Talk:Finnish Defence Forces

Untitled

It'd be nice if this article contained information about the mobilised structure of the Finninsh army. It says there are 490,000 trained reservists. How would these be organised in the event of a war? What would they be equipped with - everyone would have a rifle, no doubt, but what heavy weapons does Finland have to equip the equivalent of about 25 infantry divisions? Also, it'd be nice to have a TOE for the various types of unit.

BTW, is there a standard template for national armed forces?; it'd be nice to be able to format the armed forces for each country the same way, to get a common Wikipedia look and feel.

-- Cabalamat 19:07, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Replying; This all you ask is more or less information that opposites inteligence would want to know too. As such; It would go against our intrest to give it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.176.155 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll add info on the wartime structure of the army later. Allthough I see that you have added some TO&Es for the Army. I tried to create specific OOB articles earier, see Finnish Army Order of Battle, Winter War and Finnish Infantry Division Generic Organisation, but that never got anywhere.

There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Military, but there is no standard template yet. I think most of the Military of XXX are quite useless for the moment. Usually they are just copies of the CIA info. -- Jniemenmaa 09:31, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree, most of the articles Military of XXX aren't very good right now. I'm sure they will improve over time. I've had a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military, and I think I'll post some proposals there later, perhaps involving templates for military organisations and units. I also think it'd be nice to have 2 sets of articles, one describing up-to-date organisation, the other for historical (and data will naturally get moved from one to the other). Historical artricles would be at interesting dates, e.g. the starts of wars, so we might have, for example Finnish army in 2003, Finnish army in 1939, Iranian air force in 1980, Royal Navy in 1982. Would it be OK with you if I renamed your articles (Finnish Army Order of Battle, Winter War and Finnish Infantry Division Generic Organisation) above to conform with this scheme? -- 217.155.199.100 12:43, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, sounds like a good idea. But there are at least two good ways to name the articles, Finnish army in 1939 and Finnish army (1939). This discussion really belongs more to to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military -- Jniemenmaa 13:03, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

http://www.mil.fi/varusmies/arvomerkki/index_en.dsp

Checking this out. What the heck is Officer Cadet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.188.134.105 (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2004 (UTC)

IIRC, It's "upseerikokelas" in finnish ("Officer student" would be a direct translation). It is a conscripts who has gone through reserve officer school and is back at his unit (and will be promoted to ensign at the end of his conscription). The rank is comparable to a sergeant (again IIRC). -- Jniemenmaa 10:29, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by some of the ranks. Shouldn't "korpraali" be translated as "Private 1st class"? --Chino 08:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to the army's website it is "lance corporal", allthough I find that a bit odd too. [1]. -- Jniemenmaa 09:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In Finnish Army, "korpraali" carries the duties of British Lance Corporal (see Section (military unit)). That's why Lance Corporal instead of PFC. While it is true that PFC and korpraali are both Privates, advancement to PFC is usually more or less automatic after some time of service. To become a korpraali, one needs to show ability and leadership so that one can take the duties of a Corporal, should a need arise. It is a common misconception among Finnish conscripts that appointment (note: really "appointed", never "promoted", as is the case with higher ranks) to korpraali is a reward of some kind: this is not true, but understandable, since those deserving a reward are usually also fit for leadership. -- TN 21 June 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.137.10 (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2005 (UTC)

A little bit more clarification of the whole conscript process: The whole objective of the training year is to end up with a full brigade/regiment of battle-ready companies, with each recruit placed (often forcibly) into roles to complement requirements. Then that whole brigade is placed into the reserve as is, to be called up for retraining or war. So first people arrive at base and are divided into the various companies, then everyone goes through a couple of months of basic infantry training within those companies. Then you're made into a private, or jaeger and continue onto your specialisation, which would have been determined in basic (usually if you're in the AT company you'll become an AT soldier, etc.)

If you got marked for NCO/Officer training you go to NCO school and receive the (pseudo-)rank of NCO Student (Aliupseerioppilas) which is comparable to a Lance-Corporal (Korpraali.) After 2 months the top students go to Officer training (usually elsewhere) and become Officer Students, while the others remain at the NCO school. The NCO Students complete in 4 months and become Corporals (Alikersantti) then rejoin their companies to train the next batch of conscript jaegers as part of their leadership training (thus: jaegers serve 6 months, NCOs and Officers 1 year.) Some Corporals who show either ingenuity or butt-kissing or both are promoted to Sergeant (Kersantti) but basically their duties are the same - they just get more jobs. :)

The Officer Students (Upseerioppilas) complete their training after 5/6 months, and then pretty much take over the conscript training when they rejoin their companies. There can sometimes be quite a bit of animosity between the two groups. :D However, their ranks are essentially the same, as the Officer students are not made into full officers until the end of their conscript term! Technically their rank is equal to Sergeant, but since all the Officers and NCOs started in the same school, sometimes the same basic training, they tend to get lumped together with the Corporals as equals.

That said, there is a difference between the NCOs that make up the permanent staff of a company and the conscript NCOs, the former being marked apart by a sword-pip or star above their stripes. The staff NCOs are (usually) exceptional conscript NCOs and Officer Students who've been offered the chance to return after their year's service is complete. Typically the Officers become Staff Sergeants and the NCOs just Sergeants, and live in apartments/houses near to the base. This is basically Finland's "standing" army, along with the active officers in charge of the units (ie, not the officers in reserve.) Oh, and the Finnish Rapid Deployment Force, which technically is on stand-by alert all the time - I know that most of my mates in the FRDF are just itching to go to UN missions. :)

Last note - the rank of Korpraali or Lance-Corporal: this is a rank used more to designate seniority rather than have actual command value. Most often it is used to mark a soldier/mechanic/driver who has considerable experience and/or talent, usually having served longer, and can be trusted to oversee things. Realistically speaking, though, there is no difference between a jaeger and a Korpraali.

Phew! That was a lot, didn't actually mean to go on so much... Hope this has shed some light on the murky waters of the FDF! CptJoker 21:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"In 2005 the Finnish defence ministry announced a cost-cutting plan. The Helsinki Air Defence Regiment in Hyrylä ...will be disbanded in 2007.". IIRC, it's not going to be disbanded, but it will move to another location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.197.237.196 (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Dubious

Sentence: "The Finns refused German pressure to join in the siege of Leningrad...", for which there is no reference cited, directly conflicts with the Siege of Leningrad page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad Statement from Siege of Leningrad: Both German and Finnish forces had the goal of encircling Leningrad and maintaining the blockade perimeter, thus cutting off all communication with the city and restricting them from getting any food or goods. (6 cited references follow). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinbercaw (talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I sign on to this guy; Finland pariticipated at the siege of Leningrad. The part finnish refused to do was to shoot Leningrad's civilians with its artillery. Mannerheim was very strict about this since Leningrad was the city he spend his childhood in. No finnish artillery was fired upon Leningrad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.176.155 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong information!

In 2003 there wasn't over thousand peacekeepers in UN operations. Most of them were in NATO operation! ISAF and KFOR are NATO operations, not UN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.116.142 (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please sign comments. The constitution of Finland allows only OSCE-, or UN-authorized operations, whether or not they are NATO-led. This is not to be confused with allowing only UN-led operations. --Vuo 15:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No copyvio at "Total defence"

The planning requirements outlined in section Total Defence are copied straight from the leaflet mentioned as a reference. This leaflet, however, is an official statement of a Finnish authority (i.e. Finnish Defence Forces) and as such, it is not eligible for copyright. So, IMO, the direct copying of the text is not copyvio. (See commons:Template:PD-FinlandGov)--MPorciusCato 11:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Swedish (language, that is)

Would be nice to have all the Swedish terms along with the Finnish ones, not only försvarsmakten. 85.183.209.79 22:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, theoretically, we should always add a Swedish term when giving the Finnish term, Finland being a bilingual country. However, it would make the articles quite burdened with vocabulary, and in my opinion, would give very little to the reader. Most information tat is given about the points in the net is in Finnish, and those few who do want to use Swedish sources can usually find a link to the Swedish text close to the Finnish information, if the source is official. I think there are not many unofficial Swedish-language sources about the Finnish Defence Forces. --MPorciusCato 09:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

How many go to army?

What's the amount of people in Finland that won't go to the Defence Forces? What's the punishment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.216.233 (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you talk about conscription, some 2.600 young men per annum make the claim that they have pressing ethical or religious concerns that prevent them from serving in the military. That's about 5% of the male citizens coming to military age. These persons are not punished but ordered to civilian service instead. The length of the civilian service is (from 2008 onwards) 362 days. If the man refuses the civilian service, he is sentenced to 181 days in prison (or to corresponding amount of days, if he has already served a part of his civilian or military service.) --MPorciusCato (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Reserve strength

Kurt Leyman and I have somewhat differing opinions on FDF reserve strength. According to this document, the wartime strength of the FDF is 350.000 troops. The reserve strength is a completely different thing: the Finnish Defence Forces reserve encompasses all Finnish males who have completed conscription and have not filled 50 years of age. In addition, it includes all non-active and resererve NCOs and officers below 60 years of age and all non-active colonels and general officers regardless of age. The auxiliary reserve (Finnish: nostoväki, varareservi includes all males between 17 and 60 years of age who have not completed conscription and are not serving in the military and rank and file members between 50 and 60 years of age. None of these groups is 485.000 strong. --MPorciusCato (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The current claim of 280,000 is false. The FDF reserve strength is 900,000. However, 280,000 troops in those reserves have a 'war-time placement'. The rest are ought to fill their spots, if needed. The war-time strength can also vary. 'Global Firepower' as a source is also completely unreliable. -2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BB:1C5:B956:4D6A:EE26:ACD3:5E8D (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Service length and unarmed/weapons-free service

The law for unarmed service was changed in 2008. The article's first paragraph stated that the service length is 11 months, which was incorrect. The length is now either 9 or 12 months, more of this here (in Finnish). Anzuhan (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

About defence expenditure

In the summary of the article it is stated that "Finland's defence budget equals about 2 billion euro or 1.4-1.6 percent of the GDP. In international comparisons the defence expenditure is around the 3rd highest in EU." It has a reference which links to an article from Statistics Finland (Tilastokeskus).

It is said in the article that if indirect costs of the conscripts' lost work would be summed in to the defence expenditure then Finland's defence expenditure would be third highest in EU. It should be noted that this is an estimate made by professor Poutvaara and doctoral student Louhela. There is a great difference between direct defence expenditure and estimate of indirect costs which can be seen from the article's graphs but which is not explicitly put forward in the article.

I think it would be a better approach to find out a new source which compares direct defence expenditure because or at least mention that Finland ranks third only when estimated indirect costs are included to the calculation. Lzmuston (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

History

Why does the article (version) have two history sections? --vuo (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. The one we have now though is way too long. --Pudeo' 01:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This history has some politically motivated talk in it:

"After three months of bitter civil conflict, the White Army of about 70,000 troops defeated the Red Guards from the radical wing of the Finnish Social Democratic Party, in May 1918."

- This is direct lie; Social Democratic Party won the democratic election. The rightwing radicals including rightwing monarchists refused to stand down and acknowledge the result of the election. It was this that led to finnish civil war. So during that time; It was the red side that was acually official finnish army and the white army was the rebellion. Rebellion won. After the civil war; the support for the social democratic party was still there; And the rightwing radicalism was still in white army/finnish army. This is the reason why social democrats kept funding of army really low.

So I'd say that the history part needs a good cleanup. It's also has some things that needs to be specified. Such as 1/3 of swedish army was finnish. And then again claiming they where all infantry or swedish nobilia is again a lie. At certain point there was actually more finnish cavarly in swedish army than swedish cavarly. Hence the glorified name "Hakkapeliitta". That cavarly wasnt swedish nobilia but conscripts from finnish land owners. The officers of those units however; Where swedish nobilia.

"The fully mobilized Finnish army of 400,000 was numerically superior to the opposing Soviet forces, which had been thinned to meet the need for troops to resist the German onslaught on the central front."

- This is wrong too. It's actually very funny; Since when did finland have 400k soldiers? and since when did 400k soldiers come even near numerical superiority over russians?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.176.155 (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Gallery

I recently created a gallery section composed of somewhat recent photos of Finnish land, sea and air forces. I'd like to include some photos of Finnish troops during the Winter and Continuation wars. However, before I add them, I'd like to know if anyone objects to me doing so.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"Homeland defence willingness"?

I am not quite sure what this phrase means. When I Google it I pretty much just get this article. The source is Jane's, but I think the link is outdated because there's nothing about Finland there.

-Phrase "Homeland defence willingness" has been questioned in the same form since the beginning of 1970. The exact question is formulated as:

  If Finland were attacked, should Finns, in your opinion,
  take up arms to defend themselves in all situations,
  even if the outcome seemed uncertain?

About 75-80 % of the people of Finland have answered this question "YES" during the past years. See Finnish stats for this question: Willingness to defend the country from: http://findikaattori.fi/en/77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.157.152.223 (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Simple question on Foreign suppliers

Why is the Soviet Union listed as a Foreign supplier? Even if it was in the past, I've seen a lot of Articles of countries whose armies once were armed by the USSR, but don't directly say it in the infobox, for example The people's army of Vietnam article shows only foreign suppliers in modern times, but has a sub-section to when it the Soviet Union existed and supplied the Army and its history in doing so.

In the end, I'm just wondering if the mention of the Soviet Union in the head infobox here was intentional or a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjpacheco1 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is Russia listed as a foreign supplier? AFAIK the Defence Forces haven't bought any significant material from post-USSR Russia, and will definitely not do so in the future either.Syfes (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you guys, I suggest to delete the soviet flag. AlfaRocket (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Finnish Defence Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924132537/http://www.puolustusvoimat.fi/wcm/Erikoissivustot/lippujuhla2011/Suomeksi/Paraatipuheet%20ja%20tervehdykset/Maavoimien_%20komentajan_%20puhe/ to http://www.puolustusvoimat.fi/wcm/Erikoissivustot/lippujuhla2011/Suomeksi/Paraatipuheet%2Bja%2Btervehdykset/Maavoimien_%2Bkomentajan_%2Bpuhe/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Jehovah’s Witness update

Update: The exemption to military and civil service that was available to those of the Jehovah's Witness faith has been removed from the law. Their special exemption was found in court to be discriminatory and the benefits had to be granted to others, parliament decided that such exemption for everyone was not desirable so they removed the exemption. The courts held that refusal from armed service on ethical/religious/conscientious grounds was an accepted practice in many countries but refusal to do alternative unarmed service had no grounds for similar exemption.

As the system now stands all males between 18 and 30 need to do armed service (6, 9 or 12 months, officer candidates stay longer), civilian service (about 12 months) or jail time (about 6 months). The exceptions that will likely one day be tested in the courts is that the 'self governing' Åland Island residents have not had to perform the service in the coastguard as proposed so far and women have also not had to perform formal armed or civilian service. Advocates for fairness have proposed for a voluntary system that is not gender or location based.

Finland: Parliament Revokes Law Exempting Jehovah's Witnesses from Mandatory Military Service

Jehovah's Witnesses lose exemption from military service

Idyllic press (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Heavy Mine Breaching vehicles sent to Ukraine

All 6 have or will be sent to Ukraine. 109.240.36.175 (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Some of the assault weapons listed link to North Korean weapons

This doesn't seem right but I don't have the knowledge to verify and fix TiddiesTiddiesTiddies (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)