Swedish army dream-build

[Karl-XII]

Hi guys!

Though I have been a part of the Swedish Navy, i am interested in all forms of military issues. I have been drawing my ideal Swedish army in my own mind for quite some time, and I thought I might join DefenseTalk to get other thoughts on this topic.

Beeing that we are close to Russia and have a very long coastline + being a long and narrow country, what type of army would you ideally like to see for Sweden? If you have any interest in this topic, please take a few minutes to write down a general outline of a strong swedish army, tanks? artillery? mechanized infantry??? It's all up to you!

I will set up a few rules though,

1. The navy & airforce are not to be taken into concideration, we will assume that they are up to date and in sync when it comes to size/capabilities.
2. Any type of military hardware is allowed, no matter what country it comes from.
3. DON'T ridicule the current Swedish army/navy/airforce for it's small size or otherwise, please respect this!

Sweden facts (for those who are unaware):

Seden is a constitutional monarchy in northern Europe.
It is 449 964 square kilometers in size and is covered by water by 8,7%
Sweden is 1572 km long and approx 500 km wide at its widest point
75% of Swedens landmass is covered by forrest, mostly fur-trees but also other types
There are mountains in northern Sweden, the southern part being mostly flat farmland
It has 9 300 000 inhabitants

Map of Sweden:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Map_of_Sweden_Cities_(polar_stereographic)_Sv.png


I hope at least some of you will find this interesting, and I look forward to reading your thoughts!

Sincerely,
Karl-XII

 

[Feanor]

Dream build? What kind of budget are we running? What size are we looking at?

 

[Karl-XII]

Dream build? What kind of budget are we running? What size are we looking at?

Size is yours to decide. Budget, well that's up to you too actually, maybe I should have included the financial are as well, but that's just a bit out of my league to tell the truth!

I wasn't really counting on much of a response, thought it would be fun to see what others would do if they had absolutely free hands to build an army to defend a country such as Sweden. The anual defence budget is today around 40 billion swedish crowns, that's equal to about 5,5 billion USD. You can double it, tripple it, make it today times a hundred, or just cut it in half!

As I said, this is purely fantasy, it would however be very interesting to see if people have radically different opinions on what they would procure and what type of regiments, divisions, brigades and so forth they would like to see.

I hope I have given you a better idea!

 

[swerve]

The anual defence budget is today around 40 billion swedish crowns, that's equal to about 5,5 billion USD. You can double it, tripple it, make it today times a hundred, or just cut it in half!

Swedish military spending is currently about 1.5% of GDP.

The UK managed to spend about half of GDP on the armed forces in WW2, but at the cost of slashing consumption, not investing in anything not needed for the war, & building up debts. The UK spent a maximum of abut 8% of GDP during the Cold War, the USA a maximum of about 10% (briefly almost 15% during the Korean War). The USSR sustained 15-20% for years, but at great long-term cost. Other countries which have sustained higher levels without destroying their economies have done so with foreign aid, or have economies dependent on the export of high-value commodities, usually oil.

I'd suggest that ten times current spending is a maximum, except for short-term all-out mobilisation, & even that can't be sustained for long. Five times current spending is probably a more realistic long-term maximum, unless you want to end up like North Korea.

 

[Karl-XII]

Swerve,

I greatly appretiate your economic knowledge, I am sure we all see the dangers of using to much money on one thing only, as you yourself have stated, bot the Soviet Union and North Korea are examples of this. I do not mean to suggest sweden should rely upon grain and other needful things from for example the United States, like the USSR did. This is simply a theoretical example of what might be.

I fear this topic will revolve around the economic question of a new army instead of the armed forces question it was originally intended to adress.

I hope someone will give me an idea of the armed forces you would wish to see for Sweden, given it's geographical and political place in northern Europe. The economics of such an endevour be damned! No, I scratch this... You are right, and I'm beeing overly naive!

Let's say 10 times the current spending as a maximum, and... 15 times the current spending as a mobilisation maximum. Maybe this will help people get a grasp of what they might be looking at.

regards,
Karl

 

[Feanor]

I'll stick with the 5 times figure. So we're looking at a budget of ~27.5 billion USD. I would think just increasing the size of mechanized and armored units. Right now it looks like it's a skeleton structure only to be turned into a full fighting force by mobilizing.

So possibly add 2-3 mech-inf. regiments, and a 1-2 armored rgts. Equipment wise they're ok with what they have right now. In fact I would encourage them to keep buying domestic. The Swedish industry is quite impressive in that regard. Possibly expand the anti-air and engineer units to account for overall growth in the size. So I'd imagine a second engineer rgt (possibly formed on the basis of the separate engineer company in Boden), a secon logistic rgt, an additional btln (or possibly even regiment) of air defense, and an additional regiment of artillery.

Is this what you had in mind?

 

[Karl-XII]

Feanor,

That's what I want to see! Tons of sweaty men and women in tanks! Haha, no, honestly, that's a pretty good outline of what I had in mind.

What are your thoughts on the anti air regiment/batalion, my thinking is, since we have the anti air regiment LV-6 in Halmstad, southern sweden, we should stick one in the north as well. A build on of the regiment in Boden perhaps.

Yes, domestic produktion and modified variants of aquired weapons and weapons systems have worked well for us in the past. What concerns me in this respect is the fasing out of the
S-tank in the mid ninties. We don't have any tank hunting/armored capacity for the home guard/national guard.

Since I have always been such a keen admirer of russian kit, I had dreamt (DRY dreams, mind you ) of maybe procuring some Russian tanks, cheaper variants to bolster the home guard units. Say 5 T-72 variants per bataljon. To be used against harder targets if the need arise. Maybe this is just a feeble minded dream of mine, since I like the look of them, I don't know. My experience is in the Navy mostly, and I have almost only book-knowledge of army hardware, though I have fired a number of small arms, I have neither tried nor used any tracked och multiple-wheel combat-platforms.

The long coastline makes for alot of landingspots for a sea born invasion, I would like to put at least a couple of the new regiments closer to the eastern borders of Sweden. But, as I have earlier stated, I have no working knowledge of army-strategy or regimental sized tactics.

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter!

 

[Feanor]

You mean adding MBTs as organic to mech-inf btlns for direct fire support?

 

[Karl-XII]

You mean adding MBTs as organic to mech-inf btlns for direct fire support?

Yes! Something in that respect, although I haven't made up my mind if we should make them a separate home guard asset, to be called in as an "outside assistance force" so to speak, with all tanks in an armored regiment to be dispersed as a whole or in batalion/company sized force as needed, or create smaller armored companies in each home guard batalion. Logisticaly I think the latter would be the best alternative, but probably the most expensive one as well... Recon formations for the tank force are also needed ofcourse, as well as supply and maintenance-formations.

I do belive an armored force is of the essence for the home guard, but then again I'm thinking along todays IRL-situation. When the regular army is modified and enlarged, the point may become moot.

Again, please excuse my english, I don't use it enough!

 

[Feanor]

If you intend for the tanks to provide mainly direct fire support for heavy mech-inf, then I would say integrate them. If you intend to use them on the operational, and operational-strategic level for manouever, then keep them in separate units.

 

[Karl-XII]

If you intend for the tanks to provide mainly direct fire support for heavy mech-inf, then I would say integrate them. If you intend to use them on the operational, and operational-strategic level for manouever, then keep them in separate units.

Feanor,

It seems as though you have experience in army-tactics and strategy. What would be your choice? Integrated or in tank-regiments or their own?

I myself can see advantages to both ideas, but I do not have the proper knowledge to dispense judgement that is in any way relevant to what might be achieved! For example, how strong would a group of say... 5 T-90:s with properly trained crewmembers be, in comparison to an armored batalion as a whole? Could they achieve anything worthwhile for example, if attacked by company or batalion-strength enemy armored formations, or would they be... so to speak... a waste of space, time and effort, not to mention cash...?

 

[Waylander]

If you want some heavy fire support for your infantry units I would recomment to buy the CV90120.
In the end such a vehicle is, despite the weaker frontal armor, more survivable on a modern battlefield than a vanilla T-72 due to better FCS and battelfield management systems.

Such a vehicle also has the advantages of being build in Sweden, being able to use the same ammo as the Strv122 as well as adding nearly no additional logistical burden to the mech inf bns as it also uses the CV90 chassis.

BTW, aren't the MBTs (Strv122) already integrated into the MechInf bns?

Even with seperate tank and mech inf bns one mixes them right down to company level and cross attaches tank and mech inf plattons if one really follows a combined arms doctrine.
So if one fights a combined arms operation there is no need to put such small numbers of tanks into mech inf bns.
Adding a company or even just a platoon of vehicles able to deliver heavy direct fire support to the mech inf units may be attractive if one wants to give a mech inf bn additional tank hunter capabilities (fulda gap scenario) or more direct fire support during dismounted operations (Falluja scenario).

And sure as hell a well positioned platoon of CV90120s in additione to the CV9040s and BILL2 ATGM teams may cause some real headache for any opposing mechanized formation and enhances the anti tank capabilties of a mech inf bn significantly.

 

[Feanor]

Feanor,

It seems as though you have experience in army-tactics and strategy. What would be your choice? Integrated or in tank-regiments or their own?

I myself can see advantages to both ideas, but I do not have the proper knowledge to dispense judgement that is in any way relevant to what might be achieved! For example, how strong would a group of say... 5 T-90:s with properly trained crewmembers be, in comparison to an armored batalion as a whole? Could they achieve anything worthwhile for example, if attacked by company or batalion-strength enemy armored formations, or would they be... so to speak... a waste of space, time and effort, not to mention cash...?

I am no expert. (at least in the traditional sense ) My knowledge comes from lots of reading and discussions, mostly online.

I'm not sure why you seem attached to the idea of T-90s in the Swedish Army. I don't think that's a likely scenario to be honest. I'll be honest my knowledge of the Swedish military is very limited. And given how you've just gotten a far more specific (and intelligent) reply from Waylander I think I'll leave it at that. My opinion is still the same... if you intend to use armor for direct heavy fire support of mech. inf. formations I think integrating it would be beneficial, though for the sake of logistics it shouldn't necessarily be on the level of a btln.

 

[Rythm]

Considering the budgetframe set out in earlier posts, i advice setting up at least 6-7 heavy brigades. These should be beefed-up in comparesion to the 90s era swedish armoured brigades, with Self-propelled Howitzers (PzH 2000), armoured recon companies (CV90120), Self-propelled AAA, UAVs etc. This obviously means keeping the conscription. Get the squadleaders to become proffesionals, conscripts are no good for this. The key is the home guard, wich should be motorized! foot-mobile infanterybatalions will do you no good. So motorize them with civilian trucks and perhaps one company per batalion with APCs. Add a mortarplatoon and a ATGM platoon to each batalion, to give them a little punch. add Modern BMS to Home Guard as well. get real officers to command the Home guard down to at least company-level. Build a combat manouver training center like Hohenfels.

 

[joeroot]

i do not mean to be a bother but assuming all of tech and force military wise is in order we would have to look at the economics as well as supply and even how stabil the country is in which i know none of this but since it is a dream army
i would have to have bombers as most of my airforce maybe 2 fighters and or interceptors asper bomber navy wise i would want to bring back the dreadnaught except with a modern day version and army wise i would do mostly LATVs and mech inf for the front line and the defence line would have to be foot soldiers and artillery as much as i can afford as even distribution and for the left over i would focus it on the defencive capabilities or the defencive line
oh and happy halloween

 

[Feanor]

By bombers do you mean strategic bombers? Also... dreadnaughts? You do realize that we're talking about Sweden... a medium-small sized country, right?

 

[kato]

Well, Sweden did have "battleships"... coastal ones that is. Out of service in 1957 for the most part, last one scrapped in 1970

 

[Feanor]

I think he's talking about the fullsize navy ones.... I mean the USSR had "land battleships" in service...like 40 of them too, so...

 

[Palnatoke]

Dream makeup of swedish army:

1-2 brigades.

These brigades should be composed from a variaty of units/weapon systems on a "mission specific basis". Units/systems to choose from could f.ex. be armoured units, mech inf, inf, airmobile inf, artillery, engineers, CIMIC teams, millitary police, riot control units etc.

The brigade(s) would then be formed from a selection of units in a mission specific manner.

Importantly the brigade(s) has to include a tactical air-transportation system and can be surplied and sustained by air transportation (we will accept that heavy equpment can be transported in other ways).

Importantly the crew of these brigades are volunteeres who has accepted to go whereever the swedish goverment sends them.

The rest of the army can be (down)sized to surport the formation of the above 1-2 brigades.


I realize that my dream army won't look so good on parade, but we need soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan, not on the ground in Skaane.