The clothing worn by soldiers or police officers is the embodiment of state power. It represents the monopoly on the use of force, combatant status and the right of enforcement. The uniform documents the actions of the actors, whether customs or coast guard. It needs to be recognisable so that the projected authority is also accepted.
With civilian variants - I'm thinking of the railway - without national colours, the intended effect is similar, which has also led to humorous confusion. Speaking of which, when this is brought about maliciously, it's called a Köpenickiade. And that brings us to - caution, contradiction! - uniformed individual. The Uniformed The military is characterised by rank insignia and a diverse array of clasps, medals and colours. The way they are worn is highly individualised despite all the asserted similarities. Even the angle at which the cap is worn can be a message. The Bundeswehr has three different basic forms of the branches of the armed forces and almost all branches of the armed forces have their own colours or symbols.
All good so far? Not quite, because the Uniforms also mean esprit de corps, are mentality, are demarcation and culture. The eternal competition between the branches of the armed forces (TSK), the historically evolved mentalities, manners and ultimately also the mission-related different - let's call it - types of movement, are also recognised through the Uniform carried out.
For decades, the Navy was the only TSK to maintain a sharp distinction between the Work uniform both on land and on board and the Dress uniform - which actually Service suit The basic form is called - drawn. One was allowed to On-board suit or in the unloved "olive", the later Field suitnot "on land". Navy wears blue and white outside the barracks, the end. We are sailors and set ourselves apart from the army, they said. Not entirely without an arrogant undertone, by the way. In the early phase of the joint armed forces era, the Suit an ongoing issue; army superiors had to learn that you lose naval loyalty if you don't fulfil the Suit culture attempts to majoritise. Many a unified Tightening test simply failed because of the beret, or rather its proud wearer. Apparently, the army didn't like its own dress suit (affectionately known as "50 shades of grey") anyway, so the field suit as a new culture actually fitted in quite well, especially as the "operational" also represented the spirit of the times. And while there were times when army officers in field dress were denied entry to a naval officers' mess (I am a witness, sorry again Lieutenant Colonel), in the navy, with slow acceptance, the Field suit as a practical companion for daily use. Convenience and ease of care against constant shirt ironing and cleaning costs were a good argument, especially as the LHD was not helpful as a total failure with increasingly poor service towards the end.
Today, a large proportion of the members of the TSK Marine have completed their training in preparation for deployment or as a military necessity. Field suit in the locker. Many naval personnel now regard it as a normal Suitwhich is also part of the navy's identity. And then this: the Marineforum shows a picture of everyday life in the navy, cutter dolls at the Marine Unteroffizierschule (MUS) in spot camouflage.
The editorial team was inundated with letters: "what has got into us", "complete misjudgement", "tasteless", "false Suit", "undisciplined", "no longer my navy", "that's not who we are", "the army has taken over" and much more. An intellectual respite was the Letter to the editor from the esteemed retired Rear Admiral Gottfried Hoch [Link], who took a clear position, which may not please everyone, but can start a discussion. Which is what we want to do.
So let's debate what the Uniform for the identity of the navy. And that means everyone, of any age, rank or "Resi". So far, the letters have come from retired, seafaring seniors, but what do the ladies and gentlemen of the generation who are in the BGA or Spot camouflage Travelling by train? Go ahead, the comment function is open. And please remember our common image: at marineforum.online we are polite and respectful.
English 
German
As a former speedboat driver, it often bothered me during my military service that I had to wear a "violin" or civilian clothes in order to be allowed to go home in uniform.
However, I have definitely come to the conclusion that the "old, worn-out on-board pack" has no place in BGA "on land". The blue suffers massively from the effects of salt, which cannot be concealed by the camouflage, as is the case with the FA.
On the other hand, I do think that the FA could also be worn by the navy itself, not just SKB or SAN, in public. Tradition or not, it is somehow unfair that the army infantryman jumps out of his equipment into his private vehicle, while the marine infantryman first has to change his gear. In this respect, the "sailor" himself is still "pinched", but the only alternative would be for everyone to wear a suit when travelling home... and who wants to punish the army like that? 😉
And only "as-new BGA" would again lead to discussions and "interpretation problems".
In this respect, I think it would be fairest if all TSKs were only allowed to wear a dress suit or a field suit when travelling home. No combos, no BGA, etc. Or just plain clothes.
Even in the case of the khaki on board: why not release it for shore leave in the appropriate area?
It is not a washed-out BGA, not spot camouflage, and should therefore be perfectly presentable to the (foreign) public.
Add a khaki boat or peaked cap (white) and you're good to go in the relevant area! With a few exceptions, you also save yourself the expense of a white uniform (which, when washed for weeks at sea, sometimes takes on different colours...).
However: On official occasions, such as command handovers, receptions, business trips, etc., uniforms should be mandatory for ALL! Not just in the navy!
This is not a "normal" daily service! It should be a matter of course!
To the linked article by KAdm a.D. Horch:
I was an RUA at the MUS, we were not issued any BGA, only FA. Accordingly, we also pulled in "pea super green". Apart from that, I also see a difference between training (ashore) and shipboard service. At schools, at least before 2000, the FA was mostly TDA and not the BGA. So I can't see any inconsistency in the simple cutter roll when FA is worn. Since the FA obviously serves as AGA and the BGA is only intended for shipboard service, I think that the cutter armour in Flecktarn fits.
As the senior officer at the Kiel site, I was told that marines
had been seen in public in field dress in the area of the site and that I should stop this. A closer look showed that these were often "navy uniform wearers" from SKB and ZSanDst who were allowed to do so. As it would have been absurd to ask for the exact unit, I made my peace with the field suit at the time. Because it is also the "lowest common denominator" in the Bundeswehr. You also have to bear in mind that not all soldiers in the army receive the DA Grundform at all (e.g. teams). This reinforces the trend towards the field suit. However, I think wearing the BGA on buses and trains is wrong. 1. only the navy wears BGA, so unlike the FA, this could be more easily prevented. 2. on public transport, I come across "pimped-up on-board packs" with oversized key rings dangling from the uniform, uncleaned boots, "old-fashioned" ships, etc., which is acceptable on board. But in public? For me, the BGA is a functional suit. I don't go on the railway in a diving suit either, even though I am a diver. In my opinion, the BGA on the railway turns the good idea of bringing more uniforms into the public eye into a negative one. Our uniform looks enviably good. We should wear it with pride in public and do without the BGA in public.
The uniform not only gives us a good, often beloved appearance and reputation, it also provides support, it is a "corset and armour" in some situations, but above all in battles of all kinds.
I personally like spot camouflage, be it olive green or 3-colour desert camouflage. It's well cut, well equipped, very comfortable and really useful in the field. With a bluish navy unit patch, red and green braid on the epaulettes (Bb & Stb!) and self-procured black rank insignia (who wants to go into a land battle like an illuminated Christmas tree?), you don't really need to be ashamed of being a representative of the "Emperor Blue".
The same applies to the BEGA board, operational and combat suit.
The fact that we don't "go ashore" in this, but do in green camouflage, has its reasons in the character as work clothing on board. The "white giant" in me can easily understand that.
Unfortunately, it's also true that it can be difficult to find a well-cut dress uniform in Germany today. Good fabrics and cuts used to be easier to come by before the old clothing cash register and many good old tailors closed down.
We are also increasingly preparing for the digitalised battlefield, including from home, and are generally modern and future-oriented. This is dynamic and a good thing. However, it will also lead to further uniformity issues. (CIR gets its own uniform? Why not!)
But our uniform is also living HISTORY. And we sometimes have our problems with history:
Hostile critics of the Bundeswehr are happy to try to take this history away from us or to thwart any attempt to integrate it into the present and future. (And even that is not enough for some).
Unfortunately, this is primarily a political problem, or rather that of a few tactless members of the German Bundestag, who somehow seem to lack this sense of a historically sensitive responsibility for all soldiers that is conveyed through the uniform.
To this day, we are allowed to do without a clear reference to traditional regiments of the time before 1815, for example through appropriate troop flags, the carrying of side arms on special occasions, etc., while in other parts of Europe this is met with incomprehension. (I would really like to have an M1923 naval sabre!)
At the same time, a corporate design is forced upon us in every PowerPoint presentation that turns everything military into green polygons!
That doesn't exactly give us the feeling that we can feel understood, while at the same time "national (social) commissars" are often not confronted decisively enough. Nobody will probably want to claim that the abolition of compulsory military service would have solved these problems either...
It would be necessary and advisable to refill our uniform with sensitively presented pride and a clear awareness of our history, instead of degrading it to the "work suit of a potentially reactionary professional group".
When in doubt, this democracy is defended by democrats who are strong at heart!
We can also embroider Article 1 of our constitution on the inside, directly above the heart!
"Human dignity is inviolable. Respecting and protecting it is the duty of all state authority."
And we also present our own dignity with this, our uniform.
I plead for a little more composure on this subject. It is almost a "Pavlovian reflex" for many of my fellow marines to reject everything to do with camouflage. This applies to the field suit and even to the "polygon" in the Bundeswehr's employer brand advertising.
As a naval officer, I wear my blue scarf with pride - full stop!
As a Bundeswehr officer, however, I don't have the slightest problem wearing camouflage - both in the field and in public. Both variants create a sense of identity. After all, the field suit is our only common uniform in the Bundeswehr. And for many marines (e.g. naval battalion) it is also the daily uniform.
Where such apodictic thinking leads us is shown by our current tropical work uniform. With this "crumpled khaki", we set ourselves apart from the rest of the armed forces with our uniform, but we no longer "dare" to go "outside" with it and put on tropical camouflage for "chic"....
So why not be on the move as "Brothers in Arms", at least during exercises - also on boat duty - and during operations?
Yes, the eternal topic!
A little anecdote first. When I did my military service with a naval aviation unit in 1977, I used to sneak out of my barracks at the end of my service in my olive drab fatigues and then meet up with my schoolmates, who were also doing military service but in the army, in the market square of my small hometown in Schleswig-Holstein.
Fully aware that I was doing something that was not covered by the uniform regulations - the navy only goes ashore in first class - I was able to show that I was there too, and that I was already a private. I was quite proud. It was completely normal for my army comrades to show themselves in public in their fatigues.
In the meantime, many years have passed and I have remained loyal to the navy even as a reservist. It is completely normal for members of the navy to go ashore in a camouflage suit or in board and battle dress. Servicemen and women from shore units also go ashore. That's good, the constant changing of clothes - the process was called a "masked ball" during basic training, by the way - is quite annoying.
Nevertheless, I still recognise a certain tradition when it comes to wearing the uniform. Some time ago, I had an appointment with the commander of my mob unit and asked my spitfire which suit he would advise me to wear - as a reservist, I'm not completely familiar with all the customs. The answer from the professional was very clear: the Marine always goes to his superior in smart clothes, i.e. first set.
I have several uses outside the TSK Marine behind me and after an initial aversion I have also recognised the advantages of the Flecktarn suit (or affectionately called pea soup). The reasons are simple: more comfortable to wear, no problems with spaghetti bolognese in the canteen :), no cleaning or ironing and easy to swap.
What I will never approve of, however, is that this suit is often worn even when, in my opinion, one should/must wear the "good" service uniform. Examples from my own experience were a New Year's reception of my regiment - the guests in suits and the soldiers in camouflage (I was the only one wearing the regiment's naval uniform in the DA), or even my own company commander handover, which was also carried out in this suit (despite my "protest").
This also has a lot to do with respect in my view of the world, if you look at the picture the other day where the new InspM was introduced to his army colleague for the first time. The admiral looking cute in first violin and the InspH in combat fatigues.
I just don't think it's appropriate, even if I understand that the army simply doesn't like her suit - but it's still her "good" suit and the other one is the "work suit". The craftsman wouldn't turn up in overalls for any official occasions either. My 5 cents
Yes, the topic is and always has been a stirring one!
I think the suit should be worn on business trips!
You can wear camouflage or BGA on the way from home to the police station!
Difficult. As a retired naval aviator anyway. Coming from a time when I had to change my suit up to five times a day, to casually travelling home in my flying suit, to a trip to the SKB, which had very mysterious suit regulations waiting for me.
Without question - I was a. A marine - as someone used to say, b. A naval aviator - but not really a marine, despite being at sea, and c. Shocked by the SKB with its one-sided regulatory frenzy.
The current regulation "smoothes" all this out somewhat. With three basic suits for 5(?) organisational areas, each with their own "ideas" on the subject - the training odyssey of young soldiers through these areas and the almost biblical variety of regulations in the various properties, this seems to me to be the only way forward.
I loved and lived my 1st violin and the patched aviator suit and the identification associated with it. Marinated, as an OTLiG once called it.