Talk:German Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the German Army article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Requested move

Heer → German Army, Heer is the German word of for army. The article is about the German Army it should be under the English name Wikipedia:Naming conventions. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support Heer is also a general word for army and is unacceptably ambiguous. I would also support German army. Septentrionalis 23:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It is obvious this article is about the German Army and should be named as such. – AxSkov (☏) 05:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Proteus (Talk) 13:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. SoLando 18:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 07:38, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

How can anyone with such rudimentary knowledge of the English language, grammar, and syntax, let alone military terminology, be allowed to create entries in this encyclopedia. If you don't know how to spell "battalion" or "lieutenant general" and don't know any of the official translations of German military units and agencies, please desist from further disseminating such faulty information.--Manfred Hacker 11:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a also the option of "German army" but other army pages use caps for both words eg Australian Army Philip Baird Shearer 17:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The common name of the German Army is the German Army not Heer. It would also be a bit strange to use "German army" when other army pages capitalise "Army". If Heer is German for army, wouldn't Austria use Heer too?
I'd like to add that the German Navy is not located at Marine. Also shouldn't Luftwaffe be moved to German Air Force too? – AxSkov (☏) 05:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Luftwaffe, at least in Britain, is a borrowed word which all are familar with (amazing how being bombed by an adversery does that!) When the bombing of Kosova startaed in March 1999 The Sun ran the headline "Allies at last" and used the phrase "German Luftwaffe" rather than "German Air Force" (and the Sun is said only to use uses the most common 500 words English words). This German article shows that at least some Germans did not get the Sun's humour. Philip Baird Shearer 17:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Are those German soldiers? If so, please clarify. I am getting the impression those are US since the photo is from the US Navy.

Heer is one possible word for Army and the Austrians do use it too, but most of the time both just say Armee. One only realy needs to use Heer if one wants to make a destinction between ground forces and others(eg. Air Force, Navy...). And yes, at least the two in front are german infantrymen, easily identifiable by their Weapon(G36) and their BDU("Flecktarn"). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.202.27.205 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] War crimes

German army was implicated in massive war crimes including assisting the genocide of Jewish people during the The Holocaust. Molobo added these few words on war crimes to the Wehrmacht paragraph, could this be rewritten by someone with a better command of the English language? This could also be a little less sensationalist, based on the following sentence from the 'War Crimes of the Wehrmacht' article he links to: The Nuremberg Trials of the major war criminals at the end of World War II found that the Wehrmacht was not an inherently criminal organization, but that it had committed crimes in the course of the war. Colonel Mustard 23:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] World War I 1914-1918

Information on the treaty of Versailles written in this article is completely wrong. This version of the end of the first World War, as written by the author, is related to as the Dolchdstoßlegende. It was commonly used by german soldiers and rightist extremists, who claimed that their army would still have a chance to win the war, which is wrong, as even germany's highest generals, i.e. Hindenburg and Ludendorff, were already negotiating with President Wilson about a german surrender, as they knew that the Reichswehr was about to break down, and still every month 250.000 american soldiers were shipped to France to fight for the french and the english. Furthermore, all of Germany's allies had already capitulated and german seamen on several battle ships were mutinying when they were sent to battle. The treaty of Versailles took place after the germans had surrendered and was injust only due to the fact that especially the french had lost millions of soldiers, and was some kind of revenge. German politicians would never have signed a capitulation if there would have been only the slightest chance of winning this war.It is true that the German Reichsheer was still holding enemy territory, but if they had waited longer than they did, a massacre would have been likely to take place if their enemies would have been able to break through their trenches. 84.147.77.207 16:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by 219.88.171.118

The user with IP address 219.88.171.118 keeps vandalizing the article. Request a ban? Edward Sandstig 06:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 14th Panzer Division

I temporarily removed a line added by an anon user that went: "The 14th Panzer Division staioned near Wiesbaden in Hessia (Des Hessischer Loewe)(The Hessisch Lion) is also a very professional tank unit. The Original 14th Panzer Division was destroyed in WW2 at Stalingrad while assigned to the 6th Army." It seemed out of place in the Armoured Corps section, since, if I'm not mistaken, the individual divisions do not come directly under control of one specific combat arm. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. --Edward Sandstig 13:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7th Pz and 14th PzG missing in article?

I checked out the site of the Heer and they listed five divisions, instead of the three listed in this article. Were those two units left out because they were recently reactivated or were they left out because they would be deactivated in the near future? --Edward Sandstig 13:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

--- I second that and changed the article. Some units were misarranged, and additionally the Army Troops Command was missing in the structure. The 7th Amoured Division has been put out of service, but the 14th Mechanised Division is still active. The structure in the article before I changed it was a suggested structure design of the "Heer 2010", and not the current one.

[edit] Quick sandbox

  • NVA-KdoLSK> BwKdo OST> TerrKdo OST> IV Corps (now EinsFüKdo)
  • NVA-MB 3 > 13. NVA-MB 3> 13 PzGrenDiv: PzGrenDiv:
  • NVA-7. NVA-7. PD > HSchBrig 37 > PzGrenBrig 37 > JgBrig 37 > demnächst PzGrenBrig 37 PD> HSchBrig 37> PzGrenBrig 37> JgBrig 37> soon PzGrenBrig 37
  • NVA-4. NVA-4. MSD > HSchBrig 38 > PzGrenBrig 38 > bereits aufgelöst! MSD> HSchBrig 38> PzGrenBrig 38> dissolved already!
  • NVA-11.MSD > HSchBrig 39 > PzBrig 39 > bereits aufgelöst! NVA-11.MSD> HSchBrig 39> PzBrig 39> dissolved already!
  • NVA-MB 5 > 14. NVA-MB 5> 14 PzGrenDiv (wird aufgelöst!): PzGrenDiv (to be resolved):
  • NVA-8.MSD > HSchBrig 40 > PzGrenBrig 40 > bereits aufgelöst! NVA-8.MSD> HSchBrig 40> PzGrenBrig 40> dissolved already!
  • NVA-9. NVA-9. PD > HSchBrig 41 > PzGrenBrig 41 PD> HSchBrig 41> PzGrenBrig 41
  • NVA 1. NVA 1st MSD > HSchBrig 42 > PzBrig 42 > bereits aufgeöst! MSD> HSchBrig 42> PzBrig 42> already aufgeöst!

[edit] Merge of Heer into German Army

I strongly propose a merge of the Heer article into German Army, and a permanent redirect page from Heer to German Army. I’ve seen in the discussion that in 2005 a move from Heer to German Army was decided by the community. Unfortunately, it seems that after this move a new separate Heer article was started.

In my opinion this new Heer article is of minor quality compared to the German Army article, it’s main content is related to the Wehrmacht not to the Heer as such. But maybe some content can be used for the German Army article. MikeZ 16:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. I'd say go ahead, and have Heer redirect to Germany Army.Michael Dorosh 18:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about the German Army, but couldn't find much information on Heer that wasn't already in this article. I've merged the one bit of information that wasn't in this article. Heer is now a disambig page. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistent Nomenclature

It is my opinion that unit names etc. should either be consistently English OR German. Since I found that there was a mixture of both s.v. "structure" (e.g. 1. Panzerdivision AND Armoured Brigade X) I decided to use English terminology all the way and hope that this will meet with agreement from the rest of you. Aquinate 23:46, 29 Sep 2006 (CEST)

[edit] Translation of Truppengattung

There have been several edits by user 70.21.67.52 , changing the word corps to troops. I would like to point out that this is NOT the correct translation of the word Truppengattung. There is a clear difference between the word "Truppen" (meaning troops, i.e. an (otherwise undefined) body of soldiers. e.g. "ground troops") and "Truppengattung" (meaning several different military unist which share the same task).

Both leo.org and Langenscheidt cite the correct translation as either "branch (of service)" or "corps".

I'm reverting this. Aquinate 10:44, 3 Oct 2006 (CEST)


Someone obviously hasn't read or understood what I wrote in October and has changed back corps into troops. As stated above, that is complete and utter nonsense. Could you please stop doing that?? I'm changing this **incorrect** terminology **again**. Sheesh. Some people. Falls Du Deutsch sprichst, greif Dir bitte erstmal ein englisches Wörterbuch oder schau auf die offizielle Webseite der BW, bevor du an der Terminologie rumfrickelst, ok? Aquinate 17:11, 31 Mar 2007 (CEST)

Regardless of what "Truppengattung" means -- can someone improve the English of this section. It looks like it was not written by a native speaker. The syntax and use of words is both incorrect, and difficult to understand.

[edit] Germany army in Afghanistan today

Does anyone know what German army units are currently in Afghanistan? Chwyatt 08:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G36 picture looks false

The G36 picture shows a Marui G36C airsoft gun, not the real gun. Just have a look at the fire selector or a the bullet magazine...

Given that there are bullets in the magazine, I think you're wrong. Otto Tanaka 15:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World War I 1914–1918

A Imperial German Army by that name never exists. The four kingdoms had its own armies in peacetime and the Commander in Chief of each single army was the king. After war was decleared, the german Emperor got supreme command. Only the Navy the Colonial Corps and the Marine Infantry were always named "kaiserlich" (imperial).

[edit] Ranks?

So what are the ranks of the Army, and why does this article neither list them, nor link to a list of them? Listings for other countries' armies do, what makes this one inferior?

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With proper inline citations, this article would easily qualify as a B if not GA. --dashiellx (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)