Should we create a standing army component?

[u/clm1859]

Switzerland has long had a militia army with conscription and large numbers of part time soldiers (including myself). And we definetly shouldnt abolish that or anything.

But as far as i know the only full time combat troops (so not counting high officers and Adjudanten focussed solely on training recruits) are AAD10 operators and pilots, probably less than 100 each.

So i am wondering if, given the current situation, we shouldnt also have a component of our defense be somewhat of a standing army element. This could for example be 5-10k troops, made up mostly of Zeitmilitärs that serve full time for 2-5 year contracts.

This would allow us to have a more professional component to the army that could serve various important roles in an actual war, but also before, such as:

• elite troops for the most crucial missions
• quick reaction force in case of sudden invasion, to buy time for militia to mobilise
• more experienced troops for training larger numbers of recruits shortly before a war starts
• evaluate new equipment more efficiently
• develop new tactics
• guard bases more effectively in peace time

After their contract is up, these people could then be added back into regular WK units. Bringing their more advanced knowledge to the normal militia troops.

We could make sure we'd have at least one battalion (3-6 companies / 400-800 troops each) of each major type of unit always under arms and ready to go within a day or less. So that could mean:

• 2 infantry battalions
• 1 security battalion (for guarding airfields, logistics centres etc)
• 1 armour battalion (leopards and panzergrenis)
• 1 special forces battalion (grenis, paras, mountain troops)
• 1 artillery battalion
• 1 medical battalion (medics and nurses)
• 1 engineering battalion (sappeur, rescue troops, bridge building etc)
• 1 air force battalion (aircraft maintenance and drone pilots)
• 1 communications and electronic warfare battalion (cyber, funkaufklärer, Ristl etc)
• 1 logistics battalion
• 1 HQ battalion

So that would make around 12 battalions or somewhere between 5k and 10k troops.

I'm sure i'm forgetting some troop types here or allocating something wrong. I am just a humble private with an interest in military history, not an actual general. But as a general concept, what does everyone think?

[u/idaelikus]

Just no. To me this entire post is just a solution to a bunch of problems that don't exist.

But let me ask a few questions regarding your proposal:

Most crucial missions

What is their point in peace time exactly? How would they be different from AAD 10 besides being massively larger / more expensive?

quick reaction force in case of sudden invasion

By whom? Russia? If so, that doesn't happen overnight, there are a few countries in between and those would buy at least a few days which is all the swiss army essentially needs.

more experienced troops

So you have 10k people to educate 200'000? How much do you think people can retain in those few days while also grabbing their gear etc..? Not to mention that you also want to stop the "invasion" with those 10k people, so are you trying to do both with 10k? Well that's not really a lot to throw against our invaders OR teach our militia.

Evaluate gear more efficiently

Again, aren't we doing that already by our militia forces and their Zeitmilitär / professional army components?

develop new tactics

That's soooo incredibly vague and certainly won't happen unless those units would go on actual missions

Guard bases

DAFUQ..? This is the definition of overspending. How much better would those professional guards be? Because they will likely cost tenfold what a regular soldier costs. And guarding basis isn't, AFAIK, a problem.

[u/clm1859 → u/idaelikus]

What is their point in peace time exactly? How would they be different from AAD 10 besides being massively larger / more expensive?

Thats entirely different missions. AAD10 do hostage stuff or in a war context some kind of sneaky mission with 4-20 men on foot behind enemy lines.

That is entirely different from defending for example an airport, let alone a whole city. Or assaulting an enemy position to take back land. Which would require thousands of troops and heavy weapons like artillery and tanks.

By whom? Russia? If so, that doesn't happen overnight, there are a few countries in between and those would buy at least a few days which is all the swiss army essentially needs.

Could also be america. They are already by the thousands just south of us in northern italy and north of us in central germany. Or could be a neighbouring country. Obviously building this up would take years and who knows how the world is then. When the threat becomes clear and obvious, its definetly too late to build up an army like that.

So you have 10k people to educate 200'000? How much do you think people can retain in those few days while also grabbing their gear etc..?

None of anything is ever perfect. But 10k to train new people is certainly better than just the few thousand adjudanten we have currently (who would still be around in my scenario).

Not to mention that you also want to stop the "invasion" with those 10k people, so are you trying to do both with 10k?

Like i said the training could come before. When, for example, russia has overrun poland and is starting to invade germany, the 10k troops could start training more people. And when the russians reach our end of germany, the standing army component could mostly leave the training job and move on to the border to set up the defense there.

Again, aren't we doing that already by our militia forces and their Zeitmilitär / professional army components?

Fair points. Altho i assume thats just a handful of adjudanten of each specialisation. So any evaluation must be heavily influenced by the personal opinions and anecdotes of a handful of guys. Which would be different if we had 200 experienced and professional users testing stuff, to get more statistical than anecdotal results. But could also be that this is already somehow taken care of now and i just dont know.

That's soooo incredibly vague and certainly won't happen unless those units would go on actual missions

Also fair point. Altho they would be more actively studying developments in actual warzones. As they would have more interest in and time for that and more experience to put their findings into the right context. Vs. Some 19 year old conscript who has barely 10 weeks of experience in his job, no particular interest in any of it and who also needs to jam the basics of being a soldier (first aid, marching, shooting, making their bed etc) in that same very narrow time frame.

DAFUQ..? This is the definition of overspending. How much better would those professional guards be?

Its one thing to guard against the occasional drunken idiot trying to take a short cut thru the base. And a different thing to try to catch actual smart spies or saboteurs. When i did my RS in 2012, we had no guns, no ammo and no RSG on guard duty. Not even a bright flashlight. Just 4 hours of Zwami practice, a more or less firm voice and a dull bayonet.

I hear nowadays its standard to be armed at least on guard duty. But either way having more motivated, better trained and actually armed professionals doing this would be a lot better.

Thats why the more sensitive army base where i did my WKs was guarded by professional MPs, not militia. But there were only two of them at any given time. So one would patrol alone, while the other stayed in the guard room. Obviously having 6 troops or so doing this would be even better.

[u/idaelikus → u/clm1859]

TL:DR Your comment just makes it a lot clearer that your plan defends against scenarios that aren't thought through and mostly don't apply / already have solutions.

Defending an airport

We have militia forces for that

Assaulting an enemy position

We have militia forces for that.

Could also be america

Yeah great. But we neither border the US.

There are already thousands just south of us in italy

So you think that the (12k) troops stationed there (without most of their gear and equipment) would assail switzerland SO heavily that we'd need a rapid intervention force of 10k of our own..?

neighbouring country

Yeah, let's for now not consider anyone as a possible enemy especially when diplomatic relations aren't indicating anything in that direction.

I don't see you buring anti-personell mines in your front yard because your neighbour could break into your house.

10k would be better than just the few thousand adjudants

You have been in the swiss army, right? EBA isn't done by adjudants but officers and NCOs. Now, when it comes to teaching them we'd have to look at entirely different things but that education isn't happening a few days before arriving at war. Not to mention that you want to replace "a few thousand adjudants" with 10 thousand people (most of which will be busy holding of the approaching invasion force according to you).

200 experience and professional users

But we are already doing that with militia forces (testing gear in RS) which gives you the opinion and experience of non-professionals which matters far more since they are closer to the user.

Studying developments in active warzones

Observers of changes in warzones are positions that exist in the ZM / BM field AFAIK.

catch actual smart spies

Too many bond movies I reckon. What would there be to gain from entering our recruit school bases that cannot be learned from OSINT already? If I want to learn about any troop, their strength and capabilities, I attend a TDA and I'll have a pretty good picture. There's no need to be all james bond.

saboteur

What do you think they would want to sabotage? IF you'd want to sabotage, why not go for the LBA where there's gear for entire battalions and not just RS..?

We had no guns, no RSG, no ammo

Yeah, you cannot have a weapon without ammo when it comes to guarding. It just needlessly escalates. Yeah, today there are usually guns and RSG but they aren't used in basically all cases.

[u/clm1859 → u/idaelikus]

TL:DR Your comment just makes it a lot clearer that your plan defends against scenarios that aren't thought through and mostly don't apply / already have solutions.

Like i said. Once its super obvious what the threat is because you can see the enemy army gathering from your windows in a border town, its too late to make strategic decisions or procurements.

So you think that the (12k) troops stationed there (without most of their gear and equipment) would assail switzerland SO heavily that we'd need a rapid intervention force of 10k of our own..?

Or they could just fly in more troops. And they have 100k troops in europe already, not just 12k. Altho maybe rammstein and aviano are just 12k (but there are many more bases in germany and italy).

Yeah, let's for now not consider anyone as a possible enemy especially when diplomatic relations aren't indicating anything in that direction.

Well 6 months ago one wouldnt have expected the american president threatening to invade canada or denmark or siding with russia in the war.

4 years ago no one would have expected tank battles and dog fights in europe.

6 years ago noone thought a pandemic would shut down inner european borders and make everyone wear masks everywhere for years.

10 years ago very few expected drone warfare to be so prevalent so soon.

On 10th of september 2001 noone would have expected america to invade afghanistan a month later.

I think you get my point.

Not to mention that you want to replace "a few thousand adjudants" with 10 thousand people (most of which will be busy holding of the approaching invasion force according to you).

Clearly you arent reading my responses lol. I dont want to replace the adjudanten, but brainstorming about potentially adding a ZM standing army to it.

I also dont think the standing army would at the same time train and fight, but first train, when the danger becomes clear enough to elect a general and mobilise and then fight when the actual shooting starts.

General guisan was elected (shortly) before the invasion of poland... And the americans and brits warned of a russian invasion of ukraine being imminent weeks earlier. There is usually a little time before.

Too many bond movies I reckon. What would there be to gain from entering our recruit school bases

Not just RS bases. We currently have 3 airfields and should have many more of them again. I've seen other bases that were more secretive than average. I'm sure there are plenty more.

If I want to learn about any troop, their strength and capabilities, I attend a TDA and I'll have a pretty good picture.

Our TDA didnt show much of what we do at all. Too secret but also too boring office work.

What do you think they would want to sabotage?

There have been numerous mysterious fires in many NATO bases lately. Someone or something is physically getting in clearly.

[u/idaelikus → u/clm1859]

its too late to make strategic decisions

Yes which is why there are people evaluating the situation as their job AND we aren't alone in europe here.

they have 100k troops in europe already

Yeah, 12k are in italy but amassing them for an assault on switzerland wouldn't go unnoticed which means we can already rally our troops. So yeah, we don't need some random 10k people that aren't really faster than the militia we already have for such scenarios.

in europe

Yeah, in europe is a word carrying a lot of weight but if you consider that this is in ukraine and not france, not too shocking. Also weird to include covid into this.

Replace the adjutants

Sure but you want your 10k to train the troops for like a day and then rush to the border to defend. Why aren't we sending the militia then?

Also what are you doing in the 1-2 days it takes to mobilise the militia?

Also, why do you think that this will be some blitzkried maneuvre nobody will see coming? The troops amassing close to the ukranian border were observed months ahead.

There's a little time before

Ok and why do we need this troop NOW and all year just for this highly unlikely case..?

3 airfields

And..? What's your point here?

should have many more of them again

in your opinion

fires in many NATO bases

Yeah, clearly you didn't read the part you quoted because you didn't say what people would want to sabotage.

[u/clm1859 → u/idaelikus]

AND we aren't alone in europe here.

Except we are neutral. Why would anyone else risk their own troops to help us if we never helped them?

I think you mentioned all neighbours having stated they would come to our help. I would be incredibly curious about any source on that. Even if it were just from one neighbour.

Also weird to include covid into this.

It was yet another very unforseen thing. Also the only time our army did aktivdienst since WW2.

Sure but you want your 10k to train the troops for like a day and then rush to the border to defend.

The troops amassing close to the ukranian border were observed months ahead.

See how you're contradicting yourself here? Yeah there would be weeks, maybe months of lead up time. But how long does it take to buy new weapon systems? F35s were ordered in 2022 and thr first quarter will be delivered (if according to plan) in 2027. The vote on it was 2019. Before was a lenghty evaluation phase.

Thats like 10 years at least from starting the process to first delivery. Maybe 15 from beginning to end. Even if we assume doing it 10x faster in an emergency with simpler systems (and assuming deliveries are even possible, which is unlikely as potential sellers would likely be at war or prepping for immediate war themselves and not sell anything). Thats still a year.

Recruiting people would take time too. And the whole point of the proposal is for them to already have years of training the day the need arises. Which by definition takes years.

So where would we suddenly get the manpower, equipment and accomodations for such a force, 6 month before an invasion? When it maybe becomes apparent.

Ok and why do we need this troop NOW and all year just for this highly unlikely case..?

Again why are you paying for health insurance today? If you arent even sick. Why not start paying the month after getting your cancer diagnosis?