Why does the U.S.A need 4 Branches of the Armed Services? (ARMY, Air Force, Navy, Marines)

2015-07-06T12:29:42-04:00

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 12:35 PM

2015-07-06T12:35:43-04:00

The intent of the question is to discuss why in todays time do we need 4 branches. Think of the redundancy we have in each. Yes I understand history...no problem there but why not have 2 branches, Naval and Ground? The Navy is unique in what it does and so much of what the Army & Air Force does anymore are integrated... Think about it, from my point of view, for 20 years I was in the ARMY deployed to Air Force bases and I flew for the ARMY in Air Force controlled airspace... where's the common sense in that?

I just think we could make the US Armed Forces more efficient!

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 1:32 PM

2015-07-06T13:32:14-04:00

I think it just evolved of itself.

If you look at it, there was originally two (2) - Navy & Army. The Marines developed from the Navy because the Navy needed a ground force that could disembark from the ship & control the ground quickly before the Army arrived.

The Air Force evolved from the Army as it became apparent that those command ground forces may not necessarily be the best ones to allocate where air missions need to be. Hap Arnold started in the Army & brought about the independent Air Force.

I think that, if you were to merge them back into just Army & Navy, the shear number that would have to be administrated. General officer ranks would have to be expanded. I think that the separation is actually ideal, because a Fleet Admiral does not have to worry about the minute details of what the Marine detachment is capable of, only the broad spectrum. The Commandant needs only worry about the mission once their Devil Dogs are delivered. The Army General doesn't need to concern themselves with the capabilities of CAS, air fighters, or bombers, only that they can coordinate w/ the Air General to make sure that hell rains down from above when the Army needs it, or before the Army gets there.

Response by SSG Izzy Abbass made Jul 6 at 2015 1:45 PM

2015-07-06T13:45:30-04:00

Probably doesn't but the political turmoil that would ensue if you tried to combine would make ISIS jealous. LOL

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jul 6 at 2015 2:57 PM

2015-07-06T14:57:36-04:00

because they all serve different functions... and the marines perfer to conquer not just occupy like the army. *ducks*

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 3:05 PM

2015-07-06T15:05:10-04:00

Of course it comes down to money. No branch would want to give up its piece of the pie. I agree with you. As a support entity I believe our name tapes could say DoD and not a specific branch. A lot of support type schools are joint. It would save a lot of money. I think politics and since that is the way it has always been done will win this discussion everytime.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jul 6 at 2015 3:07 PM

2015-07-06T15:07:39-04:00

One day we will have 5. The United States Star Force will separate from the USAF.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 3:09 PM

2015-07-06T15:09:14-04:00

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 3:33 PM

2015-07-06T15:33:40-04:00

4 different mission sets to address evolving problems on and off the battlefield. You mentioned redundancy, which can seem like a crutch more than anything when considering the other branches, but a certain level of redundancy to me seems to allow each branch to at least address those problems without reliance on another. Also, autonomy comes to mind. Not autonomy in the general sense of decentralized command, more so the autonomy to allow each organization to function using its own set of prerogatives on the same battlefield. I'm just an E-4 this is beyond my pay grade, haha.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jul 6 at 2015 3:52 PM

2015-07-06T15:52:11-04:00

There's actually 7 uniformed branches. Also, the CG is an armed branch.

Response by SSgt Scott Schwerman made Jul 6 at 2015 3:56 PM

2015-07-06T15:56:35-04:00

Each branch does a specific job. Boom plain and simple.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 3:57 PM

2015-07-06T15:57:10-04:00

Because we can only count to four? How about the Coast Guard is #5? We tend to forget them, and Merchant Marines, etc. I'd go for one common purple suit if we could agree on one like the Confederation in Star Fleet....many specialties...if we could manage it. One set of ranks, etc.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Jul 6 at 2015 4:23 PM

2015-07-06T16:23:47-04:00

I think that there is a standard of "each service has a unique job to perform".
And yes, that is true but there are many other factors to look at.
Serving in the Navy means for the most part serving onboard a ship at some point in your career, be it assigned to ships company, assigned staff duty, or TAD for a variety of reasons.
Promotions would become a nightmare, even now in every service promotions in certain jobs are hard to get because of how competitive the rating / MOS is.
And what standard uniform would be worn? Will every service member have to qualify on various weapons or only if your assigned to a combat MOS?
I know that other nations might have gone to a single uniformed service but that doesn't mean we have to follow suit. I mean heck, if they all start jumping off bridges are we going to follow suit?
In all seriousness we need to keep our services how they are because I think that's how we function best.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 6 at 2015 4:31 PM

2015-07-06T16:31:23-04:00

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member, there are 5 branches of the armed services. You forgot the Coast Guard!

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Jul 6 at 2015 5:59 PM

2015-07-06T17:59:00-04:00

In another thread, where the question was whether the USCG should be folded into the Navy, my response was if you do that, why not fold all the ground troops into Army, all the aircraft into USAF, all the watercraft into USN and all specops troops into USMC....

The answer is that these services all have different missions. Even though the Navy has more planes than the Air Force, and the Army more watercraft than the Navy, the missions are different.

Response by GySgt Curtis L Leetch made Jul 6 at 2015 6:27 PM

2015-07-06T18:27:47-04:00

The Army is a pretty awesome force... Once they get there; once they get set up; and as long as Marine Air & Air Force Close Air Support cover the gaps between arrival and becoming FMC. War and other skirmishes are fought in every climb and place; Land, Sea, and Air..... The collective we, aren't fighting all the time, so... the Marines protect the US Embassy's all over the world (less one.... don't even ask!)...The Navy and Coast Guard protect the shipping lanes, and provide 911 service to distressed vessals at sea. Each of the services are ready to overlap for each of the others (JOINT was a good idea)...

Response by Sgt Christopher Colbert made Jul 6 at 2015 7:39 PM

2015-07-06T19:39:58-04:00

I believe each branch brings a specialized ability to the table which then provides strategies for enhanved operations

Response by SFC Christopher Perry made Jul 6 at 2015 8:38 PM

2015-07-06T20:38:05-04:00

So that we all have something to pick on each other about.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 10:08 PM

2015-07-06T22:08:56-04:00

Because the other branches need heroes too!

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 10:20 PM

2015-07-06T22:20:01-04:00

The Gordian knot . . . of service unification . . . there's a whole subset of problems this would solve were it to occur. Imagine a unified supply, medical, data network and pay system, etc. etc. etc. . . . . . . .

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 11:08 PM

2015-07-06T23:08:45-04:00

Poor Coast Guard...everyone forgets them.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jul 7 at 2015 1:40 AM

2015-07-07T01:40:43-04:00

How to Tell the Difference Between the Branches of the US Armed Forces!

If you give the command "SECURE THE BUILDING", here is what the different services would do:

The NAVY would turn out the lights and lock the doors.

The ARMY would surround the building with defensive fortifications, tanks and concertina wire.

The MARINE CORPS would assault the building, using overlapping fields of fire from all appropriate points on the perimeter.

The AIR FORCE would take out a three-year lease with an option to buy the building.

Response by SSG Edward Rhyan made Jul 7 at 2015 2:43 AM

2015-07-07T02:43:29-04:00

I thought it should be a marginally expanded Marine force, Air Force and Navy. There should be no ground war, just a ground stomping and no Army personnel are needed for that. Those 3 groups are really the Trident of power that the US holds. The 4th being the army is just too redundant. Occupy should be taken out of our mission. Break it and come home. So many opinions this post will break the bank in sentences wrote lol.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 2:51 AM

2015-07-07T02:51:44-04:00

We need to add a fifth. The military medical command. No reason we should recruit and train medical personnel for all the different services. Just one medical command and then the other services request medical assets as needed.

Response by Sgt Nick Marshall made Jul 7 at 2015 7:10 AM

2015-07-07T07:10:51-04:00

It doesn't really, or you could argue it's natural for an organization to have specialties.

Response by SFC Nikhil Kumra made Jul 7 at 2015 7:15 AM

2015-07-07T07:15:55-04:00

Control and significance. People need to rationalize their jobs after all.

Response by PO2 William Smith made Jul 7 at 2015 10:24 AM

2015-07-07T10:24:40-04:00

History, tradition, and pride do mean a lot to all vets both past and current but I often wonder my self if a unified military service would be less cumbersome and more efficient. Each branch is unique and do an awesome job of defending and protecting us but there is a lot of duplication. Tough question! Go Navy.

Response by MAJ Ronnie Reams made Jul 7 at 2015 12:45 PM

2015-07-07T12:45:10-04:00

Three Branches, the USMC is a part of the USN.

Response by MSgt Dwyane Watson made Jul 7 at 2015 1:31 PM

2015-07-07T13:31:48-04:00

I have worked with Marine aircraft maintainers and there is NO way I would ever turn one loose on one of my aircraft, different missions call for different training. No offense against the jar heads, they simply weren't trained like us air force...we got along and we helped them when needed.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 2:04 PM

2015-07-07T14:04:51-04:00

There are five branches of the armed forces. Each specializes in a specific set of missions that have some overlap with the others. You can argue redundancy, but when we lose capability and then look for that capability 3 years later, you'll see the wisdom of having these specialists. With the scope of missions the USA is involved in, we do need all five. Tweeking force levels and equipment/basing options yes, but we still need the range of capabilities and focus provided by the five armed (seven uniformed) services.

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Jul 7 at 2015 5:15 PM

2015-07-07T17:15:06-04:00

Different missions, different histories, different expertise. Of course, when we operate jointly, many of the differences are minimized. Also, the Constitution specifically authorizes the Army and the Navy (including Marines) differently. Also, be careful. Exclude the USCG at your own RallyPoint peril!

Response by CPO Jim Turner made Jul 7 at 2015 5:33 PM

2015-07-07T17:33:35-04:00

This question has been around for years, but had not yet been answered. There are some jobs that are interchangeable, and some are not. For example, I was a Navy Corpsman, and while working in a hospital, any service can cover, however while deployed, this is where the differences are. Could an AF medic integrate with a MC infantry unit without proper mission and physical training? Could an Army medic function as an Independent Duty Corpsman (IDC) on a ship or a sub? Could a Navy Corpsman operate as an AF flight crew member?

All these deployed positions require extensive training beyond medical training, this is what makes military personal special.

So, to answer your question, no, yet, but maybe sometime in the future.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 9:45 PM

2015-07-07T21:45:45-04:00

It's called Zero-based budgeting developed by SecDef McNamara in the 1960s. In zero based budgeting, every program needs to be justified each year or else the department losses that program. The logic was that in order to spend money efficiently under federal standards, each program needs to have performance metrics and be held accountable. It has become a joke because each program uses its own arbitrary method to track performance. Therefore, each program request itself to stay in existence year after year. To kill off a whole branch of the military, you would need to get rid of all the small programs that make that branch.

It's not out of the question to merge more parts of the DoD. They have merged warehouses in each Department since the 90s through the working capital funds. It's only a matter of time when we start centralizing contracting and supplies Department wide. As we automate military reporting and cut headquarters units, chunks of each departments budget is going to disappear and the military will become efficient. There also has been a push for interdepartmental activities lie working with DHS or DOI.

Everyone blames the JCS for overblowing the national security threats and it may seem unchecked. But there are actually several controls in the process: Council of Colonels, Senior Review Groups, Army Resources Board, Planning Programming Budgeting Committees. Then, you have guidance from the National Security Strategy and Defense Planning Guidance. The GAO does criticize Defense on a lot of estimates,but America will never take the risk. It is better to have an overmanned professionally trained force than meet shortages by contracting it out to mercenaries who could be more crazy.

Response by Sgt Ron Danielowski made Jul 7 at 2015 10:31 PM

2015-07-07T22:31:37-04:00

Question: "Why does the U.S.A need 4 Branches of the Armed Services?"

Answer: It doesn't, and it is unsustainable.

Chet Richards does an excellent job of discussing the reality and some of the options available in his book "Neither Shall the Sword" (http://bit.ly/CR_NSTS).

Response by MSgt Joseph DuPont made Jul 8 at 2015 3:47 PM

2015-07-08T15:47:59-04:00

I actually wrote a research paper on this exact topic in 1995 as my graduation project while getting my undergrad degree. I loved being a Marine and am very proud of my service, but while researching this paper it is hard from a financial and logistical standpoint to justify the redundant duties and services that are perdormed by all. My answer, one military, but with different arms performing the same role that are performed today, very feasible, but more cost effective. It will happen this century.

Response by LCpl Phil Rowlands made Jul 8 at 2015 8:44 PM

2015-07-08T20:44:38-04:00

Uh, there's actually five. Coast Guard too. As to the others; Air Force was part of the Army until after WWII. Why they separated the two is not a one answer question. Marine Corps was first, even before we had the first actual naval vessel or armed merchantman, because boarding parties in those days tended to expend necessary Sailors. They had to be trained as snipers and in hand-to-hand boarding techniques before we got the ball rolling. The Continental Army was volunteer and serving for agreed terms, and disbanded after the Revolutionary War. Our founders didn't want a standing army during peacetime, but the Marines were necessary because of British aggression and pirate activity. By the time of the War of 1812, we had a small standing army of theoretical professionals backed by state/county militias and a very small Navy.

So all this Cliff's Notes history is just to show why Army/Marines were originally (and continue) to be separate. Marines have traditionally had personal initiative and made command decisions at a much lower level than the Army feels comfortable with for a very specific reason; before the 1950's, intercontinental communications were notoriously slow and decisions had to be made on the spot. As typically tiny units, Marines had to learn how to improvise or die; in a bureaucratic monolith like the Army, the unusual is not welcome.

So, the question you seem to be asking is "why can't we consolidate and achieve economies of scale?" The answer is easy; the Army would never agree to replacement by a larger Marine Corps and is unsuitable to carry out typical Marine missions. The Air Force would never allow itself to be replaced by Naval/Marine aviation, yet is not as effective in direct ground support roles (or the Army would never have needed Apaches etc). The Marines shouldn't have to settle for second best in combat air/ground coordination; we all suffer in that case, when our nation loses military credibility.

Response by TSgt Brian M made Jul 8 at 2015 9:28 PM

2015-07-08T21:28:36-04:00

"If you look at it there were originally two (2)..." Wrong. The Marines were formed long before a US Navy was created, and didn't come under the control of the Department of the Navy until 1834.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 9:37 PM

2015-07-08T21:37:22-04:00

I'd say three. Army for major land operations, Navy for global strategic force projection, and Marine Corps. as a "strategic QRF".

Response by Sgt Matt Koeneman made Jul 9 at 2015 4:47 AM

2015-07-09T04:47:50-04:00

We each have a specialized mission. Examples: Navy-Sea/Ocean warfare, Army-Occupational duties, Marine Corps-Rapid deployment forces, Air force-Air support/surveillance

Response by SrA Christine Martinez made Jul 10 at 2015 7:27 PM

2015-07-10T19:27:56-04:00

Sir,
With all due respect, I'm surprised that you're an O-3 and fail to recognize there are FIVE
branches of the U.S. Armed Services: Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard.
Each branch has its own mission statement and resources allocated to fulfill its mission.
Historically, it was first the Army, then the Navy, from which the Marine Corps was later born. It wasn't until 1947 (September 18, 1947) that President Truman signed the National Security Act that created the U.S. Air Force from what had been known as the Army Air Corps.
Each branch performs a critical mission that may duplicate some of the missions of the other branches, but those overlaps are more beneficial than harmful. The Army consists primarily of ground troops, but as you are well-aware, also has aviation units. The Navy is primarily a naval, as in sea-bearing force, but it also has aviation units. The Marine Corps also has ground troops, but, again, also has aviation units. The Coast Guard is primarily a naval force, but, it, too, has aviation units.
Maybe everyone secretly wanted to be Air Force?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2015 11:16 PM

2015-07-10T23:16:17-04:00

Do we really need 5? No. Will we ever truly be a joint force? No. We will work together, but we will constantly be forced apart by title 10, and the all powerful greenery that is called money. To combine the forces, would require so much time and money. Even if it started now, we wouldn't see the final product in our lifetimes

Response by TSgt Kevin Buccola made Jul 11 at 2015 10:57 AM

2015-07-11T10:57:41-04:00

so we can 5 different pots of money to trick the American public in paying higher taxes

Response by PO1 Charles Norris made Jul 12 at 2015 10:14 AM

2015-07-12T10:14:35-04:00

NO one branch does what any other branch does. I think we could make it work but the pain involved is unimaginable. Imagine try convincing a bunch of Air Force weenies they now have to leave behind their hotel (BEQ) and live on a ship. Try convincing the pilots they have to land on a limited length, pitching, rolling runway! They have to clean their own rooms and make their own beds? Water hours? Right. We'd have flooding in multiple compartments due to the crying. LOL!!!

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jul 13 at 2015 11:17 PM

2015-07-13T23:17:15-04:00

Haven't we kicked this horse to death? Perhaps a better question would be, "Why do Army folks keep re-asking this question?"

Response by MSgt Manuel Diaz made Jul 14 at 2015 8:55 AM

2015-07-14T08:55:15-04:00

American history has shown that we need four branches because generals have made deadly manpower decisions when the shit hits the fan and had no regard for the other branches when it comes to saving their asses or assets. Also funding tends to be another major conflicting reason. I am sure there are other reasons but these are the first to come to mind

Response by Capt Lance Gallardo made Jul 14 at 2015 2:09 PM

2015-07-14T14:09:50-04:00

I respectfully submit as an echo something I heard a senior Marine Corps officer say to a bunch of junior Marine Corps Officers: The Nation does not "need" the Marine Corps. The Nation "Wants the Marine Corps to exist, "because it consistently does what it says it can do, and when it can no longer do that, than its justification for existing are no more. Translation: When the President needs something incredibly difficult, dangerous, and ultimately costly in terms of killed and wounded in actionaction, He (and maybe soon She) calls on the Marines, because they get the job done, and they don't usually say it cannot be done. When it is "Take a Message to Garcia" time, there is no one better to call than the Marines. This is the Marine Corps only justification for being. That and its 240 year history on November 10th, 2015, of Making Men and Women of consistently demonstrate an "uncommon valor, a common virtue" and winning this country's toughest battles. The end.

Response by Capt Lance Gallardo made Jul 14 at 2015 2:29 PM

2015-07-14T14:29:21-04:00

Cleaned up version of the above, because this is important to me as a Marine, now and forever:
I respectfully submit as an echo, something I heard a senior Marine Corps officer say to a bunch of junior Marine Corps Officers: “The United States does not "need" the Marine Corps. The American People “Want the Marine Corps to exist,” because it consistently does what it says it can do, and when it can no longer do that, than its justification for existing are no more.”

Translation: When the President needs something incredibly difficult, dangerous, and ultimately costly in terms of killed and wounded in action, He (and maybe soon She) calls the Marines, because the Marines get the job done, and Marines don't usually say “it can’t be done.” The Marines, more than any of the other Branch of the Armed Forces still pride themselves on straight talk, no bullshit, whether they are speaking the truth to the President, or to the most junior, newly minted Marine Corps Private who just graduated and walked across the grinder on Graduation Day at MCRD Perris Island or San Diego. When it is "Take a Message to Garcia" time, there is no one better to call than the Marines. This is the Marine Corps' only justification for being. That, and maybe, just maybe, its 240 year history on November 10th, 2015, of Making Men and Women who consistently demonstrate that "uncommon valor, is a common virtue" when Marines fight and win this country's toughest battles. This Nation loves its Winners, and it loves the Marines. That is why we continue to exist as a separate entity from the other Services. When you ask most veterans if they served, they tell you I was in the "Army, Navy or Air Force." When you ask a former Marine if he or she served, they invariably say either “I am a Marine” of “I was a Marine.” The end.

Response by Capt Lance Gallardo made Jul 14 at 2015 2:31 PM

2015-07-14T14:31:15-04:00

It is a valid question. I have posted an answer that I hope my fellow Marines and Vets here on Rallypoint feel has at least answered the question in so far as the Marine Corps is concerned.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2015 10:39 PM

2015-07-14T22:39:27-04:00

Form, function and thought process. The different focus that each service tends to mold the service members differently. It is easier to pick from a collection of mindsets that suit your intended outcome. The Marines and Air Force Branched off from there parent services because they needed a new mindset to move forward. even though the Marines still report to the Navy. Haha.. I mean... The Air Force broke away because the leadership felt that the Commanders in the Army were to focused on the ground game that they could not see the best way to add the air assets. You cant see the forest thru the trees scenario.

Response by GySgt John O'Donnell made Jul 16 at 2015 9:06 PM

2015-07-16T21:06:50-04:00

Brig. Gen. Victor Krulak, in 1957 was asked, “Why does the U.S. need a Marine Corps?” Krulak, already a legend in the Marines, penned this reply: “In terms of cold mechanical logic the United States does not need a Marine Corps because she has fine modern Army and a vigorous Air Force and Navy. However, the Americans want a Marine Corps for three reasons…they believe when trouble comes to our country there will be Marines to do something about it….Marines always turn in a performance that is dramatically successful….they believe that the Marine Corps is downright good for the manhood of our country. We [the Marine Corps] exist today—we flourish today—not because of what we know we are, or what we know we can do, but because of what the grassroots of our country believes we are and believes we can do.” This statement is as true now, as it was then.

Response by Capt Donald Menich made Mar 24 at 2020 6:05 PM

2020-03-24T18:05:50-04:00

The Canadians tried this for about (or aboot) twenty years, then went back to the traditional RCN, RCAF, etc. IIRC, troops' morale improved, as did their effectiveness. For us, South of the Border types, there is much more to efficiency than saving a few dollars on uniforms, training and equipment. I'm old enough to remember McNamara's band, and all of the difficulties that gang caused, so when this topic surfaces, every generation of so, I just want to hold my head and rock slowly back and forth, back and forth.....