Talk:Norwegian Armed Forces

Merging
Definetely should - as of now, it fails to give the whole picture, at the same time at the Norwegian defence forces are so small that more than one article is not practical - better coverage in one article is my recommendation Endrelunde 12:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree--jrleighton 11:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * NOTE: I have also added recommodations that all four existing pages on the Norwegian military, army, air force, navy and home guard are added into this page. I imagine this new page to include the main sections of each of the existing ones, while putting listings, such as listings of vessels, units and ranks in special pages that would be linked. This would improve coherence in the text, and, as mentioned, give a much better impression of the whole of the defence force. Endrelunde 12:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is against precedent, and the solution is to merely expand the articles. There's so much history from the past couple hundred years, specifically under World War II. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 00:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is against precedent. Each branch should have their own page. A merger will only result in a split later on when each section gets too big.Inge 14:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As it is now, the pages of the seperate branches are very small. I still propose a single page for the Norwegian Defence Force, and then seperate pages for listings og ranks, ships and units (which now comprises the majority of the pages!) and more detailed history.Endrelunde 13:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Endrelunde.--jrleighton 14:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't agree. It is better to keep each article and expand them.Inge 17:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. Merging is the cop-out path here. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no way we reached a consensus here! &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Consistency
Just about every single defense force article on Wikipedia is split up according to its' branches - no matter how small each article may be. The suggestion is moot as Wikipedia guidelines encourage consistency and to follow the manual of style. Joffeloff 17:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. What we have here are people making a suggestion, and receiving at least as may negatory responses as they did positive responses, and still acting on it. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not acted on anything, as I do see the dispute involved. I still believe that one main article would be preferable, but I will bow to the precedent, and withdraw the suggestion. Instead I suggest that those of us that believe in the virtue of one article continue to develop the Norwegian Defence Force article, while leaving the existing pages on the seperate branches untouched. Hopefully this will make everyone happy.

Endrelunde 18:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The list of Army Structure is wrong.
The Norwegian Army has no longer Brigades. After 2008 will all units in the norwegian army only be battalions. The Norwegian Army has no langer Brigades or Divisions, only battalions.


 * Well, this month's issue of RAIDS, a French language military review, dedicates an article to Norway's military. Here are some scans, with translations, of the tables:
 * Norwegian Army - according to the article, the 6th reserve brigade shall be dismantled under the reform plan. ISTAR stands for "Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance".
 * Norwegian Air Force
 * In both cases, sorry for the bad quality of images, but I am not really skilled in using skanners and Photoshop. There is also a table of the Navy, but it says that the near entirety of the Navy is regrouped at Bergen and that a Battalion of "Rangers" is under the Navy command. The Coast Guard is said to have 21 flotillas (based at Harstad and Haakonsvern) and a battalion of "Coastal Rangers".Russoswiss 15:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

equipment
what about listing what weapons and equipment the norwegian army uses?
 * Hm. I think that would belong on the page about the army (or battalions) not on the Defence Force pages. --GunnarRene 03:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least the Air Force and the Army mostly use the same equipment. Rifles, uniforms, vehicles etc. --95.34.224.37 (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Iceland
I guess this might be worth mentioning when more information surfaces: http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1753031.ece - BsL 00:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

NDF force size
Instead of the edit warring going on, it might be best to see – and cite – what the NDF's own website says its force levels are. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Rename it
"Norwegian defence force" should be renamed either "Norwegian armed forces" or "military of Norway". This is the norm for every other military articles on Wikipedia, and this should be no exception. 30. October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingsforsheeba (talk • contribs) 04:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Article renamed
Article has now been renamed to follow consistency with other country specific military articles on Wikipedia. Wingsforsheeba (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not necessarily correct nor consistent.

The Norwegian term "forsvaret" literary means "The Defence" or defence force. The term Armed Forces ("Væpnede Styrker") is not generally used to describe the Norwegian military.

In my opinion the correct approach is to apply a redirect from Norwegian Armed Forces to Norwegian Defence Forces.

With respect to consistency, take a look at Irish Defence Forces at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Armed_Forces Vola31 (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian Defence Force
The article should be named correctly. There are no armed forced in Norway, but defence force only. 85.77.99.18 (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hvlogo.png
The image Image:Hvlogo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:Rnon-logo-70x100.gif
 * Image:Kystvakten.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --17:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"The chief of the special forces" ("sjefen for spesialstyrkene")
"...som igjen leverte fanen videre til sjefen for spesialstyrkene, oberst Torgeir Gråtrud. "

The above quote signifies that all the (Norw.) special forces, had one commander, as of " 17. oktober 2007"

Source: http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fd/aktuelt/nyheter/2007/arverdig-avslutning-for-lingeklubben.html?id=486257 --FSK tweeker (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Outdated text?
"The Norwegian armed forces will be reorganised between 2005 and 2008. The planned structure after 2008 is as follows. Note that much of the listed units are still under procurement and are years from being operational." --FSK tweeker (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Service Time Wrong
The Service Time says that it is in theory 12 months mandatory military service which is in practice shortened to 6 or 9 months, (as of 2009).

This is blatantly wrong. I have recently been discharged (16th December) after 11 months of service, and can tell you that the norm is still to get as close to 12 months as possible. I don't know what departments or units practice such a short service period, but it makes no sense and is at least not the norm in Brigade Nord.

Subsequently, the official period of mandatory military service is actually 18 months, with 12 of them being served in what we call "Førstegangstjeneste" (basically, what many people call the compulsory military service is actually just the first part.) The compulsory military service ("Verneplikten"), another six months nominally spread out over the years until the person reaches 44.

- Formerly of the 2nd Battalion, Brigade Nord.

Dead Links
The Norwegian Armed Forces recently updated their websites, and as a result most of the links on wikipedia are now dead. --95.34.224.37 (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

FSAN is missing
I just want to point out that FSAN is completely missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.50.234 (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Norwegian Armed Forces in 1989
I created two articles with the structure of the Norwegian Armed Forces as they were assigned to NATO in 1989:


 * Allied Forces North Norway
 * Allied Forces South Norway

I am sure the info about the Coastal Artillery, the Air Force and the Army is correct. However there is no info about Home Guard units and the assignment of ships in the Navy. I.e. the only info about the Navy I did find: 22nd Fast Attack Craft Squadron was based at Olavsvern Naval Base. But what about other squadrons? What ships were assigned to which squadron? And which Home Guard units existed in which districts? I have a complete list of ships in the Norwegian Navy in 1989, but would need to know which ships belonged to which flotilla or squadron as i.e. in this article: Commander German North Sea Subarea. If anyone has information, please feel free to either add it directly to the articles or leave it on my talk page. Thanks, noclador (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

2017 merge proposal
Support. Some years ago there was a similar merge proposal that had no consensus. However, the current state of Conscription in Norway, which is of comparable size to the existing section here, suggest that a merge is now appropriate. Klbrain (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

FSMK
Should probably mention Staff Band of the Norwegian Armed Forces (Forsvarets stabsmusikkorps = FSMK) somewhere. Not sure where to put it. - dcljr (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Trying to improve the infobox "Service branches" entry
The left one is the current infobox: It uses a template called Tree list to illustrate that the Coast Guard is a part of the Navy, and not its own branch. It uses several full names unnecessarily, which I've shortened. But primarily, I think this list is too tall, and I've tried to shorten it using the template Image array (on the right).

This is where I could use some help. The image array is not centered like the primary or secondary infobox images would be, making the whole infobox wider. I've tried using a line break, but it doesn't help in this case.

The infobox in the lower right is pulled from Infobox/doc, and it illustrates that when the label, in this case branches, is defined, then the data is placed on the right side of the infobox. I haven't found an override for this.

I have come up with three imperfect options:

It's technically also possible to leave the infobox widened or set the image array perrow to 2, but both of these options partly defeats the purpose of the edit.

Any thoughts? BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)