>>521991 Underfunded and understaffed like the other guy said.
Our former PM called the armed forces a "side interest". They used the very strong military we used to have during the cold war as their own personal piggy bank so they could import more third worlders and lower taxes at the same time.
Now that Putin has started saber rattling against NATO there is talk of giving the military more resources, and the possbility of joining NATO means we are obliged to rebuild our armed forces regardless.
>In a year our foreign minister has pissed off the entire middle-east and Israel at the same time.
Dude, everybody fucking loves her for what she said because unlike almost all the rest of the corrupt western half of the hemisphere, she wasn't mincing words when talking about either Israel or Saudi Arabia. Both are fucking douchebag countries that are cut so much slack in the media that it's absurd.
Saudi Arabia is one of the meanest countries around but they're still treated as "Good guys" because of the oil. Meanwhile, they fund ISIS and other extremist groups because they're Sunni and hate Iran.
Israel are just dicks. I'm not talking about the "defending ourselves" part, that's Ok, I'm talking about many of their policies toward their conquered space. I mean, what the fuck they're just shit heads when it comes to treating the people they've conquered.
>>521825 The Deluge had tremendous consequences for the viability of the Polish-Lithuanian state. The state barely recovered when Charles XII absolutely btfo Augustus II for siding with Russia. This also had other consequences, as Charles's decision to finish off Poland once and for all totally left Livonia and the Gulf of Finland unprotected against Peter the Great, who occupied the area easily even after the devastating defeat at Narva. So basically Charles cucked himself with the delusion that Britain would never let the Russians occupy the Baltic or that he could recover the Baltic again, which was retarded considering Sweden's limited resources and Russia's endless ones.
>>523375 >Thinks that we are responsible for other peoples war because they use our weapons
Interesting this train of thought, which seems so prevalent in my ocuntr. We are the lords of the world, shepherds of lesser peoples, whose actions they are not themselves to be held accounted for, instead it is us who are responsible for their actions. A trade between two men is completely without blame, it is the ill deed commited that is the harbinger of accusations.
>>523395 >instead it is us who are responsible for their actions. A trade between two men is completely without blame this nigga. it's called hypocrisy senpai. when you make a profit selling weapons that make killing highly efficient for third world countries that lack the expertise in arms manufacturing, and then lecture them for being so violent and unstable, we call that hypocrisy.
>>525008 >It still one of the best in the world Not by any metric. I can't defend your nation from an aggressor, it cannot meaningfully assist and ally, and it cannot project power to promote your interests abroad.
It cannot do any of the things a military exists to do.
"we have some cool stuff and train gud" is irrelevant when your military is so horribly undersized.
I I found a nation tomorrow, train one guy non-stop for two years, and give him laser guns, a 18"cock, and the best jet fighter money can buy, that doesn't make it a good military, because 3 thugs with crowbars could waltz into his house at night, kill him, and take my country over.
>>525570 >it cannot meaningfully assist and ally, and it cannot project power to promote your interests abroad.
sweden has been involved in plenty of conflicts in the middle east in the past decades
>I can't defend your nation from an aggressor
yeah it can, our standing army is small but we have alot of citizens in hemvärnet basically they have done basic training and then they train yearly for free so if someone ever declares war on sweden all these people would get drafted expanding our army by magnitudes
also nato bitch
last but not least war is to unpredictable to be able to say exactly what is going to happen if X invaded Y
if i would tell you finland could single handedly stand against a russian invasion with a million men 5000 tanks and 3800 aircraft with only quarter of the men 32 tanks and a 100 aircraft you would have laughed and called me retarded but it still fucking happend
>>525684 >sweden has been involved in plenty of Conflicts in the middle east in the past decades MEANINGFUL.You fielded less than 1,000 men in ISAF. Georgia of all places contributed more. Individual states in the US can field more men and equipment out of national guard units.
Is the contribution appreciated? Yes.
Is it significant? No. No it is not.
>>525684 >also nato bitch You're not fucking in nato. This is also irrelevant. Again, if I give a nigger a hi-point and join nato, it doesn't mean my army is somehow good or effective. It means NATO HAS effective forces. They're still not mine.
>BUT MUH CONSCRIPTS ...So your plan is to leverage your small population as conscripts, despite the piss poor preformance of conscripts ocmpared ot professioanl soldiers.
In a rush. Against better prepared foes. When anyone invading you would have more men and equipment.
You spend 1.2% of GDP on your military. You stopped routine conscription five fucking years ago. Official policy is to stay neutral because your entire government knows you can't fend off a serious aggressor.
You would not be able to arm, train, or feed masses of conscripts effectively. Your professional army would get rolled over in short order, denying you the needed time. Worse, the small size means training cadres taken from combat arms would seriously affect fighting strength. They would die. Pointlessly.
>if i would tell you Finland could single handedly stand against a Russian invasion with a million men 5000 tanks and 3800 aircraft with only quarter of the men 32 tanks and a 100 aircraft you would have laughed and called me retarded but it still fucking happened
Was finland a gun control heavy shithole, with constant gender senitivity, a relatively small shooting culture (with virtually none doing the kind of shooting that takes place in modern war-IE, short range, rapid fire, with emphasis on rapid acquisition and followup with movement and quick magazine changes)?
>>525684 Part 2: Was finland full of modern swedes, who are afraid of their own cocks, much less violence?
Or was it full of men who routienly hunted, in an era where bolt action rifles were the military mainstay?
Did finland fight in the modern era, where thermals are common, wireless comms and everyday thing, and most war urban?
Or did it fight in a period where a hunter knew more about military shooting than many soldiers, a man in the woods was invisible, aerial recon was near useless, air support could, be shot down with small arms, and tanks were aiming out of the fucking equivalent of a telescope?
Did they fight men with modern communications and weaponry, or with bolt actions, signal flags, and shoddy training?
If you think you're the next finland because >snow+conscripts You're fucking delusional.
That lion you see when you look at your army?
It's a fucking kitten with a mane your government bought at the pet store. Maybe it'll grow up big and strong, but you idiots need to feed it first, and you've been lax about it.
Sweden fields some good gear and good men.
It doesn't have enough of either to be "one of the best." It doesn't have enough of anything to do more than try to please potential allies and blood a small corp of men who MIGHT form the nucleus of a worthy force.
You want to be proud? Good. Vote. Get politicians who will support your military and expand it to a reasonable size. Stop burying your damn head in the snow out of blind love for your country.
It takes weeks before an American recruit so much as touches his rifle. Months before he leaves basic to actually learn to be infantry.
Fighting requires you to know your weapon, how to use it, as well as tactics, communications, simple field craft, how to not get shot by friendlies, and a million other variables. Theory is also important.
This takes fucking months. For infantry.
Comms guys? Gone for a year for training.
If you want an effective conscript force, you need to be CONSTANTLY conscripting and training the populace, you need to prepare the countryside wit strongpints and ready bridged for destruction so you can buy time to muster them, and they need to keep their damn weapons in case the armory in their area gets hit in the first day.
There's a reason the swiss do things they way they do, and it isn't for fun.
i would argue that a thousand men can do a major difference but whats the point its not very significant
>You're not fucking in nato.
oh thats my bad i could have swore we where oh well
>Again, if I give a nigger a hi-point and join nato, it doesn't mean my army is somehow good or effective.
no but it sure ass hell makes someone think twice before they invade that was the point i was trying to make
>BUT MUH CONSCRIPTS
well they arent conscripts they are already trained and continuiously keep training where as conscripts are drafted from civilians with no previous training people in hemvärnet are not considered civilians
>In a rush
one of the things they are trained in sometimes they are given a two day notice in wich they have to report to their base as fast as possible they get exempted from any other obligations when they do this (unless its family matters and its only happend to my brother on the weekends) the majority of them are there the same day they get the notice
sources my brother is in hemvärnet
>Was finland a gun control heavy shithole
no but guns are ALOT more common in sweden then you think sure we migth have alot of gun control but theres also alot of people with guns still irrelavent tho since this tied up into the whole conscript thing
> a relatively small shooting culture
you have obviously never seen a älg jakt :^)
>with virtually none doing the kind of shooting that takes place in modern war
there i have to agree still irrelavent tho
>with constant gender senitivity
how the fuck is this relevant? no seriously what does this have to do with war? i get the feeling /pol/ has told you to many things about sweden
Finnish conscripts are largely trained to do sissi warfare, which is the only way of warfare we can do against Russians. In Sissi warfare having a militarized population is necessary, and besided Finland has a a professional army and the conscript.
>>525818 >you can't meaningfully contribute >WHATS THE POINT IF OUR CONTRIBUTION ISN'T SIGNIFICANT Meaninigful and significant mean the same thing in this context. Your military is currently incapable of meaningful or significant operations abroad. This is one of a very few things a military should be able to do.
My STATE has twice that manpower in the guard, and he have a far smaller population. >but muh militia 22 thousand men. That's not a significant force for national defence. At all.
Also >all these people would get drafted expanding our army by magnitudes Draftees are conscripts.
The force you are talking about would not need to be drafted.
It also would not expand your fighting forces by so much as a single order of magnitude.
It would feed 22,000 more of your citizens into an unwinnable fight, in the HOPE of surviving long enough to get the west to save you. >no but guns are ALOT more common in sweden then you think Two million. Counting parts. Factoring out weapons that are totally unsuitable to general issue or use-pisotls, revolvers, shotguns, "parts", you get 1,085,000.
If you draft almost every male fit for military service, arm them with the rifles and few thousand automatics laying around, and then use whatever surplus your army has, you'd be short on rifles. Not modern rifles. Rifles. Any rifles.
>no but it sure ass hell makes someone think twice before they invade that was the point i was trying to make You're not in nato. Even if a nato nation assists you, nobody else is obliged to because they weren't attacked first. Even if you were, your own commander has said your military is capable of no more than week of combat.
You'd already have been forced to surrender before anything other than jet fighters could reach you. The US could get one infantry battalion on the ground, and, IF one is nearby, an MEU.
In other words, you're fucked. You can't survive long enough to be saved barring luck.
>Figthing requires training This takes fucking months. For infantry.
The majority of the people in hemvärnet hade a year and a half of training (prior to the reform) and those who joined in the past few years get 3 months of basic and a few months here and there if they join hemvärnet
Not to mention alot of those who decied to they dont want to be a proffesional soldier anymore is still in hemvärnet
>>525872 If the Russians went full retard supervillian tierand decided you WERE the new Finland, you'd get conquered, provided they kept it secret and took and adequate amount of time to prepare. The only way you'd stop this is if EVERY soldiers and militiaman fought to the death, and your government completely refused to surrender, and you manage to hold out for a month or more.
As is, by the time the US and anyone else who cared could mobilize enough men to help, we'd be "liberating" you by fighting people dug into your own population centers. >>525833 Finland has their shit together and is actually prepared to defend itself. I like you people. And you're not trying to claim your military is among the best, unlike our dear swede.
>>525853 Swedish gear is great. And yes, I understand what the hemvärnet is. It's still not able to do that the other anon seems to think.
Make it five times the size and it would be able to.
Yes, I understand that this is demographically hard for Sweden.
I'm not mad, i'm appalled. Sweden is a nation of decent people that is categorically unable to defend itself. This rarely ends well for anyone, and construing a woefully undersized and funded army to be among the best-not even adequate, but the BEST- is incredibly foolish.
Especially when the idiots a few streets over get more belligerent by the day.
Lock your doors, buy a dog, and expand the hemvärnet while the times are good, so they fucking stay good.
>>525887 >i'm not mad, i'm appalled. Sweden is a nation of decent people that is categorically unable to defend itself.
we like this thing called peace and we will most likely be able to stay neutral in any world conflicts (unless russia trys something but in that case they wouldent start with sweden and if they did the whole west would be next to us in the blink of a eye)
>Especially when the idiots a few streets over get more belligerent by the day.
you need to stop going to /pol/ for your information if any swedes have told you how horrible situation is in sweden they are either shills or pathetic shut inns that havent actually been to the "ghettos" or meet any of the people you refer to as "belligerents" yeah there are a few bad neighbour hoods and some crime but what do you expect from poor areas anyways not what we where disscussing yet you still bring it up
>You're relying on a lack of hostile neighbors for survival. That's a bad idea.
scandinavia is peace :^) scandinavia is love :^) EU keeps us safe from the south if the EU dissolves then yeah i could agree that we would be wise in investing more money in the military Russia (already covered)
>Move them goalposts, swede anon. yeah but i dident tho thats exactly what i said in my original post just worded it a bit diffrent you just jumped on my poor wording and took it for me thinking we where all migthy and inferior to non
>sweden could probably repel a intial invasion from russia depending on where they tried to land and on how many fronts but it would be as you say delaying the inevitable >trying to invade stockholm from the searout would be a very costly cause of pic related, this is basically the only thing our navy and marine is for, figthing in these areas not to mention all the defensive structures out there >i do not belive sweden could hold out for very long against the russians or any major european nation
>>525960 >if they did the whole west would be next to us in the blink of a eye) Hahaha oh wow.
What treaties do you have obligating this?
What exceptional strategic significance does Sweden have to motivate a response?
The Georgians contributed more men to ISAF than you.
We watched them die when Russia came for them.
No treaties, not important. Military was crushed with nothing more than muted protest.
>we like this thing called peace and we will most likely be able to stay neutral in any world conflicts Ask the dutch about that.
>>525960 Neighbors a few streets away being russia. Which is belligerent, nearby, and in the sort of economic situation that often causes a government to start stupid wars to distract people. They're also incredibly found of agitating locals to cause trouble for them.
>that's exactly what i said in my original post just worded it a bit different No. You worded it to mean something ENTIRELY different. And then argued for that. And then changed your argument.
>defensive structures It's 2016.
What do you thnk is going to happen to known defensive structurces when a war starts?
They get hit with cruise missiles and other PGMS at the outbreak of hostilities until they are gone.
This is why permanent military bases are generally no longer giant forts, and most defensive structures are very small and hopefully hidden.
>/pol/ >/pol/ >MUH POL Never been there. Never will be.
I think you're understandably proud of your military, but otherwise very willfully ignorant and unable to understand that it is too small, and that world isn't a pro-Sweden hugbox, and that your remote location, tiny population, and history of neutrality (and resulting lack of serious allies) will not entice anyone to come rushing to your aid if something happens.
Further discussion with you is pointless. You need a lot more knowledge of how a military works, and how geopolitics work. As is, you were incorrect on your OWN NATIONS status as a non-member of nato.
You don't know if your own country is or isn't in the most powerful military alliance in the world. Please go read. Read things that bother you and make you question your view of the world. It'll be good for you.
>>526604 Karl left it too late. He should have drafted a military alliance with Poland before the 2nd eastern advance but saw little reason to utilise a Polish force as early as 1708 (the stategic advantage would be marginal and it's a lot more mouths to feed) Poltawa fucked up all of Sweden's plans and the retreat to Turky meant Silesia either wouldn't want to aid the Caroleans (Peter would move in on them faster) or the union would only yield limited results. Sweden was defeated in 1709, sadly there was no perceivable way to oppose Bog Peter with less than 1000 men and no artillery.
So many of the events in Karl's downfall was just wrong place-wrong time.
>>522131 >In a year our foreign minister has pissed off the entire middle-east and Israel at the same time. A feat that is very hard to accomplish. That's a good thing 2bh. I wish more countries would have the balls
>>526604 They did team up together to fight against Russia in the Livonian Wars of the late 16th century. But shit got complicated as sectarianism increased. The Swedish Vasas actually sat on the Polish throne but Sigismund III (vasa) went full catholic and persecuted protestant polish nobles. When he tried to secretly return to Sweden to reclaim its throne all the Swedes got mad when they found out and absolutely denied his entrance on the grounds of anti-Catholicism. Sigismund and his successors ended up being bad rulers and their authority got chipped away by the lesser nobles in the Polish assembly (sejm), and most especially by the large landowners (magnates) who sponsored them. Things degenerated until the Cossacks revolted at their treatment at the hands of the magnates in Ukraine, which led the Cossacks to seek Russian sponsorship, which led to Russo-Polish War, and finally provoked the Swedish king to invade Poland while vulnerable. I also forgot to mention that Gustavus Aldolphus spent the first years of the thirty year's war fighting the poles for reasons I don't exactly remember.
>>525746 >Was finland a gun control heavy shithole, with constant gender senitivity, a relatively small shooting culture (with virtually none doing the kind of shooting that takes place in modern war-IE, short range, rapid fire, with emphasis on rapid acquisition and followup with movement and quick magazine changes)? >Was finland full of modern swedes, who are afraid of their own cocks, much less violence? >Or was it full of men who routienly hunted, in an era where bolt action rifles were the military mainstay? >Did finland fight in the modern era, where thermals are common, wireless comms and everyday thing, and most war urban?
m8, if you're trying to make a point spouting /pol/ memes isn't going to help you and it just makes you look retarded.
Sweden can defend itself from almost any attacker on earth, it just so happens that one of it's neighbours is fucking Russia,probably the second most militarily capable country after the US. His point about NATO was fair, nobody is going to let Sweden be rolled over. What they have is more than sufficient to defend themselves.
>>521725 I have not been able to get a satisfactory answer so far to the question of why the Swedish army dropped Carolean tactics of close combat, such that by the 1740s-50s, Sweden had lost its previous formidable reputation, How did they go from the most disciplined infantry at the start of the 18th century to the useless, ineffectual homosexual army by the time of the Russo-Swedish war of the 1730s and the invasion of Pomerania in the mid-century? What cause the propitious Swedish military decline? The loss of so much manpower in the Northern Wars? The lack of experience afterward? Decline of training methods?
Swede here. There are no external threats facing Sweden. One might think of Russia, but Russia's ambitions are first and foremost ethnical. They want to reclaim former Soviet republocs, not Sweden. Russia would gain nothing by attacking Sweden and lose a lot. They already lost to much in the Crimean conflict to go for something even crazier.
The world is moving away from war, this is the way of things.
On November 18th 1718, King Charles XII died from a bullet to the head at the Siege of Fredrikshald. He was inspecting his trenches, in the middle of the night... without any of his entourage... or livgardet... carrying a loaded pistol...
There were few witnesses of the King's death (either 2 or 3 low-ranking soldiers) and no reports fully corroborate.
Swedish reports claimed he was killed by grapeshot from the walls of the besieged fortress, some rumours suggested he was murdered by a soldier in the trenches, weary of the fight. Some have recognised how Charles' brother in law Frederick would benefit greatly from the king's death and suspect an assassination.
But consider this: Karl was a devout lutherian with what could be described as a deathwish; determination to win in battle or die trying lead to the shambles of the Poltava assault and the Skirmish at Bender. Karl was only 36 but had spent over half his life on the battlefield, those closest to him knew he believed death in battle was most honourable and the Siege of Fredrikshald was likely one of the last battles he would actively participate in.
Karl was also aware that he had no experience in court life, only commanding an army. Most domestic affairs in Sweden were handled by the Riksdag and Charles seldom intervened with his country's politics unless he was demanding more tax or approving major legislation.
A planned murder was unlikely; the walk did not occur at any particular time and an assassin could not intercept him without detection.
It was a dark winter night and a marksman on the wall would not easily spot the king in the trench, reports suggest that on that night, no other gun shots were heard before or after the single shot that killed the King. Furthermore, the King was reportedly peering over the trench, facing the fortress when he was shot. If true, the bullet would enter the King's skull from the front. It entered, and exited through the temple.
>>528179 One account describes him with his hand was on the pistol as he fell backwards into the trench but others omit this. However, there is no proof to indicate whether it was discharged, although it was loaded when leaving his tent.
He obviously enjoyed his soldier life and he was loved by his men despite the hardships. But accounts from the exile in Turky hint that Charles suffered from depression after his retreat from Poltava and possibly never recovered. I see him as a man who often concealed his emotions and rarely confided in friends. His reputation for inviting infantrymen to sleep at his side and apparent abstinence from women suggests homosexuality to some extent and a very troubled man at any rate. Even though he would 'transform into a different man' when he took his place on the battlefield, the human aspect of the soldier king was far more sensitive and very self-aware of his responsibilities.
>>526762 >His point about NATO was fair, nobody is going to let Sweden be rolled over. Sweden isn't in nato. Sweden is of no strategic importance.
Ask the Georgians how the "but we're white and we're nice to America, NATO will save us!" idea works out.
>infantry guerrillas in the woods being less viable and professional forces more coordinated >pol meme Pick one. >the men of Finland circa 1939 completely different from swedes in 2016 >pol meme Pick one.
>Sweden can defend itself from almost any attacker on earth Magically move sweden out of scandinavia, and it looks like the target that it is. South Africa has a larger active duty force.
>>528297 I'd hesitate to say he ever acted on sexual impulses towards men since his religion and principles forbid them. Homoromanticism is more probable, soldiering was the most important thing to Charles and he naturally felt that he should reward soldiers in the infantry for fighting his cause. Sleeping in the King's tent was a reward to symbolise the equal footing between King and low-born soldier, but also so that the King could enjoy the company of admirable and respectable individuals.
In his short experience of court life, Karl was the target of Women either aggressively trying to get in his pants or manipulating him for some prospect of financial gain. One account describes a female suitor attempting to seduce the young king, as she begun to remove her clothes, Karl sprinted out of the room wailing with fright.
Finally, much like the argument to prove the American moon landings happened because 'the Russian enemy didn't try to claim they didn't happen'; it can be all but proven, Karl did not physically practice acts of homosexuality because 'the Russian enemy didn't try to claim it did happen'.
He might have had some jovial times with other men in the privacy of his tent, it's also probable that he slept naked with a man at his side (it's not gay if the balls don't touch).
At any rate, if homosexuality -was- practiced in the King's tent, no man who'd spent a night with Carolus would admit to his regiment if had sex with the King.
ingen homo :^)
Kingly or not, homosexuality was a crime in Sweden.
>>528474 Don't know, I don't visit that forum. It's a point of contention in Sweden though, many liberals like to claim outright that Karl was openly gay but this is far from true. Unfortunately, his sexuality is the punchline to many jokes in Sweden and as a result, in his own country, his military legacy is often overlooked by that.
>>528469 >The Battle That Shook Europe by Peter Englund. >The life of Charles XII by Voltaire >Charles XII of Sweden by Ragnhild Hatton
All contain accounts of separate incidents where Charles chooses to invite men from his infantry to dine with him and stay for a night in his tent - Charles often decides to either spend a night alone or in the company of infantrymen instead of dining with his usual entourage of General Lewenhaupt and Count Piper.
Voltaire wrote that the King suffered from frequent migraines and he supposedly found a partial remedy in 'resting his head in the lap of another man'. Loyal men from the King's ranks were enthusiastic to help their King endure his migraines by resting with him in their lap.
Is there anyone here with knowledge of historical small arms?
I've been told that Major Sven Åderman invented some new variety of firing mechanism for muskets around 1721? As I understand, it was a very basic version of what became the Percussion Cap mechanism but I was wondering how the Swedes progressed from Flintlock so early and why it took almost a century to fully develop the percussion cap technology?
>>521827 There is nothing based about him whatsoever. He is honestly one of the most destructive and cancerous figures in western history, but 10 year olds just getting into epin paradox games wank over Sweden.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.