Sweden

Discussions on the Allies and the Neutral States in general and the countries that does not have sections of their own.
Post Reply
User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002, 15:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

Sweden

#1

Post by Lord Gort » 11 Jan 2004, 21:25

What was the state of Sweden's armed forces during the war, in particular, did the Swedish air force and Navy have a chance against the Germans? Were any specific defence plans against German invasion created? Fortifications constructed as in Switzerland?



The troop transport agreement ended in 1943, how many troops were regularly using Sweden as a transit point?



regards,

User avatar
AHLF
Member
Posts: 1811
Joined: 30 Aug 2002, 20:16
Location: Ashdod

#2

Post by AHLF » 12 Jan 2004, 15:36

I guess I have to clear the stage for Marcus or another Swede, but I'll make a comment anyway: Swedish tanks were no match at all against the german ones.

http://www.military.cz/panzer/tanks/sweden/index_en.htm


Bill Murray
Member
Posts: 6341
Joined: 09 Jan 2004, 00:22
Location: Georgia USA

#3

Post by Bill Murray » 13 Jan 2004, 00:15

I too will bow to Marcus for a definitive answer but I can throw in some comments as a Yank who lived there for two years and was involved not only with Volvo who did motors for their tanks, military trucks and aircraft motors but also with SAAB who did Scania military trucks and SAAB aircraft
I am not sure just when these were built but the Swedish Navy had several docking facilities carved out of the coastal rocks that were very extensive. I was never allowed to visit them but if memory serves me correctly these were on the Baltic side. May also have been on the West Coast but I am not sure.

Additionally, when I lived there in the seventies they had a number of underground aircraft hangers spread around the country and used the ordinary country roads for at least taxi-ing purposes. I never saw one take off so don't know if they had some sort of strip nearby for that but I can tell you it scares the hell out of you when you are driving along in the middle of bloody nowhere and a jet plane is suddenly on the road ahead of you or beside you. And the Swedes don't have quiet aircraft.

As to their equipment vs the Germans the best I could say is that in 1939-1940 they were not that far apart. They had some tanks that were equal to say the Czechs but most of Sweden is not good tank ground anyway.
My understanding of the early German campaigns is they used mostly Panzer I and Panzer II tanks which were not their best and the Swedish tanks were more or less equal to those variants.

They did have a developing aircraft industry but it would have been no match for the Germans if they were serious I would think. On the other hand, their artillery, their infantry weapons including machine guns and certainly the Bofors AA guns were from a quality and performance standpoint equal to anything in Europe at the time. Not in great quantities of course. In my opinion, their transport fleet was superior to the Germans in that firstly they were built to operate in the Nordic conditions and secondly they were roughly patterned on US design concepts ie simple, very rugged and easy to repair.

The real issue is perhaps their spirit combined with the geography. Much like the situation in Finland the land was hostile for the most part, the concept of a citizen army was well founded and they knew the land like the proverbial "back of their hand". Had Germany chosen to invade Sweden I think they would have had a hell of a time and probably would not have been successful.

In any event, with Sweden's history of neutrality, their "Nordicness" and the fact that they would sell their iron ore and ball bearings etc. at least early on in the war, made it unneccessary for the Germans to take that decision.

Don't know if that helps or not but I thought I would add the comments.

varjag
Member
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002, 02:44
Location: Australia

#4

Post by varjag » 17 Jan 2004, 04:08

Lord Gort - it's only an opinion of course, but Swedens armed forces in 1939 were woefully weak, perhaps with the exception of the navy. The airforce was next to non-existant with obsolete material and the army though numerically potentially strong - lacked training. The first 'blow' Sweden suffered was the Soviet attack on Finland 30.11.1939 and after peace broke out there 3/1940 the Swedes hardly had begun to de-mob the troops before Germany attacked Norway & Denmark a month later. After that the Swedes worked frantically on their defences and by about 1942 equipment and training had reached acceptable standards. A chance against a well-executed German attack - none until then. Later Germanys strength was spent and no such attack could be contemplated.

Robert_Kropotkin
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 01 Feb 2004, 19:11
Location: Linköping, Sweden

#5

Post by Robert_Kropotkin » 02 Feb 2004, 03:18

I´ve read that Sweden´s armed forces wasn´t really prepered for battle until 1949.

Extensive building of defences was made in the South of Sweden (Skåne), the so called "Per-Albin Linjen". Luckily for Sweden Germany didn´t attack, the defences couldnt be filled with enough soldiers in the beginning of WW2. I think that the size of the defences could be compared with the Finnish "Mannerheim line".

/Robert Sköld

Lars EP
Member
Posts: 582
Joined: 16 Mar 2002, 23:44
Location: Presently the Netherlands

#6

Post by Lars EP » 02 Feb 2004, 10:25

AHLF wrote:I guess I have to clear the stage for Marcus or another Swede, but I'll make a comment anyway: Swedish tanks were no match at all against the german ones.

http://www.military.cz/panzer/tanks/sweden/index_en.htm
I am no expert on the subject. However the stridswagen (Chariot) L40 were in 1940 more than a match for PzI and PzII. And not that inferior to PzIII.

The later model L43 were a serious upgrade, with a longbarreled 75 mm gun. I'll see if I can find som specifications.

Regards --- Lars

Lars EP
Member
Posts: 582
Joined: 16 Mar 2002, 23:44
Location: Presently the Netherlands

#7

Post by Lars EP » 02 Feb 2004, 10:50

Found it.... and also the correct designation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stridsvagn m/42

By late 1930s, the Hungarian army ordered a 16-ton tank known as Lago from Landsverk AB. Lago was the result of further improvements of the L-60. The army needs for a bigger and better tank resulted in that 100 modifed Lagos were ordered in November 1941. It was designated Stridsvagn m/42, and was a fully modern tank for its time. It was armed with a 75mm L/34 gun, having adequate effect on armored and soft targets. (About the same effect as 75mm StuK37 L/24 gun used by early StuG IIIs). The tank were well protected and had good mobility. In January 1942 another 60 Stridsvagn m/42 were ordered. This time they were to be built with license by Volvo, and 55 of them are fitted with Scania engines while the last five are equipped with a newly developed Volvo engine. All 60 vehicles had hydrualic gearboxes instead of the elctromagnetical in the first batch. To differ the variants from eachother, they are designated; Strv m/42 and E (one engine), M (electromagnetical gearbox), H (hydrualic gearbox). By the end of June 1942, a further 80 vehicles are ordered from Landsverk, 70 m/42 TH and 10 m/42 EH. In addition, some 42 m/42 EH are ordered from Volvo. The first of the 282 ordered Strv m/42 were delivered in April 1943, and the last in January 1945. The equipped the heavy tank companies of the armored brigades, but were replaced during the 1950s by Stridsvagn 81, the Swedish designation on Centurion Mk. III. In 1957, 235 of TM and TH variants are rebuilt to Stridsvagn 74, while EH vehicles were transfered to infantry-gun vehicles as Ikv 73.

Specifications Weight 22.5tons
Length 6.21m
Width 2.34m
Height 2.58m
Crew 4
Engine 2 x Scania-Vabis
type L603
320hp
------
1 x Volvo
type A8B
380hp
Performance 42km/h
Armament 75mm m/41 gun
four 8mm m/39 MG

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With thanks to the owner of this page:
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/

Regards --- Lars

map358
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: 02 May 2003, 20:06
Location: Sweden

Re: Sweden

#8

Post by map358 » 02 Feb 2004, 22:27

Lord Gort wrote:Were any specific defence plans against German invasion created? Fortifications constructed as in Switzerland?
As far as I understand it:

During WWI Russia was considered to be the main threat. England/Norway came second and Germany last.

With the introduction of the League of Nations the Swedish Army was reduced to less than half the ordinary size. Even though Russia had been weakened it was still the main adversary and plans were made against attacks from the Soviet Union or England/Norway but not from Germany.

In 1936 it was decided to increase the military defence. The number one scenario was a Soviet attack on Finland followed by Swedish intervention and hence war with the Soviet Union. Number two and three were Soviet attacks on Sweden. The number four scenario was a German invasion of southern Sweden, possibly through Denmark.

In 1941 there were plans for two different major scenarios; one - war with Germany, two - war with the Soviet Union.

After Barbarossa had commenced there were no risk for a Soviet attack, but there were some thoughts of assisting Finland in the assault on the Soviet Union, to once and for all get rid of the arch enemy Russia. However these lose plans were dismissed by the government.

In late 1941 there were three scenarios, all of them German attacks, primary through Norway. The first plan was purely defencive and the other two partly offencive with Swedish units advancing into Norway to split the occupying German forces in two.

One year later even the first hand scenario included offencive elements, of a somewhat more aggressive nature with Swedish units advancing towards Oslo.

In 1943 it was obvious that Germany might lose the war and additional plans were made to meet a German or Soviet offencive, through Finland, on the ore fields in northern Sweden.

That's about it.

User avatar
Panther
Member
Posts: 333
Joined: 21 May 2003, 15:00
Location: Sweden

#9

Post by Panther » 04 Feb 2004, 11:08

The Swedish army was totaly unprepared for war in September 1939. We had no defence lines nor equiped troops to face the total war. Sweden bought some airplanes from the U.S. during the first period, but when the situation changed the americans needed the planes themselves. (I belive 20 of the 150 planes were purchased before the US called it off) Thus forcing Sweden to search in other places. Mussolinis Italy was the answer. We bought 100 Italian planes, these were however absolent and got a bad reputation among swedish pilots for being difficult to manouver and an averagely bad plane. Thus making the Swedish air force nothign compared to the German.

The Swedish navy was no match either. It was insufficient and absolent aswell. The Kriegsmarine could simple have destroied the Swedish navy at any time.

Sweden feared an invasion watching her neutral neigbours Norway and Denmark fall for the mighty Wehrmacht. As said earlier, the Per-Albin line was created, but it would offer little resistans to the Wehrmacht before 1943-44.

The famous word uttered by the primeminister of Sweden; Per-Albin Hansson; "We are well prepared!" Were in other words a lie to the swedish people... But then agian... He was a socialist... :lol:

/Regards Panther

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003, 23:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: Sweden

#10

Post by John T » 07 Feb 2004, 00:37

Lord Gort wrote:What was the state of Sweden's armed forces during the war, in particular, did the Swedish air force and Navy have a chance against the Germans? Were any specific defence plans against German invasion created? Fortifications constructed as in Switzerland?
Well, If you compare to the combat record of the WH in 1940 - Swedens defences where totaly inadequate both in training and equipment.
(In good company of France and UK)
Fighting the Soviets was another matter, and the "most likely scenario" in the minds of Swedish military up to April 9 1940.
Sweden had aprox twice the Finnish defence budget up to the winter war.

As Varjag said, the Airforce started the war with a collection of Biplanes, and arcane Ju 86's. 60 US built P-35 did arrive through Petsamo in northern Finland up to August 1940. From late 1940 Italy delivered 72 Fiat CR 42 and a similar number of Re 2000 and Caproni 314.
SAAB started to deliver Northrop A-17 from May 1940 but only a few per month.


The Navy was the Shield against the red threat,
up to 1935 it also out gunned the German navy by far.
Thereafter the Swedes had to rely on sea denial, Mines Subs and coastal artillery.

................ German navy Swedish Navy 1939:
Destroyers 24 12
Subs 59 15

Swedish Navy did hardly had a chance in an artillery duel but they had the resourses to cause some real damage to an attacker.

Note that the Germans had virtually no capacity for amphibious warfare, the South coast of Sweden would not have been invaded by sea alone. Paras or a coup like in Norway- silently capture a harbour before the defenders understood the state of war.

Lord Gort wrote: The troop transport agreement ended in 1943, how many troops were regularly using Sweden as a transit point?
regards,
Between the summer of 1940 and the summer of 1943 aprox 2 milion German soldiers(passengers) passed through Sweden.


Cheers
/John T.

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002, 15:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

#11

Post by Lord Gort » 07 Feb 2004, 12:50

Thankyou very much for the information guys. Especially those troop transport numbers John T, would it be fair to say that the number is high because soldiers would be counted again on each journey they made?



regards,


PS - What did the Allies think of the tranport arrangement, cant have liked it?

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003, 23:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

#12

Post by John T » 08 Feb 2004, 10:30

Lord Gort wrote:Thankyou very much for the information guys. Especially those troop transport numbers John T, would it be fair to say that the number is high because soldiers would be counted again on each journey they made?
Yes.
Lord Gort wrote: PS - What did the Allies think of the tranport arrangement, cant have liked it?
Brittain considered Sweden as a part of the "NEuropa" after the evacuation of Narvik. Some higher British oficial did actually made some (in Sweden ofter quoted) favorable remarks when they where told what Sweden had agreed with Germany. "is that all you promised the Germans?"
Up to 1944 Sweden had some friends in FO while WC was more inclined to see us as quasi-Germans.


Once Norway was occupied and the Allies (UK alone that is) had little chance to interfer with shipping from Norway to Germany so the issue of "unharmfull transit" through Sweden was no major problem up to 43. Then the Allies and Sweden had gained in strength relative to Germany so it could no longer defended by Swedish weakness.

Remember that both of the highest Swedish FO officials wrote after the war that Sweden where not Neutral during WW2, just Non-Beligerent -first leaning towards Germany and then towards the Allies.
( Boheman, "På vakt" and Hägglöf, "Paradis för oss")

Cheers
/John T.

paukenschlager
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 28 Feb 2004, 15:59
Location: stockholm

#13

Post by paukenschlager » 13 Mar 2004, 19:27

map358:
[Swedish] plans were made against attacks from the Soviet Union or England/Norway but not from Germany.
Certainly a wise decision! The UK didn't only plan such an invasion of Sweden through Norway, but actually started its execution. And Soviet did invade ALL its European neighbours in 1939-1940.

User avatar
Madsen
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 23:56
Location: Norway cloose to the Saltstraumen
Contact:

Re: Sweden

#14

Post by Madsen » 15 Mar 2004, 19:44

map358 wrote:
Lord Gort wrote:Were any specific defence plans against German invasion created? Fortifications constructed as in Switzerland?
As far as I understand it:

During WWI Russia was considered to be the main threat. England/Norway came second and Germany last.

With the introduction of the League of Nations the Swedish Army was reduced to less than half the ordinary size. Even though Russia had been weakened it was still the main adversary and plans were made against attacks from the Soviet Union or England/Norway but not from Germany.

In 1936 it was decided to increase the military defence. The number one scenario was a Soviet attack on Finland followed by Swedish intervention and hence war with the Soviet Union. Number two and three were Soviet attacks on Sweden. The number four scenario was a German invasion of southern Sweden, possibly through Denmark.

In 1941 there were plans for two different major scenarios; one - war with Germany, two - war with the Soviet Union.

After Barbarossa had commenced there were no risk for a Soviet attack, but there were some thoughts of assisting Finland in the assault on the Soviet Union, to once and for all get rid of the arch enemy Russia. However these lose plans were dismissed by the government.

In late 1941 there were three scenarios, all of them German attacks, primary through Norway. The first plan was purely defencive and the other two partly offencive with Swedish units advancing into Norway to split the occupying German forces in two.

One year later even the first hand scenario included offencive elements, of a somewhat more aggressive nature with Swedish units advancing towards Oslo.

In 1943 it was obvious that Germany might lose the war and additional plans were made to meet a German or Soviet offencive, through Finland, on the ore fields in northern Sweden.

That's about it.
A Swedish attack into Norway had to fail. they always do that in earlyer wars. they never won a war against Norway, and probebly not against Germany in norway too :P :P only kidding now.
If they launch a attack on German forces in norway and get a chance to cut the german supplylines to the Petsamo front then you would get a interesting new agenda. German defences in Norway was mainly against a naval invation from the west. not a swedish one from the east.8probebly with allied help.

Post Reply

Return to “The Allies and the Neutral States in general”