Best Neutral Military Forces Europe

Corsendonk

Which neutral country in Europe has the best military forces? I decided to go with Europe cause I think Japans military spending is way ahead of anyone else. Please if anyone says Ireland he needs his head looked at.

mgmt

Corsendonk wrote: »

Which neutral country in Europe has the best military forces? I decided to go with Europe cause I think Japans military spending is way ahead of anyone else. Please if anyone says Ireland he needs his head looked at.

For your definition of best, just go onto wikipedia and find out which neutral european country spends the most on its military.

47

Corsendonk wrote: »

Which neutral country in Europe has the best military forces? I decided to go with Europe cause I think Japans military spending is way ahead of anyone else. Please if anyone says Ireland he needs his head looked at.

The swiss army are very good. I spent a few months in switzerland last year while I was working for a private security firm and was lucky enough to do a military run firearms course in a place just outside yverdons les bains and I have to say I was impressed.Even though most of the military are conscripted they have some good personal equipment aswell.

PatsytheNazi

Switzerland first I'd say, then Sweden. Wealthy countries with plenty of dosh to spend on big boys military toys :mad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland#Air_Force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Armed_Forces

losthorizon

mgmt wrote: »

For your definition of best, just go onto wikipedia and find out which neutral european country spends the most on its military.

most is not necessarily best! We in Ireland should know that after the collapse of our economy! I would say Sweden. They happen to make at lot of weapons as well.

Followed by the Swiss and the Finns.

Captainship

Corsendonk wrote: »

Which neutral country in Europe has the best military forces? I decided to go with Europe cause I think Japans military spending is way ahead of anyone else. Please if anyone says Ireland he needs his head looked at.

I would say the Finns,or any of the Scandinavian countries.
Its not always about having the best high tech equipment,and spend the most money,but about the people itself.
The Finns have long tradition of fighting higher odds.
Winterwar 1939 say no more.-

Corsendonk

mgmt wrote: »

For your definition of best, just go onto wikipedia and find out which neutral european country spends the most on its military.

Not just all spend, training, equipment, capability, local arms industry for resupply and repair. The Swiss and Austrians have an added advantage that they can concentrate spending on the army and air force.

xflyer

Sweden, with the Swiss second. The Swedes make their own stuff notably the Grifen. The Finns too, they held off the Soviets and the Soviet let them off the hook after the war. No one messes with the Finns. I say that having had a Finnish girlfriend. If only we Irish were halfway close to any of those peoples. Admit it we are failed Brits.

Corsendonk

Yes say your right, at least the Swedes have combat experience in the last 200 years and decent air force compared to Swiss. Interesting to note the Swiss only elect a general in times of great threat such as World War 1 and 2. Only 4 generals in there history and found the below snippet about there air force which is reforming from miltia based to professional.

A report in the Swiss news magazine FACTS reveals that the Swiss Air Force provides ready-to-takeoff aircraft only during office hours on working days. The air force staff declared that, due to financial limits, they are not operational all the time.

tac foley

xflyer wrote: »

The Finns too, they held off the Soviets and the Soviet let them off the hook after the war.

The Finns were not 'let off the hook' by the Soviets after the war. The state was judged to be part of the nazi war effort in the deliberations of the Treaty of Paris, and was 'awarded' horrendous financial and territorial costs by the soviets, including 10% of its land territory - Karelia - and an important large city and sea-port - Viipuri, all still part of the so-called Russian Confederation. The actual financial fine amounted to $300Million in 1938 prices - that is $7.5 Billion today. The Finns also had to repay the Russians by the building of many ships for the merchant fleet, including ice-breakers, accommodation ships and tankers. The Finns were also required to clear all the sea mines in the gulf of Leningrad, a task that took until 1952.

If that is being 'let off the hook' then please tell me what the 'penalties' would have been like.

tac

BTW - the Swedish aircraft is called Gripen.

PatsytheNazi

xflyer wrote: »

Sweden, with the Swiss second. The Swedes make their own stuff notably the Grifen. The Finns too, they held off the Soviets and the Soviet let them off the hook after the war. No one messes with the Finns. I say that having had a Finnish girlfriend. If only we Irish were halfway close to any of those peoples. Admit it we are failed Brits.

Yeah the Finns were incredible. Don't agree about the failed Brits part. As bad as we are, we haven't tried to throw our weight around on smaller nations or tried to pretend we're some sort of world power by been America's bitch. In my opinion the Irish army have established quite a good reputation in the Leb, East Timor etc

( On the economic front which is totally off topic I know but I'll still state, they have their own very serious banking crisis and too high public service debt etc. Not as bad as us, but not that far off either )

tac foley

Captainship wrote: »

I would say the Finns,or any of the Scandinavian countries.
Its not always about having the best high tech equipment,and spend the most money,but about the people itself.
The Finns have long tradition of fighting higher odds.
Winterwar 1939 say no more.-

Finns got Leo 2, too.

tac

Captainship

tac foley wrote: »

Finns got Leo 2, too.

tac

Yeah best tank there is
So does their neighbours Sweden,Denmark,Norway all have leo 2

Corsendonk

Well Norway and Denmark are not neutrals so in the debate. Have to say it seems the Swiss wins this section of the debate and have manufacturing capability too.


Leo 2 Stats for the main contenders

Sweden
The Swedish Army has operated some 280 Leopard 2s (120 Leopard 2(S) or Strv 122) and 160 ex-German Leopard 2A4s (Strv 121). Only the Strv 122s are still in active service.

Finnish
The Finnish Army bought 124 2A4s from surplus German stocks. 20 have been converted into bridge-laying and combat engineering tanks.[49][50] 12 tanks have been disassembled for use as spares and one tank burned and was a total loss, leaving 91 operational tanks.

Swiss
The Swiss Army operates 380 2A4s designated Pz 87. 35 of these were bought from Germany while the remaining ones were license manufactured locally.

Gray

tac foley wrote: »

The Finns were not 'let off the hook' by the Soviets after the war. The state was judged to be part of the nazi war effort in the deliberations of the Treaty of Paris, and was 'awarded' horrendous financial and territorial costs by the soviets, including 10% of its land territory - Karelia - and an important large city and sea-port - Viipuri, all still part of the so-called Russian Confederation. The actual financial fine amounted to $300Million in 1938 prices - that is $7.5 Billion today. The Finns also had to repay the Russians by the building of many ships for the merchant fleet, including ice-breakers, accommodation ships and tankers. The Finns were also required to clear all the sea mines in the gulf of Leningrad, a task that took until 1952.

If that is being 'let off the hook' then please tell me what the 'penalties' would have been like.

tac

BTW - the Swedish aircraft is called Gripen.

Compared to what happened to the rest of Eastern Europe under Soviet occupation I'd say they got the better deal.

Manic Moran

Corsendonk wrote: »

Well Norway and Denmark are not neutrals so in the debate. Have to say it seems the Swiss wins this section of the debate and have manufacturing capability too.


Leo 2 Stats for the main contenders

Sweden
The Swedish Army has operated some 280 Leopard 2s (120 Leopard 2(S) or Strv 122) and 160 ex-German Leopard 2A4s (Strv 121). Only the Strv 122s are still in active service.

Finnish
The Finnish Army bought 124 2A4s from surplus German stocks. 20 have been converted into bridge-laying and combat engineering tanks.[49][50] 12 tanks have been disassembled for use as spares and one tank burned and was a total loss, leaving 91 operational tanks.

Swiss
The Swiss Army operates 380 2A4s designated Pz 87. 35 of these were bought from Germany while the remaining ones were license manufactured locally.

I would argue that the Swedish have the better -overall- manufacturing capability, though. Not as if the Swiss have also built their own aircraft or missiles, for example.

NTM

Corsendonk

Well the Swiss arms industry seems geared for pistols and small arms. Sweden clearly have an advantage in most areas except for tank production. Switzerland seems totally geared towards defence.

The simulated rock camouflage screens masking the embrasures of the mountain fort's 105mm guns were lowered, allowing me to look down to the town of Orsihres, 350 meters below us, and on to the narrow road leading to the strategic Grand Saint Bernard pass.

Switzerland is only now beginning to reveal its deepest military secret: the hundreds of large forts and smaller defensive works built from 1940-1960. Upgraded, upgunned and made proof against nuclear contamination after World War II, the near invisible Swiss forts, dug into the sheer walls of its mountains, covered with lethal interlocking fire all passages through the nation's high Alpine region.

From heavily defended Orsihres to Montreaux, at the eastern end of beautiful Lake of Geneva - a mere 50 kms - there are at least 14 major forts, and hundreds of smaller bunkers for mortars and machine guns. At the centre of this valley of death lies the mighty fort of Dailly, along the defile of St. Maurice, the Gibraltar of the Alps, an entire mountain turned into Europe's most massive fortress.

After the fall of France in 1940, Hitler and Mussolini were preparing to invade Switzerland after it refused to join the Axis. Hitler sneered he would quickly crush 'these insolent herdsmen and cheesmakers.'

Switzerland, then a nation of only five million, mobilized 800,000 men. Swiss citizen soldiers were ordered to hold the mountain forts and passes, and wage guerilla war. 'Leave your wives and children behind. Fight to your last bullet; then fight to the death with your bayonet' came the chilling command. This little nation, since 1291 Europe's oldest democracy and freest nation, would not be conquered. Hitler and Mussolini wisely backed off.

After WWII, the Swiss briefly feared invasion by the US and Britain. Then, from 1960-1990, Switzerland became the target of potential Soviet invasion. The Red Army, in a mirror image of Germany's WWI Schlieffen Plan, devised a massive strategic outflanking movement of NATO armies in Germany: an attack from Czechoslovakia, west through neutral Austria, then into Switzerland. Soviet tanks armies would race across Switzerland's flat northern plain on a Zurich-Neuchatel-Geneva axis, drive into France's Rhone valley north of Lyon, then come up behind NATO forces, cutting them off.

The Swiss reacted to the Soviet threat by keeping 600,000 men under arms, upgrading their forts, and came close, in the early 1960s, to building nuclear weapons.

Now that the Soviet threat is gone, the Swiss are slowly reducing their defences and plan to cut their citizen army to a paltry 190,000. But today, as in the past, each Swiss male is liable for military service and keeps his automatic weapon and ammunition at home. As Machiavelli rightly observed, 'the Swiss are most heavily armed, and most free.'

47

There are a nuber of main tunnels etc in Switzerland that are rigged to explode in case of an invasion

"Moreover, tunnels and key bridges are built with tank traps. Tunnels are also primed with demolition charges to be used against invading forces. Permanent fortifications are established in the Alps, as bases from which to retake the fertile valleys after a potential invasion. They include underground air bases which are adjacent to normal runways; the aircraft, crew and supporting material are housed in the caverns."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland

tac foley

Let's not forget the Oerlikon Contraves company, now called Rheinmetall Air Defence AG.

They build, among other things, the fine 35mm cannon found on the Swiss MOWAG Piranha as well as the guns on the Gepard/PRTL and the integrated airfield defence system.

The eldest son of the family I used to stay with near Thun was a local defence militia platoon commander and his brother, the 2i/c, and some thirty others who were responsible for carrying out anti-tank defence of the local area with MILAN atk missiles. In order to do this the platoon commander, a lieutenant, had 48 MILAN missiles in his garage, and his 2i/c another 24 in HIS cellar.

I went on a weekend exercise with them one day and was VERY impressed with their obvious enthusiasm and skilled military abilities. They may have been part-timers now but they had all served their full time 18 months, and were now very proud to be part of the militia. They seemed to be as well-trained and highly motivated as any troops I've seen anywhere, including my own.

tac

Avgas

It is interesting to compare Ireland with other European neutrals….especially as regards the financial perspectives…..


Gross Defence Expenditure (and % of GDP)
All values have been rounded upwards, and are in 2008 constant US dollars)
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#cite_note-1

Sweden ($6.1bn, 1.3%)
Switzerland ($4.1bn, 0.8%)
Finland ($3.8bn, 1.3%)
Austria ($3.7bn, 0.9%)
Ireland ($1.6bn, 0.6%)
Cyprus ($550m, 1.8%)
Malta ($52m, 0.7%)

What is arguably a much more revealing way of looking at spending is to examine per capita defence spending…per head of population….couldn't get access to the SIPRI Yearbook 2010…so I just used this
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_dol_fig_percap-expenditures-dollar-figure-per-capita

RELATIVE DEFENCE EXPENDITURE PER PERSON

Sweden: $637.12 per person in 2004
Cyprus: $540.62 per person in 2004
Switzerland: $352.43 per person in 2001
Finland: $349.31 per person in 1998
Austria: $186.12 per person in 2001
Ireland: $183.95 per person in 2000
Malta: $77.50 per person in 2004

What do these figures tell us?

Ireland has the lowest per centage share of GDP devoted to defence of these neutral/non-allied countries. So no mystery there. You get what you pay for...or do you?

Continued high levels of Finnish and Swedish spending can be explained in two words: Russia + nearby.

What is odd is that Cyprus (the Greek bit) has a much lower level of absolute spending than us-well under half of what we spend…..BUT they have actually greater significant military capabilities …at least on paper…..up to 2 infantry divisions…..about 11 Russian Mi-35s attack choppers….…….over 200 tanks of French and Russian origin….well over 200 armoured cars and APCs, and they even have Russian Kornet (Milan like) ATGW and Russian multiple rocket launchers…their Navy is pretty weak…with just a few patrol boats, borderline FACs…but they do have a few Exocets……(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypriot_National_Guard)

…. Obviously their threat is Turkey… but my point is they spend a lot less and yet have a lot more weaponry…..

Lesson 1: Presence of clear and obvious threats increase willingness to pay for defence……the only clear and obvious threat we face would be a renewed and intensified TROUBLES in Northern Ireland…which did notably justify increased levels of DF spending in the 1970s in particular…..but that is now history AND Britain is assumed to be the party who would have primary responsibility to manage any crisis…however messily. Never mind the current recession, the absence of a clear and present threat will never generate enough social consensus for higher defence spending in Ireland.

Time to provoke Iceland?:rolleyes:

Lesson 2: Conscript armies appear cheap and good value whereas professional, BA type armies are very expensive. All the other Neutral/Non-allied countries, with the exception of Malta and us, either are, or were until very recently, mass conscript based armies. The Swedes are in transition to a very radical downsized professional defence force with conscription ending. My guess is they will find this does not yield massive savings their Treasury is hoping for. There is a political debate in Austria on ending the 6 month service and that may well eventually happen. In Finland and Switzerland (AFAIK), despite calls from some political quarters, the national consensus in favour of keeping conscription remains basically solid.

The Finns take in about 27,000 conscripts per year and have about 7,000 technical, training and senior officers on a more or less permanent basis it seems. Most of the conscripts get paid between 4-10 Euros a day! Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces


If we applied similar ratios (roughly 78% mobilized reservists to 22% permanent professionals) to the Irish defence forces, assuming a base of 10,000 personnel needed at any one time, it would suggest that we should have only about 2,200 full time permanent professional soliders?

Maybe allow an extra 1,000 for our unique Atlantic facing Navy…..which none of the others have to contend with……..

I am NOT advocating conscription. I am suggesting we seriously re-examine the balance between reservists and permanent forces and accept that it will become financially necessary for us to drop well below the sacred cow number of 10,000 full time DF personnel (which quietly has been allowed to happen anyway).

I would go further: we should positively consider embracing such a 'fiscal reality' to remake our DF.

If we want better resources for our DF we need a greater economic focus on reservists, who are neither viewed or treated as a 'joke'.

Lesson 3: Nearly all of these countries have significant national defence industries (Malta, Cyprus and ourselves excepted). Even Finland and Austria, who are more marginal, retain a significant national defence infrastructure….small arms, body armour, basic communications and light and armoured vehicles can be and are sourced locally…and are of usually high quality…….

This must massively help to justify national spending on defence equipment. The politicians can sell it as 'jobs', and in many cases defence expenditure can be exempted from irksome EU competition laws, so on national security grounds you can justify diverting some of it into national off-sets and such like. The absence of any serious Irish national defence industry critically harms the chances of the Irish DF to be ever properly resourced.

Whatever happened to Timoney technology?

Ask the Singapore and Australian armies. :rolleyes:

There is no reason why Mine Proof vehicles could not be produced in Ireland
There is no reason why small tactical UAVs could not be produced in Ireland.

Just two examples.

We really do need to be a bit more like the Finns.
Nice knives. Great drinkers. Good shots. Evil sense of humour.

Not afraid to be different, quiet and heavily armed.:)

newby.204

how do you justify putting 7800 people out of work with little or no hope of transfering their skills to civilian life so people can have more gucci toys to look at when they go to military displays??

tac foley

Avgas wrote: »

……the only clear and obvious threat we face would be a renewed [and intensified] civil war in Northern Ireland…

There was NO civil war in Northern Ireland.

Spain had a civil war in the '30's.

Ireland had a civil war in the 20's.

Mexico had a civil war in the early 1900's

The United States of America had a civil war in the 1860's.

Cromwellian England had a civil war in the 1640's.

But the UK most emphatically did NOT have a civil war in Northern Ireland.

At any time.

tac

PatsytheNazi

Avgas wrote: »

We really do need to be a bit more like the Finns.
Nice knives. Great drinkers. Good shots. Evil sense of humour.

Not afraid to be different, quiet and heavily armed.:)

Totally agree with you, the Finns have national self respect and honour, unlike this sorry joke of a state.

Avgas

tac foley wrote: »

.

But the UK most emphatically did NOT have a civil war in Northern Ireland.

At any time.

tac

Well depends how you define civil war.......doesn't it? ...if it makes you happy I'll drop all references to a 'civil war' on our doorstep......and instead use the twee terminology of the 'troubles'.

Or maybe I should be more exact and make reference to "an extended period of civil unrest, disorder, riot and destruction of property, politically motivated by long standing historic tensions between two significant ethnic-religious groups, complicated by numerous illegal armed paramilitary factions, facing security forces lacking at times legitimacy, especially as regards the minority ethnic-religious group."

Is that better?

Sounds a bit like a type of civil war to me, no? But we'll leave it!

Are we off thread enough now?

tac foley

Avgas wrote: »

Well depends how you define civil war.......doesn't it? ...if it makes you happy I'll drop all references to a 'civil war' on our doorstep......and instead use the twee terminology of the 'troubles'.

Or maybe I should be more exact and make reference to "an extended period of civil unrest, disorder, riot and destruction of property, politically motivated by long standing historic tensions between two significant ethnic-religious groups, complicated by numerous illegal armed paramilitary factions, facing security forces lacking at times legitimacy, especially as regards the minority ethnic-religious group."

Is that better?

Sounds a bit like a type of civil war to me, no? But we'll leave it!

Are we off thread enough now?

My father fought in the Irish Civil War, and managed somehow to avoid killing or injuring his brothers who fought on the other side.

Many did not.

Brothers killing brothers - THAT's a civil war.

tac

Avgas

newby.204 wrote: »

how do you justify putting 7800 people out of work with little or no hope of transfering their skills to civilian life so people can have more gucci toys to look at when they go to military displays??

Do not want this to drift too away from OP.

The point about other European neutrals is that they are thrifty about their personnel costs and make incredible use of reservists…….we don't do either!

I'm not saying we just fire 7,800 members of the DF.

That is not my line.

You cannot fire people like that-organizationally and socially it would be a total disaster.

You can however, set a target that in 2020, the Irish DF would be a different organisation with 5,000 full time professionals….augmented by 10,000 'serious' reservists'…some of whom would be overseas on PK missions……and many of whom would be ex-PDF men and women perhaps?

If the Swedes can make a radical shift from a large conscript based army to a smaller professional expeditionary and contingency force, why cannot we make major organizational changes as well (even if their content and direction might be quite different for us)…..?

BTW many DF personnel do have transferable skills in the civilian job market.

ballsofsteel

Avgas wrote: »

If the Swedes can make a radical shift from a large conscript based army to a smaller professional expeditionary and contingency force, why cannot we make major organizational changes as well (even if their content and direction might be quite different for us)…..?

QUOTE]

Maybe this is why:

Population: 9,316,256 Sweden
Population:4,459,300 Ireland