Talk:German Army

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)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Why are there absolutely no references to WW2 in this entire article? 5:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Very simple - this German Army has been created in 1955 - at that time WWII was over since ten years. --Sardines en huile (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The translations of German Army organizations, units and agencies WERE NOT in line with official translations used by the Bundeswehr. I have edited most of the Army structure and changed incorrect translations into the terms used in numerous official translations. Hacktranslator (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

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) .

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)

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)

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)

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)

That user mixed something up and refered to the 14th Tank Brigade (14. Panzerbrigade) called "Hassian Lion" (Hessischer Löwe), that went out of service in June 2008. A 14th Panzer Division never existed in the modern German Army. However such personal opinions are not the business of an encyclopedia in any way. So it is a correct decision to remove that line. 87.178.74.152 (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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!

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)

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)

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.

Germany army in Afghanistan today

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

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)

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).

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?

i think that the comparison between german army and us army ranks is completely wrong! just check out the NATO standardization agreement on military ranks (STANAG 2116). i'm afraid of changing this, since i'm not familiar with writing on wikipedia plus my english isnt that good... :) 87.176.106.169 (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Wehrmacht

Suggest paragraph on 'war crimes' of German Army World War II be eliminated altogether; all armies committed war crimes, and World War II combat was complicated as well by bands of terrorists, partisans, resistants or whatever they called themselves, virtually all communist, including those in western European countries. These persons engaged in atrocities, combat, sabotage and so on against recognized national armies, and fighting back was only judged a war crime after the war by the special interest groups. In the paragraph on the composition of the Wehrmacht in the 1939-1945 period, you omit any reference to some 34 combat divisions who fought under the command of the Wehrmacht, i.e., the Waffen SS, mostly famed as armored and mountain troops, and a branch of the German armed forces to a far greater extent than the Kriegsmarine was. If a country has a police and security service called the SS under one civil hierarchy, and an entirely separate combat force called the Waffen-SS fighting under Wehrmacht command, one set are cops, the other soldiers. "Conquered lands" should not be used when in fact, after Great Britain, France (Canada, Australia, etc.) declared war on Germany, and Great Britain sent the Expeditionary Force into France (and lost) and the British invasion force to Norway to keep the North Sea open (and lost), and the Soviet Union entered/invaded the Versailles-created territory then called Poland from the east, at the same time Germany entered from the west what had been Germany, (i.e., the German border territory lost when Versailles created Poland out of it), many would call that defensively occupying a portion, such as in France to hold the Channel ports, by negotiated agreements with the French government (Belgian, etc.), which is not the same as "conquered." And since since the populations of such countries as Austria and Soviet-hating Ukraine welcomed the German armed forces (Army, Waffen, and later Luftwaffe fighting as ground troops under Wehrmacht command and as part of the Wehrmacht Order of Battle), would not call that 'conquering' either.72.81.65.59 (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

small changes to nomenclature

i slightly corrected the denomination of two airborne battalions since their main duty is in the field of support and their official bundeswehr denomination is "Luftlandeunterstützungsbataillon" (Airborn Support Battalion), while the fighting units are called "Fallschirmjägerbataillon" (Airborn Battalion). --swexx 87.176.106.169 (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

additionally, i corrected the name of the Special Warfare School to special operations training centre. i'm not shure if i should change the name of the 209th special warfare training company because its bundeswehr denomination just is "ausbildungskompanie 209" (209th training company). what do you think? furthermore i deleted the 909th Training and Trial Company (Airborne) since it was dissolved/combined with the HQ company of the airborne school at the end of 2007. This new unit's name is Stabsquartier, for which i don't find any good english translation. -swexx 87.176.106.169 (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

To achieve a better visibility, I have edited and rearranged the entire article. Also I've corrected some grammatical and spelling mistakes as good as I could. My sources were "Our Army" (ISBN: 3932385020) and http://www.deutschesheer.de/portal/a/heer/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLNzSLtzAIA8lB2c76kXDRoJRUfW99X4_83FT9AP2C3IhyR0dFRQBALId7/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUMvNElVRS82XzE2XzhCRg!! I removed some images as well. This happened because some of them have shown basically the same (such as two helicopters on the ground in different angles) and thus did not contribute much informations to the article. Maybe someone could look over it and correct minor errors I might have made. -Mitch818 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch818 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong linking

The Wikilinks that should led to an article about the german town of Munster (like in http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munster_(%C3%96rtze)) lead to an article about the irisch province of Munster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.88.98 (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

you will find it here: Munster, Lower Saxony

--Sardines en huile (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Overseas permanent deployments

I understand the army has forces stationed in the UK and the USA. Chould not a section be set up to reflect this? Also, a brief history of permanent deployments could be helpful: German tanks in Wales is not a well known fact and deserves a place in Wikipedia. (Gaccha (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

Never knew anything about German tanks in Wales. Got a source for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.138.126.188 (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly have: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1996/10/16/ntan16.html (The Daily Telegraph, UK). They pulled out 16 October 1996: "Their presence ensured that one small corner of Wales has had a distinctly German air with Leo's Supermarket stocking sauerkraut..." (Gaccha (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC))

Don't forget the training centre for Eurocopter Tiger in France whose commanding officer currently is a German colonel. --Ekki01 (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Rank Naming

From my experience with the more-or-less identical structure of the Royal Netherlands Army (although I agree the latter is slightly less complicated than the German sister), the correct equivalent of Faehndrig (which in the article is currently deemed equivalent to a (U.S.?) 'Sergeant') is "Warrant Officer". Can anybody with applicable experience confirm or deny this?

PS: I should've added that the Faehndrig rank is the last rank before commissioning (i.e., it is the last rank an officer cadet holds before he gets his 'field' rank) - I believe that corresponds to the Warrant Officer rank in U.S. terms.Mfhulskemper (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Faehnrich is an Officer Candidate Rank, and its literal translation is "Ensign". A Faehnrich may either become an Officer or a Warrant officer. The rank is equivalent to NCO at level OR-6, which is Feldwebel. 88.73.243.167 (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

German Army (Heer) has 102,000 active troops

look at this source .... http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd443cTQCSYGYxgEh-pEwsaCUVH1fj_zcVH1v_QD9gtyIckdHRUUATi3qcg!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUMvNElVRS82X0NfNENM ....

Ill make the edit and add the referance to it, as i Noticed there is no info to back the 135,000 claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bro5990 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Heer has 102.000 soldiers. But also 35.000 ACTIVE reserve forces, 2.500 of which train each day at regular army bases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.61.100 (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

According to this [1] there are indeed 35.000 thousand places for reserve forces. Please note, however, that in the source it only says that the possibility exists to summon up to 35.000 reserve troops; it does not say that they are permanently on active duty. My preference therefore would be to use the 102.000 for the strength of the German Army and to mention the 35.000 possible reserve troops at a prominent place in the text (or infobox). Just my five eurocents. Cheers, --Ekki01 (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Faulty history

I guess the problem stems from merging: The Deutsches Heer and the Bundeswehr have no history before 1955. There is no continuation from prior German armies or armed forces. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The Article in its introduction already gives a wrong image of how the history of a German Army is to understand. It states "The German Army" would have taken part in World War I, World War II, and has missions in Aghanistan today. The Bundeswehr is not the successor of the Third Reich's Wehrmacht. That urgently needs to be adjusted. -- Von Hochtraben (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Older stuff, such as medieval "Heer", "Kaiserliches Heer", "Schwere Reiter" etc. are missing as well because there is no direct connection to this. Even photographs of late Chancellor Helmut Schmidt had to be removed from barracks, because inspite of being a Social Democrat, he served wearing the wrong uniform. What a shame. 188.105.240.71 (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Centralised sandbox on Bundeswehr lineage links

• 'The Bundeswehr actually does see itself partly in the tradition of the Reichwehr - however the only officially recognized examples for the Bundeswehr are the Prussian military reformers and the members of the military resistance against the nazi regime. also some units can request to carry on traditions of units of Napoleonic units if the units were based at the same towns as today's units. however this is kind of an informal tradition thing - not an officially endorsed... basically it is always best to treat the German units as only in existence since the founding of the Bundesweht - anything else would need careful referencing.'
• No attempt has been made to perpetuate or revive links with the regiments or corps of the past, as Seekt tried to do after 1921; though individual infantry and cavalry/armoured units stationed in appropriate districts nevertheless unofficially adopt the identities of vanished Imperial regiments, the adoption of these fictional ancestries is heavily disfavoured by the Defence ministry. (John Keegan, Page 247 of "World Armies")
• http://www.panzerbataillon24-traditionsgemeinschaft.de/TradVerb/Index-Tradverb.html
• Catherine M. Kelleher, ‘Fundamentals of German Security: The Creation of the Bundeswehr: Continuity and Change,’ in Stephen F. Szabo (ed.), The Bundeswehr and Western Security, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1990.
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_106#German_formations
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_99#Naming_convention_for_the_German_Infantry.2FPanzer_Divisions_during_WW_II
• Donald Aberheim, Reforging the Iron Cross: The Search for Tradition in the West German Armed Forces, Princeton, NJ, 1988.
• See Bundeswehr traditions regulations

Current German Army and previous German armies

I think this article has serious issues. As visible from the infobox, this article clearly gives the impression that it deals with the current German Army, that is the land component (Heer) of the armed forces (Bundeswehr) of the Federal Republic of Germany. Nevertheless, half of the introduction and a significant part of the main text is written about historical German armies and not the current one. I don't think this is a good solution.

The German Army was founded in 1955. It would be OK to mention some historic lines prior to that date, but this should be kept much shorter than the detailed information given in the current article.

However, if this is meant as a general article on German land armies, then the current infobox should be removed. The article should then also deal with much more detail with the historic German armies, e.g. the land component of the NVA, the military of the GDR. Levimanthys (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. As there are specific articles for the other German armies the material regarding those should be moved there and deleted here; safe for some little intro. The other articles are: German Army (German Empire), Reichswehr, German Army (1935–1945) and Land Forces of the National People's Army. A good example would be the German Air Force article, as it deals exclusively with the current Air Force. noclador (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I began to clean the article up now. There are also a lot of errors in there! especially syntax and article errors. noclador (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Personnel

Surely people realise there are more than 66,000 personnel in the Army, the support services provide additional troops split between the main 3 services (with the majority going to the army). There are actually around 90,000 personnel in the Army structure.Osama is Obama (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in German Army

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of German Army's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Bundeswehr":

• From Joint Medical Service (Germany): "Die Stärke der Streitkräfte (Strength of the armed forces)". Bundeswehr. 10 November 2014.
• From German Air Force: Die Stärke der Streitkräfte (10 November 2014) (in German)
• From Bundeswehr: "Die Stärke der Streitkräfte" (in German). bundeswehr.de. 2014-11-10. Retrieved 2014-11-28.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on German Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050205193544/http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~maampo/militaer/milindex.html to http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~maampo/militaer/milindex.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050330111634/http://www.tulipacademy.org/gew/ddhob/ to http://www.tulipacademy.org/gew/ddhob/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Mistkaes

Hi, we've received the following e-mail (OTRS Ticket#2017102510009501) from the editor-in-chief of the German Army's website, listing following errors in the article:

A. Structure of the 10. Panzerdivision
The "4th Rapid Deployment Brigade in Žatec, (Czech Land Forces)[12] does not belong to the division.

B. Structure of Division Schnelle Kräfte
The "81st Mechanized Brigade, in Bistrița (Romanian Land Forces)[13]" does not belong to the division.

C. Image of the locations of the army's major units (File:Relief Map of Germany.svg
As mentioned in A and B, the location of the 4 Rapid Deployment Bde should be erased. The text in brackets "(not shown the Romanian 81st Mechanized Brigade in Bistrita)" should also be erased.

D. Image of the structure of the German Army with integrated allied units in 2017
As mentioned in A and B, the Czech 4 Rapid Deployment Bde and Romanian 81st Mechanized Brigade are not integrated in the German Army's structure. The image should be erased. The image "Structure of the German Army" should be used.

The listed reference (12, 13) talks only about closer cooperation between the units and the German Army but not about an attachment or detachment like shown in the article and the images. The Czech and Romanian units are not integrated in the German Army in any way.

Can someone knowledgeable about the topic address these concerns? utcursch | talk 18:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixing it. noclador (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

What's the difference between the Germany Army and Bundeswehr?

Shouldn't they be just one article put together? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The Heer (German Army) is the army, while the Bundeswehr is the armed forces which includes the air force, army and navy. We wouldn't merge the British Army and British Armed Forces articles for the same reason. BilCat (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@BilCat Correct, but in addition it should be mentioned that with Bundeswehr in the general usage only the army is meant. When someone in Germany says I'm going to the Bund, he means: I go to the army. Otherwise, the person will almost certainly say I'm going to the Marine or the Luftwaffe. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

false relations

"The present-day German Army was founded in 1955 as part of the newly formed West German Bundeswehr together with the Marine (German Navy) and the Luftwaffe (German Air Force)." Sorry, the upper unit is the "Bundeswehr"/German Federal Forces. It has an army (Heer), navy (Marine), and airforce (Luftwaffe), among some more units. See de.wikipedia/Bundeswehr. Regrettably, in spite of another post before in the same sense, the original author did not update the text. Please eventually correct. Thank You. (regrettably, my login failed today)2A02:8108:9640:1A68:DDA6:CB7:EAE5:CF5 (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you think is incorrect here. It could be rewritten for clarity, but the current text is saying the same thing as what you're staying is correct. BilCat (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)