Counterpoint to the article "Improve operational capability!" in MarineForum 3-2021.
The bureaucratisation in the military administration and troops mentioned by the author of the article is undeniable. Therefore, approaches to analyse the existing processes in procurement and the use of military equipment in terms of their usefulness and efficiency are to be welcomed in principle.
However, the above-mentioned article makes a number of statements that are factually incorrect and in some cases demonstrate a questionable understanding of the constitution and the law, which is why I would like to take this opportunity to make a few clarifications:
The current international maritime regulations and conventions (e.g. SOLAS, MARPOL, etc.) do not apply to warships. The German Ship Safety Act also explicitly excludes ships of the German Armed Forces from its scope of application.
However, the "will of the legislator" referred to is not based on the fact that the intention was to create a legal vacuum. On the contrary: in clear contrast to German armies of the past, the Bundeswehr parliamentary army abides by the law! This applies not only to the principles of international and constitutional law, but also to aspects of occupational health and safety for its employees (whether in civilian clothes or in uniform), the road safety of its vehicles and the protection of our environment from avoidable hazards and damage.
The Maritime Tasks Act, which assigns responsibility to the federal government to "[...] avert dangers to the safety and ease of traffic [...] and harmful effects on the environment [...]", therefore also applies to ships of the Bundeswehr. It only exempts them from the validity of regulations issued by the Ministry of Transport - conversely, internal Bundeswehr regulations for implementing the protection goals of the law must be issued by the BMVg.
This was done in the form still valid today by a decree issued by State Secretary Dr Peter Wichert in 2006, which was later converted into a Central Service Regulation "Ship Safety on Watercraft of the German Armed Forces" issued by the BMVg (and not by its subordinate offices!). The system is easy to explain:
- Laws that formally exempt the Bundeswehr (see above) must be implemented as far as possible, provided that this does not conflict with "special interests" of the military.
Of course, the rescue and evacuation concept of a cruise ship with 3,000 retired passengers differs from that of a frigate with 200 trained soldiers on board. But the safety objective - saving lives - is the same! - Laws that do not exempt the Bundeswehr are directly applicable. This applies, for example, to the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its downstream legal ordinances. The on-board crane mentioned in the article with an expired inspection period, for example, is a system subject to inspection in accordance with the Ordinance on Industrial Safety and Health. The same applies here as for private cars: if the MOT has expired, legally compliant operation is no longer possible. This serves to protect the lives and health of the servicemen and women on board, whose working environment - in my opinion rightly - is subject to the same safety standards as the crews on civilian merchant ships.
A brief note regarding the author's wish expressed at the end of the article that in future, responsibility for building and equipping the ships should be returned to the navy in addition to responsibility for operation: Responsibility for "[...] meeting the material requirements of the armed forces" lies with the Defence Administration. This has nothing to do with the reforms of recent years and the regulatory frenzy of a (quote) "procedure-orientated" procurement office, but has applied since the founding of the Bundeswehr and can be found in Article 87b of the Basic Law.
In principle, it should be noted that the cooperation between military and civilian departments of the Bundeswehr often takes place under time pressure and, in individual cases, against the background of competing interests in detailed issues. This is completely normal for a large organisation with over 260,000 members.
Despite the considerable burden placed on the troops by a wide variety of tasks at home and abroad and a continuing massive shortage of personnel in the military administration, their cooperation is largely characterised by mutual respect for each other's tasks and the common goal of fulfilling the constitutional mission of our armed forces to the best of our ability with the available means and resources.
The author's opening statement that the offices of the military administration weakened the operational readiness of the navy with their actions is therefore not only lurid and dishonourable:
It is simply wrong.
The author Andreas Groh is an employee of the BAAINBw
English 
German
For certain reasons I do not read all of Mr Dieter Stockfisch's articles, one reason may be that I no longer feel called upon to report on current topics from the fleet, as I have been out of active business for too long.
Thanks to the authors of the above-mentioned article for setting the record straight. However, the fact that Mr Groh, Mr Mouton and Mr Müller felt compelled to do so is questionable. In my opinion, all officers, or at least those who deal with the procurement of defence material in any form whatsoever, should be aware of the facts presented. Incidentally, during my time in active service I repeatedly realised that, if you scratch hard enough, you often come across a blue rag when it comes to delays in procurement measures. I was very surprised at both the lack of empathy and the obvious lack of expertise on the part of retired Captain Stockfisch. Expertise that has not changed despite all the past reforms. But at second glance, I also miss a more sustained editing of the text in question on the part of the editorial team. In memory of an always trusting, creative and respectful cooperation with representatives of the defence administration, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the authors of the above-mentioned article.
As a German officer (Captain of the Reserve, Army), I don't understand the attitude in the original article (March issue) that you could perform well in combat with technically unsound equipment. I would have folded my soldiers violently if a vehicle had turned up on the training ground without even a valid emissions test or if a tool kit had been dirty or incomplete. Once you have passed an inspection in accordance with §78 BHO a few times, you learn to adhere precisely to even seemingly absurd regulations, because military units can only be ready for military use with complete, full, well-maintained and demonstrably technically inspected equipment. A warship that goes into action with a - seemingly unimportant - crane that has not been properly inspected cannot be better than a properly inspected vehicle. The wild claims about the navy's sovereign rights also do not correspond to my professional and legal understanding. In this respect, I share the corrections in the letter to the editor, but I also share the critical statements about my Bundeswehr, which often and always has suffered from its sheer complexity.