Talk:Uniforms and insignia of the Kriegsmarine

Enlisted Ranks

Could use some help expanding these. They've always been confusing. -OberRanks (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Done! With ranks, rank insignia and US Navy equivalents during WWII. 84.23.155.84 (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

'Expanding' would have been helpful, deleting and replacing with US equivalents is not. This section is headed Petty Officers and Seamen (not 'enlisted personnel'), and the equivalent ranks listed previously had some equivalence with other European navies. USN ranks are very different. What would be most helpful would be to list both, rather than just USN. Robocon1 (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

NATO Equivalent

How could there be any NATO-equivalent before NATO was founded? NATO rank codes are not based on objective criterions transcending time and space, but on agreements between the NATO member countries. As such they are utterly unsuitable for Nazi Germany. Furthermore non-NATO codes, like OF-5a, have also been introduced. Luke (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That got started many years ago by our good Wikipedia friends from the United Kingdom. I have to say I've never been much of a fan for it either. -O.R.^Comms 18:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Insignia examples

Great images. I did not want to lose them, so placed them here. -O.R.^Comms 14:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• 
  Seaman
• 
  Petty officers
• Chief petty officers & Midshipman
  Chief petty officers & Midshipman

Master chief petty officer?

How can you compare anything with a Master Chief Petty Officer, a rank that did not exist during WW2. Luke (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

There were essentially nine enlisted ranks in the Kriegsmarine (not counting the special "time in grade" ranks as well). By today's standards, the highest would be an E-9 (MCPO). I think the British Navy had some type of equivalent, but the U.S. Navy did not. Better than "No equivalent", since the point is to convey to the reader the highness of this enlisted rank. -O.R.^Comms 08:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Using contemporary ranks for a historical rank structure gives a false impression of the personnel structure and status of a now defunct organization. As does the inane use of NATO-code. TM-E 30-451, Handbook on German Military Forces (1945), translates Stabsoberfeldwebel as Chief Warrant Officer, and Oberfeldwebel as Warrant Officer. Stabsfeldwebel is CPO, Feldwebel is PO1, Obermaat is PO2, and Maat is PO3. Luke (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The NATO codes were put in long ago by other editors across several German military articles. A deep history there, once which I am not versed in. -O.R.^Comms 02:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Matrosenstabsoberfeldwebel?

There were no such rank as Matrosenstabsoberfeldwebel in the Kriegsmarine (nor in any other German speaking navy).

• In the Deck Department he was called a Stabsoberbootsmann.
• In the Navigation Department he was called a Stabsobersteuermann.
• In the Engineering Department he was called a Stabsobermaschinist, etctera. See: Detailed Kriegsmarine rank overview.

The generic title was just Stabsoberfeldwebel. Luke (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It's the difference between the ranks and the rates. Several sources give the non-rated titles as Matrosenfeldwebel, oberfeldwebel, stabsoberfeldwebel. Although, there were probably few (if any) non-rated senior chief petty officers. Some charts and books are just plain wrong and call all CPOs "bootsmann". There were actaully around 20 rates (they are listed in the article). I think the information can stand here, but we can certainly add more to the description of the rates vs ranks if we have sources for it. -O.R.^Comms 12:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Its plain wrong to call the generic rank Matrosenfeldwebel. Its Feldwebel. I am not arguing about the branch or department specific titles. I have sources for what I say; you don't. Luke (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually there are sources which state the opposite. The World War II Handbook on the German military, published by the U.S. War Department in 1945, states this about German Navy NCO ranks:

"In the German Kriegsmarine, these ranks are collectively known as "Matrosenfeldwebel, literally "Sailor Sergeants"."

I'll do a little bit more research. The obvious answer would be what is written on an actual German Navy document from World War II. -O.R.^Comms 02:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Bootsmann and other errors

The generic rank was Feldwebel, not Bootsmann. See the discussion above. Luke (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC) I have now added some tables that might clear up a few misunderstandings.

Furthermore someone insists on adding ranks and rank structures that did not exist during WW2. Stick to the sources: TM-E30-451. Handbook on German Military Forces. The peculiar use of NATO-codes confuses, of course, but that's no excuse for not sticking to the sources. One can not use US ranks that did not exist during WW2 like Senior Chief Petty Officer, neither can one use rank levels like OR-8, that neither existed. The highest enlisted rank level was Grade 1 which is the same as E-7 today. I have corrected this too; hopefully I don't have to do it again. Luke (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

NATO CODE

I think its a good idea to remove the NATO codes from this article:

• There are no sources for this. The Kriegsmarine was not a member of NATO, and its ranks are not part of STANAG 2116. If anyone doesn't belive me, see: https://www.militaria.lv/stanag.htm .
• Hence the codes are put in arbitrarily, which is a brake of one of the most basic rules of Wikipedia: No original research!. People are even inventing their own variations, like OR-4a, with no foundation in STANAG 2116.
• Neither the Kriegsmarine, nor the US Navy had a rank structure during WW2 that was completely the same as today. Therefore the NATO-codes cannot reflect the rank structure of that time. US enlisted were graded from 1 (the highest) to 7 the lowest. Grade 1, chief petty officer was the equivalent of Grade 1, sergeant major and master gunnery sergeant in the USMC; ranks that today belong to different pay grades.
• The use of NATO codes creates confusion because it inspires the use of anachronistic rank comparisons.

Does someone agree with me? Luke (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Even if you are correct (and I'll state first that on a technical level I agree with the premise of your argument), it can likely be assumed that the reason the NATO codes are present on this and pretty much any article on military rank structures is probably intended to provide the lay person reading the articles with a framework for understanding the basic structures of these organizations. Obviously, this might be misinformation since the military structures of today are different from the military structures of the past but having that baseline may certainly be helpful for anyone who, at a glance, needs to get their bearings when doing any comparative analysis.--130.126.255.78 (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Conflict with Other Page

This page and the page Admiral (Germany) seem to contradict each other with regard to if the rank of "Admiral" in the Kriegsmarine was equivalent to an admiral or a vice admiral in other navies. It may be a false comparison (as noted by other comments regarding the use of NATO codes in reference to an organization that pre-dated NATO), but nevertheless there should at least be consistency in articles.--130.126.255.78 (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is a mess. More references are needed. Billsmith60 (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)