Talk:Comparative ranks of Nazi Germany

Suggested title change
Suggest this is moved to "Comparative ranks in Nazi Germany" or something similar. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, clearly this page has redundancy with the article page: Comparative officer ranks of World War II; I suppose this page should be kept, but certainly no one has to "reinvent the wheel" here; much of the "Comparative officer ranks" page material can be copy edited over; also the formatting on this page needs work. Kierzek (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I would re-name to "Military and civilian ranks of Nazi Germany" or "Comparative ranks of Nazi Germany". -- Diannaa (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Given three editors concur as to renaming, the page should be re-named: "Comparative ranks of Nazi Germany". Kierzek (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I still believe this list article should be re-titled along the lines discussed above. Kierzek (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good title to me. Agree with KZ -OberRanks (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Article name has been changed per consensus. Kierzek (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hitler Youth ranks incorrect
As was mentioned on another article, the HJ children ranks are woefully misrepresented. Even the highest HJ child rank would never have outranked an NCO in the German military. Also, Bannfuhrer was more like a Captain - not a Colonel or General as is suggested. Someone with a bit more knowledge of fixing tables should alter this one accordingly. -O.R.Comms 13:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Change to table layout and possible split
There needs to be a change so this table fits the viewing page better. The current perimeters are very wide and only show about half the table at a time for the general reader. For one page, seven columns seems to be the limit. It is not ideal, but something needs to be done. If it was split, it should be: Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS, Allgemeine SS in one; Heeresverwaltung, Sturmabteilung, National Socialist Motor Corps, Reichsarbeitsdienst, Hitlerjugend, and NSDAP in the second. Thoughts, solutions? Kierzek (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wehrmacht and other Nazi's organisations elisted ranks
Some of the enlisted grades are not in the right place: for example
 * Unteroffizier is not equal as a Unterfeldwebel
 * Unteroffizier is the same as a "Staff sergeant" (U.S. Army) or "Sergent" (French Army)
 * Unterfeldwebel is the same as "Sergeant First Class" (U.S. Army) or "Sergent-Chef" (French Army)

It's the same thing about Stabsbootsman and Bootsman in Kriegsmarine, Ordnungspolizei, SA, SS, NSFK

"OR-9" ranks are: Stabsfeldwebel (Heer & Luftwaffe) Stabsoberbootsmann (Kriegsmarine) Stabsscharfurher (TENO) Sturmscharfurher (SS) Meister (Orpo) Haupttruppfuhrer (SA, Organization Todt & NSKK)

all the following ranks must be shifted in order to correspond to the reality of the ranks (except the rank equivalent to staff sergent). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:11:F410:98DA:30AE:B3B6:8B70 (talk)


 * Sorry for intervention! As graduated military scientist, with mor than 40 years of service in German armed forces, including assignments to MOG and SHAPE, my commend is as follows:


 * Stabsfeldwebel is and was definitely OR-8 level
 * In Wehrmacht and East German Army, Unterfeldwebel and Unteroffizier was equivalent to OR-5. However, UFw was senior to Uffz
 * Stabsbootsmann of the Kriegsmarine was OR6. However, senior to Bootsmann also OR-6. Oberbootsmann was and is OR-7.
 * Today, Stabsbootsmann of modern Bundesmarine is OR-8. --MilHistExp (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverts
Hello, I have reverted your recent edits, for a number of reasons. 1) No reason to make Reichsmarschall larger. 2) It is unnecessary to include Luftwaffe as shoulder insignia is already included. 3) are used when a rank or lack thereof spans multiple UK ranks. 4) The changes to the NSDAP ranks are completely unsourced. Organisationsbuch der NSDAP neither shows comparison to other German ranks or the UK (which is used as base on the page). Skjoldbro (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hallo, Skjoldbro! Du hast persönlich große Verdienste bezüglich WIKIPEDIA. Da besteht nicht der geringste Zweifel. Trotzdem enthält Deine Tabelle „Comparative ranks of Nazi Germany”, sagen wir mal Merkwürdigkeiten.

Hochachtungsvoll --MilHistExp (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)--
 * Zeile 1 trägt die Bezeichnung Hee & Luftwaffe. Dort sind aber nur Heeresschulterstücke. Da Du die Luftwaffe-Kragenspiegel nicht möchtest, sollten zumindest einige Schulterstücke aus dieser Teilstreitkraft hier genutzt werden.
 * In Kopfzeile und Fußzeile suchst Du den Vergleich mit UK Army. Damit beginnt das Durcheinander. Die Kommentare meines Vorgängers (siehe oben) sind ein treffendes Beispiel, wobei ich versucht habe seine Wissenslücken zu schließen. Mein Vorschlag wäre zumindest in der Fußzeile den Vergleich zu den in der NATO üblichen OF und OR Rangabstufungen zu führten. Sorry, aber die UK Army ranks interessiert nicht wirklich. Zudem enthält die Tabelle noch eine Reihe grober Fehler.
 * Solltest Du an meiner Mitarbeit auf Augenhöhe interessiert sein, werde ich gerne helfen. Ansonsten habe ich wenig Zeit für den Papierkorb zu arbeiten. Übrigens, ist es für mich ziemlich ärgerlich, dass meine Arbeit von mehreren Tagen mit einem Federstrich gelöscht hast. Zudem würde ich die Konversation gerne über E-Mail führen, wenn Du mir freundlicherweise Deine E-Mailadresse geben würdest.


 * Firstly, could you please use English? My German skills are not the best, Google translate might end up causing misunderstandings and this is the English Wiki . But let me try to answer you issues.
 * Heer and Luftwaffe rank structures are the same, in name and general look. My train of through was: in order to have some uniformity in look, it was better to have only one colour scheme throughout, and since the Army was the large of the two branches and colour makes no major difference in the understanding of the ranks, it made sense to have everything Army. However, if you feel that some of the ranks should be Luftwaffe colour instead, feel free to change them.
 * While I also like the NATO code, there are some issues regarding the use of this. Since the end of World War I, officer ranks have been very similar for all countries, making NATO comparisons pretty easy. However, the same can not be said for enlisted. The enlisted ranks only became similar (it seems) following World War II. If we were to use the NATO code, the question becomes, how? As there are a number of ways to look at the structure as sources have widely different ways to present the ranks and its comparisons, seen in this table:


 * Now these are only just the sources I have been able to find with a cursory look, but it is safe to assume there are more source, with even more ways of presenting the ranks. My first issue, with a direct translation from the current German structure is, the structures are fundamentally different, and doesn't take historical context into account. I would like to point to, where the inclusion of 3 different rank structures with 3 different source and a direct German NATO rank translation resulted in Leading Aircraftman being a NATO OR-2, OR-3 and OR-4, while in reality it is only OR-2. According to most contemporary and modern sources, Stabsfeldwebel were seen as equal a US Sergeant-major (OR-9), however current German has it at OR-8. My guess: StFw was the highest rank, but with the addition of OStFw, StFw was bumped down. Additionally, current NATO states Oberbootsmann is below Stabsbootsmann, while historically, I would argue it was the other way around. If you look at the comparison table in Germany at War: 400 Years of Military History page 1940  1640, you will notice the ranks are not equal 1 to 1. There are reason the UK rank comparisons was chosen 1) the comparison is contemporary and made by the intelligence service 2) the UK ranks haven't seen change since WWII 3) it encompasses most of the German ranks of the time making the comparisons easy and sourced.As the table above shows, there is clearly no one way to present this information, and at the time it seemed the CIA (UK) was the best choice. As everything shows, depending on the source, the NATO code is widely differnet, and seeing as historians can't seem to agree on this, it is best not to include it, only equivilants. Additionally, the official NATO code is for the Bundeswehr, not the Wehrmacht, which is a completely different organisation. If you still feel this explanation is inadequate, please feel free to post another source which provides both context and comparison. Personally, I think  might be a good second choice, as it has UK, US, Army, Navy, Air force, SS, Schupo, SA, HJ, RAD, NSKK, NSFK, RBL, TeNo, OT, DRK, SHD and BSP (More or less the same as currently used, with some different ranks and the noteable lack of the NSDAP ). However, using this source would require major changes to the overall structure of the table. Otherwise, a notice could be placed in the beginning of the article explaining the chosen layout and the reasons behind it.
 * You can Email me through the Wiki system.
 * To your recent edit. Do you have any sources that states Stabsbootsmann is equal to Feldwebel? Because according to Zabecki 2014, Davis 1980, and CIA 1999 , they aren't. Your edit further underlines my point that we can't use the current German NATO code, since Oberbootsmann and Stabsbootsmann would have to be switched. Skjoldbro (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC) edited 09:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, Skjoldbro!:
 * Thank you very much indeed for your comprehensive answer.
 * I agree with your statements pertaining the first line: “Heer/Luftwaffe”. However, a few files should depict Lw shoulder boards (20-30%). But this is of minor priority.
 * We should introduce an additional line “NATO OF equivalent” and “NATO OR equivalent”. This is essential to users, in order to provide basic orientation of the appropriate command level. This is of high priority, because this article (Comparative ranks of Nazi Germany) is largely used as reference, above all in Europe. This underlines our specific responsibility!
 * Last point: OR-level, “Nazi naval NCO-ranks until 1945”. I propose the approach as follows:
 * Bootsmann OR6b (1 pip), Stabs-Bootsmann OR6a (2 pips parallel), Ober-Bootsmann OR7 (2 pips in row), Stabs-Ober-Bootsmann OR8 (3 pips).
 * literal German meaning/ translation of Stabsoberbootsmann = above, higher as (de: über, höher als) Oberbootsmann, or Staff assignment of Oberbootsmann. In order to provide a maximum of certainty, I propose (as possible further course of action, or next step) to consult the so-called “Reichsbesoldungsornung für Beamte und Soldaten”. In the meantime, please trust in my expertise. If something is unclear, I will be able to contribute in finding of compromise.
 * Nice weekend --MilHistExp (talk) 09:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I can understand the want for the NATO code. However, like the table above showed, there seems to be no historical consensus on the correct way, with each new source giving a different answer. And using the current NATO structure would be wrong. According to STANAG 2116, Oberbootsmann is OR-6, while Stabsbootsmann is OR-8. However, during WWII, OBtsm was superior to StBtsm, as both your own claim and these references show.    Meaning the current NATO structure is completely incompatible with the Wehrmacht structure. Additionally, none of these sources supports your claim that StBtsm is equal to Fw. In fact, they all claim it is equal to OFw.(ibid.) Furthermore, even if we were to accept that the NATO structure, there are no sources that explains any other para-military rank's placement within the NATO structure. Not having NATO also prevents us from having the pitfalls as shown above, where US or UK ranks end up spanning multiple OR ranks. By having UK and maybe US, people are be able to understand the ranks' roles just fine.While I am sure that you have expertise, we need to PROVE OUR CLAIMS with RELIABLE SOURCES. I believe the current layout is adequately referenced to support everything. Skjoldbro (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is incomplete
the Ranks of the the Nazi Railway Reichsbahn, Women's League, General Government, Civil Service, ERR, Postal Service, Various Police Forces such as the Fire Police, the Forest Service and Deutsche Jägerschaft, the Ministry of the Eastern Occupied Territories, the Cash-in-transit Units (the Postkraftwagendienst), the Transportation Corps, Fleet and legion Speer, the Kyffhäuserbund, the DLV and glider Section, Spanish Court Riding School, and Volkssturm, Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Reich League of German Officials, German Labour Front, National Socialist German Doctors' League, National Socialist League for the Maintenance of the Law, National Socialist Teachers League, Schoolchildren's League, National Socialist People's Welfare, German Faith Movement, National Socialist War Victim's Care, Reichsautobahnen, Postal Service and Telegraphy Service, Luftschutz-Warndienstes, Reich Union of Large Families, German Colonial League, Nazi Judges, Nazi Diplomats, Baudienst in General Government one could also include the ranks of Collaborationist Forces and pro-nazi organizations such as Bund Deutscher Osten and German American Bund, but i think this unnecessary. Marvin Hanes (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Luftwaffe?
since the luftwaffe was its own branch its ranks should be shown separately — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvin Hanes (talk • contribs) 13:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)