Talk:German Navy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Germany (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

German name[edit]

Shouldn't this be at "Deutsche Marine" instead and "German Navy" be a redirect? Ttownfeen 00:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I don't think so. This article covers German naval history since the 19th century, albeit in a very rudimental manner. "Deutsche Marine" is used as the official name for the German Navy only since 1991. So the name "Deutsche Marine" would not properly represent the content of this article.
In the German wikipedia there is a long article on the overall history of the German Navy since medieval times de:Geschichte der Deutschen Marine and there are other articles on the different German naval formations that have existed in different times, e.g. de:Bundesmarine, de:Deutsche Marine, de:Volksmarine. Unfortunately, I don't have time (and skill) to translate these articles into English. Especially the article on the overall history seems to be worth a translation.--KuK 07:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Whilst I agree that on English Wikipedia it should be under "German Navy", I think the context translation (Bundesmarine) should be given AS WELL AS the literal translation. Shouldn't it be "Deutschemarine" anyway? Native Germans here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The correct German name is "Deutsche Marine". "Bundesmarine" has only been a semiofficial name that is not any more in use since the early 1990s. "Deutsche Marine" translates exactly to German Navy.--KuK (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The following text was merged into this chapter as it covers the same subject

"Kaiserliche Marine" and "Reichsmarine" are both translated in this article as "Imperial Navy". I think it would be very helpful to add an explanation of the major difference between these german terms. --Reibeisen 11:41, 24 March 2007

"Kaiserliche Marine" - Navy of the Emperor
"Reichsmarine" - Navy of the Empire —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


Yes, I'd like very much to see a reasonable length article on the Volksmarine. Unfortunately, I speak not a word of German, so I doubt I am qualified. Perhaps more unfortunately, I don't think the de:Volksmarine is much more than a stub either. Do the Polish, French or Russian wikis have more on it? --V. Joe 21:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your opinion that de:Volksmarine is a stub. It is not really well structured but a lengthy article including an organisational chart and chapters on the history, the mission, and the ships of the Volksmarine. So, what else are you interested in?
I agree that such an article would be great in English. Just add a respective request to the German page. You can do it in Englisch, most German wikipedia friends will understand, and perhaps someone will try a translation. Then you could assist as a native speaker.--KuK 09:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I've translated much of the German Wiki about the Volksmarine and put it on the English Wiki. Left out the detailed list of ranks and the organization chart -- too complicated for me. Help welcome in polishing this piece.Cosal 21:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Status of procurements[edit]

IP-user has inserted some premature information about the status of some procurement projects and some other wrong information.

  • So far in 2006 only one major contract has been signed for two additional U-212A submarines. Contracts for F-125 and a third Berlin-class supply ship have not been signed yet. In fact, probably the Berlin-class will be delayed a couple of years. The formally planned forth vessel is not anymore in the plans. The F-125 contract may be signed soon.
  • Plans for more K-130 corvettes have been cancelled already in 2003 and the MÜKE project is still very sketchy, so no figures for future ships can be given.
  • The Global Hawk UAVs will be owned and operated by the German Air Force.
  • U-206 has been designed as an anti-surface warfare submarine to be mainly employed against Soviet amphibious forces. It is therefore definitely not a hunter submarine as those are defined as anti-submarine warfare submarines. The first real hunter submarine of the German Navy is U-212A.
  • The NATO research vessel Alliance is owned and operated by the NATO Undersea Research Centre (NURC) in La Spezia, Italy. It is flying the flag of German state owned vessel (Bundesdienstflagge), but does not belong to the German Navy or any other German Ministry of Defence organisation.

--KuK 09:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

- I do not know about your discussion, here. However, I've read several articles in technical literature which claimed, 5 more K130 are planned to be ordered from 2008 on. Apperantly, I am not the only one who read these magazines - WP article on K130 says the same, as does German WP. Afaik, with the decomission of the remaining FACs, five new K130 are to be procurred.

As far as I know MÜKE was later renamed in K130, so they actually mean the same. Unfortunately there is hardly any information on Müke online.

Another question: I've heard that German Airforce was to buy GlobalHawk, but one of the first test flights in Germany, was conducted by the German Navy. Thus, I always had the impression, the German Navy will also get them to replace their last Atlantics.


First of all: A very good source is the German site geopowers with a lot of detailed info on German defence matters including procurement plans. There you can find most things you are looking for, but it is in German. It is not very easy to find specific details as they are listed in different chronological articles. So you should know the date of decisions to find the details there.
About the UAV: The Global Hawk tests were conducted from Nordholz Naval Air Station. That may have led to the impression that they were planned for the Navy. This is definitely wrong as they are planned to be stationes at Air Force base Schleswig.
You are right that there is little info on MÜKE. There are obviously no definite decissions on this programme. One has to notice that within the new German procurement system there are no replacements any more. Instead, there must be a joint capability requirement first. Then it is decided in the Joint Staff how to fulfil the requirement. Then there will be a decision on the new system. As the old FACs are not the right means for modern expeditionary operations new systems might look totally different.--KuK 11:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

U-212A picture description[edit]

I removed the description "Undetectable" for a picture of the U-212A SSK in the article. This characterisation is nonsense from a technical point of view in a variety of ways. While the fuel-cell employed for energy generation, does indeed produce no detectable noise, the submarine still relies on conventional propulsion by diesel generators for most of the time to actually cover any longer distance. Also, even if the submarine would use exclusively fuel-cells for propulsion, the screw is a constant source of noise, as with any other submarine. Being "stealthy" in some way does not mean that you cannot be detected. Thats just it. Note, that we are not even starting to discuss active sonar detection here where noise emissions are irrelevant.


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

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


There is a discussion on the Frigate article which editors here may be interested in. (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


Any reliable source on the title? I never heard anything but Marine. -- (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In English, it's usually called the German Navy. It's not like Luftwaffe, which is used almost exclusively in Engilsh to refer to the German Air Force. Also, "Marine" has several meanings in English, the more common of which do not mean "navy". - BilCat (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Is that what you call a reliable source? -- (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
No, just an informed observation. - BilCat (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
And see the #German name section above for similar comments. - BilCat (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
So the guy claiming "Deutsche Marine" would be the correct name is a reliable source?
Gosh, this can't be so hard. Isn't this what Wikipedia is about? -- (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It's the correct name in German, and that is stated in the article. This is English WP, so we're not bound by the names in other languages. - BilCat (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Nor, apparently, by reliable sources. -- (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Relible sources can be given for the use of both the English and German names. Which should be used on English WP is governed by WP guidelines and policies. You're welscom to propose that the article be renamed, and try to get a consensus to do so. Beyond that, there's nothing more this converstaion can accomplish. - BilCat (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

New Organisation[edit]

A new organisation is in force since October, 1st, 2012 with the Naval Staff, the Fleet Command, and the Marineamt all being disbanded and replaced by the new Naval Command in Rostock. There were some more organisational changes to be reflected in this article. Who can do this? --KuK (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Working on that. But since there are numerous changes to take effect on 1 April, I am not in a hurry right now. 13:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, --KuK (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)