Malin's interpretations and translations, which has no official support.--Stulfsten (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For a codification of this sentiment, Malin might be interested in reading the policy Ownership of articles. I have largely abandoned this debate because the layout of this talk page makes it a full-time occupation to follow, but I admire those who still make sense of it. — JAO • T • C 18:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an experienced wikipedia user so I'm not sure how you usually do these things but since the RfC added by the anonymous user suggest one should provide proof that one has tried to resolve the dispute, I'm going to make the following
 * Adding a RfC-tag to this article will also make it show up in the 3O-category where more experienced Wikipedia-users can find it and contribute with a third-party, hopefully objective, point of view. If neither Stulfsten, Faffia nor anyone else feel that they have provided facts solid enough to solve this dispute, I'll change this article from WP:RFC to WP:THIRD. This would not be sufficient to enforce an environment where an encyclopedial and correct article can be produced though.
 * I have commented out (not removed) The RfC-tag from this article before the 48h time-limit is reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.130.26 (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to Malin
I'm sure everyone here wants an article they perceive as accurate. To avoid an edit war, I suggest we include only information supported by credible evidence which all editors can agree on. Personal opinions and speculation must be avoided. Only definitions and translations that are found in reliable works should be used. Would you Malin agree to such a policy? --Stulfsten (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am going crazy
You claim that all those 19,114 staffs are commissioned officers.

Swedish Defense Force only reports about 2,000 as being commissioned officers.

Sweden has no troops. (There is a Home Defense (HD) but none of above mentioned officers is part of the HD).

Sweden may only mobilize four companies and one battalion after 90 days of mobilization by calling in conscripts and conscript officers. This is just enough for 20 of those 19,114 officers to command something.

Conclusion: almost no one of those 19,114 commands any troops or act as battalion/brigade/division HQ officers. Worse, they never will even upon mobilization.

It is very difficult for me to make sense out of why those are called commissioned officers.

Where are the troops? Where is the Army? I am growing crazy! --Malin Lindquist (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How to proceed
Notthing was put under any of those RFC headings -- Why was the RFC commented out?

Reply: I am not a ranger and did not wear a beret; I was in the infantry – light arctic infantry. I regret that I did not apply for rangers such as K4 or I22 or Sodankylä thou. I served 1983 when the NCO corps changed name to Yrkes Officerare during the NBO reform. NCOs and COs were both called officers for “rattvise” reasons. At that time KBS graduated as conscript officers – somewhere in the 1990s the term officer was removed for VPL Fanrik. I am not sure about the Geneva Convention stuff other than it is something everyone ignores during war. I was ready to lead my conscripted platoon in matter of days and by actively taking part of FBU (promitional courses to Lt.) I could keep my war position until discharge. My deputy was a YO Fanrik (Serg before NBO 1983). Commanding troops is the main duty for officers but it is up to you to judge what an officer is. What I am sure about is that those Regemeents officeare = Comissioned Officers were officers according to the convention.

I am very confused by Svuflstens explanations. He claims that there were 1000 NCOs undertaking training after 1983. Does he mean OHS students or does he mean anything else. The only NCO students were those YO studying at OHS at that time. I was there and here is my conscript medal as a proof.
 * That medal was not instituted at the time of your national service. You have acquired it afterwards, so it is not much of a proof. I have no reason to disbelieve you on that point, however.
 * You are goiing too far here. Most Swedish senior officers have accuired it, after it was instituted, by submitting proofs including rank, regiment, year and having a passing grade. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I have no reason to disbelieve that you have done your national service. However, that medal is no proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.216.122 (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sweden has a Home Defense but there are no other troops in Sweden. There are enough conscripts to produce four companies and one mech battalion after 90 days of full mobilization. To claim that all those 19,140 military staffs are commissioned officers, command troops or act as HQ officers today or will in case of mobilization is a huge lie.
 * Most of those 19140 are a cadre. They do not command any troops today, and will probably not do so for a long time. But in contrast to all conscripts who had all their mobilization orders recalled in 2007, the cadre still has theirs. You must certainly be aware of the fact that all men from the age of 19 to the age of 47 is obliged to serve in the Swedish Armed Forces if summoned (See Lagen om totalförsvarsplikt (1994:1809) for details.) In case of worse times, all or some men (and women) who have completed their national service can receive a new mobilization order in new units under the command of those 19140 avaliable officers. How long time it will take is beyond me, but it will be those 19140 that will do the job.

We should disregard claims from Svulfsten, Fiffa and Hans Engstrom from now on because they are extremely biased. They cannot tranlste their own ranks to fancy english military titles to impress people outside Sweden. Why?! Because according to the facts table, 19,140 military staff including themselves cannot possible be part of any military units (squads, platoons, companies, battalions, brigades, etc ….) or any battalion, brigade, division, operations head quarters. The table is an obstacle for achieving their personal interests and for this reason they have repeatedly destroyed all the information, but the insignias. There are some 4,000 conscripted recruits undertaking basic training each year. To drill those recruits a fraction of the 19,140 staff may serve as drill sergeants. (NCO)…. That’s all.
 * The claims from Svulfsten, Fiffa and Hans Engstrom are reasonable. Yours are not. The very reason for Sweden to adopt the NATO-standard OR- and OF-codes is to erase all ambiguity concerning the comparison of our military ranks with others, whilst you strive to preserve it.

Well, nothing was disputed about my conduct and no errors were after all found in my information table. Claims that those are lies are therefore invalidated. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC) The information table and associated references will be restored. I rephrase the rest and rebuild the article bit by bit. I am not hijacking the article in any ways. As anyone else can, I will put the texts here for validation with associated references. After a sufficient time has elapsed and no errors found, those will be published.

Note. No unreferenced claims may go into the article.

Why don’t you include the Home Defense? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The dispute about your conduct is that you repeatedly ignore and remove correct information contributed by Svulfsten and Fiffa and Hans Engstrom and replace it with your own fantasies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.216.122 (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not removed any information contribued by them othern than worked with Fiffa to improve the insingia table. Please don't accuse me for things I haven't done. You better show proofs of your accusations. Also, tell me what you mean by fantasies and correct information.. Have you verfied all the claims of Svuflsten and Hans Eriksson?
 * -Malin Lindquist (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction: They have removed misguiding information that you insist to keep.
 * You have filed a RFC and wiki has asked you and others to provide evidences of your claim. Noone responded to the enquity and prior the expiratin time you tried to keep the RFC. As you may understand, you may no longer file RFCs on wiki after failing to justify your first RFC. Regards, --Malin Lindquist (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The RfC was filed by unsigned83. But I agree with him that there is a dispute over this article. And, as he pointed out, Wikipedia is an anarchy. He can file as many RfCs as he likes just as you can write as many lies about the swedish military as you like.
 * For God sake sign your posts. Unsigned is impersonating as aonther person --Malin Lindquist (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not impersonating anyone. There are two unsigned participants here. I am one of them. That our IP-number differ is not so bloody difficult to see, is it? 130.237.216.122 (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets see if Svulfsten, Fiffa and Hans fully agree with your claim -- my guess is that they dissagree
 * Most of those 19140 are a cadre. They do not command any troops today, and will probably not do so for a long time. But in contrast to all conscripts who had all their mobilization orders recalled in 2007, the cadre still has theirs. You must certainly be aware of the fact that all men from the age of 19 to the age of 47 is obliged to serve in the Swedish Armed Forces if summoned (See Lagen om totalförsvarsplikt (1994:1809) for details.) In case of worse times, all or some men (and women) who have completed their national service can receive a new mobilization order in new units under the command of those 19140 avaliable officers. How long time it will take is beyond me, but it will be those 19140 that will do the job.

Can you summarize how much commanding experinces those 19,140 have? How do you assess their skills and fit for service? Again, where are our references? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Their experience and skills are of course varying depending on rank, assignment and so on. I doubt that all are capable of commanding troops in the field. But, even in wartime there are other jobs for officers than mere commanding troops.

The burden of proof is still on you
Malin, you still don't seem to understand that the burden of proof is ON YOU. If you claim something, and want to include it in the article, you must provide proof that your claim is correct. It's not our job to disprove it. Let's take the Sergeant(OR-5) issue. You claim to know that a minority of sergeants will be deputy squad leaders(some few), and that the rest(a majority) will be soldiers with specialist training. However, you have not provided any proof at all to back this up. Therefore, it must be removed from the article. The situation is the same regarding the duties of the specialistofficerare in the mechanised infantry. You claim to know that they will not be platoon leaders, then you should provide proof for that claim. Especially as the official homepage of the armed forces state that they can. If official sources contradict your claims, how can you expect people to believe you when you don't present any proof at all to support your argument? And no, "I talked to LtColX for a year" is not proof.


 * I removed that line some days ago as I was not sure about the state of Sergeants. That roles of Vicekorpral and Kopral are officially set to specialists and First Sergeant to gruppchef.
 * Regarding platoon leaders of the mech infantry: This role will be taken by OFs, but so far I have not seen any SO related docs. that mention them as platoon leaders of mech infantry and I have not seen anything that officially states that they may not. Provided the role is open to SO, then there is no meaning of creating a seprate tactical officers corps such as OF. I think you understand my point and the issues SOs may face once they found out that this role is not obtainable. The problem has not been announced for obvioius reasons such as not discouraging SOs from applying to careers in ground combat. I agree with you, I have to find an official statement and I will try --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, about the table containing the number of officers in the Swedish armed forces. Let me say AGAIN that I have no problem with the numbers. Do you get that Malin? I'm not trying to hide any numbers. In app3 to the 2008 annual report, the table on page 25 says that there are 9353 officers and the table on page 33 says there are 9323 reserve officers. What I want to remove from the article is your assertion that 21% of the officers are commissioned officers while 79% are not. Describing those 79% as non-commissioned officers, warrant officers or something else is not right. You can't simply make up your own translation. If you want to include the table from the 2008 annual report you must use the official and correct translations!


 * OK ... this dispute is now closed... I will include numbers from the annula report as of year 2008. If there is a comissioned officers = fullmakts officeare category that must also be included for compleateness.  --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been reported that there are those with "särskilt" special employment agreement, comissioned (fullmakts) officers, reserve officers, YO officers, BFA, and conscripts. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How to proceed
Malin, considering that you are the only one who support your theories, I suggest that you do not restore the article in its entirety. Instead, you should add smaller parts, perhaps a paragraph at a time, and then we can discuss it here. If you're going to add the excact same texts as earlier, you should this time include proper references for all your assertions. If we agree that a addition to the article is correct, then it can be included. If several editors, after examining the evidence cited by the author, consider the information to be false, we should vote on the disputed text. If a majority thinks it's incorrect it must be removed from the article. You don't own wikipedia. If there is disagreement over the content of the article, the right course of action is to remove the parts in question, not to give a single user final say over the content. Do you accept this fact, that you are not the owner of this article and other editors do not need your permission before they change it?--Stulfsten (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is what I have declared to do as a compromize and to release the deadlook... step by step --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Great! It looks as if we finally are making some progress...However, I would appreciate it if you could make a clear statement whether you accept the fact that you do not have veto powers over the article content.--Stulfsten (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My clear statement is that I have full veto right because I am God. I don't necessarily need your consent unless you provide references that proves my number with corresponding references wrong, which you never succeeded in doing. Calling me a liar does not provide me or wiki with any useful information in deciding whether I or wiki should honor your consent or not. There are more effective and appropriate means to convey your level of consent with than expressing personal emotions. Therefore, I would like you to consider avoiding the usage of the term “liar” and the practice of assessing abilities. I am definetely not going to seek conset from IP-addresss soley on grounds that they are in majority --Malin Lindquist (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we can do without your lame jokes. Answer the question instead. There are certain rules how to behave on wikipedia. You seem to be under the delusion that you have the right to block others from editing articles you have started, that people who wish to edit them must petition you before they can do so. That you don't take this question seriously indicates that you are still not reday to play by the rules. If several users disagree about an article, it's NOT the user named Malin who gets to decide what should stay or be removed. Wikipedia editors should work for consensus, but consensus is not necessary the same thing as unanimousness. If you think the article should say X, but 5 other editors all think the article should say Y, there is consensus regarding Y and you should accept that and not revert the article back to your opinion X. If you do not agree to this basic wikipedia principle, you should clearly state that, and appropriate action can be taken.


 * If you do not lie, then I will not call you a liar. You said that the reason for NBO was to make the job of NCO more attractive by giving them new fancy titles.That is a lie.You said that I claimed that the information in the official annual report was false. That was also a lie. You said that Hemvärnet is made up of senior citizens. Yet another lie. If you keep lying, I'm going to continue to call you a liar.


 * In your article you made many assertions, almost all without any evidence to back them up. You included two references, both of which had very little to do with many of your assertions. I don't have to "prove your references wrong" since you have no relevant references!--Stulfsten (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not blocked anyone from editing. Contrary, I have encouraged serious editors to expand the article such as with the Home Defense, etc provided they include references. The problem is that my references have been removed. Those references indeed points to over 50 official documents about the Swedish Armed Forces and research from Lund and Goteborg Universities.


 * You cannot escapee from the fact what you said. You said that all those numbers from the Armed Forces are lies and after many efforts from my side to make you read those documents, you finally agree that every single number is correct. You have finally admited that there are no erorr in the numbers. Therefore, the dispute about the numvbers is now CLOSED. We may now proceed.


 * You are at the wrong place even if you derive your authority from being called officer at the Swedish military (All military employees are called officers in Sweden) …. This is not an article for you to falsify your CV with a ridiculously high English title and that you have the right to be regarded as a Commissioned Officer. I know that the article is read by prospective employers to relate your CV, but I can’t help you out.


 * Even if this discussion forum is full of Swedish military personnel (majority) who need to maintain an illusion that what they have stated in their CV is correct, it is not a criteria for me to sumbitt to allowing lies in the article that makes their title much higher than what they really represnt and classifyed as Comissioned Officers.


 * This article is going to be correct and full of references regardless of your emotions and assessments about others abilities.


 * This grants me the right to ignore you from on.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Who are you trying to fool Malin? What I have written is visible right here on this page for everyone to see! This is what I wrote about your table:
 * Your table about the number of officers is also misleading. The Swedish defence forces are slowly changing from a massive conscript army to a small volunteer army. You can't compare numbers left and right without explaining the context. The 20 000 total officers are not meant to command only 5000 troops. As is normal in a conscript army, the conscripts are only called up in case of war.
 * and then later
 * You continue to lie about the number of privates and NCOs(conscripts) in the Swedish army
 * My objections to your table have always been about two things:
 * 1. By only including a small(the current class) number of conscripts you make the officer to conscript ratio seem much higher than what if actually is.
 * 2. Your own made-up translations, which cannot be found anywhere else but here, are simply wrong. Your own opinions about the competence level of the Swedish officers' corps do not belong on wikipedia.
 * I have never disputed the number of officers with the rank of Kapten etc that are found in the annual report.--Stulfsten (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you find more troops than what has been reported by Armed Forces, then go find them yourself and put the number here with references. That is what everyone else do as part of argumentation. To just say that people are lying wont help much. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't play dumb Malin. You know what this is about. In a conscript army, the conscripts educated a certain year will together with conscripts educated previous years form a pool that can be mobilized in times of war. That is, if there is a war 2010 it is not only the currently serving conscipts who will be asked to serve but also those who served 2009 and previous years. At some point the conscripts will be removed from the pool as you don't have 50 y.o. privates in the army. I know how this works, you know how this works, everbody knows it. Yet you want to include only those educated in 2007 as if those who did their conscription service in 2006 were not part of the war time organisation one year later. You intentionally put a lower number than the one you know is correct to make the officer/conscript ratio higher. I don't know the exact number, but in this kommittedirektiv( http://www.sou.gov.se/kommittedirektiv/2007/dir2007_147.pdf ) from 2007(the same year as your table) it says that the number of krigsplacerade is approx 30000, quite a differance from 4700.--Stulfsten (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What I have reported is the number of units Sweden may mobilize -- one battalion and four companies at R90. This accounts for about 2,000 men/women. However, there is equipment for 7 more battalions. 30,000 have war positions according to the report. Yes! Those might be a pool of men that the Defense Forces has legal rights to call-in in order to train (in one or three yearst time) to fill those 7 battalions and/or simply Home Defense personnel. I am not sure what those resources are. Can you help us with analyzing this further? That would be most helpful.


 * When we talk about a conscripted army, we are talking about military units that may operate in less than one week or perhaps in two days. That was true some 25 years ago when we could mobilize 1,000 battalions right away. Finland has a conscript based army, but Sweden does not anymore.


 * The situation is completely different today…. I include the battalion that may operate after 90 days of mobilization as part of the conscription army—how generous of me! Actually, I would not even count that in as 90 days is ridiculously long considered the situation today. I would say that Sweden has no troops.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is wikipedia, not malinopedia. If you want to use your own definitions, translations etc, create your own malinopedia and write whatever you want. If there are 30000 conscript soldiers, you can't just ignore the majority of them because they don't meet your arbitrary, made-up criteria. I see that you in the new table based on the 2008 annual report have added the conscripts for 2007, I think you should also add the number of conscripts for 2006 as the minister of defence has said on his blog that people are krigsplacerade for up to 3 years. If you do this, I have no further complaints about the numbers in the table.(the translations are another matter..)--Stulfsten (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, please. I was asking you to tell me what those 30,000 men/women are and are for. If the Govt has the legal right to call in the entire populatin, then we cannot claim that the army consists of eight million troops. As far as I see, those 30,000 are just people who need to be tranied to fill posiitons in the war organization. I may be wrong. Again, I need to know what those peps are and what they can do. I simply don't know. I only base my report on the number of elememts/units that the army may produce as an indication of how many conscripts there are that are fit, fully trained and ready to fight.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The National Home Guard number 30,000 quite precisely. They are available within hours notice. They are already trained (completed national service is a prerequisite for joining the National Guard). All guardsmen have war positions as you call it.
 * I know that pliktverket have sent out new war positions to people who have recently done their national service at LVreg (LV6). This has been confirmed by several recipients of such orders. It is still unconfirmed that such orders also has been sent out to man the mech-battalion recently mothballed on Gotland.130.237.216.122 (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, this was exactly what I wanted to know. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I must admit that Stulfsten has a more balanced approach to both the subject and this dispute than I do. I therefore will leave continued discussion with Malin about the contents of this article to him with my full support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.216.122 (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

BEFORE you add anything new
Malin, I'd like to discuss the page as it is now. I have 3 remarks.

1) Shouldn't the ranks before 1972 say ranks 1957-1972?


 * Yep, the rank Rustmastae was reindtroduced 1957 and become Fanjunkare 1972, which become Lojtnant 1983...
 * The later is more specific and therfore preferrable. Go ahead and make my day! --Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

2) Överfurir and Fanjunkare were still used in the 80's. Wouldn't it be better to include them and then add a note saying that after 1992(?) these two ranks were only used as temporary ranks for personnel serving abroad?


 * the title fanjunkare (plutonsofficeare) changed to Löjtnant(YO) 1983. Conscript serges could obtain the rank fanjunkare by successfully completing FBU (Volunteer leader traning) promotional course within the same competency area, which means that the title changed but not the war position. The same was true for Furir to Överfurr and for Fanrik to Lojtnant. I think you know this already. There were only a few PBSs at my regiment, those who were undertaking training to become company quartermasters and company level corpsmen. As a consequence, very few graduated as sergeants resulting in a very small recruitment base for fanjunkare courses at FBU. During all my KFO (War Units Exercises), SOB (Special Exercises for Commanders) and FBU courses, I never met any fanjunkare, but lots and lots of new YO fanrik and lojtnants and some few FBU generated överfurirer. For me the fanjukare rank was virtually gone, but you may have other experiences from other branches of the military. Regarding överfurirer serving in international operations: This is a bit tricky as it was a temporary rank given to those serving as police men with a civilian police background to distinguish them from ordinary military MPs (Furier) with a military background as MPs. Most of the roles in international deployments require(d) a military background, but not for those överfurir roles. For me, it looks like a temporary civilian rank. Are you aware of any other usages of the rank? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The point I wanted to make was that these ranks were not abolished, and if you exclude them from the rank chart altoghther, the reader will get the (incorrect) impression that they were abolished. Look at http://www.mil.se/upload/dokumentfiler/lagrum/ffs1997-2.pdf or http://mil.se/upload/dokumentfiler/publikationer/faktaom2006-2007.pdf If the ranks were abolished they would not be in both those documents, published 1997 and 2006. You can't simply make up your own defenition and decide that the ranks were not in use when they still were. The ranks vicekorpral, rustmästare and förvaltare were abolished in 1972, that's why they are not in those two documents and that's why it's correct to exclude them from the 72-83 and 83-08 tables. The ranks överfurir and fanjunkare were not abolished and thus can't be excluded from the tables.--Stulfsten (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I got your point and since they were official ranks, despite of very few having them, we should include them in the table as you say.... Go ahead! You have to do the editing in the article. Mabye a note explaining about those ranks would be nice too --Malin Lindquist (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

3) In the table of ranks on the official homepage, the ranks are placed in the order OR-1 to OR-9, then OF-1 to OF-9. That is, they are not ordered after tjänsteställning. Why should the wikipedia article be different? After all a Förvaltare in 1970 had higher tjänsteställning than Fänrik but was placed before this rank in tables.--Stulfsten (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The illustration at mil.se describes insignias, but there are no claims that the ordering reflects ranks (tjanstestallning).


 * This is my personal opinion. I prefer an officers corps, an underofficer corps and a squadleader corps similar to pre 1972… I don’t want some SO (underofficerare and underbefal) ranks to be placed more senior than officers and I would be more than happy to place all SOs between OF and contractors just as I always wanted it to be.


 * Part of my proposal (request for comments: tvabefalssystemet) that I sent to the PERS/HKV "Bastionen"/Stockhom of the Swedish Defence Forces November 2007:


 * I inserted my proposal here to show that the rank table that I created in the article does by no means necessarily represent how I want ranks to be and that the rank chart in the article is free from any biases.


 * Since this is an article about Swedish military ranks and because the Swedish Armed Forces with strong influences from the Officersförbundet has decided that fanjunkare is more senior than fänrik, förvaltae more senior than löjtnant, etc; there is nothing that I can do than creating an ugly rank chart like this to reflect what has been decided. Officerssförbundet or “underofficersförbundet” hates everything that makes SO ranked below OF and everything that indicates something to be under or över.  To reintroduce förvaltare and fanjukare titles were their ideas and they objected to översergeant. The word förvaltare sounds like a storage manager unrelated to the military for most today, doesn’t it? OR6 was initially proposed as Sergeant and OR7 as översergeant The rank First Sergeant at OR6 is very problematic and has led to lots of discussions here especially with you.  First Sergenat is simply not a suitable OR6 rank provided Sweden strives to harmonize with NATO. That we need to translate First Sergeant to Sergeant is proof enough of a poorly chosen OR6 rank. The rank Sergeant OR5 as of today is undefined since HKV pers cannot assure the role other than as a specialist role in light of OS being assigned most of the squad leader related roles. Currently, no one has been appointed an OR5 Sergeant.

This is not correct. There's at least four 0R-5 sergeants serving in the Navy currently. Two of those are instructors at the Naval Warfare School, one is Ledningssystemsbefäl aboard the HSwMS Skaftö and one is Teletekniskt befäl aboard the HSwMS Skaftö.
 * I base the information on mails from LtCol Landstroms HKV/PERS.... Your claim seems realistic and they may serve under a BFA agreement. Please provide references and for God sake sign your posts. OK! --Malin Lindquist (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Gruppbefäl is an ambiguous term as it also includes specialist or soldiers in the cavalry. GBS did not become squad leaders, PBS did not become platoon leaders and KBS did not become company commanders even though those acronyms indicate so.

Mail to LtCol Landström HKV-PERS 10-27-2008 Överstelöjtnant Matthias, Tack för informationen När det gäller OR9 regementsförvaltare så ska det väl vara fyra stjärnknappar. Nu står det (facktecken/förbandstecken + 2 stjärnknappar+1 krona) vilket verkar helt fel. Regards, Malin Reply mail from LtCol Landström HKV-PERS to me sent 11-20-2008 Malin, Nej, det är inte fel. Inledningsvis utgick vi arbetet från att fyra stjärnknappar skulle utgöra gradbeteckningen men enligt Försvarets traditionsnämnd skall utmärkningen vara enligt nedan eftersom OR 9 tjänsteställning ligger mellan major och överstelöjtnant. Hade OR 9 tjänsteställning varit mellan överstelöjtnant och överste hade gradbeteckningen varit tre stjärnknappar och en krona. Kronan har under lång tid symboliserat en högre nivå, regementsnivån, inom gradsystemet. Jämför med exempelvis den brittiska armén där kronan också markerar regementsnivån (major till överste). Inom Försvarsmakten har meningarna varit delade kring hur gradbeteckningen OR 9 skulle utformas så dina synpunkter delas av vissa förband men i detta fall har alltså Försvarsmakten valt att särskilja OR 9 genom användandet av kronan. Best regards, Matthias Överstelöjtnant Matthias Landström Högkvarteret Personalstaben Tel: 08-7888601 Mail from LtCol Landström HKV-PERS to me sent 11-20-2008 Dear Malin, I am not the "ranks expert" but they look correct to me based on what I have seen as a draft from the new uniforms manual. All ranks and insignias "production" and decisions are made by the production staff in our HQ and the two officers that are responsible for these questions. They are now out of the house working together with the company that are responsible for printing etc the new manual. Best regards Matthias Överstelöjtnant Matthias Landström Högkvarteret Personalstaben Tel: 08-7888601 Mail from LtCol Landström HKV-PERS to me sent 10-30-2008 The rank "förvaltare" is not a especially thrilling name and for the moment we are stuck with it but I can see that this first step of transforming our system back to what it once was will continue and then we change "förvaltare" to something more appropriet. Mail from LtCol Landström HKV-PERS to me sent 10-10-2008 Graden förvaltare är som du skriver en produkt från 1930-talet och inte speciellt militärisk och jag hoppas att vi om några år kan byta ut den och OR 9 graden mot något bättre. Alla beteckningar som innefattar ordet över eller under (exempelvis översergeant) är inte acceptabla hos politiker eller fackförening. Därför heter också denna kategori befäl specialistofficerare och inte underofficerare även om de utomlands kommer att ses som underofficerare. Mail from LtCol Landström HKV-PERS to me sent 2-4-2008 Du har i din e-post daterad 09-02-01 begärt att få uppgifter avseende hur stor andel av tjänstegraden sergeant (nivå OR5) som är placerade på befattningarna soldat, ställföreträdande gruppchef, gruppchef och övriga befattningar som bestrids av sergeant (OR5). Inom Försvarsmakten pågår nu en översyn av insatsorganisationen, där i princip alla OR 5 är placerade, samtidigt som Försvarsmakten inväntar regeringens inriktningsproposition där bland annat insatsorganisationens innehåll och storlek kommer att avhandlas. Nuvarande och tidigare organisation har varken hanterat eller tagit hänsyn till nivån OR5 eftersom nivån är en produkt av det nya befälssystemet vilket fortfarande är under införande. Innan detta arbete är avslutat och innan Försvarsmakten fått regeringens styrningar fastställda vilket kräver ett Riksdagsbeslut är din begäran således inte möjlig att besvara. Ett underlag omfattande de av dig efterfrågade volymerna torde finnas tillgängligt i december innevarande år. Frågor kring denna nya organisation eller nuvarande/tidigare insatsorganisation bör ställas till Högkvarterets Insatsstab som är ansvariga för frågor rörande volymer, innehåll osv kopplat till insatsorganisationen.


 * Sorry for my english, I wrote this very quickly as I am very very bussy with my work at the moment.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned IP-address
You have deleted my posts here in the discussion forum. As of records, 12:56, 15 April 2009 and again 12:56, 15 April 2009. Whatever the posts are, it is a serious violation of the integrity of discussion forum to delete others posts. In my post, I have clearly stated my intention that I am NOT going to discuss anything with you anymore as your unverified claims are simply way too strange to deal with. You mess around too much with unsigned posts and meaningless assessments of people. You should go and ambush some mechanize infantry battalions instead of chatting here. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I can see from the log, the post was deleted by 130.237.216.122. I guess he did not like your patronizing tone. If you do not listen to Stulfsten and Faffia when they pressent correct and veryfiable information, I guess it is too much to hope for that you take to heart my and 130's experiences from CC06. I bet you didn't even bother to Google.
 * (130, were you at Stäket or Ursvik?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.130.26 (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ursvik. You were at Frihamnen? I understand you got hit pretty hard when all blue forces converged on your location. 130.237.216.122 (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, but we had a nice meat-grinder in one of the larger buildings. Our attached tank-destroyer provided by Swedish Armour Museum also made them think twice.
 * I saw a PowerPoint presentation of the troop movements in your area that someone in you unit had made. Fucking amazing! Right out of the schoolbok. No wonder Malin does not believe you. I would not have believed it myself if I had not got it confirmed by the P4-guys.
 * Honesty, we did not win because we were über-special-ninja good or something. We won because the Skaraboys sucked. If they had been more aggressive they would have crushed us. Now they were not. The only thing they did well was to honour the big indian cheif "Sitting Duck" :-)
 * PS: Sign your posts by adding four tilde-signs so people can see who is writing what. 130.237.216.122 (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, Unsigned IP-address
I want you to stop this nonsense chat about your spare-time activites and must remind you that we are seriously discussing ranks and personnel of the Swedish Armed Forces here in order to improve the article.
 * Since when did you discuss seriously here?

Are you serious?...90 days of full mobilization results in one mechanized battalion that can be ambushed by your Home Defense platoon with equipment from a museum. Is this your skill assessment of the very few Swedish officers who have troop leading roles in the war organization? Your assessment indicates that there are no regular officers capable of leading troops. I strongly believe that there are Swedish officers capable of leading troops, but that the number is very small. Exercise in this scale only involves the best officers who are earmarked for positions in the only battalion that Sweden may mobilize. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You really don't Google, do you?
 * http://img374.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fm0361qa.jpg
 * http://www.arsenalen.se/cc06.aspx
 * This is the IKV used by the "red force". Note the "red force" marking SBB on the front of the vehicle on the first picture.
 * http://hemvarnet.se/?action=visaartikel;artikelid=126
 * Here is another good article about CC06. But I guess you won't bother. Because suddenly, you are very careful to only discuss ranks...

You are bullshitting in a serious forum that is intended for improving an article about ranks. However, it is dam interesting bullshit and I want to know more about that exercise beyond the dog squad vs CV9040 story that I read following those links. Send me the PowerPoint.

To make use of your energy, I suggest you to write something about Home Defenses personnel and what each rank represent in terms of training, duties and how many persons there are in each rank. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone, please calm down. This discussion has become a heated debate; we can solve the problem without profanity or arguing. Respect WP:CALM. Thank you. The Earwig (User 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Flamed debate
First, this debate has become very heated. And I will not participate in this discussion if it will continue like this. A heated debate does not produce anything meaningful. I can agree I myself have been harsh sometimes in my language, but I see now this discussion has gone stray.

Secondly, I don't check up on this article or wikipedia daily. I visit this talk page perhaps once a week. And this debate have produced about 3 A4 of text in just a couple of days. I, and many, can't follow it. So please - refrain yourselfs from unnecessary comments. This is not a real-time chat. More structure and better posts. Shorter but more posts just result in diffucult reading and it is hard to see who's writing what.

I will post a new section on this talk page, addressing a single issue. Can we try to adress one issue at the time?

Faffia (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Rank and insignia order
Wether or not the rank and insignia table should sort OR 1-9 followed by OF 1-9 has been one of the more discussed issue on this talk page. The reasons for this are:


 * It is true that according to official document [mil.se] that FM itself displays ranks OR 1-9 followed by OF 1-9.
 * It is true that according to statements by Officersförbundet [nr 9 2008 page 22] that tjänsteställning mix OR and OF ranks (as per Malin statements).

Those two documents conflict on this issue, hence we discuss what order is correct and not. The second document published by Officersförbundet is according to the not yet updated [FFS 1997:2 § 2]. FFS 1997:2 complements the order of ranks with the term tjänsteställning. It is these tjänsteställning that the document from Officersförbundet in my opinion refer to. And therefor I belive that FFS 1997:2 are to be updated as per the statements in the publication for Officersförbundet.

An updated FFS 1997:2 may therefor come look like

2 § Personal med olika tjänstegrader skall räkna tjänsteställning efter tjänstegradernas ordningsföljd enligt följande tabell.

Ordningsföljd Tjänstegrad

1 OF-9 General/Amiral 2 OF-8 Generallöjtnant/Viceamiral 3 OF-7 Generalmajor/Konteramiral 4 OF-6 Överste av 1. graden/Kommendör av 1. graden 5 OF-5 Överste/Kommendör 6 OF-4 Överstelöjtnant/Kommendörkapten 7 OR-9 Regementsförvaltare/Flottiljförvaltare 8 OF-3 Major/Örlogskapten 9 OF-2 Kapten 10 OR-8 Förvaltare 11 OF-1 Löjtnant 12 OR-7 Fanjunkare/Flaggstyrman/Flaggkonstapel/Flaggmaskinist 13 OF-1 Fänrik 14 OR-6 Förste Sergeant/Förstestyrman/Förstekonstapel/Förstemaskinist 15 OR-5 Sergeant 16 OR-4 Korpral 17 OR-3 Vicekorpral 18 OR-2 Menig 1kl 19 OR-1 Menig

Malin, as you have previously discussed some issues with HKV-PERS, can you ask them if FFS 1997:2 are being updated soon?

My proposed resultion:

The table for the current ranks should display ranks in order OR 1-9 followed by OF 1-9 as per mil.se own document.

And insert a new section that adress this issue and references Officersförbundet and FFS1997:2. Something like:

Rank insignia order and duty grade The dipslay order of the ranks has been a source of confusion with the introduction of the new two officer corps system Specialistofficerare (SO, OR 6-9 ranks). According to official documentation [mil.se] about the ranks, OR ranks are displayed to the left of OF ranks. But as the two systems are parallell to each other, some OR ranks have are a position higher up in the chain of command, according to published material nr9_2008 by the Officer corps union (Officersförbundet). And in according to this document, the ranks should be displayed as per table below.

The document published by Officersförbundet reference a term tjänsteställning (can be compared with the U.S. term paygrade, but does not neccesary regulates the salary), which is a term for the order of the ranks and defined in the Defence Regulation FFS1997:2, however, the Regulation FFS1997:2 has not yet been updated for the new ranks and officer corps Specialistofficerare.

Until Regulation FFS1997:2 is updated, this subject is left for dispute.

A couple of comments by myself to above proposal: Faffia (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not a native english speaking person. I am aware there are probably lots of grammar errors.
 * I have no idea how to translate tjänsteställning to english. A direct translation may be service grade, but the term paygrade is more appropriate as the U.S. Army uses this term. I am well aware that tjänsteställning may not affect salaries.
 * I have chose not to translate Specialistofficeare as the translation is disputed elsewere in this article. I propose we do not translate this term until we have agreed upon an translation, or an official translation is available.
 * I believe that Specialistofficerare should be left untranslated. There is no equivalent military academy educated NCO's in any english speaking country that I know of, and a literal translation would just be plain wrong. See Unteroffizier for comparison with another untranslatable military rank/category. 130.237.216.122 (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What I like about the proposed way of displaying the ranks (compared to the current display) is that it becomes clearer that there are two parallel career paths, even though they intertwine when it comes to tjänsteställning. For example, the way the ranks are displayed today, one might be led to believe that the next career step for a Kapten is to become Förvaltare, which, of course, is not generally true. 1977s717 (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The rank table in the article describes personnel corps, ranks and not neccessarily career paths. In the table presented above, it appears as if the next step for a Sergeant is to become First Sergeant without any indications that they belong to two different career paths or personnel corps.
 * There is an error in the table. Forvalater is between Lojtnant and Kapten - not between Kapten and Major.
 * Most Kapten(s) currently servies in SO defined roles,,,those may become Forvaltare.
 * It is also possible to switch between OS and OF under certain conditions.
 * Hope this helps
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

reply
Great Fiffa, One note, Forvaltare should be placed beteen Lojtnant and Kapten,,,, Officersforbundet (OF) states that the OR category consists of "Specialistofficerare and soldiers".... I assume that they mean that everyone below specialist officer is a solider... Thus, the table should be something like this to reflect that

--Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, misplacing OR-8 was my error.
 * But I belive we should not, as per your table, wite Comissioned/Non-comissioned officer for OF-ranks as this translation is debated. We should also not translate Specialistofficerare for the same reason. (See comments above to my proposal).
 * Thirdly, as the table is based on and supported by the document from Officersförbundet, we should keep it the way they have published it. Simply keep it as the original to avoid adding personal interpretations. Faffia (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this is an english wiki, we should ask an English speaker, who is not biased by the Swedidh Armed Forces, to translate Specialistofficerare to English.
 * The annual report from the Defence Forces splits officers into Comissioned Officers and Non Comissioned Officers.
 * Officersforbundet is a trade union.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that could work. But show me an english speaking person who can understand the swedish word/terms. That's the problem with translation, you have to know both languages to make an translation. And these words/terms are very specific in it's nature, you will have to be familiar with the context aswell to make an appropriate translation.
 * Anyways, until we have found someone who make the translation, wether he/she is native Swedish speaking or not, we should not try to translate words we cannot agree upon by ourselfs.


 * Malin, we have discussed this before. There is a difference between the term NCO and the literal translation of Officer utan fullmakt to NCO. I want to avoid that conflict as we have discussed this for a couple of months now. Please, let it just read Officers. Because, regardless of the translation of NCO, we can agree that all OF ranks are YO/RO, right?


 * I am aware that Officersförbundet is a trade union. But they have been a part of the discussion when the new ranks and Specialistofficarere were created. Thus they are more apropriate to make an interpretation of those two systems than you and I.


 * I have changed my proposals somewhat, can you agree to inserting a new section as below?
 * Faffia (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Rank insignia order and duty grade The dipslay order of the ranks has been a source of confusion with the introduction of the new two officer corps system Specialistofficerare (SO, OR 6-9 ranks). According to official documentation [mil.se] about the ranks, OR ranks are displayed to the left of OF ranks. But as the two systems are parallell to each other, some OR ranks have are a position higher up in the chain of command, according to published material nr9_2008 by the Officer corps union (Officersförbundet), which has been part of the discussion when changing the ranks and creating the category Specialistofficerare. And according to this document, the ranks should be displayed as the table further down suggests.

The document published by Officersförbundet reference a term tjänsteställning (can be compared with the U.S. term paygrade, but does not neccesary regulates the salary), which is a term for the order of the ranks and is defined in the Defence Regulation FFS1997:2. However, the regulation FFS1997:2 has not yet been updated for the new ranks and the newly introduced officer corps Specialistofficerare. Until regulation FFS1997:2 is updated, this subject will continue to be discussed.


 * There are a number of problems here


 * You argue that it is not possible to direct translate Specialistofficerare to Specialist Officers. Then it should not be possible to direct translate officerare to officers either according to your logic.


 * About 2/3 of the YOs are considered SO. I refer to those who are classified as SOs but who are not forced to change title if they wish to remain. How do we describe them?


 * Troops … The word troops also include officers as far as I know. I would suggest this category to be named “contractors and conscripts” as an exact definition of those ranks. After 2012 it will only read “contractors”


 * Since there are no troops in Sweden, most of those 19,140 military staff seem redundant and should not be required to wear uniform. Those very few who act as instructors and drill recruits should wear uniform and considered NCOs. To answer the question whether the deputy supreme commander is an officer or not:  She’s an executive administrator as much as the supreme commander is. Her rank is between the supreme commander and the chief of staff. General titles are basically obsolete considering the size of the armed forces.


 * What is an officer and what is not an officer?  Well, we cannot go on debating this ad infinitum, can we?


 * My definition of an officer is quite narrow: An officer is an official who is appointed as commander, deputy commander of existing troops or as a HQ officer. Commanders are those who command company level formations or higher. This has been relaxed by the US and Britton since also platoon leaders have been included. I am willing to accept Home Defense platoon leaders, company leaders as officers provided they are in charge of a unit that has similar functions as infantry units in regular armies.


 * There are no doubts that the Home Defense is more capable today than it has ever been and I hope that this will continue so that we may see a rebirth of the allotment system with world class soldiers. HD needs artillery, antitank, airdefence, better supply lines and better protection. I could see soldiers from the Uppland company sitting in a truck from the Infantry brigade 77... that is a NG -- you need armor... (out of topic here thou).


 * Those who have war positions as platoon leaders and higher in the mechanized battalion (R90) and undertake regular KFO and SOB should be considered officers. Why? Because it is an existing battalion fully staffed (trained personnel) and equipped. Instructors at regiments and administrators are not officers even though they have adopted ranks that were officer’s ranks some 30 years ago. All instructors and drill sergeants in the US are NCOs....


 * What is your definition of an officer?
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Employed equals Officer or not?
One of the most displuted subject here is the definition of Officer. Malin claims that all employed personal in the Swedish Armed Forces are officers while others claim they are not.

Just for reference I had to ask a First Sargeant of the Swedish Royal Guards I met the other day "Are you employed by the Swedish Armed Forces?". "Yes, I'w been employed since I graduated the SO-programme.", he answered. "Are you an officer then?" He looked at me in a strange way and answered "I am specialistofficer." "Is that not the same thing as an officer?" I asked. He looked at me like I'we lost my mind and said "No, it is not." "So, what is the difference?" I asked. (Now he looks at me like I'm a total newbe that does not have a clue about anything) and answers "Officers have higher ranks and longer education."

Here we have a First Sergeant, working as a troop instructor at the Swedish Royal Guards, who has been employed for over a year, and he says he is not an officer.

So, who are employed and are they officers? Let's go through them by category.
 * Your story is fiction --Malin Lindquist (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On what facts do you base that statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.130.26 (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a talent for writing novels. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Conscripts
People undergoing basic military training are serving under the conditions of Lagen om totalförsvarsplikt (1994:1809). Even though basic military training can be regarded as voluntary theise days, it is not formaly so. Formaly they are obliged to serve. They do not sign any contract and the money the get is compensation and not salary. Conscripts are not employed. KBS still exists and conscripts may still finish their service as Fänrik, but they are not officers.
 * KBS graduated as Conscript Officers (VO) during my time of service and were privileged as officers with access to the officers mess, travels in 1st class, carrynig an officers sword and carryng the officers dayguard metal plate when serving as dayofficer. KBS conscripts who graduates as Fanrik today are not conscript officers (VO), they are simply named conscript fanrik. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.130.26 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No conscript becomes a Fänrik anymore at all, so the point is rather moot.
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

International Service
People doing international service sign a contract for a limited period of time (kontraktsanställning). The money they get is considered as salary by the Swedish Tax Administration. International Service is employment, but only people serving at posts at OF-level and people who have OF-ranks in their ordinary service are considered officers.
 * Contractors and employees (fast anstallda) are governed by different laws. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What laws? Can you give me SFS-numbers, please?

National Home Guard
Guardsmen sign a contract for serving a certain number of hours per year. As long as the National Guard is not orderd to mobilize by the government, service is voluntary. The money payed to guardsmen is considered as salary by the Swedish Tax Administration (I have my inkomstuppgift från arbetsgivare for my declaration right here). Further, all battalion- and company-quartermasters of the National Home Guard is allotted a Swedish Armed Forces credit card for covering the expences of food etc of their unit during excercises. This would be illegal if they were not employed. National Guardsmen are employed but most are not officers. Who is and is not an officer can be discussed indefinitly since there are all forms of conscript officers, ROs, former YOs and National Guard promoted commanders in the National Guard.
 * I guess that you refer to the Home Defense here.... Volunteers at the Home Defense are not employees of the Swedish Armed Forces even if they get free food during the hours they serve. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The official english name is The Swedish National Home Guard
 * See http://hemvarnet.se/?action=visaartikel;artikelid=71 for reference.
 * We are not taxed for free food, but for the money we are payed for every contracted hour served. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.130.26 (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Civil Serveants
People employed by the Swedish Armed Forces to carry out administrative tasks or otherwise employed on civilian merits are state-employed in the ordinare way. Some of them have recieved OF-level ranks, some have OR-level ranks and some have no rank at all.
 * Military employees are called professional officers (YO) in Sweden. In other countries they are called privates, non-comissioned officers, warrant officers and comissioned officers. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For the third time, no they're not. The correct term for all military personnel is "anställd militär personal".
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Military academy graduates
This it the category most people refer to as officers. Even though the military academies also have SO-programmes theise days, they are not considered officers neither by themselvs (see obove) or by YOs and ROs.
 * Officers are officials who are tasked to command troops... Graduating from good schools with good grades make it easier to be appointed officer. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So, a high ranking official like Håkan Syrén who no longer is assigned to troop duty is not an officer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.130.26 (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

NEWS ... Personnel in international operations
Reference: []


 * OR-3 = Deputy rifle squadleader   = Lance Corporal
 * OR-4 = Rifle Squadleader          = Corporal

A rifle squad leader has the rank First Sergeant in Sweden, but Corporal when serving outside Sweden. Confusing thou ???

I have been arguing with the Swedish Armed Forces for more than 2 years for this to happen along with the abolishment of the rank Furir... Ever since 1983, I have argued for Vicekorpral = stf gruppchef and Korpral = gruppchef. This is great news and time for celebrations !!!!!!

This also meens that we can define Korpral as a squad leader rank (during international operation) in our ranking table ...yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! --Malin Lindquist (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Malin, this is what kinda what we have been saying... Although we have claimed that a rifle squad leader is not per default First Seargent (OR-6), as you suggest in your first sentance.
 * My proof is FFS 2009:1, which clearly states that Gruppbefäl holds the rank Korpral after completed education. And in the previous (before the new ranks), FFS 2008:2and even older FFS 1990:22 the equivalent was Furir.
 * I have no intention whatsoever to patronize you. But this has been the implementation of ranks for years (1990 is the oldest document I've referenced). And it's not confusing, because it is the same in Swedens conscript army, National Guard etc as in Utlandsstyrkan.
 * Sincerely, Faffia (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The change in the conscript system is that Korpral(old) --> Vicekpral(new), Furir(old) --> Korpral(new)
 * What I have been saying is that squad leaders have the rank Corporal and dep. squad leader the rank Lance Corporal in Briton and USMC and that the Swedish Armed Forces has been using those nations as a base when forming the new system. First Sergeant is either a squad leader, specialist or instructor. First Sergeant (inside Sweden) = Corporal (outside Sweden), for sure. Shall we translate First Sergeant to First Sergeant or Corporal?
 * Regards, --Malin Lindquist (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Joy!!! This is great! Finaly we are getting somwhere!
 * If we follow the NATO standard rank translation codes, a swedish First Sergeant is translated to Staff Sergeant and Fanjunkare is translated to First Sergeant.
 * If we translate First Sergeant to Corporal, how do we tranlate Corporal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.130.26 (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Staff Sergeant has been a proposed translation for Fanjunkare. If a Förste Sergeant is a squadleader then her rank should be translated to Corporal to stay consistent.... If a Home Defense Korpral is a squadleader, then the rank  should be translated as corporal. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In the US Army, a squad is usually commanded by a Staff Sergeant (See squad fore reference).
 * Again you are confusing rank with duty. You must stop that if you are going to get it rigth. A squad can be commaned by a corporal or a lieutenant, it does not matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.130.26 (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

second proposal
The "Administrators, Generalists and specialists" category contains the old NCO corps = YO, Comissioned Officers corps, the new upcomming OF corps and Reserve Officers corps. OK?


 * I do not totaly agree with the typical positions for the ranks, but it is close enough to reallity to be acceptable. I believe we all have to make compromizes to achive consensus in this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.130.26 (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Why should we make compromises with the truth? This is incorrect and unattributed, prima facie. Most platoon commanders are OF 1. Hans Engstrom (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And most company commanders are OF-2, I agree. But how the h*ck can we convince everyone involved of this fact? Do you have any list of companies with the name and rank of the commanders?
 * Well, even if I did, OPSEC would sort of prohibit that sort of thing...

Hans Engstrom (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are wrong... Presently, there are no platoon leaders at Swedish OF1. Kapten is a typical platoon leader rank.
 * Everyone who has done their service, knows that platoon leader is a Kapten. If you disagree, then you should provide evidences. Both OF1 and OF2 may apply for platoon leader roles in international units. However, OF2 will take them all unless the number of OF2s are less than availiable positions.
 * www.forsvarsutbildarna.se
 * “Med vårt nya tankesätt är kapten plutonchef vilket innebär att gruppchefen är anställd sergeant eller fänrik.”
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find that quote at www.forsvarsutbildarna.se. Can you please provide a link? 130.237.216.122 (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Try http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:RmW7ptslDiwJ:www.forsvarsutbildarna.se/index.php%3FdispatchTo%3DRenderer%26action%3Ddownload%26file%3D28913+kapten+plutonchef&cd=13&hl=ja&ct=clnk&gl=jp
 * Goto page 19 or serach for "plutonchef"
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked Mats to explain himself further.
 * The platoon leader at the 312th Squadron whom I had the privelege of talking with over some coffee at Camp Northern Lights in February was
 * certainly a Lt, both there and in Sweden.
 * By the way, "Anyone" who understood their national service knew that the Captain responsible for their platoon, wasn't his platoon leader in
 * wartime. My cadre company was commanded by a major, who was the 2IC of our battalion. The Captain responsible for my platoon was the CO of
 * the HQ and mortar company, and so on.


 * And finally, being told by some person halfway around the world how to define a reality I see on a daily basis (and no, I'm not an officer),
 * is frankly irritating in the extreme, especially as your lies are propagated further.
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sharing your stories and some of what you say seem accurate. However, you need references or your stores have no value in wiki.
 * Kapten was/is tasked to drill a platoon of recruits. That we all know.
 * There are some points:
 * 312th sounds like the 12th K3 squadroon (airborn) part of the NBG.I am sure that the position you refer to is held by a Kapten And not by a Lojtnant as you say. If not, please provide me with some amazing facts with references!
 * I would say that your last couple of claims are very unusual and not a very optimal managment solution for running a mecahnized battalion:
 * First, please explain time and room for this mechanized battalion or do you refer to the core battalion of NBG. A Kapten being in charge of a platoon and in addition being the CO of the battalion HQ and mortar company is a bit to too much. How common is there to have a company commander acting as a 2ic (XO) of a battalion at the same time?
 * It is not the girl half around the globe who tells you anyhing, she is only telling you where to find information about the Swedish Armed Forces... --Malin Lindquist (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As anyone who was actually interested in what is going on the Swedish Armed Forces would know, the 312 luftburna skvadronen is the core component of SWECON ISAF currently, referred to as FS16. It was part of NBG08 and the soldiers and officers of the unit were given the oppurtnuinty to serve in Afghansitan (something they've done well, as far as I can tell). As part of my duties, I visited Camp Northern Lights, and the POs in Shebergan and Sar-e-Pul during the end of February, beginning of March this year. And no, I'm not an officer, despite your claims to the contrary. The officer I spoke to was a Lieutenant there, he's one at home (graduated from Karlberg). I for obvious OPSEC reasons won't give his name.

I'm actually starting to wonder wether or not you completed KBS and KadS. The training establishment is different from the wartime establishemnt, how many times do we have to go through this? Livkompaniet/KBS att I5 had the CO of the HQ and Mortar comany of the 2 Arctic Rifle Battalion, The Rifle Brigade as head of second platoon. The S3 of the battalion headed the other platoon (also a Captain). Our Major was formally C Livkomp, but actually XO of the 2nd ArctiC Rifle Battalion. Hans Engstrom (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Livkompaniet/KBS att I5 had the CO of the HQ and Mortar comany of the 2 Arctic Rifle Battalion, The Rifle Brigade as head of second platoon."
 * This is confusing! Livekompaniet/KBS contained the CO...? what are you saying????? Livkompaniet consisted of KBS/skytte-idrott, KBS/PV, PBS/KVM, etc and as a company played no role in the war-time org. There were comapnies for GBS and F to produce elements of the arctic brigade, but those were only production companies that one year produced a rifle company, the other year a mortars company, and so on to restaff an arctic brigade. The only common ground for those working for I19 was that they were placed in the same brigade. you should state witch role is in the war-organization, which is in the peace-time org, which is in the NBG and which is deployed abroad. Also what year you refer to. I5 with its Faltjagare (arctic) brigade in Osersund is no more. Did that arctic brigade really contain rifle battalions with a combinet HQ and mortars company,,,, those were separate companies in the artic brigades I am aware of. A lojtnant (RegOff) was typically responsible for the drilling of a platoon and had a war positin as a CO company during the 1980s. You were mixing present with past and between times when Army officers had war positions and present when they don't except for about 150 lucky ones. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you even pretend to have any knowledge of the Swedish Armed Forces. You claim to have performed SÖB and KFÖ after completing KadS in 1984. The Brigade you claim to have belonged transitioned to Org NB85 in 1985, wherein all arctic batttalions had a combined headquarters and mortar company, 3 rifle companies and a log coy. Seems you missed that during the period when you were, and I quote yourself, " I was assigned a war position as commander of a light infantry skiing platoon located somewhere above the arctic circle. After graduation, I participated in semi annual excercies for commanders(SOB), repeated war unit excerices (KFO) and promotional courses at FBU towards war position as a company commander (Lojtnant to Kapten)." It makes me wonder.


 * There is no differnce in the way the training vs wartime establishments are set up now or in the 80s and 90s. Also, you are the one claiming the figure of 150 officers, and you can't prove it. I have posted proof that there are more than 12 battalion equivalents in the Armed Forces.
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I belong to the 82/83 cadre of KBS/Skytte. The NBriflebattalion durng the NB excercise (1983 winter-spring) consisted, besides rifle companies, of an intelligence platoon, pioneering platoon, signal platoon, a GRK company with six 12cms mortars, logistics Company. The HQ and GRK were separated but the artillery officer was part of the HQ, who not only managed GRK, but also requested artillery support from the brigade howitzer battalion. The reserve battalion that I was placed in after the refresh of the NB brigade had pretty much the same org except for very few BV206s.


 * Sure, you have lots of info (inside info) and probably much more than I have. However, I don't state anything in the article w/o references and proofs -- you just go on deleting information and references. If you just stop that, then we can move on. The table is a guard against false claims. Not only false claims from you but also if I would attemts such. Its a good thing for everyone! My stomach is getting really bad because we are not moving forvard. How would you feel after having spent time trying to count in every possible person, checking again to make sure that everything is correct to make everyone reach conssus and some keep on deleting your work?


 * It's time for you to start contributing .... no stories, just facts and reefernces..
 * Since you have inside information, I would like you to find out if all those battalions you refer to have trained staff or only contains equipment or is everthing you claim TOP secrets?
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Distribution of personnel as of 2009-01-01
Reference: http://www.mil.se/upload/dokumentfiler/Årsredovisningar/Årsredovisning%202008/Bilaga%203%20Årsredovisning%202008.pdf

Those numbers have to be verfified once more prior publismeent....

--Malin Lindquist (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC) You're mixing apples and pears, comparing totals of officers at a specific period (including reserve officers not actually working) to the training establishment. If you're referencing a document, referenc the document, you're extrapolating (erroneously) from what you read. Hans Engstrom (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * These numbers ar accurate w/o extrapolation. If you find errors, you should point them out. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Svulfsten, Hans Engstrom, Faffia and unsigned have provided their comments after the availabiltiy of the table here. No errros has been reported and the table will therefore be published tomorrow Japan time. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * After checkig a second time, I found som errors. Those have been corrected and the table has now been published. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you're using a static timeline for employees versus a changing number of readyness units, and ignoring units above readyness state.
 * Geez. Interestingly, apparently we train 8000 men and women every year to fill the slots for 2 battalions. Do you actually believe that? Oh,
 * and you seem to have conveniently forgotten that there are officers serving in the Navy and Air Force, who apparently have no units
 * whatsoever!

Hans Engstrom (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As mentioned elsewhere, the SAF itself states that there are 17000 men at R360 or less (obvioulsy including quite a few of the officers we
 * are talking about).
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This may help. I copied the available duties as of today for FS 19.

Afghanistan, FS19 C Skyttekompani Skkomp:Kompledn OF-3 Afghanistan, FS19 C Personskyddsgrupp ST/TR:Pskydd OR-6 Afghanistan, FS19 Stf C Samverkansteam 1325 MOT 1325 OF-1 Afghanistan, FS19 C Skyttepluton Skkomp:Skplut OF-1


 * this must be a misstake,,,, C Skyttepluton Kosovo is OF2 - OF1 --Malin Lindquist (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No mistake. Check the available positions for "Utlandsstyrkan"

Afghanistan, FS19 C Samverkansbas PRT PO OF-3 Afghanistan, FS19 Stribef kompani Skkomp:Kompledn OR-7 Afghanistan, FS19 Stf C Samverkansteam MOT OF-1 Afghanistan, FS19 Kvartermästare PRT PO OR-8


 * It will be hard to find a OR-8 SO for this role as there isn't anyone 2010. Is this role for conscripted quartermasters or a YO Lojtnant or? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardly, many logistics trained personnel are going to OR rather than OF status.

Hans Engstrom (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan, FS19 C Samverkansteam MOT OF-2 Afghanistan, FS19 Vagnchef Patgb 203 Skkomp:Skplut OR-6 Afghanistan, FS19 Stf C Stab-/trosskompani ST/TR:Kompledn OF-2 Afghanistan, FS19 Stf C Skyttekompani Skkomp:Kompledn OF-2 Afghanistan, FS19 C Stabsgrupp/Vagnchef Skkomp:Lednplut/Stab Afghanistan, FS19 Vagnchef strf 90 Skkomp:Skplut 90 OR-6 Afghanistan, FS19 C Ledningsplut Skkomp:Lednplut OF-1
 * Why is a whole platoon requied to serve a rifle company HQ?--Malin Lindquist (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because;
 * 1. It serves both the rifle company and the battalion sized unit (including POs and MOTs).
 * 2. The AoR is slightly larger than tha normally assigned to a company.
 * 15:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan, FS19 C Underhållsplut/Kvartermästare ST/TR:Kompledn OR-8 Afghanistan, FS19 Stf C Samverkansbas PRT PO OF-2 Afghanistan, FS19 Gruppchef SUAV ST/TR:SUAV OR-6 Afghanistan, FS19 C Samverkansteam 1325 MOT 1325 OF-2 Afghanistan, FS19 Stf C Skyttepluton Skkomp:Skplut OR-7 Afghanistan, FS19 C Stab-/trosskompani ST/TR:Kompledn OF-3

Afghanistan, FS19 Samverkansofficer/LNO PRT PO OF-2 Afghanistan, FS18 Kvartermästare PRT PO OR-8 Afghanistan, FS18 Samverkansofficer/LNO PRT PO OF-2 Afghanistan, FS18 Gruppchef SUAV ST/TR:SUAV OR-6

OK, so in what is one of the most demanding assignments one can have today in the Swedish Army, the following holds true: The company commanders for a rifle company and the Headquarters and Support company are OF-3, Majors. The 2IC of these companies are OF-2, Captains. The Quartermasters (S 4 in US terminology) are OR-8 (Sergeant Major in UK terminology, First Sergeant in the US). There's an S 5 job available for an OR-7 (Staff Sergeant in UK terminology, Sergeant First Class for the US, fanjunkare to us) Two platoon commanders jobs there, one commanding a rifle platton, one for the signals platoon, both at OF-1 (Lieutenant or 2nd Looie) Both the squad leaders/vehicle commanders are OR-6, Sergeant to the UK, Staff Sergeant to the US, 1. sergeant to us. But these assignments are for the rather technical duties as vehicle commander for a CV9040 and the squad leader for an UAV unit. Searching for OR-4 (Corporal/Korpral) I found the following jobs available:

Afghanistan, FS19 Förare Taktiskt Psyops Team ST/TR:Psyops OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 C Stabsexpeditionsgrupp ST/TR:UH/Stex OR-4 Afghanistan, FS18 Sjuktransportgruppch OMLT Bat OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 Underrättelseassistent PRT PO OR-4 Afghanistan, FS18 Driftstödsgruppchef Skkomp:Lednplut/DSG OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 Stabsassistent/Und PRT STAB/G2 OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 Underrättelseassistent/Bilförare NIC OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 SATCOM tekniker ST/TR:UH/Ledn OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 C Sjuktransportgrupp ST/TR:Sjv OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 Stabsassistent/Logistik NSE/Ledn OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 Stabsassistent/Psyops PRT STAB/G3 OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 C Skyttegrupp PRT PO OR-4

Afghanistan, FS19 Stf C Förrådsgrupp/Drivmedel NSE/Fd OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 Logistikassistent PRT STAB/G4 OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 Operatör Geocell PRT STAB/G2 OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 Systemtekniker ST/TR:EW OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 Ställföreträdande C Spec-Reparationsgruppchef NSE/Rep OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 Driftstödsgruppchef Skkomp:Lednplut/DSG OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 Bärgningsgruppchef strf 90 Skkomp:Lednplut/Bg OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 C Vakt-/eskortgrupp ST/TR:Sjv OR-4 Afghanistan, FS18 Bilförare/assistent Senior Mentor OMLT Brig OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 Satcom Driftledare NIC OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 C Kokgrupp/Kökschef ST/TR:UH/Kok OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 FAC-assistent PRT STAB/G3 OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 Sjuktransportgruppch OMLT Bat OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 C Skyttegrupp Skkomp:Skplut OR-4 Afghanistan, FS19 FAC-assistent Skkomp:Lednplut/TACP OR-4

Afghanistan, FS18 Skyttegruppch OMLT Bat OR-4

Afghanistan, FS19 Fordonsförare OMLT Brig OR-4

Afghanistan, FS19 Stabsassistent/Samband PRT STAB/G6 OR-4

Afghanistan, FS18 Fordonsförare OMLT Brig OR-4

Why golly gee, it seems Swedish Corprals "Korpraler" do act as squad leaders. And let me make this perfectly clear. The rank given is the one you are supposed to have when you apply for the job, it does not indicate that a Swedish OR-6 becomes an OR-4 when going abroad. A Corporla in Sweden will have a corporals job in Afghanistan. Hans Engstrom (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Those ranks do not neccessarily reflect the rank you have in Sweden. Sweden has their own super inflated ranks, but as you can see by the role descriptions squadleader ranks are not First Sergeant but Corporal. 1e Sergeant is a squad leader rank and squad leaders are given the English title Corporal by the Swedish Armed Forces themselves.
 * This is great news, as with 100% accuracy we may translate 1e Sergeant(in Sweden) to Corporal(outside Sweden).
 * I hope everyone is happy about that!
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * NO! That is still totaly wrong. Use the bloody translation codes. Förste Sergeant still equals Staff Sergeant. As Hans Engstrom has pointed out above, swedish corprals as well as sergeants act as squad leaders. You assumption that one must have a certain assignment and command a certain number of men to have a certain rank is just plain wrong. It would have been ok a century ago, but not today.
 * A Sergeant may be a squad leader, but he can just as well be an interpreter/interrogator commanding nobody.
 * A fänrik may be a platoon leader, but he can just as well be a figther-pilot commanding nobody.
 * A captain may be a company commander, but he can just as well be a logistics officer commanding nobody.
 * A lieutenant-colonel may be a battalion commander, but he can just as well be a researcher at FMV commanding nobody.
 * All the persons I have taken as examples above exists for real and are friends of mine. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read Hans Engstroms lines more carefully, he agrees that Fanjunkare = Staff Sergeant... This is a translation that I agree with and is what has been proposed as a translation by the Swedish Armed Forces.
 * Hans Engström is using UK terminology. I use US terminology. If you read his lines more carefully, you can see that he has spelled this out explicitly.
 * I believe that Fanjunkare = Staff Sergeant is one level of target. Not good, but acceptable.
 * However, Förste Sergeant = Corporal is several levels of target and not acceptable. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The very elite of Swedish officer commanded a heavy mechanized battalion (CV9040 and tanks including six 12cms mortars) that was ambushed by your platoon or reduced company equipped by parts from a museum. Since you were all naked w/o any protection, it should be easy to eliminate your resistance solely by artillery and 40mms AKAN firing at long ranges. The failure of the officers to direct indirect and direct artillery proves those officers useless. This proves that Swedish officers are not capable of commanding troops, coordinating artillery, and are thus obsolete as military staff and should retire to reduce costs. Corporal is a high rank and I see no reason for you to get upset. A corporal commanded 24 men during the Swedish/Finnish Empire - empire made possible by Finnish allotted regiments that did not proud themselves with ridicules titles but by what they accomplish. Be proud if you once get to serve as a Swedish korpral and remember that the backbone of NCOs in Sweden/Finland once cnsisted of corporals!
 * The fighting you are refering to took place in urban terrain providing good cover and protection for the defenders and limiting the mobility of the attackers. Also, there was no indirect fire support available. I don't know why, but that's the way it was.
 * And no, corporal is not a high rank. It is one of the lowest, supperior only to lance corporal and private. If it was high three hundred years ago is not relevant today. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The orders to the attacking force was to take harbor-facilities you were holding intact. Hence, no artillery. Also the IKV attached to your force was entered into the BT training and simulation system as a T-72B Main Battle Tank. It's presence caused some concerns for the attacking force command, but once dealt with it did not survive for long. 130.237.216.122 (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Throughout military history, your position has determined your rank. If you were not commanding a company, you were not a captain or a retired captain if you once were. The extremely inflated title for squad leaders "Forste Sergeant" is a way to attract SO candidates and does not reflect reality. If a Forste Sergeant is set to lead a rifle squad, then we cannot translate the rank to anything but Corporal-- again, Corporal is a great title. Finland has officers and soldiers; Sweden has administrators in their armies. We don’t need 18,000 officers to help conscripts with arranging home-leave trips (kompani adjutant), for walking conscripts to the laundry facilities every morning (instructors) or changing logotypes (HQ staff). The latter was a statement from Goteborg and Lund universities. It has been a fantastic party within the Armed Forces of giving fancy titles resulting in the largest rank inflation that ever existed in the history of military organizations. Most Swedish officers’ ranks have no relevance as military ranks.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the other way around. Rank you hold is a measurement of competence. Hence, you must have a certain rank to be assigned a position requiring a certain amount of competence.
 * So, rank determines position. Position does not determine rank. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You earn a position based on your competency realtively to others. In the USMC, if you advance from squad leader to platoon sergeant, your rank will change to staff sergeant. The advancement is based on competency assesements among prospective platoon serges. Even the most competent squad leaders won't earn a promotion to SSG, unless the position change to the next level. Ranks and positions have a correlation near 1. Corporal = squad leader, Serge = experienced squad leader, Staff Serge = deputy platoon leader, 2Lt/1Lt = platoon leader, 1Lt = XO Company, Capt =CO company, Maj = XO battalion, LtCol = CO battalion, Col = CO brigade, BGen = XO Divisionl, MajGen = CO Division.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not work that way in Sweden, I'm afraid. As you can see by the list Hans Engström provided, a corporal (OR-4) can be a squad-leader, but he can also be a driver, an intelligence assistant or a communications specialist. A sergeant (OR-5 or OR-6) can also be a squad-leader. For some assignments a more experienced leader is required. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, the USMC doesn't quite work that way, and yet again, you give no sources to support your opinion. Also, do you seriously beleive the USMC has no officers except those that command units?
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The mission of the rifle squad is to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, or repel the enemy's assault by fire and close combat. The rifle squad consists of three fire teams, each of which is built around an automatic weapon and controlled by a fire team leader. The squad is composed of 13 men: a sergeant (squad leader) and three fire teams of four men each. Each fire team normally consists of a corporal (fire team leader/grenadier), two lance corporals (automatic rifleman and assistant automatic rifleman), and a private or private first class (rifleman).
 * Directly cut-and-pasted from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/squad.htm 130.237.216.122 (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Rank or duty

I will not register an account for this matter, nor will I sign my post. But I must point out to Malin Randström and every other reader that you should not mix rank with duty, as Malin has done so many times. The rank is not the same as a certain position or duty within a unit. After the introduction of the new carreer system with Specialist officers (Off/S or OR) the Swedish Armed Forces has started a process in changing the levels on certain positions. Many positions that today is beeing held by officers (Off/TO (= Tactical Operational level) or OF) will be held by specialist officers (Off/S). Nevertheless the officer that today has that position will still be an officer (OF). An OR can be a platoon leader but that will not make him an OF even though the position normally is a OF-position.

Noone compares a Special Forces ODA Commander (officer) with a USMC squad leader even though the first command 11 men and the last 13 men.

An Officer (OF and Off/TO) is an officer. A specialist officer or NCO (OR and Off/S) is not.

NB: This post will almost certainely be deleted by Malin Randström but it will be saved on other means on the internet.

Sources: US Army (goarmy.com), USMC (this very site), Swedish Armed Forces Army, SAF HQ PERSS and INS J1.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.160.24 (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not signing will make it harder for us. Do you understand the purpose of signing?
 * How do you get promoted from sergeant to staff sergeant in the USMC if not being promoted from squad leader to deputy platoon leader? As I have explained earlier, the correlation of ranks and positions is near 1 in the US and Briton. The reason this has been relaxed in Sweden is very simple: It’s because of the absence of troops and hence the absence of military positions. Swedish officers do not seem to lead anything or take part in military activities and get promoted to officers titles based on other grounds than military merits. I would like you to define what an officer is! If an OF5 is assinged a desk and an OR8 a platoon, then the latter is clearly more officer like than the former. Offciers primary duty/skill is to command troops. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you persist in your claims that the primary job of an officer is to command troops, then please explain to my why all pilots in all airforces around the word (not just the swedish air force) are officers?
 * How come that, in any navy, tasks such as navigation and the direction of guns are performed by officers? 130.237.216.122 (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * //Again: Duty and position is NOT the same as rank! A OF5 that is assigned to a desk is an officer, the OR8 in the platoon is not according to international standards and international law. No matter what you think of it, that is a fact. A policeman is a policeman no matter what I think of the duties he is assigned to this very moment. And the same applies to the military. Team/Squad leader in US Army Special Forces is a OF-task but an OR-task in USMC. In the Swedish Armed Forces an Team/Squad leader can be a OF (1 or 2 depending on complexity) but is usually an OR(4-6 depending on complexity).


 * Officer is a title and an international status (International conventions like The Geneva Conventions) and an officer can be asigned to carry out tasks high and low but is still an officer. A 2/LT (Fänrik OF-1) that digs a trench is still an officer that will have certain rights and obligations according to both national and international law. An Officer is a person within the military community that is constituted with a rank from OF1 and up.


 * So let us stick to facts and skip our subjective feelings about officersship. OF1- is an officer, OR is not. //Army officer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.160.24 (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * -- You forgot or refused to sign and indent your post again,,, get some selfdicipline and keep things tidy. If you were part of any miligary organization you'd fail with this sort of attitude not being able to function in a team. We have serious disputes here and we may use strong wrods, but we all submit to these rules to avoid a mess. You are the only one who does not. I was asked by someone to indent better, and I obeyed right away no questions asked. For everyones sake, please (1) sign your posts and (2) indent. --


 * I was asking for a definition of an officer, but I got the answer that an officer is an officer.


 * A person who sits at a desk or digs trenches (your explanation) is called an officer in Sweden. Thank you for the information. Officers in the US are those who command at least a platoon, pilot a combat aircraft, function as key HQ officers at higher miligary units. In Sweden, upper half of the OR scale are higher ranked than many OFs and may command OF1, OF2 and OF3. In the US however, all OR are junior to OF and OR never commands an OF.
 * This makes the term officer ambiguous, incompatible and barely definable. If you say that he/she is an officer, what information are you conveying? In your explanation, an officer could be just about anything. The Geneva Convention was written at a time when the term officer was well defined – an era when officers where those who command troops (company level and above). If officers are treated well in accordance with the Geneva Convention (officers don’t need to work as POWs), a nation may choose to call all of its personnel for officers. This is pretty much what Sweden has done with its military personnel. As you indicated 2/3 of the YO in Sweden are (underofficerare, underbefal), but with the new system OFs may in 20-30 years time converge into OF according to US/Briton standards provided a change in tjanstestallning where all OR ranks are placed below all OF ranks.


 * Police men in the US are called officers, yes. We may use your police example in the following way: all staff employed as military in Sweden are called officers the same way all employed as police in the US are called officers.


 * Again, what is an officer?
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to Malin "what is an officer"


 * // Okay, Malin.
 * You really don´t want to understand, do you?
 * First of all I give you what an officer really is: a title given a military servant with certain status, both national status and international status. That status gives the officer rights (for example as in the 3rd Geneva convention) and obligations (for example the obligation to uphold disciplin as in the Swedish Armed Forces). Those obligations are not the same for all servants or military personnel. Many countries has native names and titles (for obvious reasons) for their ranks. Therefor most countries have adopted the OF/OR-system to describe the level of the individual in the international community. Sweden has several laws (lagar och förordningar) that regulates the Armed Forces. Officersförordningen and Förordningen om Försvarsmaktens personal regulates the military personnel in the Armed Forces and stipulates that a Swedish military with the rank Fänrik or higher is an officer. In this case higher means in the officers categori(OF), not in the specialist officers categori(OR6-9). You have earlier written that Commission = Fullmakt but that is not necessarly the only translation. On another wiki-page we can see that Commission or Letters patent also translates into a legal instrument that grants a right or status to a person. Officer is a status and a titel even without fullmakt, so a swedish officer is a commissioned officer.


 * Officers exam at FHS/MHS/OHS and a contract with the Armed Forces gives the person the status as Officer in Sweden and abroad.


 * If you compare the use of NCO:s in most nations armies with the intended use in Sweden you will find that not only have you missunderstood the whole idea with separated OF- and NCO-systems, you will also find that the Swedish way is very much alike the others. There will be Platoon leaders (OF in the most cases) and Platoon Sergeants (OR6-7). In Sweden as well as in USA some highranking NCO:s will have a higher position than many Officers and will have authority to relay orders to higher ranked officer with lower position within the organisation. "Tjänsteställning" is not a odd thing att all, befälsrätt is not either. I realize that you not fully understand the military system and especially not officers system. A Force SM (for example) has a very high position within the organisation (ISAF, KFOR, etc), a postition that is above all except for the Force Commander, a general.


 * Your definition of an officer is not correct. It is a row of duties that can be carried out by officers but not anything else. There are captains that are leading teams of 11 men in the US Army. Should they lose their status as officers? Of course not. They are still being officers as they have graduated from officers courses and have been given the status as officer by the US Goverment. The size of the unit has nothing to do with it.


 * Once again: An officer is a military servant that has been given the status as officer by the state and whose rank is translated into OF1 or higher within the officers category (OF) in the NATO Code system. I recommend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_rank and the various laws that regulates military personnel in different countries.


 * Still not signed but still a regular officer both in Sweden and abroad with a OF-level that US Army and BA recognize. It is time for Malin to recognize the system as well. // Army officer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.160.68 (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You forgot or refused to indent and sign your post ... I did it for you this time... can you pls at least indent.
 * All right, you are an officer according to Swedish standards. What people ask is what officers in Sweden do as compared with non-officers and soldiers. According to above, officers are military staff/servants employed by the Govt with the lowest rank set to Fanrik. There is no job description. Swedish ORs and OFs look very different from ORs and OFs in the US: A Swedish OR may act as deputy company commander and thus command serveral Swedish OFs and maintain dicpline among Swedish OFs as a higher ranked officer. What I was hoping for was a clear definition. As you can see, I have used the term officer in the article just according to official docs and the way you describe them to some extent. You want to put the word "Commissioned" in front of all the YOs. However, according to Government docs only a portion of Swedish officers have a commission = fullmakt. I am not part of any military neither an expert on military systems... I am just trying to report according to official documents, but I am denied that by some here! Are you willing to keep the table that describes the number of people in each rank or is it something that we should hide to make "Comissioned" appear more realistic? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think nobody here agrees with you that comission = fullmakt. Again I will quote and translate:
 * The meaning of officersfullmakt in Sweden is that an officer was employed with the power of attorney. The term is hence refering to the to the terms of employment. In practice, this meant that the officer could not be discharged. This has not been in practice since 1982. In anglo-saxon countries where the term commissioned officer is used, this describes the solemn procedure when the officer receives his right to command. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/lag/20071268.HTM Officersförordning, (2007:1268) If you can't accept the Swedish training of an officer, very few armies in the world have an officer corps. By the way, apparently, in your beloved USMC, 10 weeks gets you the commision, an additional 26 gets you through the Basic Officer Course. 2/3 serve in logistics and other support services.

Hans Engstrom (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Some rules
We have to remove unsigned posts too protect the discussion from confusion and turning into spagetti. We have arrived at the point when I have to remove unsigned posts.
 * Sign your posts
 * Indent your posts to indicaate what part you are commenting.

If you don't register yourself and describe who you are, you are basically not ready to stand up for what you state. Please register. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not remove unsigned posts! Wikipedia allows for anynomous posting and you Malin should not delete those posts! I agree it is good practice to login and sign posts. But that does not mean you have the right to remove posts, Malin! Faffia (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a threat to those who do not sign their posts. What other ways do you recommend to make those sign their posts? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For once I actually get your point, Malin.
 * I prefer to remain anonymous, but I see that SineBot have problems following and tagging threaded posts. I'll go back and sign posts made by me. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for cooperating --Malin Lindquist (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

rank vs position
I have summarized positions and ranks according to references and what has been discussed here. Here is a typical platoon in those R90 units and units abroad. Note that Swedish ranks have been adjusted down by SWEDINT a great deal to match other nations presumably the British Army.

--Malin Lindquist (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

2 things. First of all, an analysis of the structure of the officer corps of the Swedish Armed Forces would best occur under a topic describing the armed forces. Oh, and that's next on the list of things to correct.

Secondly, will you please stop lying in these articles. There is no downward adjustment. The platoon leaders in Afghanistan currently are lieutenants there, and are lieutenants at home. The captains there are captains at home. The squad leader corporals there are corporals at home. Can you please realize that you have no idea about the current reality of the Swedish Armed Forces and that your viewpoint is as much a fantasy as the crap you have posted on your personal page about an assault through Finland into the Soviet Union. 15:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Engstrom (talk • contribs)
 * You are talking without references or sources,,, just meaningless talk. First Sergeant is a rifle squad leader (of 5 men) in Sweden -- outside Sweden the very same Swedish position is held by a Corporal. Thus, First Sergeant has been adjusted down to Corporal level to harmonize with international standards. Face the reality --Malin Lindquist (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you face the reality. A mech squad is 6-7 men in a CV90 unit, 8 men in unit equipped with Patgb 203 or similar. We always include the
 * leader when we count how many men are in a squad (section in the UK). Depending on the nature of the squad (or squad equivalents) duty, it will
 * be commanded by either a Corporal or a Sergeant. this will, as I've proved by showing the jobs list for FS19, be the same in Sweden, or out of
 * it.
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted again
I have spent several months in reaching consensus with the numbers from the Swedish Armed Forces and a great deal of efforts to get those numbers correct and EXACTLY as they are reported with references. You have repeatedly deleted fully accurate numbers to destroy evidences that do not suit your own opinion. If there are persons like Hans Enstrom deleating accurte information again, again and again fromm wiki, then wiki will run out of accurate information. We must block Hans Engstrom from editing. He has run mad and added dispute boxes on all my articles even if most of them has no discucssions or disputes at all. He is hindering us from providing wiki with informaton and references taken directly from the Swedish Armed Forces aannual reports. Are we going to have any articles about Swedish military at all here or shall we just delete everything. I really had enough of Hans Engstrom. If Hans Engstrom continues to delete then there is proof enough for having him blocked. Hans Engstroms repeated deletion of facts and references have been reported to the military history tasksforce.

--Malin Lindquist (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have had enough of you. Hans, IMHO, are reasonable, you're the hothead who don't listen to all those who argue against you. I will wait for a couple of days before I post my next reply, because that's what it takes for me to cool down. You're just not seeing you're wrong! Faffia (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As stated. You, Malin, are incorrect in almost everyway. You have cited a few emails with one person, and have rejected any attempts to use
 * correct referencing. Here's a hot tip, when citing soemthing as a reference, a quote with page number and reference to the document is required.
 * Additionally, does the fact that nobody agrees with you in any discussion on these topics ever give you the merest hint that you are wrong?
 * There is no reason to post the same table that you've already posted on other topics in this one, when it doesn't have anything to do with the
 * subject matter.
 * And finally, why are you posting original research?

Hans Engstrom (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been deleting references and actual numbers from the Swdeish military that describes Swedish ranks. Faffia, there are records of you deleting too. You basically remove numbers that invalidates all your claims. Those numbers are neccessary to stop you from lying and for making an illusion that your rank is much much hihger than other ranks of other nations. You are a serious threat to the inegrity of wiki. If there is a ratio of 18,676 officers vs 770 soldiers then this is a fact even if you as an officer by no means want this information to be published since you want to maintain a lie that there are much more troops than there are officers for you to advance your own status/rank. I am escalating this as furhter discussions are meaningless. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do. Remember what happened last time we did this? Hans Engstrom (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have 'NOT' deleted posts in the talk page. Deleting sections from the article is another matter as the facts or neutrality in said sections/text in the article has been disputed. Faffia (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Home Guard
For those with expertice and interests, please provide a section with descriptions of HG personnel, their tasks and training, etc. I assume that the HG is appointing their own officers. I am also personally interested in this. Thanks --Malin Lindquist (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Appointing and promotion of officers in the National Home Guard are carried out by the local National Guard Group Command which is an administrative post at the hosting regiment or garrison. The post as National Guard Group Commander is usually assigned to a lieutenant-colonel at the local regiment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.216.122 (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is there any information about HGs staff wrt ranks and how many there are in each rank? Way back in 1980s the area was called FO (Forsvars Omrade) with one of the regiment’s cheif as the head. There were lots of regiments at that time, and one regiment in the FO was designated the the primary regiment led by a Overste 1gr, who also acted as a FO commander. FO was subdivided into Home Guard areas (Hemvarnsomraden HVO, now named battalions) if I remember correctly. The frivilligorgchefen(HV, FBU,Lottor,FRA,Bilkarister,etc), an Ovlt, was sittng in a separate building at K1/fo44 Lidingovagen. I don't remember if there were any HV officers with Maj rank in HV at that time, but I think each HVO was led by a Kapten.... Besides this, I am pretty lost when it comes to HG ranks. Educate me! --Malin Lindquist (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The guidelines for how the National Guard work is described in a document called TOEM.
 * http://hemvarnet.se/publicarea/TOEM_2009_HVBAT.pdf
 * When it comes to ranks. This is a quick overwiev:
 * Group Commander = Lieutenant-Colonel
 * Battalion Commander = Major
 * Company Commander = Captain or 1st Lieutenant
 * Platoon Commander = 1st or 2nd Lieutenant
 * Squad Leader = Sergeant (fd Furir) or First Sergeant (fd Sergeant)
 * 130.237.216.122 (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * how about deputy squad, platoon, company, battalion leaders,? quartermasters?
 * I honestly belive in HV as a potential army for the defense of Sweden. Equipment and recruitment bases needs improvements thou. Its a shame that the only standing force we have in Sweden only receives 1.5% of the defense budget -- a budget spent on show units abroad (NBG,Kosovo,Afganistan,etc) and for keeping redundant officers. We are very much in debted for all the voulunteer work carried out by the HV -- the true patriots of Sweden. However, with the abolishment of the conscript system, the future of HV is very uncertain as HV has been made possible by constant supply of personnel from such a system. Allow me to describe HV personnel and ranks here with you as experts. Regards --Malin Lindquist (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC).


 * So now all of a sudden those in Hemvärnet are the true patriots of Sweden. You didn't seem to think so highly of them when you wrote:
 * Your beloved Home Guard. You guys are part of the Home Guard and I read your story here that a Home Guard ploatoon could ambush an entire mechanized battalion. With an retirement age of 70 and some hours of training in front of a barn every year, you are really top elite outranking Rambo.
 * Even if I want a stronger HV, I cannot agree with unrealisic claims. Today they are tasked to guard facilites, not to ambush battalions. Got it! HV has excellent knowldege about the terrain but lacks lots of other capabilties and equipment --Malin Lindquist (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read the TOEM 130.237.216.122 gave you the link to? It is all in there. Guard, protect, defend, delay and disturb. I quote and translate (Appendix 2, section 1.2) :
 * A National Guard company should, after resources has been provided, be able to:
 * * Defend one or more sections of terrain against a mechanized enemy for at least two hours.
 * * Delay the advance of a mechanized enemy along a 10km long route for at least four hours.
 * * Disturb enemy activity within an area of 1000 to 2500 square kilometers up to 30 days.
 * This is listed as non-primary tasks and it is not practiced as often as the primary tasks, but we were called upon to carry out this task during excercise Combined Challenge 06, and so we did. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The future of the HV is not "very uncertain", just like the rest of the army it will adapt to a society without conscription. Those who want to join but lack military education will be sent to basic training before they're made menig 1 kl.--Stulfsten (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Unrealistic! How many are prepared to spend one year for that in order to become an unpaid private in the HV? Will you? With a large conscript system, people from the Army just apply for a HV role and that’s it. Conscription means that the army gets the best of the best -- non-conscription means that the army gets the worst of the worst as stated by the Officersforbundet. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The basic training needed for entry in HV is three months and is called Direktutbildning till Hemvärnet.
 * I know three months is not at all like 10 or 15 months in Lumpen, but that's b/c of politics. Faffia (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Number of Officers
No matter what, the number of officers in the Swedish Armed Forces is outside the scope of this article which is said to describe the ranks, and is already posted on the article about the Swedish Armed Forces. I have not edited it away there, but will continue to do so here, as it is not relevant to the subject and was added as an additional smokescreen tactic. Hans Engstrom (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The numbers of officers in each rank and rank categories are not out of the scoope of the article. That is the core of the article. Without the information ranks are meaningless and we have already seen proof of editors lying about Swedish ranks made possible by removing official facts about Swedish ranks. By your repeated attemts in removing offical statements about ranks, you are clearing ways for the continuation of your repeated spred of desinformation/illusions about the Swedish Armed Forces and its personnel. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How can we protect the article from Hans Engstroms lies without including this sort of information? Anyone? As soon as you have removed all the information about the Swedish Armed Forced personnel and its references, you'll start again fabricatig facts to advance your personal interests. If you have translated your corporal level rank to Comissioned Officer, Lieutenant or whatever in your CV and are going around telling everyone outside Sweden that you are a CO or something then it's your personal problem. Wiki is definetely not a place for you to make YOUR translation seem valid even if this article may be used by those verifying your CV or what you say. I have a solution: dont write your rank in your CV, write what you did/do and what you landed as in the war-time org. I never write my Swedish military rank in my CV or on my page.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I do write both. I was trained as, and served as, the company S4 and commander of the HQ and Support platoon of an Arctic Rifle Company. I also translate Fänrik as Second Lieutenant. As I have repeated frequently, I am now a civilian.


 * However...you have claimed the following earlier, "I had the option of serving in Finland or Sweden! I choose Sweden at a location near my Finnish relatives. That is, way north and east, --- Boden --. I completed 12 months of military service at the Company Commander School at the arctic light infantry regiment Norrbottens regemente and 3 months of officers academy for conscripts in Umeå. I was assigned a war position as commander of a light infantry skiing platoon located somewhere above the arctic circle. After graduation, I participated in semi annual excercies for commanders(SOB), repeated war unit excerices (KFO) and promotional courses at FBU towards war position as a company commander (Lojtnant to Kapten)."


 * Earlier, however, you claimed that "My grades were mixed: The remark I got was that I only do what interests me, that I am lazy and not very disciplined. On the positive sides were my ability to lead troops in battle and being a strong solider." How many SÖB and KFö did you actually attend? Was your befordransgång authorized by your unit? In what paralell universe would a brigade unit be so strapped for personnel that a company commanders slot was considered beign given to a conscript? Rather sad and pathetic, really.

10:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Hans Engstrom (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is getting too personal: I took part in FBU promotional courses within the same competency area = 6 and I remained as plutch despite of attempts to continue to the next level 5. My position never changed because there were enough YO and RO for higher roles. Therefore, I could not argue for joining more coursers for the next competency level 5 even after having compleated the first part. I remained a PlutCh in the NB for 4 years and then I spent 8 years in a reserve battalion. YOs took war-positions regardless of skills, just because they gone through OHS, which is basically a drill-sergeant school. VO make the best officers but the brass has other opinions -- Thats all..


 * If it's too personal, you shouldn't have posted it. Live with it. If you think OHS is a drill-segeant school, back up that claim. Interestingly, as you well know, KadS was a requirement for OHS (alternatively FOK and KadS for exceptional GB). You are actually contending that attending OHS makes you worse at your job. Ah well. BTW, enumeration of qestions to you will be added at the last section.


 * Those who attended KBS and desired to become YO joined some kind of preparatory officers course at the regiment to be sent to OHS later.
 * Hard to remember, but those interested in OHS were separted from KBS some months prior the promotion to serg. and did not follow us down to Kads in Umea.
 * OHS was a school for those who wanted to become instructors = drill serges. or what did those YO Fanrik/Lojnant do but working as instructors.
 * Lowest requirment for FOK or OHS was GBS, I think.
 * hope this helps --Malin Lindquist (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hans Engstrom (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Hans Engstrom (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually, platoons, such as the one you led, are taken over by ROs, unless you hang on taking FBU courses to VOLt.
 * I am just asking you not to delete facts from the annual report, but you really don't give in.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Hans Engstrom have access to more and better information than you have. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not the problem -- the problem is the removal of information and references. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Malin, show us one single reputable source where your translations(eg sw. Fänrik = us. Corporal) can be found. You can't, because no one shares your crazy ideas.
 * The information in the table that was removed did not contain any such claims, did it?
 * Regarding typical rols of a Fanrik: Let's test wheter Hans as put his feet on K3 or not. He may explain that Fanrik were placed as leaders of a small rifle squad. I have provided a refernce in this discussion forum where Fanrik is said to lead a typicl squad. Corporal is a squad leader rank both in the UK and in Swedish troops abroad. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I've set foot at K3, also, I work with people trained there (the 312th squadron, amongst others). During the transition to the new command structure, 2nd Lts commanded squads for units with particularly tasking duties (Rangers were one of them) since the Sergeants (Förste Sergeanter) had not yet been trained and the conscript training regimen did not entail leadership training at a sufficently high level (ie, GB became squad 2IC, stf gruppchef).Hans Engstrom (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 * Swedish yrkesofficerare with the ranks Fänrik to General = commissioned officer
 * Wrong! Most of them arent -- read the annual report before you or anyone removes them.
 * You are pathetic, you need a big eraser to remove the word Comissioned from your CV insted of faking it by lying here --Malin Lindquist (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Swedish specialistofficerare + Sergeant and Korpral = non-commissioned officers--Stulfsten (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You never add any references to your claims, do you?! --Malin Lindquist (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Anything else would greatly confuse anyone who has not read this discussion. 130.237.216.122 (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Briton vs Great Briton
Great Britain referns to the era when colonial empires added "Great" in front of their country name. 大日本帝国 - The Great Empire of Japan was used by Japan before WWII. Great should be dropped. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So use England or United Kingdom or something else that you can spell. The name is Britain and not Briton. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the spell miss. UK or Britain is my closest guess. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Malin, you're both poorly educated and you can't spell. "The Kingdom of Great Britain was the state resulting from the political union of the kingdoms of England and Scotland on 1 May, 1707 under Queen Anne. It existed until 1801 when Great Britain and Ireland united. The resulting United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland became the modern United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1922 with the secession of the Irish Free State." (froim your beloved Wikipedia, go ahead and edit it) The official name is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Great Britain has nothing to do with the colonial era (it predates it).

Hans Engstrom (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Many countries, empires throughout the history have added Great in front of their country names and removed it later, yet Great Britain is still in use by some. I was asking what name we should use in the article to refer to the UK. British people refer to their country as the UK. Great Britain is somewhat ambiguous. When we mention the British Army, does it refer to Britain or the Great Britain? For most Great Britain represents a time in history when the UK was indeed great regardless of the usage of the word great prior that. Objectives are to use/find the most appropriate words for describing objects in order to facilitate contemporary readers to comprehend the article.  I am asking lots of perhaps stupid questions and I am not afraid of asking because I want to be 100% sure. To copy-paste British history articles and claim having an education did not help us much here.  --Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As Hans says, you don't know what you're talking about(as usual). The Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is named after the ISLAND Great Britain. England, Scotland and Wales are situated on the island. It is called Great to distinguish it from Bretagne in France, it has nothing to do with the British Empire.--Stulfsten (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep your insults for yourself....I rose the question what name we should use to denote the UK, but you want to turn this into an endless fight as usual. You just lernt this about Britain by reading wiki carefully, not that you knew anythig about it, just that you found something to start a fight over. You are compleately out of the point here as we are trying to find a term for a wide audience and UK is it. Before you checked this out yourself you did not know the history of Britain, which we cannot expect from most readers of the article. I have the guts to admit that I did not know about this and you did neither. What I know is about all the countries that have had great in their names. Every asian I met associates the name great in front of britain with the colonial Britain. You dont seem to meet any people at all and don't know how to best convey informatio for everyone to understand. You are here to fight and you have not contributed one single fact or reference to the article --Malin Lindquist (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If asians confuses the name Great Britain with the British Commonwelth or the British Empire it is an unfortunate missunderstanding. 130.237.216.122 (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't take things for granted,,,,, Sweden = Switzerland, right! Japan copied the name Great from Great Britain when creating The Great Japanese Empire and droped the name great when it become small again. Asians just wait for Great Britain to drop the Great part just as all other natios have after becomming small again.... this may sound silly, but even people with english as their native language don't know the way Great was added to Britain -- I didn't. Did you? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Rifle squad leader
What are the diffs between those roles? First Sergeant in Sweden http://www.mil.se/sv/Arbete-och-utbildning/Officersutbildning/Specialistofficersutbildning/Utbildningar-till-officer/Markstrid---skyttespaningsgruppchef/ Corporal outside Sweden http://www.mil.se/sv/Arbete-och-utbildning/Sok-utlandstjanst/Detaljsida/?positionId=be366bfa-f16e-4102-8d67-fc1091da2da6&pageIndex=2
 * The first is a squad-leader training-course that is a part of the SO education. The second is a post as squad-leader in Afghanistan. As you can see of the prerequisite, this post can be applied for by conscript squad-leaders. A SO is probably overqualified.

130.237.216.122 (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The first one is a job description of a rifle squad leader and how to become one. When the SO candidate graduates he/she works as a mech inf squad leader in Sweden and has the title First Sergeant.
 * Anyway, isn't the role as mech inf squad leader in Afganistan (Corporal)more demanding than a mech inf squad leader in Sweden (First Sergeant)? I am confused --Malin Lindquist (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In Afghanistan a squad-leader is only supposed to lead his squad of well trained soldiers. Demanding, yes. But in Sweden he is also expected to train them and that requires additional skills. 130.237.216.122 (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The link also states that an OR may act as deputy mech inf company commander with lots of OF under her command. This seams unrealistic as there are too many OFs aspiring for the role. However, it is how ORs are defined by the SAF, wich is very different from ORs in the US. Also, specialistofficerare is named "Officers with a specialization".

--Malin Lindquist (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It does not say that OR commands lots of OF under her command. The article says the OR will train officers. Faffia (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They will train and command officer aspirants (kadetter), that is? 83.227.130.26 (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. However, remember that a already graduated officer (OF) may be trained in another area, or whatever. For example, an officer may attend "Winter school" (may be a bad example, I just made it up), and during this training be under the command by the instructor (A OR-6, for example). Faffia (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A person who acts as XO of a rifle company may have up to 11 OFs under her command. I included all the platoon leader and deputy platoon leader roles as well as the artillery officer. I was suprirced to know that an OR could reach such a typicla OF level position... I knew that OR could optain such roles in a specialized company but not in a regluar rifle or mech company -- in reality, this will never happen thou! It's just an AD. to get applicants... did you apply? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Contentions by User:Malin_Tokyo
Since this talk page is impossible to read now, I am enumerating a number of what I perceive to be your claims and would like you to state wether or not I have understood you correctly. Please copy the numbered questions and answer them below to preserve legibility. I would currently like to limit the scope of the discussion to the Swedish Armed Forces and its officers as they are today (plus or minsu 4 years, as an example)

1. An officer can only be considered to be an officer if he or she has a commision.
 * Read my explanation below --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And read mine.

2. The only possible way to translate commision into Swedish is as "fullmakt"
 * The translatin of Fullmakts Officrare is Comissioned Officers --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, as we have repeatedly shown. Fullmakt was a form of guaranteed employment.

3. An officer is only an officer when he or she is actually in command of a military unit.
 * This is the traditional classification of an officer ... an official set to command troops. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly in lala land, nowadays officers perform a variety of roles.

4. An officer must have a college/university degree.
 * That has become a common admission requirment to become officer. To become senior NCOs in the US, a college certificate is required. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Arguably a degree in english literature does seem less than pertinent to an officer than a degree from a military academy.

5. You dispute that the Swedish Armed Forces can activate units numbering 17200 men within one year and that these units are extant, in that they are equipped, can be manned and have previous training.
 * I dispute everthing that I cannot find in offical reports. What are those 17,200 for and where do I find them? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the sum of the units shown in the description of "Insatsorgansiationen", excluding Home Guard units. 6. No Swedish officer is capable of commanding or has received any training at battalion level or above.
 * There are basically no troops for officers of this level to practice on except for the very few company level (semi battalion level) excersise carried out by conscripts prior graduation and some very few KFOs. Skills have been assesed by recent resarch, which states that officers lack sufficient skills to carry out their profession. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

ENDEXs each year are at Brigade level. 7. A Swedish army squad is actually a fireteam. A fire team in the US consists of 4 men -- in sweden a mech inf rifle group consists of 6 men.
 * During mounted combat a Swedish group funtions as a single fire team. It is unclear wheter the group operates as two fire teams during dismounted combat. This has to be clarified.  --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

During mounted combat a Swedish mechplatoon functions as single unit, manouvering and closing with the enemy. All infantry squads can act separately in two teams. 8. The United States Marine Corps is the de facto standard against which all other militray formations must be compared.
 * See text below. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, until proven otherwise, I'll say that the USMC is an aberration, not comparable even to the US Army. One might as well chose Vozdushno-Desantnye Vojska as ones basis for comparison. 9. The Swedish Armed Forces based its current rank structure on that of the USMC and the British Army.
 * Attempts at harmonizing with US and BA, yes. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The harmonization was with STANAG 2116. 10. Swedish military personnel must take a rank reduction when serving abroad so as to better match other nations rank structures.
 * *Leaders of a rifle platoon hold the rank Kapten in Sweden. Same role abroad is defined as a OF1 role according to your referene.
 * *Leaders of a rifle squad hold the rank First Sergeant or Fanrik in Sweden. Same role abraod is defined as a OR4 (Corporal) role according to your reference.
 * No Captain commands a platoon in Sweden. They may be responsible for the training of a platoon, but that is not the same thing. Squads can be led by either and OR-6 or OR-4, depending on duties.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's enough to start with. Hans Engstrom (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How to proceed 2
Malin, why do you continue to repost that table with the number of personnel when you know full well that out of at least seven editors you are the only one who supports its inclusion in the article? I personally oppose it because a) the number of conscripts is wrong and b) the translations are completely wrong and not found in any Swedish-English dictionary.


 * I did not get much feedback if you may recall. You are in an endless loop stating that things are wrong, wihtout presenting what is wrong. What is wrong with the number of conscirpts? I dont want any more of those inconsisent comments: "I have not verified the numbers, but they are all wrong" as was written in the COI forum. "Wrong" is the only thning you can say. Where are your numbers and sources?

I thought that everyone here (including you Malin) agreed that we would take this step by step and thoroughly discuss each addition before adding more content. However, you added the personnel table without proper discussion and before the discussion on the rank chart was completed.


 * You did no efforts in seeking consensus or moving forward, you turned into an insulting mood instead.. I started over and I updated the table with this years numbers... you did not find any errors and there were hardly any feedback... you just wanted to add conscripts serving 2006 after I had published the table. Then the article gets reverted back several times and note WITHOUT any comments.


 * (1) First step is to get the distribution of rank vs personmel back then we may disuss the format of the rank table. We are not there yet. No use adding more sections before we have this pillar of evidences that makes fantasies impossible. That Commissioned Officer = Fullmakts Officerare is clear. Don’t bother with the word "Commissioned" anymore OK since it does not help a bit in describing Swedish officers and it is plain fraud in doing so. It's very confusing. What is your feedback besides including 2006 numbers? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I know, you are soo very eager in makeing your rank appear fantastic, but I hope that you will stop all those attempts now and focus on describing just as they are.


 * (2) Then we may discuss how to create some kind of career path section for SO or TO or whatever as suggested by Faffia.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Anybody reading this page can see that all insults are coming from YOU. Malin, have no one told you that you shouldn't lie about things which can easily be checked? Read my first post on this page where I disagree with your use of the term "commissioned officer". Then read my last post about the table: If you do this, I have no further complaints about the numbers in the table.(the translations are another matter..) As you can see, I have always disagreed with your translations. I said "no further complains about the numbers" Then I even included an extra sentence clarifying that I still disagreed with the translations! Everyone else also disagrees with you about the translations! That's why the article was reverted.


 * You are totally wrong about the order of things. We had an agreement that before new content was added(eg the personnel table) we should come to an agreement regarding the current content. You broke this agreement by posting new information before the rank chart discussion was complete. The correct way is to FIRST discuss the current content of the article, THEN discuss possible additions. The article as it appears now(with only the rank chart) IS DISPUTED. How can you argue that it will get better if we add even more DISPUTED content before the old content is changed?--Stulfsten (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The rank table is not disputed ... the order is all ok .. fanrik, fanjunkare, lojtnat, forvatare, etc... We have discussed this enough and there is nothign we can do to change this! --Malin Lindquist (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The rank table is definitively disputed. You are the only one who wants to keep it as it is. Everyone else wants to change it. This is really simple - the ranks are in the official material on the official web page placed in order OR-1 to OR-9 then OF-1 to OF-9. You say we cannot show the ranks in this order on wikipedia because of the tjänsteställning. Seriously, are you arguing that Försvarsmakten do not know the tjänsteställning of their own ranks?? That's absurd! Of course they know that Förvaltare has higher tjänsteställning than Fänrik, they were the ones who decided it! Yet, they chose to place Förvaltare between Fanjunkare and reg förvaltare, not between Löjtnant and Kapten in the official material. When you say that we have to place the ranks in order of tjänstestälning, that is simply a lie. What we want is to have the ranks placed in the order that the Swedish armed forces have placed them on their official web page.--Stulfsten (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Calm down... I want Fanjunkare to be placed right under Lojtnant so that Fanrik appears two steps below the Lojtnant rank. Lojtant is two whole steps greater than Fanrik, right OK!? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Löjtnant is one step above Fänrik. When a Fänrik is promoted he will become Löjtnant, not Fanjunkare. The OR and OF systems are parallel, not interlaced. 130.237.216.122 (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Malin. You are wrong again. Fänrik is one (1) step below Löjtnant within the OF-system. Fanjunkare is .5 step below löjtnant but in the parallell OR-system. /Army officer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.160.68 (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a rank table and there is not doubt that Fanjunkare is higher ranked than Fanrik, etc. The Swedish system is different from the classic OF/OR separation since OFs and ORs run parallel unlike in the US where all ORs are junior to all OFs. For example, ORs don't lead platoon or higher formations in the US or the UK. In Sweden, however, ORs may have typical OF1/OF2/OF3 roles such as XO of a company and be in charge of several OFs.


 * Things don’t happen over night…. The YO corps has to diverge into a SO corps and OF corps where most YOs today serve in SO roles. Most of those YOs serving with Fanrik, Lojtnant, Kapten, Major,,,, ranks belong to the SO category and will do so for a very long time until all those ranks are made up of graduates from the 3 year OF program and those YOs categorized as OFs. The reason being: As you might know, the SAF will not force them to change to first sergeant, fanjunkare, forvaltare, regementsforvalare. If all those are forced to change today, there will be a distinct SO category and a distinct OF category. Even so, ranks are ranks and Fanjukare is higher ranked than Fanrik.


 * That is, First Sergeant, Fanrik, Fanjunkare, Lojtnant, Forvalare, Katpen, Major, Regemetnsforvaltare belong to the very same YO category as no one has graduated from the OF program yet. Putting it differently, there is at this point nothing that separates SOs from YOs if we disregard those few YOs who are categorized as FOs.


 * A separation at this point will lead to more confusion. Instead we should focus on explaining more and include career paths outside the main rank table.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Malin, just answer this simple question: Why should the wikipedia article present the ranks in a different order than the official web page of the Swedish Armed Forces?--Stulfsten (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we proceed according to the following:

1. Finish discussion on the rank chart and the possibility of adding a new tjänsteställning table to the article.

2. Make the changes so that everyone can accept the article

3. After the article in agreeable to all, THEN start discussions about new sections.--Stulfsten (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Malin is publishing content without first reaching consensus. This violates WP:CON I believe that Hans Engstrom is doing the right thing cleaning away disputed content, but he is paying a price... 83.227.130.26 (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

We dont proceed becase of major COI
This article has become -- remove all the evidences -- make your own miliary rank look fantastic circus -- We have reached a dead end and the only way to proceed is to engage reousrces unrelated to the Swedsh military. I have some USMC NCOs in mind that may be able to audid our claims. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We have reached a dead end because you refuse to accept that you're WRONG. The official web page of the armed forces present the ranks in order OR-1 to OR-9 then OF-1 to OF-9. Yet you want to present them here in another order! In official documents, nowhere can your translations of
 * yrkesofficerare = officers without commission
 * yrkesofficerare med fullmakt = commissioned officers
 * be found. Nor can such translations be found in any dictionary, encyclopedia or anywhere else. All Swedish yrkesofficerare with the ranks of Fänrik(second lieutenant), Löjtnant(first lieutenant) Kapten(Captain) ... Generallöjtnant(Lieutenant General), General(General) are commissioned officers!
 * Regardless of whether they were employed before 1983 and thus have a fullmakt or after 1983 and don't have a fullmakt.


 * The only reasonable translations are
 * Yrkesofficerare = military officers
 * Officer = Commissioned officer
 * Specialistofficer = Non-commissioned officer
 * Gruppbefäl, soldater och sjömän = Junior NCOs, Soldiers and Seamen--Stulfsten (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 18,767 comissioned officers and 770 troops. -- 20 Comissioned Officers to command 1 soldier? UTOPIA again!
 * give it up... who should we believe: you or the annual report from the Swedish Armed Forces?
 * This is a rank page -- don't forget that... fanjunkare (OR7) is higher than fanrik. So you are very much out of the scoope here!
 * anyway, what you just wrote are meaningless opinons and just how you want others to think -- No references or profs as usual --Malin Lindquist (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Where the heck did you get 770 troops from!? That is the number of conscripts at LG (Royal Guards) and AMF1 (Amphibious Regiment) alone! 130.237.216.122 (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * i found this infomration att the swedish armed forces webbpage. http://www.mil.se/sv/Forsvarsmakten/siffror/Varnpliktiga/ they are talking about 6500soldiers that will get their basic traing this year...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.239.3.2 (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You have been calling my contributions for lies way too long now without even checking out my references and going through official documents. You have gone as far as portraying me as a traitor of my own corps and country. Now you are presenting numbers that I have already reported. The 770 number is there too. The table that you for so long wanted removed is at Swedish Armed Forces. There are all the numbers and they have been verified many times and by different persons. I have embraced you for your interests in the Home Defense and tried to make something useful out of what you may know. Now, I ask you to stop. As a very nationalistic Swede/Fin, what you say is really hurting, if that is your intentions. I really don’t like what I see in the annual report, but it has to be known for people to get a better picture of an organization. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So the 18767 officers command the 770 employed soldiers only, and the 7908 conscripts command and train themselfs, right?
 * The point that you strive to point out is invalid. There is no rank inflation in Sweden. There would have been if promotion was too easy and officers frequently got promoted beyond their competence-level. This have never happened in Sweden. In stead, the swedish government have cut down the number of conscripts and closed several regiments. Lagen om anställningsskydd prevented them from discharging the same quote of officers (initially they were also required for the now abandoned 10-year resurection plan). This have not affected the competence of the officer cadre. A captain ten year ago was not more capatin than a captain of today. The newly introduced OR- and OF-system confirms this. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Those 7,908 are not troops, they are recruits undertaking training and will graduate with a war position in units ready at R90. Commissioned Officers (CO) primary skill/duty is to command troops and the number of troops inside and outside Sweden is 770. NCOs train recruits, COs don't. COs may be tasked to teach prospective conscript/regular/reserve officers tactics. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a very narrow minded view of the duties of an officer. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You as Swedish officers, protect your own interests, which is to maintain an illusion that your military titles are fantastic relative to other militaries. The way you do this is to invent a great army that you are set to command in order to justify your rank. This army does not exist! This grand façade of yours is a major obstacle in all our efforts in arguing for improvements in the national defense system. Maintaining a false fancy façade will not encourage further improvements in the national defense system, it will only justify further cuts and jeopardize the future of Sweden as a free nation. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I beg you to cooperate in creating an all accurate article about the Swedish military -- for the sake of a stronger defense of Sweden (Finland should not do this again alone) -- for neutrality and alliance independency from EU, NATO, Russia and China, etc.
 * We are! But you keep on sabotaging every effort made by anyone but yourself. All other editors officers, troops and civilians alike already agree on the rank model that equal all swedish ranks with their foreign conuterparts using the OR- and OF-system. This is a system officialy introduced by the Swedish Armed Forces 2009-01-01, but these translations have been in use for many years and used every day in our international units. You simply does not have any idea about this because you have not been in contact with the Swedish Armed Forces for far too many years. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont love the USMC. It is being used by many nations as a reference when comparing their units. Sweden is sending out troops the way US is sending out USMC on missions around the world and the USMC is the first force to reach Sweden in the event the US send troops to Sweden to protect their own interersts. The USMC is the most up to-date and experienced organizaton when it comes to modern warefare which makes it ideal as a reference and study object when quanitfying Swedish military personel. It is being used as a reference at higher Swedish defense colleges when relating Swedish officers.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Malin, the Swedish defense college (FHS) that you talk about says on their website http://www.fhs.se/en/Education/About-education-at-the-SNDC/ that they are responsible for the initial training of junior officers in the Armed Forces (the Officers program / Officerprogrammet). That officers program leads to an officers exam (180 hp) and the rank of fänrik (OF1, 2/Lt). Do you state that as lying as well or are you willing to accept that formal fact? That fänrik (and above) with officers exam is by Swedish authority and international counterparts (even the USA) is considered officers? / Army officer


 * I have hopes that the 3-year OF program will yield good officers and if they serve as platoon leaders and above, I see no reasons why we should not consider them full fledged officers with ranks compatible with the OF scale and translated accordingly. It would be appropriate to change the law to make it possible for the Government to grant them a commission as officer to make them fully compatible with other OFs such as in the US and UK -- of course without the clause that grants them lifelong employments. This is a logical step towards a harmonization.


 * Nevertheless, there are some concerns that the OF program is too theoretical, contains too many irrelevant courses and that admission requirements are set too low. A major concern is the recruitment base. Without a conscription system there is no natural feed of talents into the profession. Excellent officer materials among a large and diversified population of conscripts may no longer be spotted. Several factors discourage talents from applying to officer’s school, such as (1) the career ends at 35, (2) the program is too long, (3) the future of the Armed Forces is uncertain, (4) and the status is not much different from Specialist Officers. The last is due to what we have been discussing here: There are lots of SO ranks above Fanrik. The principal at Karlberg explained that the problem in attracting applicants, despite of major recruitment efforts, was mainly attributed to this. The issue in attracting applicants forces the school to accept less talented applicants and/or reduce the number of seats. Lastly, there is not much troops for them to practice on.  --Malin Lindquist (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Officersprogram is just a new course leading to the same rank as YOP, OHS and OK did before. And again "fullmakt" has nothing to do with it. The "officersfullmakt" is an employment issue that means that the officer can´t be fired. There are absolutly no other differences when it comes to other aspects of the officersship between those with fullmakt (IF FM) and those without (IL FM). "The clause that grants them lifelong employments" is what the IF FM-officers have that differs them from IL FM-officers, nothing else. Swedish officers are constituted officers by Swedish authority and Sweden is a recognized nationstate internationally and Swedish officers are officers world wide, including the USA and UK. The harmonization is as good as it gets. Swedish officers are considered "full fledged officers" by the whole world with the exception for Malin Randström. /Army officer


 * Since 1983, all NCOs, WOs and COs are called officers in Sweden for political reasons in the name of equality. This was a socialistic revolutionary reform similar to the absense of military ranks in the PRC(China). You are a product of such a system. If a corporal is given a traditional officers rank and named officer in the name of equality, then attempts from this former corporal to abuse the term officer to mean a class in society defeats the intentions of the reform to establish a society free from classes. In a society free from classes a al Sweden, the term professional officer denotes those with military as a profession and not a class. The end result was a military consisting of officers only with insufficient skills to carry out military operations as pointed out by research. The huge problem triggered efforts in implementing a new system where 2/3 YOs are classifyed as SOs and 1/3 YOs are classifyed as OFs. What was the OHS before is SO school today and what was KS (Krigsskolan) before is the 3 year OF programe today.


 * Then how come that swedish troops are so well regarded in international service if the ranks are meaningless?
 * Don't you think that the abundance of brittish, french, german, belgian, dutch and american officers our troops in Bosnia, Kosovo, Liberia and Afghanistan have been serving side-by-side with would have called this bluff? 83.227.130.26 (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are indeed an officer according to Swedish standards. I salute you. I have no problem with that. Who has? According to your own research you have proven that you are indeed admired for your officersship, sistersship, brotherhood, knighthood or whatever it may be around the world regardless of what you can do, what you do, and are authorized to do. It is very important for wiki to make sure that everyone fully understands how prestigious your position in society is. We believe you.


 * However, we are trying to describe Swedish military ranks here free from any biases.


 * OHS was mostly a NCO course to become instructors with some theoretical elements of troop leading. All through history, military personnel have been ranked according to the chain of command. Your level of command is based on how good and fit you are as proven by your track records as a troop leader. The level of command determines your rank. If you are out of the chain and not part of any military units, you are reserve or retired, which means that chances of promotions ceases and you may even face demotion. Ranks in the US, for example, are gained or lost accordnig to changes in your level of command…. A XO of a company is a 1Lt, a CO of a company is a Captain, XO of a battalion is a Major and a CO of battalion is a LtCol. Example, Lt.Cols. were demoted to 1Lt or Captain when their battalions were disbanded after WWII.


 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Swedish officers (OF1-OF9)are recognized as officer internationally, no matter what Malin (Tokyo, Lindqvist, Randström) thinks about it. Swedish officers recieve commission (förordnande) by the state and the ranks translates into the NATO code as: Fänrik/Löjtnant-OF1, Kapten-OF2, Major OF3, and so on. That should be enough for anyone asking about the Swedish ranks and the translation of them. There is only one person that still claims a difference and I recommend anyone not to listen to Malin (Tokyo, Lindqvist, Randström) who apparantly has an issue with that matter. So much so that she acts with a large amount of missconduct and repeatedly posts false information. Therefor this long talk page and therefor the COI issue. /Army officer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.160.68 (talk) 05:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You did no attempts in meeting my argumentations, because you simply could not. Instead you urge everyone to stop listening.
 * The only statements of yours is: “she acts with a large amount of missconduct and repeatedly posts false information.”


 * This statement is worthless and does not contain any information. It reflects your frustration over your inability in pursuing argumentations based on facts. I would ask you to discipline yourself and to concentrate in meeting my argumentations objectively.


 * Also, you are posting your own research here. Can you point out who recognize you as an officer or commissioned officer abroad?


 * You are simply emplyed by an agency as a clerk or trainer to do some work, thats all... What is a Swedish officer: "Professional officer: a person employed to serve as military staff" = "yrkesofficer: den som är anställd som militär tjänsteman" --  there you go! Nothing about comission, fullmakt or any other fancy stuff. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The word you should be looking for is förordnande. See Förordning (1975:1345) med instruktion för Justitiekanslern §3. 130.237.216.122 (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * förordnand = appointed ,,,, this is meaningless, timeconsuming and silly... staff employed by the govt working as clerks want to be called Comissioned Officers --Malin Lindquist (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Comissioned = Förordnand, Appointed = (politiskt) tillsatt.
 * In my ordinary (government) job this distinction is extremly important. Comissioned servants have the power of authority (myndighetsutövning) while the appointed servants only can supervice the work.
 * I believe that the only true 'appointed' officers was the political commissars of the Soviet Red Army (See Political commissar) 130.237.216.122 (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be förordnand to vicekorpral, or förordnand to underofficer..... Shall we put comissioned in front of all ranks ... Comissioned Specialist Officer? This doesn't seem to work --Malin Lindquist (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because a vicekorpral devovles his authority from those above him (he is not employed as a vice-korpral). Underofficer does not exist currently. As stated in Lt. Col Braunsteins letter, this becomes a problem when considering those who have graduated and been employed after completing SOU. They are effectively commissioned at a NCO rank.
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You could of course, but it would not be of much significance since such comissions does not qualify as myndighetsutövning. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * well, arguably they are if they kill someone in the line of duty...but that's just me digressing.Hans Engstrom (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comissioned Non Comissioned Officers if we would follow the förordnand logics. You could be förordnad as vicekopral before,,, but that might be the time when a vicekpral was an employee... how about Förordnad as First Sergeant? Anyway, according to Braunstens letter the correct usage is to drop the “Commissioned” part.  --Malin Lindquist (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out more than three months ago, which others including Conny Eriksson at Army HQ agree with, specialistofficerare should not be translated as "specialist officers". Only armies in the British tradition have used commission they way they do. In Sweden, as in France, Germany, Finland etc officers have been known as simply officerare, officiers, offiziere, upseerit etc. The ranks known as non-commissioned in Britain are/have been called something which can be translated literally as "under-officers": underofficerare, sous-officiers, unteroffiziere, aliupseerit etc. I don't understand why you are so fixated by the commission and the historical Swedish employment type fullmaktsanställning. As several people have tried to tell you, different countries have different traditions. When you translate you have to try to find the word that best describes what you are translating. If you translate the Swedish yrkesofficerare(utan fullmakt) as non-commissioned officers those unfamiliar with the Swedish army will get an entirely wrong impression about the organisation of the Swedish Armed Forces. The old fullmaktsanställning isn't coming back. If we were to use your reasoning, the entire officers corps will in a few years be non-commissioned officers, from the new lieutenants to the highest general. If we call the officerare non-commissioned officers, what should we call the specialistofficerare? Privates? Absurd! I have already several times stated what I think is the best translation, but I can also accept translating officerare as simply "officers" however specialistofficerare should be translated as non-commissioned officers since that is the US/UK category that they resemble.--Stulfsten (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The creation of the name specialistofficer wasn't that smart after all considering all the requirments to harmonize with NATO. I wans't the one that started this fullmakts/comissioned cirkus. It was a gang of Swedish officers who scremed at me that they should be called Comissioned Officer and not just officers. Very silly of them, but I never gave in. I strongly discourage the usage of the NCO term to denote SOs. I want to burry WO, NCO and COs terms once for all to be read about in our history books only --Malin Lindquist (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Malin, The terms non-commissioned officer, warrant officer, and commissioned officer are the terms used in almost all english speaking countries for these very categories of military personal. How many of these countries do you think issues commissions these days? I guess you have no idea, so I'll ask instead: Do Finland issue commissions to officers?
 * Your objection that swedish officers are not commissioned just because they do not have a piece of paper with the word that you think is the right translation of this work is just silly. You could just as well claim that a swedish Civilingenjör does not qualify as Master of Science because he/she does not have a paper with the word Mästare and will never get any because Mästarbrev is only issued to artisans. 130.237.216.122 (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First problem -- English speaking countries have few officers and lots of troops -- Sweden have lots of officers but no troops. Got it!? Just use the term officer and everyone will understand what you do! Simple is the best. Titles in a CV are not very important, important is what you did. If you are a rifle company commander, then tell people that you run a rifle company. If you don't command any troops, you can tell people that you are an officer and people may think that you command a company even if you don't. If you want to spice up your title even more you may call yourself a Commissioned Officer.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Inquiry to LtC Christian Braunstein
I have sent an inquiry to Lieutenant-colonel Christian Braunstein for his opinion on how the term comissioned officer should be interpreted in swedish, as well as how swedish ranks compare to their foreign counterparts.

For you who does not know, LtC Braunstein is a highly regarded officer and was director of HKV-PROT (Protocol department of the Swedish Military Headquarters) until recently. He is now chairman of the Tradition Commission of the Swedish Armed Forces.

I will regard anything he says as statements from god father almighty himself. To assure the authenticity of the correspondence, I will also publish maillogs (with my email address removed, since I prefer to remain anonymous). 130.237.216.122 (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Answer from Conny Eriksson at HKV-PROT
LtC Braunstein forwarded my inquiry to HKV-PROT and I just got the answer from Conny Eriksson. First my original question: Hej!

Jag har några frågor angående det nya svenska gradsystemet och hur det är meningen att det ska användas i internationell tjänst.

1) Hur översätts "Specialistofficer" till engelska? "Specialist officer" kommer antagligen att sätta myror i huvudet på folk. Är Non-Comissioned Officer eller Warrant-Officer en godtagbar översättning?

2) Kan "yrkesofficer" översättas till "Comissioned Officer"?

3) Vad blir i så fall "Comission" på svenska? Officersfullmakt eller officersförordnande?

4) Går det att använda de beteckningar som sedan 2009-01-01 används för svenska grader (OR-1 till OR-9 samt OF-1 till OF-9) som direkta översättningar till utländska grader? Dvs kan t.ex. en svensk fanjunkare pressentera sig som "Feltwebel" på tyska? First answer from Conny: 1. Helt riktigt, "Specialist Officers" är något helt annat och skall INTE användas! Efter att systemet med officersfullmakter avskaffades 1983 så skulle man ju kunna anse att begreppet NCO inte har någon relevans i Sverige... endera har man ett fullmaktssystem eller inte... men faktum är att det ur ett internationellt perspektiv ändå bäst förklarar vad det är! WO är också godtagbart ur ett förståelseperspektiv, så länge det används som ett samlingsbegrepp...

2. Om man skall vara korrekt så bör man ju utelämna det där med "Commissioned", det finns ju andra begrepp som t.ex "Regular Officer" att ta till... men som yrkesofficer kan man ju, för att inte missförstånd skall uppstå, acceptera att bli kallad "Commisioned" i olika samband där yrkesofficersrollen skall kunna särskiljas från specialist officerarna...

3. För att ledigare kunna handskas med begreppet "Commissioned" så bör vi ju i så fall, i konsekvensens namn, tänka få begreppet mera i termer av officersförordnande...

4. Det finns fastställda översättningar på engelska till de faställda graderna, 2009-01-01, och man skall alltså inte "direktöversätta" på engelska... vad andra språk beträffar så gäller att den enskilde använder de fastställda engelska översättningarna också då! operationsspråket är ju ändå alltid engelska, även om jag kan förstå att man av artighetsskäl kan vilja presentera sig på motpartens språk!

Tack för intressanta frågor, hoppas mina svar kan vara dig till någon hjälp! I thought the answer to question four was a bit ambiguous, so I had to ask for a clearification: Jag tackar så mycket för de svaren, men jag skulle gärna vilja få ett förtydligande på fråga fyra. Vilka är de fastställda engelska termerna för våra svenska grader? The answer I got was a Microsoft Word document with the official english translation of swedish ranks. I have translated it into a wiki-table below 130.237.216.122 (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Rank Translation Table
As you all can see, this is quite exactly a translation to british ranks using the OR-OF system. (But I suspect that the swedish names Styrman/Konstapel/Maskinist are missing from the OR-5 row) 130.237.216.122 (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Great job! How official are those tables? I have not seen it on www.mil.se 83.227.130.26 (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is what I got when I asked for the official translation. I have converted the Microsoft Word document I got to PDF and made it available here: http://soldf.e.kth.se/%c3%96vers%c3%a4ttningar%20grader.pdf
 * I believe that I promised mailloggs as well. Here we go:
 * Apr 27 14:08:51 mx3.kth.se postfix/smtpd[19565]: D0C4B6AA01: client=fw.zry.mil.se[193.241.0.10]
 * Apr 27 14:08:52 mx3.kth.se postfix/cleanup[19490]: D0C4B6AA01: message-id=
 * Apr 27 14:08:57 mx3.kth.se postfix/qmgr[16842]: D0C4B6AA01: from=, size=138529, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
 * Apr 27 14:09:40 mx3.kth.se postfix/lmtp[18253]: D0C4B6AA01: to=, local_relay, delay=55, status=sent (250 Ok: queued as 2E68A69C83)
 * Apr 27 14:09:40 mx3.kth.se amavis[17583]: (17583-01-39) Passed CLEAN,  -> , Hits: -7.598, tag=-200, tag2=5, kill=20, queued_as: 2E68A69C83, L/Y/0/0
 * Apr 27 14:09:40 mx3.kth.se postfix/qmgr[16842]: 2E68A69C83: from=, size=139150, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
 * Apr 27 14:09:41 mx3.kth.se postfix/lmtp[18550]: 2E68A69C83: to=, delivered, delay=3, status=sent (250 2.1.5 Ok)
 * 130.237.216.122 (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * SUPERB!! If it's not too much to ask, could you reply with a question if that document are to be published on mil.se? But I see no complications to use the PDF you've put on kth.se webserver as reference.
 * It's also interesting to read Erikssons comments on the translation of Specialistofficerare. NCO are literally incorrect, but as he also says, it's the best available description. Faffia (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer WO, since NCO would also include Corporals and Sergeants that are conscripts and not SOs. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Section English translation
As we now have more information at hand on the translation of the ranks to english, I propose the following new section to be added:

Translation to english The table below describes the translation of ranks to the english language. Included also are the abbrevations to be used for each rank respectivly.


 * 1 used in the Navy.
 * 2 used in the Navy and Air Force.
 * 3 for clarification of ranks, personnel in Navy appends (N) after rank or abbrevation.

Proposal: Rank order and duty grade
Once again I'll post my earlier proposal, with some changes in the preceeding text and references to official documents by HKV.

Rank insignia order and duty grade The dipslay order of the ranks has been a source of confusion with the introduction of the new two officer corps system Specialistofficerare (SO, OR 6-9 ranks). The ranks are by tradition OR ranks displayed to the left of OF ranks [Ranks on mil.se]. But as the two-command structure are two parallel career paths, with the possibility to interchange between them, the swedish army uses a term tjänsteställning to describe an comparative order of seniority and responsibility (etc). Official documents published by the Swedish Defense Headquarters defines the tjänsteställning for the ranks as displayed in the table below.

The Swedish term tjänsteställning can best be compared with the U.S. word paygrade, but however does not neccesarily regulate the salary.

Faffia (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Moving trainee ranks
I propose we move the trainee ranks from the rank insignia table to a new section of it's own where the trainee ranks can better be described with complmented text. Faffia (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Changing the rank insignia table
As the next step after adding the sections I've proposed above, I also propose we change the rank insignia table as tradition suggests (OR 1-9, OF 1-9). This is in accordance with the document Conny Eriksson provided us, the rank insignia table on mil.se, and traditional and international practice. Faffia (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I also propose we remove the agraff (cap insignias) as I belive they does not really belong there (we might as well include a beret for OR 1-5 and a cap for OR 6-9, OF1-9)... There are so many details on a uniform that is dependant on what rank you hold (not as much in the field uniform), and I belive it makes for better reading and overview of the ranks if we remove the aggraffs. Faffia (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * beret does not indicate rank, agraff does! Cap insingias are usually included in Swedish rank charts. However, they are not very important. Baret will dissapear in a near furute, I think. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, we are describing ranks here and your table is as far as we can go. Swedish OR/OFs run in parallel and are very different from most other OF/OR structures. Sweden has paygrades too but those are not the same as tjanstestallning. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Translation of Specialistofficerare
Are there any objections to translate Specialistofficerare to Warrant Officer? As per the document from C Eriksson, the word used for OR 7-9 are in fact Warrant Officer/WO. Faffia (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Two things, (1) Swedish ORs don't hold a warrant, and WOs in the US are like OF in Sweden. Why are those OR7 - OR9 classifyed as WOs? Any ideas? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the HKV has not taken regard to the literal translation, but rather the use of the title.
 * The term comission is like 300-500 years old and was once a way for an officer to prove his right to hire troops from the kings treasures (nations in general, not just Sweden). The comission was lifelong or as long the king wanted. In the case of U.S. it was the Congress instead of a King. Warrants was almost the same thing, but as all warrants, they were limited in time.


 * In modern armies this is not how things work anymore. Armies have centralies administration and to check identity everyone has a ID-card and the HKV is only a phone call away. And officers in Sweden no longer have the need for comission as a way to ensure their lifelong employment as the introduction of Lagen om anställningsskydd (1982). And warrants are neither needed, and in U.S. and Britain (for example) they (warrants and comissions) remains as a traditional detail, while we in Sweden has removed the actual comissions and warrants because they are regarded as unneccesary. That does not however change the duties of the persons holding the ranks.


 * Just because we in Sweden no longer title cleaners as Städare but rather Lokalvårdare does not change the fact that a Lokalvårdare performs the same job as a cleaner in US. If we internationally would describe cleaners here by the term Facility caretakers´, as the literal translation would suggest, they would think we're crazy. It's just politics and formalities.


 * Why HKV have chosen to translate OR7-9 as WO are simple, because even though they don't have the actual piece of paper making them Förordnade officerare (WO), they perform similar tasks and can best be compared by using a term which is internationally understood, even if it's literal translation is incorrect (or else there is a risk of Syftningsfel). Faffia (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, who understands what a warrant officer is? There are soo many titles in that chart that no one has a clue what those are,,, not even people having military as a profession or even I or perhaps you too?

--Malin Lindquist (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sankt Ulfsten says
Section English translation: Yes

Rank order and duty grade: Yes

Proposal: Moving trainee ranks: Yes

Proposal: Changing the rank insignia table: Yes

Translation of Specialistofficerare: We are never going to find an English-language term that fits perfectly. I think NCO is the least bad choice as the warrant officer term is a bit ambiguous with the differance between American style WOs and British WOs. Also, I don't think it would be wise to describe a Förste Sergeant as a warrant officer.--Stulfsten (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree that NCO is a closer description than WO. But WO are used in the translation in the document provided, hence I'm betting on HKV would recommend/prefer to use the term WO. Faffia (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If we use WO we do not have to use the terms comissioned and non-comissioned, which is a good thing. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WOs are top end ORs in the UK and college level specalists in the US. Example of a WO in the US is pilot, which is a typicla OF role in Sweden. WOs are more like OFs...--Malin Lindquist (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Compromizing ...
If we necessarily need this sort of table, we should make clear that there are three distinct categories, such as officers, specialistofficer and "conscripts and contractors". I would like the right column to include "Commissioned Officers and Officers without commission" to get it 100% correct... but to proceed I am ok to just name it "officers".... lets go for that. We should not use NCO, WO or CO at all if we are to follow advices from the head of tradition. I would suggest the specialistofficers category to be named Other Officers....
 * I agree with you on three tables with three distinct categories
 * I would prefer that OF-ranks would be labeled 'Officers'. It is short, it is correct and it is non-confusing.
 * HKV-PROT described WO as 'acceptable'. I think it is the most accurate term that we have available. 130.237.216.122 (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Some major issues with Faffias table
 * the rank page will be huge if we include insignias in it.
 * that a Fanjukare is higher ranked than a Fanrik is less obvious.
 * it is less obvious that the Officers OF column mostly consists of those who have specialistofficers positions today.

Number of persons per rank
 * Of great value is to know how many persons there are in each rank. Hans Engstroms claim that those numbers are out of scoope here is invalid. I will prepare for a proposal how to include them without consuming much of the articles realestate.
 * The reason I have objected to this table before is that it is obvious that you have added it only as an argument to promote your own (incorrect) values of swedish ranks. However, if you accept the translations provided to us by HKV-PROT, I have no problem accepting the rank-number table, assuming the numbers are correct of course. 130.237.216.122 (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * By your way, no one can publish any numers becase numbers ar always incorrect. As you said "I haven't verified your numbers, but they are incorrect" ..... how do you know that they are incorrect when you havent verified them? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You start lying again! I NEVER said that! I said, "I have not verified your numbers, so I have no comments to make. But I still think they are irrelevant." 130.237.216.122 (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) including those in OR positions with OF ranks For those who are in a position that is made a specialistofficer (OR) position by the new system, but are not forced to changed rank to a corresponding OR rank. The change is volunteered based.
 * The policy of the Swedish Armed Forces (as well as all swedish authorities) is that nobody will be degraded just because he/she accepts a less qualified assignment. So, an OF is still an OF even if he/she is cleaning toilets! 130.237.216.122 (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That’s such an extremely generous rank policy. Lovely! That’s why we should describe it here! Sweden is so nice, don’t you think so? Outside Sweden, such person is usually called a cleaning maid. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So a USMC officer on detached duty as an adminstrative assistent should be called a secretary? The knowledge and capability remains.
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know what USMC is? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently far better than you (not surprising I guess). I would suggest you look up the USMC MOS0180, MOS3404, MOS4302and MOS4402 before getting back to us.
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

--Malin Lindquist (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If we change the rank insignia table to the correct order, I can accept the addition of Malin's table above with a few modifications
 * 1 The heading of the columns should say only the Swedish word and our translation, ie Officers - Officerare and Other officers - specialistofficerare
 * 2 I think that WO or NCO is better than other officers but I can accept Malin's suggestion
 * 3 I think the third category should be titled, as the two others, with only the Swedish and English name, ie remove conscript and platoon leader. It can be explained outside the table that thses ranks are available to conscripts. Also, I don't like the translation of kontraktsanställda to contractors at all. A contractor is a hantverkare.
 * I don't think the number of persons in each rank need to be displayed in a separate table. However, it could be mentioned that at present there are X officerare, Y specialistofficerare and Z soldiers(+conscripts) BUT as the Swedish Armed Forces are transitioning from a large conscript army to a smaller voluntary army these numbers will change. Perhaps we could include the proposed numbers for 2019.--Stulfsten (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What is difficult at this point is to statically describe an organizatio that is chaning so rappildy. It is easer to merge personnel corps like NBO1983 than splitting a corps into two as being attemted today. The table describes how the personnel corps may look like 2019 if things go according to plans. However, it doesn't look like this today. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly is this supposed to be a reply to? I have never said it's easy to describe a change of this magnitude, especially when some things are still uncertain. Now, I don't think it is really necessary to include a table with the number of personnel in each rank. But as you seem to think it's imperative, I suggested to include two tables, one to describe the current situation, and one to show the (planned) future situation. Of course, in addition to the tables, the text in the article will help explain the changes.--Stulfsten (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The first line is not a reply to you, but a general statement of mine. I agree with you, since its a moving target we need to fill the article with a fair amount of text to explain this. So, let's do that....

--Malin Lindquist (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the proposals
''the rank page will be huge if we include insignias in it. '' My mistake, it was not my intention to include the actual insignia images in the table for the porposed new sections. It is sufficient they are present in the insignia table. Those table I have proposed was my intention to add to the article as seen on this talk page. If the reader would like to see the actual insignia images, just continue reading/scroll down to that section. Again, my bad if I've been unclear.

that a Fanjukare is higher ranked than a Fanrik is less obvious. I don't really understand this statement, I placed Fanjunkare above Fänrik in the table, just as in the Missiv Tvåbefälssystem, which I referenced.

it is less obvious that the Officers OF column mostly consists of those who have specialistofficers positions today. Not everything can be explained by using tables. Too much info in the table makes it unclear to the reader. It is better to explain that fact in another section, for example "Transition to new ranks".

Faffia (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I missunderstood your intentions... now, I understand you fully,,,,I like the table as it better shows career paths. On my part, I am ok having it on the artilce. You may remove the agraffs if you like..... go ahead.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Rank interpretation
What are the purposes of interpreting ranks? What methods have been used to arrive at these interpretations? How can we be sure that those interpretations have not been carried out by holders of such ranks themselves and free from COI, NNV and biases?

The interpretations of Swedish ranks have resulted in titles that are several levels higher than what Swedish ranks really represent. For example, a Sergeant first class is a deputy platoon leader rank (platoon = 35 to 40 men) in the US reached after more than 10 years of service. A First Sergeant rank in Sweden is a squad leader rank (squad = 6men) reached after 2 years of service.
 * A swedish First Sergeant could have the assignment as squad leader/instructor, yes. But he/she could also have the assignment as company quartermaster. When will you realize that there are many more assignments to be filled than just unit leaders? 130.237.216.122 (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, those interpretations do not convey any information and are even misleading readers to believe that Swedish ranks are several levels higher than what they represent. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see your point, and question your reading ability. Let us list the errors in your statement.


 * 1. You are the one wishing to interpret ranks in this article, despite the fact that other similar pages on wikipedia do not interpret rank. I have suggested that the place for that discussion is on the page for the Swedish Armed Forces.


 * 2. Wikipedias COI,NNV and bias structure does not apply to intra-national agreemnts. HKV LEDS INT Prot are mandated by the Swedish Armed Forces under the directives given by the government through the Ministry of Defense to perform exactly these forms of interpretations. I find it highly unreasonable that the object of Wikipedia is to second-guess official statements.


 * 3. It is you contention that this is the case. It behooves you to prove this statement as we have consistently outvoted you on the matter (as well as arguing that your knowledge is at best second-hand and out of date).


 * 4. The comparison is invalid. "Förste Sergeant" is OR-6, so the comparison is to a OR-6 "Staff Sergeant", not a OR-7 "Sergeant First Class" as regards the United States Army.


 * 5. Duties of a US Army Staff Sergeant are, "Staff Sergeants are generally placed in charge of squads, but can also act as platoon sergeants in the absence of a Sergeant First Class." A Swedish "Förste Sergeant" is generally in charge of a squad with technically or tactically complex duties. So, no difference there.


 * 6. Training and time to be promoted. US Army (by comparison only), Staff Sergeant (E-6) - 5 months TIG and 48 months (4 years) TIS. Compares to Swedish 11 months basic service with command training and 18 months training for the rank. Other nations have other requirements.


 * 7. Again, it is your contention that ranks are higher than the actual level of responsibility, something I have, again disproved. Additionally, time in training ´can be considered to be irrelevant, because the responsibility and duties are still the same whether or not you have 20 years experience or none (see 90-day wonders for a US example).
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You fail to se any points and you don't even know that there are First Sergeants serving as squad leaders in the mechanized infantry in Sweden. You argue with insufficent knowledge as you should know by now that First Sergeant (OR6) has been translated as Sergeant 1st Class and not as Staff Sergeant as you say. This lack of key knowledge makes the above text of yours worthless. You may be a desk officer, but you dont seem to have spent much time out on the field. You dont know the different betwen a squad leader and a platoon leader even. Things that graduates from KadS take for granted, you simply don't know. So, further arguing with you are useless. Your silly statements AGAINST KBS reveals that you hvent been a KBS cadet --Malin Lindquist (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. The translation doesn't matter, the reason for the OR and OF system is to avoid these problems. Let's take a practical example. I've invited the graduates of the SOU class to meet some of their NATO equivalents. What will the varying titles be?
 * Belgium-1er sergeant, Canada- Sergeant, France- Sergeant-chef, Italy- Sergergent Maggiore, Netherlands- Sergeant der 1e klass, Portugal- Primiero-sargento, Spain- Sergeant, Great Britian- Sergeant, United States- Staff Sergeant. I have no idea of how these countries translate their ranks, and I, for one, think the Swedish Armed Forces should have used Staff Sergeant for the official translation, something which might be changed. But I know one thing, when these people get together they check the OR ranks to see what level each works at.


 * 2. As far as spending time in the field, considering the rapidity with which you removed your rather dubious claims on your wiki page (hint, the history remains) and then backtracked, I'm pretty certain I've done more field time than you have. Also, let me repeat this again, I am not a desk officer, I am not in any way, shape or form currently an officer.


 * 3. Where have I made an error between a squad leader and a platoon commander?


 * 4. My attendance at KadS is not an issue here, but you've chosen to make yours an issue. However, I at least understood the difference between the production process and the wartime establishment, which you've consistently failed to do.
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You have returned and started hostile editing again despite a great deal of compromizes from my side with everyone in order to prceed. I have answered all your questions and you are back once where you started. You were asked by wiki to improve your attitude once you were release from the blockde. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, the table above translates First Sergeant to Sergeant 1st Class. It is everyones rigth here to openly argue wheter this makes sence or not regarldess of the source of the document. In my arguing, I did not address anyone, I used a methods called analysis to reach a conclusion that the interpretation seems inaccurate.


 * SAF is a governmental agency and information it provides is regarded as high grade. This does by no means have any weight in the process of analysis. SAF has a history of providing an exaggerated facade and exception rank inflation as pointed out by research. Establishing a hypothesis that interpretations of ranks are biased is therefore justified. We have found one instance where a Swedish rank has been adjusted upwards to a much higher Englsih title. This strenthens the hypothesis.


 * Hans Engstrom failed compleately to either stregthen or weaking the hypothesis as the rank Staff Sergeant is irrelevant when comparing a Sweidish First Sergeant with a Sergeant First Class.


 * Don't call me a liar or other meaningless expression such as "this is wrong", "you are wrong", "you are trying to put shit on the Swedish military", etc. You should find problems in my analysis and provide all possible explanations to the discrepency.


 * We should not publish those interpretation of ranks unitil we find an explanation to the discrepency. This may invlove asking the SAF itself or experts.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. I'm not editing anything, I'm adding correct, verifiable and sourced information.
 * 2. The block was for the 3RR, no mention was made of hostility.
 * 3. You have, yet again, completely failed to understand the purpose of the OR/OF system, which was specifically designed to avoid making errors when translating ranks.
 * 4. Yes, I'm sure the analysis of a civilian with no access to relevant laws, regulations or experience with the subject matter, not to mention a penchant for selective editing is of a higher factual standard than a government agency.
 * 5. No you've found one instance where a translation can be construed, by an american, as possibly being one rank higher than correct. A Belgian, Dutchman, Portugese or Frenchman would make no such assumption as their rank names are exactly the same as ours.
 * 6. Based on OR levels, which are what militaries use, it makes a world of difference. Your opinion, if it wasn't for your voluble diatribe against the Swedish Armed Forces on wikipedia, would matter not a jot.
 * 7. Well, I admit I have called your honesty into question. It's been done elsewhere as well, hasn't it? One I'm particularly fond of is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TechBear where you're engaging in what I'd call existentalist sockpuppetry. Well, at the very least it's a little odd to speak of yourself in the third person that way (note to others, Malins IP address is registered as 122.249.239.124, and Google is your friend).
 * 8. We'll publish them if they're official, otherwise not. Agreed.
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The last parts are out of the scope here. I once wrote an article about myself, but it was removed so I wrote my personal page instead. What you are doing is trolling.... Now, you are posting personal threats!


 * Again, I did a comparision between a Swedish Forste Sergeant and a US  Sergeant First Class to see if they are the same as a verficaton of a tranlsation. So far you have not validated any translations yet... You assume that everything is correct. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Malin, don't be unreasonable. If you look at the English translations, it's obvious that the Swedish Armed Forces have opted for a more British-inspired translation than an US one. (Able Seaman, Leading Seaman, Colour Sergeant, WO2 etc) The British have 7 OR ranks and Sweden 9. The two gaps had be be filled somehow. Now, I don't think anyone has problems with private first class but it can be argued that the translation to Sergeant First Class is a problem. However, I think you exaggerate the problem. If all the other ranks were to use American terminology, ie translating Förvaltare to First Sergeant and RegFörvaltare to (command)Sergeant Major, then there would be bigger issues with the translation of Förste Sergeant. But as the other rank translations are not based on the US Army, I don't think there's any expectation that this particular rank is exactly the same as its American literal counterpart. There is also the code OR-6 to help, as Hans observes. If you look at the Air Force rank translations, you can see that they do not match exactly with neither the US nor the UK ranks. Clearly, the intention is not to claim that a certain Swedish rank is exactly the same as a UK/US rank but rather to help a non Swedish speaking person understand what the rank is.(which is what you would expect from a translation) I don't think a Brit will have trouble figuring out that a Wing Sergeant Major is a very senior Air Force NCO and outranks a Sergeant First Class even if neither of those ranks are used by the RAF or the USAF.


 * Also, I don't see why we need to "verify" the translations the way you suggest. We'll write in the article that these ranks are the official translations and provide the appropriate reference which proves that claim(ie that they are the official Swedish Armed Forces translations). If you find any noteworthy objections, eg should NATO issue a statement declaring the Swedish translations to be wrong, then it could be added to the article. You, I and/or other random people on the internet otoh, are not important enough to be quoted in the article itself.--Stulfsten (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you think is reasonable here? That I have to accept some sort of consensus that annual official reports about ranks are lies. Worse, those who said that the numbers were lies did not bother checking them out. No one found any discrepancies or errors. The very same people now bring in a rank translation table that is not even official. Verifying one translation yielded a substantial discrepancy. The discrepancy is not small as a typical position of a First Sergeant translated into Sergeant 1st class is Corporal in the BA. This is based on the length of service and that a typical role of a First Sergeant in Sweden is to lead a rifle squad of 6 men. A Corporal is set to lead a rifle squad of 8 men. Please explain this difference and why you think the translation chart is useful.


 * The very same people you say. That would be me in that case, since I requested the official rank translation table from the protocol department of the Swedish Military Headquarters. I got it and I pressented it here. If you do not think it is official you should do two things: 1) Request the table yourself and 2) Reda up on the Swedish constitution (grundlagen) more specifically Tryckfrihetsförordningen (SFS 1949:105) kap 2.
 * I also wish to make it very clear that I never said that the numbers you presented were wrong, just irrelevant. 130.237.216.122 (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an entry in the COI forum from unknow IP address
 * "I have read the table, but I have not comented on the contents of it because I have not been able to verify your numbers. Anyhow, the only reason for you to publish the statistics is for you to misuse them to support your incorrect claims."
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wrote that. But I never said that the numbers you presented was wrong. The incorrect claims I referred to was your skewed rank translations. 130.237.216.122 (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a huge discrepancy between the newly adopted OF/OR structure and a traditional NATO OF/OR structure when plotting the structure against the distribution of personnel. I may only guess the distribution of personnel in an US OF/OR structure, but I can guarantee that it is not OF = 18,500 and OR = 250 + 770 as in Sweden at this point. Swedish OR/OF will converge into a traditional NAT OR/OF structure in perhaps 15 to 20 years time, but we are not there yet. This is the reason why Hans Enstrom removed the distribution of personnel as for him Swedish OF/OR is hooly and all correct. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Revert/Edit war to start again!
I have been compromising a great deal, trying to work things out without direct editing, as I thought was the way you wanted to pursue here. However, without any discussions, notes or any attempts in the direction of conflict resolutions (wikis recommendations), Hans Engstroms started editing and his original view was forced in AGAIN.

Question, I am the only one who is not allowed to enter the article before discussing it to reaching full consensus or are we going to start an edit/revert war again? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to avoid taking part in this flamed debate, but I have to clarify a few things.


 * The reason why we (most of us who participate in this talk page) does not want to include the term NCO / CO when describing the OF ranks are because it makes the reader confused. When you say that a Brigadier General is a NCO, a english reader will be very confused, because in his world, a NCO primarily train and lead soldiers. In my opinion, including information that before NBO Sweden had actual comissions is irrelevant, because comissions are obsolete and the only reason for still existing are that those who received a comission prior NBO still has them. It's a 30 year old transition that has not yet been completed. Describing Officers (OF ranks) as NCO just confuses the reader.


 * All of us here in this talk page know what you mean and understands it, but a reader with no prior knowledge of the Swedish Armed Forces will not understand it. I don't know the english term for it, but in Swedish this is called syftningsfel. The literal translation is correct, but the word/term is used for something else and because of this a reader may belive we mean something else.


 * I hope I have explained our point of view, please ask if you have any further questions. Faffia (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please understand the issue that I am dealing with here. This paragraph is about whether we should discuss things or not or return to an edit war. The article has been altered again as you may know.


 * I am not discussing about the NCO/CO here, that is just one of many examples of me compromising despite of what is being stated in official documents clearly supports my claims. I agreed with the Officers term, din't I.


 * Out of the purpose of this paraprah thou:
 * The original issue is that some (military personnel) wanted to call most of the military staff for Commissioned Officers and I had to prove them wrong by presenting official documents. What is really confusing is that everyone is an officer in Sweden despite of the lack of troops. Faffia, we cannot modify facts to suit editors interpretation. We may only present facts as they are from official documents.
 * There are no NCOs with the rank of brigadgeneral or above. Anyway, top ranked NCOs in the US are working at levels where perhaps Swedish Brigadgernearl or Generalmajorer are. Sergeant Major of the Army is such a NCO role. Swedish generals are administrators and there isn’t even a battalion for generals to command anymore (compared with 30 brigades before) and thus no need for having generals. Brigadgeneral is just an administrave rank. Is there really a need for having Commissioned Officers at all anymore considering the lack of troops in Sweden?


 * What do you mean, "there isn’t even a battalion for generals to command anymore (compared with 30 brigades before)"? There are numerous battalions in the war organization exactly as there was 30 brigades once upon a time. Swedish generals might be administrators during certain periods of their careers, but so are American generals too. Swedish generals do serve as commanders of troop. --UN1202 (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * NO standing battalions in Sweden ! ,,,, but Sweden has one rifle company in Kosovo and one in Afganistan... mabye there will be one more company in Afganistan as they are expanding their business over there
 * When war breaks out and sweden does all it can for 90 days to produce troops: it will have two mechanized battalions and some 3 companies. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about standing battalions? We didn't have any standing brigades either, and you compared with those. Yes, the time for mobilization of all units is very long now, but the number of battalions in the war organization is significantly more than "two mechanized battalions".--UN1202 (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * two battalionls after 90 days of full mobilization -- Sweden may produce some 6 batttalions more after one to three years. It takes this time to train all the staff for those
 * During the 30 brigades era, brigdes could start rolling after a week or less.--Malin Lindquist (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the time to mobilize units are now much longer than during "the 30 brigade era". Still, there are several battalions ready to mobilize. You however made the false statement that "there isn’t even a battalion for generals to command anymore". Also, the number of battalions after 90 days of mobilization is higher than two. I think you are confusing the units that Sweden submits to various organizations such as EU with what we can mobilize for national defence. The Armed Forces has changed a lot since your military service, it might be difficult to keep up. --UN1202 (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Where are those extra battalions that you claim exists... any references or documents? Are you reffering to Home Defense units? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A complete list can be found in the latest Regleringsbrev http://www.mil.se/upload/dokumentfiler/regleringsbrev/Regleringsbrev%20FM%202009.pdf I am not just refering to Home Guard units. --UN1202 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know about this list already and you may find those numbers in a nice table at Swedish Armed Forces ... two battalins are ready after 90 days of full mob. and 6 battalions after one year -- thats about it! --Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you already knew that, why did you state that "there isn’t even a battalion for generals to command anymore"? It doesn't do much for your credibility... --UN1202 (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't get the point. There is no battalions today and Sweden may only produce two battalions after 90 days of full mobilization. The point is that there is no need for havig generals anymore. The army may be led by a colonel assisted by a lieutenamt colonel and two majors for each of those battalions. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the point is that you time and again state something which turns out to be wrong... --UN1202 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We should just keep the discipline to alter the article based on consensus.
 * The point is the way we should discuss, argue and update the article.


 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, not necessarily. Since everything you claim is wrong (and/or misspelt), I think it behooves us to correct your errors, especially as you post consistently without references.
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As there are no longer issued any comissions, in 5-10 years a Brigadier General will no longer hold a comission. With time no one in Sweden will hold a comission. Therefor, as time goes past, in the end, all officers will be NCO. As I said, it's a 30 year transition from the introduction of NBO which has not yet been completed.


 * Again, only based on your definition of commission. Which is wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_(armed_forces), or are you going to claim that Swedish officers are unable to command their units? Also, again, is a förordnande not a commissioning?
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the distribution of personnel, it is irrelevant in the article. Sweden has a Conscription army. But we cannot produce officers with conscription. Therefor the number of officers are constant, while in times of war, conscripts are used to fill the army with muscles. As such, the distribution of personnel is misleading when taking into consideration the total number of soldiers etc used in war. I am well aware that the numbers in Årsredovisning etc are the actual numbers we have today. The Conscription Sweden uses is only basic training. Some contries have a 4 year conscription time, and of which a couple of month is basic training and the rest of that period is service in the standing force.


 * But sweden does not have any standing force. We have a insatsorganisation and soldiers taking turn on being on the alert, if anything happens. The army, fleet and airforce as well as the National Home Guard are taking turns so there's always X number of soldiers on the alert.


 * Using those numbers when comparing to, say, U.S. and Briton which have professional armies and does not use a conscription army as Sweden does, those numbers are misleading, and as you say, why have 19.000 officers with only 500 soldiers? Simply because those 19.000 officers are meant to lead an army of maybe 150.000 conscripts in the event of war.
 * But those numbers (krigsplacering) are not publically available, as far as I know.
 * Many of us others does not want to include the table because we belive it's misleading for a war-time organisation and the numbers are useless in a comparison with other nations as they do not consider those in krigsplacering. Also, those numbers does not take into consideration the National Home Guard, or other volounteer corps which are in fact a part of the Insatsorganisation (I'm not trying to glorify the Home Guard, but they are an important part of the Armed Forces, and essential for the Insatsorganisation).


 * I'm not saying the numbers are incorrect, but they are misleading as it does not include the full context. And misleading data isn't worth putting in a encyclopedia.
 * Until we have figured out a way to display those numbers in a non-misleading way, we should continue to discuss it, but not putting it in the article. Sincerely, Faffia (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyting can be made irrelevant according to your reasoning and only those who have the need to hide facts reason like you do.
 * A large portion of wiki is based on anual reports and papers from Universities.
 * Figures from audited reports are never missleading, and if they were why are they produced.
 * If they are missleading you should raise a complait to the Swedish Government.


 * There is only one way to display numbers and that is as numbers. Number of tanks, number of employed soldiers, number of persons in a rank.


 * Where are those 150,000 troops? Why not 1,500,000? No one has reported about them. Are you trying to fake something here?


 * I have reported all the military personnel and the conscripts that are trained to staff units after 90 days of full mobilization. A couple of battalions and companies. I HAVE INCLUDED EVERYTHING that you could poosible find as reprted except for the Home Defense, voulunteer militas or the policeforce. If you think that this is irelevant then we could as well delete all the pages about Swedish military as the military might not exist at all. Without those numbers it is compleately meangless to describe ranks when there might not be anyone having them or if everyone is a captain and no ones is a private.


 * Are we going to start an edit war?...I have not touched the article in hopes that we may work this out... which means that we discuss before editing.
 * If Stulfsten no longer has your or Hans Engstroms consensus about the procedures we agreed upon, then we have failed again. On my part, I have followed consensus and everyones wishes.....
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 90 days i syour arbitrary assesment, taken because it supports your tenous contentions. If you want figures, see http://www.mil.se/sv/Forsvarsmakten/Dokument/Arsredovisningar/Post.aspx.
 * In 2001 11 923 men and women were trained as soldiers, sailors and noncoms (old system)and declared suitable for duty "krigsplaceringsbara").
 * In 2002 13 271
 * In 2003 11 603
 * In 2004 12 756
 * In 2005 11 402
 * In 2006 8 953
 * In 2007 6 957


 * That's 64 000 men right there. Or do you calim they've forgotten everything they've ever learnt? As far as equipping them goes, Thre's the 160 Strv 121 just standing around. There's some 250 CV9040 surpolus to requiremnt, etc. etc.
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CALM DOWN! You said yourself "why have 18 500 officers with only 500-700 troops?" and I replied. The number 150.000 I took out from the blue. But all those 19.500 employees (10000 YO) are not meant to just command 500-700 troops, nor just the conscripts after 90 days of mobilization. In the event of mobilization, there are lots of training to do when calling in conscripts as most of them will not have worn a uniform in years. The purpose of the "Repetitionsövningar" in past times was to reduce the time in training in the event of mobilization. But these "Repövn" are no longer conducted and therefor the mobilization takes much longer time.
 * I'm not trying to fake anything or to start an edit war, but everytime anyone critizise you, Malin, you're going crazy about it.
 * I'm only trying to convey to you that when including a table which is difficult for an external reader to understand, the table will not paint the full picture, or maybe even the wrong one. Until we can agree, we should not include the table just yet. Please try to understand. Faffia (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What is not confusing in this article.... translations are the worst part! and then the rank order at the bottom part and then this mumbling about paygrade. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Malin for once. This article is upside-down now. Most relevant information (Ranks and Insignias) should be first and order, distribution and translation after. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Before going all they way down to the rank table, readers have to get some background readings or the rank table wll only look like a mess of of funny drawings --Malin Lindquist (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be a minor mistake made in the translation section. In the OF category, Löjtnant has been given the code OF-2 (should be OF-1), and, as a result of that, all the other ranks has been given the wrong code, and on top of that, General has disappeared from the list. As I'm not quite comfortable with the templates and stuff, is there someone else who could correct this minor flaw?

Also, while I'm at it, wouldn't it be a good idea to do something about this talk page? Right now, it's huge, which makes it quite hard to follow. 1977s717 (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the observation! I've fixed it now. Faffia (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Divide and separate
I've noticed you've included rank distribution numbers, Malin. At least split it into another section, it's just makes for difficult reading. Faffia (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the table does not include any numbers of privates etc. Both you and I know that there aren't 0 privates.
 * This is what I meant with misleading data... Faffia (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact there are no OR-1 (privates) that fit into the 'Personel'-table. They all go into the 'Recruits and trainees'-table. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be included in the 770... What are those called in Afganistan an Kosovo ? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OR-2. OR-1 is only used during national service. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Huge transition is underway and those who enlist as Gomer Pyles after 2012, will get this rank at the time they enter the bootcamp. --Malin Lindquist ([[User

talk:Malin Tokyo|talk]]) 19:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)~
 * To what does this refer?
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * SO aspirants get the rank O2 rigth away when they enter their bootcamp for some unknown reasons ??? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)~
 * O2?
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Aspirants have generally already completed their basic training (Värnplikt), therefor it's an easy way to solve the distinction between conscripts/recruits and aspirants are made by making them OR-2.
 * However, are SO trainees called aspirant or kadett (Officersaspiranter)? See ?? On mil.se Specialistofficersutbildning (SOU) is found under the category Officersutbildning, and Aspirantutbildning is found paralell to Officersutbildning. Faffia (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Rank vs tjanstestallning
Whats the diff sisters? If there isn't a diff, then we should change the order of ranks in the rank chart, because the purpose of a rank chart is to show ranks, rite!?. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand that, how can you claim to be able to comment on this article at all. The depth and breadth of your ignorance is awe-inspiring.
 * Hans Engstrom (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposals from Sankt Ulfsten
1. I suggest that we change the headings in the tjänsteställning table to include both the Swedish and English terms for all three groups.

That is, change the first column title to "OF Officerare (Officers)"

the second to "OR Specialistofficerare (other officers)"

the third to "OR Gruppbefäl, soldater och sjömän (Squad leaders, soldiers and seamen)"
 * Agree: how about making it more simple, such as: "Officers" and "Other officers"
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused by your answer. First you say you agree to include the original Swedish titles, then you say you want to make it simpler by using only the English terms, ie you disagree with my point.--Stulfsten (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree to this proposal. Faffia (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

2. I also suggest changing the text above the duty grade table to:

The Swedish Armed Forces uses the term tjänsteställning to describe an comparative order of seniority and responsibility (etc). It can best be compared with the U.S. paygrade, but however does not neccesarily regulate the salary. When the conscript army was introduced in 1901 all officers had a higher tjänsteställning than the warrant officers(underofficerare) and non-commissioned officers(underbefäl). In a reform 1926 the tjänsteställning of the then highest warrant officer, fanjunkare, was increased to be equal with the junior officer rank underlöjtnant. In 1960 the tjänsteställning of the warrant officers were elevated further so that

i.The lowest warrant officer, sergeant, had a tjänsteställning just below the lowest officer rank, fänrik.

ii.The second warrant officer rank, fanjunkare, had a tjänsteställning between fänrik and löjtnant

iii.The highest warrant officer rank, förvaltare, had a tjänsteställning between löjtnant and kapten.

A reform 1972 renamed the underofficerare category kompaniofficerare and gave them the same rank titles and tjänsteställning as the junior officers(fänrik, löjtnant, kapten). The tjänsteställning of the ranks sergeant and fanjunkare were reduced such that fänrik again had a higher tjänsteställning than fanjunkare. (the förvaltare rank was abolished) These changes were kept with the major reform 1983(NBO) which created a single track career for military officers and the professional non-commissioned officer corps was abolished. The ranks used by these categores were given to conscript officers, with positions senior to other conscripts eg as squad leader. In 2008 the Swedish parliament decided to reintroduce a two track career system with a category called specialistofficerare. It was decided that some ranks in this category should, like the old underofficerare ranks in 1960-1972, have a tjänsteställning higher than the most junior officers. The current tjänsteställning of the Swedish ranks are shown in the table below.


 * This is good, Why don't we put this in the article!
 * How can we define the differnce between tjanstestallng and rank using fewer words?
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course we can improve the text further, but I take it you support my proposal to include the text in its current form?--Stulfsten (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was focusing on the tjanstestallning thing only since that's what the paragraph needs to explain!
 * There should be a much shorter way to describe the difference between rank and tjanstestallning and most of the text belong to the history part.
 * There are, however, some serious errors in the following passage:


 * 1983(NBO) which created a single track career for military officers and the professional non-commissioned officer corps was abolished. The ranks used by these categores were given to conscript officers, with positions senior to other conscripts eg as squad leader.


 * becase, (1) the professional non-commissioned and commissioned officer’s corps merged into one single professional officer’s corps -- all the non-comissioned officers weren't just fired; (2) Conscripts could reach up to company commander roles not just squad leaders; (4) Professonal officers could act in any kinds of roles (soldier, squad-leaders, instructors, administrator, etc) and conscrip officer could lead professional officers in the war org. (5) NBO was a reform for professional staff only.


 * I change it to the following to simplify and describe exactly what happened:


 * where the non-commissioned and commissioned corps merged into single corps called officers.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The focus in my text was on the changes in tjänsteställning. In 1972 when the underofficerare was renamed kompaniofficerare, the tjänsteställning of the former underofficerare ranks were lowered to below that of the officers. This was not changed in 1983. A fanjunkare had lower tjänsteställning than fänrik in 1975 and that was true as well in 1985. The reason I don't give all the details about the underbefäl(later plutonsofficerare) is that those ranks(korpraler, furirer) never had a tjänsteställning higher than the underofficerare or officerare. Their position in the hierarchy was not changed by the reforms.--Stulfsten (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree to this proposal. Faffia (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

3. I think the table with the distribution of personnel could be changed to just four rows, officerare, specialistofficerare, soldater and värnpliktiga. If we must include this gigantic table with all the ranks we could just as well include the other personnel tables as well, eg the active-inactive reserve officers table.


 * That defetes the purpose of the distribution. We want a quick and eays way to see how many there are in each rank, right?!
 * The table is kept small and there is a reference to more detailed information.
 * Accordnig to so many requests, I have
 * reduced the size of the table
 * removed the split between Comissioned and Non Comissioned officers.
 * translated the ranks accorsding to the transalaton table below, despite of my objections to the translations.
 * placed all ORs after all OFs
 * included all conscripts serving today
 * All to please you guys
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I must have misunderstood you. I thought your main reason for including a table was to show that there are "too many" officers compared to other officers(NCO, warrant etc) and troops. If we include a table saying that there are 9000 officers, 250 specialistofficerare, 800 troops and 8000 conscripts I think your point will still come across.(of course we still have the whole krigsplacering thing to discuss, but let's take that later) Then if we add another table saying that in 2019 it is planned to have 3700 officers, 4800 specialistofficerare, 6400 troops and 0 conscripts, then readers will understand that the current top heavy organisation is not meant to be permanent.--Stulfsten (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I accept this proposal. I also agree with Stulfstens last comment that the main reason for the personnel distribution section is to highlight the inflation of ranks. I kinda agree with Malin though to have all ranks, but in the end I belive it's better to shrink the table even further as Stulfsten suggests, because there's just too many full-size tables... 1) the translation table with OR 1-9 + OF 1-9. 2) the tjänsteställning table with OR 1-9 + OF 1-9 and 3) the insignia table with OR 1-9 + OF 1-9. Plus this distribution table with all the ranks as well. I belive it is sufficient to do as Stulfsten proposes. Faffia (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The purpose is not to inflate yours or Stuflstens ranks even if you feel that way.
 * The article is now approved by everyone (administrators are happy) after a very long and time-consuming process that I by no means want to reoccur. This is the truth and is the most accurate and informative information in this article.


 * This is not the time for you to screw this up again!


 * Faffia, you have made too many attempts falsifying and fabricating information in order for you to exaggerate your rank beyond truth. This information puts an end to that. It’s the truth.


 * The distribution of personnel invalidates lots of claims from you and others in this forum including the translation table and the OF/OR scale.
 * Both the OF/OR scale and the translation tables are false and should be removed at once.
 * The tabe should remain as it is.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not want to respond to those lies about me. Faffia (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, just forget about those 150,000 fictious soldiers or any other attempts to invent troops that do not exist.
 * Stay away from removing critical information regarding existing troops and officers as reported by the Governmnet.
 * Can we agree on this? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

4. I suggest changing the text in the translation section to:

This table shows the official translations of the Swedish ranks and their abbrevations.


 * I have no objections. Faffia (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

5. I suggest we move the tables before 1972 and 1983-2008 to a new article, Historical ranks in the Swedish Armed Forces--Stulfsten (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I want a quick and esy way to see current ranks and historical ranks thou,,,, having them at the bottom won't case any probs, or!? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is long already. If we move the historical ranks to a new article, there is much space(in the new article) to add more facts about the historical ranks, such as additional details regarding the tjänsteställning changes I presented above or the changes in the navy/AF insignias in 2001 etc etc--Stulfsten (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Stulfsten. IMHO, it's better to make this article as good as it can be in regards to the current ranks, historical ranks can be explained breifly and link to another article. Faffia (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes
I modified the article according to proposal 2 and 4. I'm willing to put 3 on hold because of Malin's strong objections but I think we should continue to discuss 1 and 5.--Stulfsten (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Some more things about 2 above: Forvaltare, Fanjunkare and Sergeant were also NCOs... but, I understand your point that those were more like officers (thereby referring to them as WOs) prior 1972 becase of their positions in the war org, wich could reach up to company commander levels. You forgot to mention that underbefal --> plutonsofficerare (1972) --> yrkes officerare (1983).  Why?


 * The text could be simplified as:
 * Underbefal(NCO) --> plutonsofficerare(NCO) --> professional officers (NCO)
 * Underofficerare(NCO "WO") --> kompaniofficerare(NCO "WO") --> professional officers (NCO "WO")
 * Officers (CO) --> Regementsofficerre(CO) --> professional officers (CO)


 * Btw, shouldn't this be part of the history section?


 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, you were the one who insisted on the focus on tjänsteställning in the article. You were the one who said that the rank table has to differ from what is shown on the official web page of the Swedish Armed Forces, because of the tjänsteställning of the ranks. About the section I wrote; it is not intended to be an exhaustive history of the ranks, as I said in point 5 above that can be done in a separate article. The reason I use the words warrant officer for underofficerare is because that's the official translation used by the Swedish Armed Forces themselves. Furthermore, the underofficerare had a fullmakt, couldn't be fired, and were until 1926 a group separate from the NCOs within the larger group underbefäl. From 1926 until 1972 the underofficerare were their very own category, completely separated from the undebefäl. The reason I didn't mention all the changes such as underbefäl->plutonsofficerare->officerare was firstly as I said earlier that I thought these kind of detalis could be included in their own article and secondly, the focus of my text was to explain that tjänsteställning is not something new introduced together with the 2008 reform and that earlier in the history of the Swedish Armed Forces, non-officers have had both lower, equal and higher tjänsteställning than officers. Your proposed simplification would then completely remove the very information the section was supposed to give. You have tried to argue that the fact that a Swedish fanjunkare 2009 has a higher tjänsteställning than a fänrik is something unprecedented and weird and I want to show that it's not.--Stulfsten (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The paragraph is good, but the part that explains NBO was inaccurate and may be written as I suggests. I was serving just when the NBO was being implemented and to state that conscripts only served as squad leaders as a result of NBO is ridiculous. NBO was a reform for those with military as a profession and did not impact the system to become a conscript officer. The reason for the decline of the VO corps is the decline of the conscript based system as a whole. Regarding tjanstestalning vs rank, we should ask a simple question to the Swedish military: "is fanjunkare a higher rank than Fanrik?". If so, then we need to change the rank table below. If not, the article will stay as it is in its current form. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should consult a dictionary. The expression e.g.(exempli gratia) is not the same as i.e.(id est). When I wrote that the ranks previously used by underbefäl and underofficerare were used by senior conscripts, i used squad leader as an example(thus the eg). I wasn't implying that squad leader was the highest position a conscript could attain. As the point of my text was to discuss tjänsteställning and not all the specifics of the ranks, I didn't want to include all details of when and what ranks a conscript could get. A fanjunkare had the same tjänsteställning whether he/she was employed or not so it's not important in this context if a conscript could have the rank fanjunkare before 1983. Regarding tjänsteställning vs rank, as you put it, I don't see how there's anything to discuss. A Fanjunkare has a higher tjänsteställning than a Fänrik. There is no doubt about that. The rank table on the official web page places the ranks in OF-OR order. There is no doubt about that either.--Stulfsten (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

COI tag?
A coi tag was placed in this edit on 22 April by 83.227.130.26. This editor did not indicate which person had the conflict. It is traditional that tags need discussion, and the IP editor has not explained the reason for the tag. Unless discussion is forthcoming, I suggest that the tag be removed. The issue was discussed at WP:COIN without a finding of COI against any current participants. EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would have been me :-)
 * Since work on this article finaly starts to make progress and all information now in the article have been agreed upon by all involved, I see no reason to keep the COI-tag.
 * I believe that there still is a conflict of interest between Malin and the rest, but that conflict is limited to the talk-page. The information in the article itself is not subject to conflict any more. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
As we seem to be agreed that there is no COI currently as regards the article

and

That the talk page is almost completely illegible

as well as

That there are still some issues outstanding

I would suggest that we archive the current talk page, so as to make it possible to discuss adding data without scrolling backwarda and forwards. As I understand it, the archived page is istill availbel for us to check earlier referneces?

Vote? I count 5 major editors to this article. Hans Engstrom (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree to archive the current discussion, but could we do it after we have finished discussing my 5 points? That way the new clean talk page could start with very few(one?) outstanding issue(s).--Stulfsten (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I vote in favor of archiving the talk page.
 * If the suggestions in the Proposals from Sankt Ulfsten aren't resolved or agreed upon within a couple of days, I see no reason why not to archive the talk page and keep that section in this main talk page. Faffia (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Distribution of personnel section
I propose the following text:
 * The merge of military personnel into one single officer’s corps 1983 resulted in a distribution of personnel where most are officers. The 2009 reform has just begun and those 260 specialistofficerare with the rank "Sergeant 1st class" are the first products of the new two-career path system. The distribution also reflects that most of the officers with NCO specialties have not migrated to specialistofficerar ranks yet as the change is not forced upon them.

--Malin Lindquist (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What about:
 * When the Swedish conscript army was created, the only rank available to conscripts was private. The employed personnel consisted of officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and privates. Later the practice of permanently employed privates was discontinued and conscripts given ranks higher than private. In the 1983 reform, all categories of employed military officers were merged in to one officerare(officers) category and the duties performed by the NCOs and warrant officers were given to employed officers, who were in these tasks assisted by conscript NCOs and conscript officers.


 * The 2009 reform has just begun and those 260 specialistofficerare with the rank "Sergeant 1st class" are the first products of the new two-career path system. Today, officers performing duties intented for the specialistofficerare ranks are not forced to change from OF to OR ranks, which is why there still are so few specialistofficerare. Since a few years, the Armed Forces have again employed privates outside of international missions and their number is set to increase as conscription will most likely be abolished next year.
 * --Stulfsten (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

tjanstestallning table
A minor suggestion/comment: In the tjänsteställning list, shouldn't the title "Soldiers", above OR1-5, be changed to also include seamen? For example: Soldiers/seamen. 1977s717 (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's rigth! It should be "Squad leaders, soldiers and seamen" if we are to follow official documents.
 * I think we all agree, so I'll change that right away.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to propose we change the top labels as follows: --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said in proposal 1 above, I think the Swedish name should be included in all three column headings. After all, Swedish is the language used in the Swedish Armed Forces and I think it's extra important to include the original name as Sweden does not use the British two tier system.--Stulfsten (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * totally agree! --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Another point
 * There is a level between Generallojtnant and General -- guess what? Shall we include her rank in the tjanstestallnings table? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What rank would that be? 130.237.216.122 (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Director General -- deputy supreme commander --Malin Lindquist (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tjänsteställning as Generallöjtnant, and it's a him.Hans Engstrom (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are indeed disconnected from reality! Deputy supreme commander is Marie Hafström and it's a woman. Her title is Director General and is higher ranked than any Lieutenant Generals. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And I think that sort of terminally finished your credibility. Marie Hafström, who did an excellent job both at Försvarsmakten and earlier, stepped down on the 1st of October 2008. Ulf Bengtsson became the new GD on the 15th of october. Sad that you know so little about what you claim to be an area of expertise, but about par for the course.Hans Engstrom (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Generaldirektör is not a rank, it is an assignment, and a totaly civilian such. There are general directors at numerous government organisations such as Stefan Strömberg (GD of rikspolisen), Katrin Westling-Palm (GD of pensionsmyndigheten), Helena Lindberg (Räddningsverket) and Olle Norberg (Rymdstyrelsen). Neither Marie Hafström nor Ulf Bengtsson have any military ranks according to their CVs. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ulf Bengtsson does not write out his rank in his CV, but he mentions that he attended to 'Platoon Officer College' (whatever that is in swedish) 1975-1976 and that he served in two swedish UN battalions. His military rank is probably Lieutenant. 130.237.216.122 (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct! The position Generaldirektör is not a rank, it's close to american director. Generaldirektör (general director) is the swedish title for the head of an Government agency. Marie and now later Ulf is not deputy supreme comander. Ulf has the position of deputy head of the Government agency Försvarsmakten, but not right to command military personal in armed conflicts. Ghostrider (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)