Swedish Interests in T2K Poland

[Legbreaker]

It's my belief that Switzerland will also be in serious strife in 2000. They may catch a few nukes "by accident" and being landlocked by waring nations certainly isn't going to help their trade efforts.
In fact I see neutral nations being in almost as bad a shape as some of the waring parties. Neutral nations by their very nature don't tend to develop alliances and so if they get attacked in the chaos of WWIII, who's going to help them out It's not like they've really got the strength to strike back in any significant way...

[Mohoender]

It's my belief that Switzerland will also be in serious strife in 2000. They may catch a few nukes "by accident" and being landlocked by waring nations certainly isn't going to help their trade efforts.

Why not for the nukes but still I doubt it. Then, given the geography of Switzerland damaged would be very limited. Being a land locked country could effectively be a problem but that overlooks the fact that Switzerland's neighbor is France. Both countries will certainly be collaborating with their borders being opened.

Of course, you still have the EMP but that shouldn't be a huge problem as well. EMP damages can be repaired and in countries remaining organized they will, at least to some extend. The length of the exchange is not really an issue as well because policies will be implemented in countries such as Switzerland to reduce the impact of these EMPs.

[HorseSoldier]

I'd think Switzerland gets ragged around the edges and very decentralized with electronic communications eliminated or severely degraded and motor transport greatly reduced. Things might get desperate enough that crime internal to the Swiss population would become a significant problem, and there'd be a constant issue of marauders drifting in from neighboring European battlefields. Probably the need for organized military response to marauders will keep the population in Swiss territory bordering the outside very keen on the nation-state and very identified as nationally Swiss (provided the government doesn't much the job up and create resentment instead). People in quiter more internal areas might be less sold on the benefits of central government outweighing the costs circa 2000, but I doubt it rises to the point where anyone thinks organized resistance makes sense.

[Mohoender]

No Switzerland will not suffer that much.

First, 100% of the population has access to shelter. These also include hospitals, command posts and emergency storage (with EMP in mind).

Second, fortification were dismantled in the 1990's but that wouldn't be the case in T2K and these would have been extended instead. These linked to the high mountain of switzerland will make it very hard to enter the country. Not to forget, the Swiss had built huge cavern complex that could hold their air force with every piece of strait road that could be transformed in a runway (as in Sweden by the way).

Third, the fully mobilized Swiss army would be at 625,000 men fully trained with the addition of a 480,000 strong civil defense (300,000 of them fully trained). At last you can add 11 border brigades which will be fully mobilized. Every village as a shooting club and rifle range.

Fourth, knowing the Swiss, you can expect any non-citizen to be pushed out in no time. Marauders They'll be like nuts under a hammer and forget about an invasion, there is nothing worth it.

Switzerland was the best prepared country in the world, it can sustain T2K with no problem. Also it can feed its population and again, knowing the Swiss, don't expect much panic. Of course, Switzerland can't sustain a direct attack but there is simply no reason for such an attack.

[Legbreaker]

Switzerland may be able to field that many troops short term, but they can't sustain it for long. To do so would absolutely cripple the countries ability to produce food and goods, and destroy it's economy.

What's to say the defences were retained What's to say the situation in the early 90's didn't convince them they, and the ongoing maintenance costs could be disposed of

Obviously roads doubling as airstrips would not be effected, and the shelters, etc remained, however their readiness may have been downgraded if the international, or more accurately regional situation allowed for it.

[Mohoender]

Switzerland may be able to field that many troops short term, but they can't sustain it for long. To do so would absolutely cripple the countries ability to produce food and goods, and destroy it's economy.

Actually No. These numbers are in facts the viable figures. The country had about 3.500.000 people under military age (16-49) and that lives more than enough to produce foods and goods especially in a country were good's production is already down.

What about economy Anyway, the Twilight War has destroyed world economy. Economy is not an issue for any country worldwide and Switzerland won't escape that.

As long as Sig-sauer, Pilatus, Oerlikon and Nestl are producing a trickle of goods, the Swiss make a fortune. I usually have Switzerland making ammo and spare parts for the Bundeswehr and Italy but only after the nukes stop raining. In return, what remains of these two country provide what they can in term of raw materials.

I realize I forgot one last thing. The Swiis are in no way engaged in full scale military operations. They secure their borders and fight marauders, understrength military units. Nothing to bring them to exhaustion.

[dragoon500ly]

I haven't seen your post but here is the listing of landing crafts of Sweden by 2002:

- 3 Grim class Landing Craft (dating back to 1960's, 5 were still seeing service by 1990) being 327t and 36m in length. Probably in the LCU class but I haven't been able to find one illustration. They are potentially the only ships capable of landing tanks and heavy equipments.
- 63 Landing Crafts (Hull No:207, 208, 211-213, 215, 217, 220-223, 225, 228, 230-239, 241, 243-245, 247-249, 252, 253, 256, 258-265, 267-269, 273, 274, 281-283, 603, 604, 606-612, 652-658). 40 to 50t and 21m in length. Probaly in the LCM class.
- Potentially 200+ (may be 300) Stridsbat-90 capable of 40knts and capable of carrying 20 troops. (really usefull for raiding parties)
- Potentially a dozen hovercrafts Typ ABS M10 (6 had entered service between 1995-1997)
- To this, you can add a fairly large number of Civilian Merchant Ferry that can be converted for naval support. I counted no less than 40 such ships for Sweden alone.

Of course, and I think we all agree, this is not enough to conduct any large offensive landing. However, it is more than enough to ensure regular supplies and to bring troops in a fairly unhostile environment (especially in a Sea which is fully under Swedish control).

Looking over a copy of Combat Fleets of the World, most of the Swedish landing craft are short-range boats, basically intended for ship-to-shore or island-to-island movement. The stumbling block to any major amphibious movement falls onto how many of the medium-to-large ships can be used. This then falls onto the shoulders of just how many ships, merchant or otherwise, that would be afloat and usable in the T2K world.

If the Soviets go Sweden, then these simple become additional targets to fire SS-N-19 missiles at. If Sweden gets near missed, the "oops, your ship was in a warzone and got tagged by accident" sort of thing, then it becomes more likely that these ships survive.

There is another way of looking at as well...the neutrality of Switzerland and Sweden has actually been of use to the Soviet Union, both from a political, a military and a intelligence viewpoint. Even during the worse days of WWII, for example, Soviet diplomatic efforts channeled through Switzerland were deleivered to the Nazis...and GRU intelligence gathering found being able to funnel through a neutral nation eased a lot of problems in the fast delivery of intell. During the Vietnam War, a political think tank based in Sweden was very useful to North Vietnam in many ways...one of this groups "findings" was that cluster and napalm bombs were intended as anti-civilian muntions and thus the US was guilty of genocide against the Vietnamese people.

So looking at the neutral nations from this viewpoint, how is it to the advantage of the Soviet Union to invade or nuke.

Just a point to consider.

[dragoon500ly]

It's my belief that Switzerland will also be in serious strife in 2000. They may catch a few nukes "by accident" and being landlocked by waring nations certainly isn't going to help their trade efforts.
In fact I see neutral nations being in almost as bad a shape as some of the waring parties. Neutral nations by their very nature don't tend to develop alliances and so if they get attacked in the chaos of WWIII, who's going to help them out It's not like they've really got the strength to strike back in any significant way...

International law allows neutral nations to conduct trade with both sides.
Switzerland, for example, in WWII was allowed to import coal from Nazi Germany and allowed to pay for this material by exporting food, optics and machined goods by the Allies. Indeed, these delivery trains were marked and allowed to proceed through areas where other train traffic was being bombed/strafed. Sweden was allowed to ship ore and other material and there ships were escorted through the various minefields by both sides.

And don't forget that because they are neutral nations, embassies from both sides can be maintained, diplomatic letters exchanged, PoWs to badly wounded to fight on can be exchanged, and the various intelligence agencies have a safe haven to operate from, its also an excellent means of passing propaganda through, trade for specific goods, and so on. Both sides have a lot to gain by respecting the neutrality of a nation. Now, that does mean that accidents will not happen, accidental bombing raids have taken place, but overall, both sides work at protecting and respecting, the neutrality of a nation.

[Legbreaker]

I use Australia during WWII as a basis for my arguement that Switzerland cannot sustain an active military strength of 625,000 for long.
Australia in the early 1940s had a total population of a little over 7 million (approximately the same as Switzerland today). It had 724,000 men serve during WWII in the army, 39,650 in the navy (as at June 1945) and 216,900 in the RAAF (air force) for a total of approximately 1 million, or about 14% of the total population.
The military had to be downsized during the war, even though plans had been for an even larger force, because there simply wasn't the manpower to support it.

I don't understand where you are finding 625,000 trained soldiers From what I can see, in July 2009, "the armed forces consist of 134,886 people on active duty, of which 4,230 are professionals, with the rest being conscripts or volunteers". There are a further 77,000 reserves. It seems very doubtful that anyone not in the military will be given a military weapon, although it is possible they would have sporting rifles, shotguns, etc.

Further research shows the military in 1995 with a strength totalling 400,000 (including inactive reserves)- closer, but still less than 2/3rds.

Adding the 480,000 civil defence personnel strength to the 625,000 military strength and we've got more than a million in service, or approximately 16% of the total population - a higher percentage than Australia was able to support 50 or so years before.

Furthermore, using current figures, "Swiss agriculture meets sixty-five per cent of the domestic food demand". In a T2K scenario when large scale trade effectively ceases with the outside world, a much larger percentage of it's population will be forced into agricultural production and therefore unavailable for military service.

To sum up, it just doesn't seem feasible for Switzerland to field a strong military for more than a few weeks in a 12 month period. Even training time would be restricted due to the pressing need to feed the population.

[Rainbow Six]

It seems very doubtful that anyone not in the military will be given a military weapon, although it is possible they would have sporting rifles, shotguns, etc.

I'm sure I read somewhere that there was some law in Switzerland that required large numbers of citizens to keep a military issue weapon in their home, the premise being that they would then form a Home Guard type of organisation in time of conflict / tension

A quick check of wiki would suggest that's still the case for every male under the age of 30...

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

If I'm reading it correctly, that article suggests there are nearly three quarters of a million assault rifles in private possession in Switerzland (420,000 military issue and 320,000 non military issue). (I know wiki isn't always 100% accurate and there might be a problem with ammo supplies, but that's still a lot of guns...)

[Mohoender]

I use Australia during WWII as a basis for my arguement that Switzerland cannot sustain an active military strength of 625,000 for long.

You are perfectly right but Australia was fighting a bitter war. It was fully mobilized in WW2. Switzerland in T2K is not. It simply has to protect its borders. Also in WW2, Switzerland had mobilized as much as 850.000 troops out of a population of, then, 4 Millions. However, I doubt that they were serving full time.

I don't understand where you are finding 625,000 trained soldiers From what I can see, in July 2009, "the armed forces consist of 134,886 people on active duty, of which 4,230 are professionals, with the rest being conscripts or volunteers". There are a further 77,000 reserves. It seems very doubtful that anyone not in the military will be given a military weapon, although it is possible they would have sporting rifles, shotguns, etc.

I have the 1990 figures, these coming from before the "Army 95" (the current number are difined by "Army XXI") that sized down the military force to 400.000. Then, the 625.000 include reserve as you should remember that the Swiss Army at the time was a militia (I have seen somewhere that it could mobilized 800.000 but I can't confirm that figure). About the civil defense, don't forget that they don't serve as full time and can be assimilated to an emergency reserve.

About guns, you are wrong. It is normal policy for Switzerland to have its militiamen keeping his assault gun at home. By 2001, they were still 800.000 around in Swiss private home. In T2K (a cold war situation), you can at least add a further 400.000. Back in 1990, I was at school with a swiss guy who was 21. At the time, as all men under 50 he had to do military training for a week each year. He had his own assault gun at home. Switzerland was, then, capable of full mobilization in less than 72 hours.

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

To sum up, it just doesn't seem feasible for Switzerland to field a strong military for more than a few weeks in a 12 month period. Even training time would be restricted due to the pressing need to feed the population.

I agree with what you say about feeding but Switzerland will certainly turn to what it did in WW2 and that means turning any arable land into food production. Moreover, industry will be working at a very low level (due to raw material shortages and power cuts). As a result, the number of workers needed will be much lower than during peace time. Non-strategic production will be downed to zero and these workers will be sent to farm the land.

[Targan]

I like the Swiss system as described in that Wiki article. It seems to work well for the Swiss.

[Mohoender]

Is that me or was this supposed to be a thread on Sweden I plead fully guilty.

[Adm.Lee]

Yeah, well, back to the Swedes.

IMO, they wouldn't cross the Baltic to Poland for more than (armed) trade. Maybe they'll be willing to be hired for transportation (see the XI Corps threads, maybe that's how the Danish division goes home).

[Mohoender]

I agree with you Lee. They could also conduct several coastal raids all over the Baltic Coasts.