Posted on Jul 6, 2015
Why does the U.S.A need 4 Branches of the Armed Services? (ARMY, Air Force, Navy, Marines)
27.9K
160
128
9
9
0
Posted in these groups: 
Joint Service
Joint Service
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 50
12
12
0
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.
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.
(12)
(0)
12
12
0
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.
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.
(12)
(0)
GySgt Jim Bishop
True, however, the Marine Corps was comprised initially of what was then called militia which was very different than the uniformed Army and Navy of the time.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Which may lend to why it still falls under the Dept of the Navy & not under its own Dept. It keeps its 'militia of the Navy' (if you will) status. Helps to not have to deal w/ the rigmarole that is D.C.
(0)
(0)
GySgt Curtis L Leetch
Round two... Navy ships had sharp shooters and "security forces" long before "Marines "Officially" came into being". They may have been called other things, but the general functions are similar...
Does anyone truly believe ships did not have people doing basically the same functions US Marines did before they took on the title Marines?
Does anyone truly believe ships did not have people doing basically the same functions US Marines did before they took on the title Marines?
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
No, but my statement was based off of the only two named branches at the time. It was just a natural evolution that the Marines formed of these gunners & security forces that were on board these ships. It was in the best interest to form a new body of these members that way they could act autonomously w/o having to go through the bureaucracy of the Navy to get permission to do stuff.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
9
7
2
because they all serve different functions... and the marines perfer to conquer not just occupy like the army. *ducks*
(9)
(2)
LCpl Mark Lefler
PFC (Join to see) - you know what PFC you need to learn a bit about what it means to post something tongue and cheek.
(2)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
GySgt Avis Albritton - Not suppose to capitalize "not" when it's in the middle of a sentence, look it up.
(0)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
GySgt Avis Albritton - There was no need to correct me in the sarcastic tone you used, so no, "thanks" was not the proper answer.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
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!
I just think we could make the US Armed Forces more efficient!
(7)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
SFC Bryan Clark - In my opinion the expeditionary mission is unique. You need a leader whose mind is constantly on the move and does not require a lengthy logistics train. This is where SOC would reside. Fast moving strike and move on tactics, weapons systems and soldiers. As it is in today’s MEU/MEF environment the force is only sustainable for 45 days then you need another solution. Preferably we are talking short combat operations and yes it would require the support of the Navy and Air Force. These are the anti drug, terror, piracy, ect… ground forces.
Occupational forces are totally different. That is where we need to create a career nation building force, bring the US Corp of Engineers back into the “Army” fold. These will be the guys that interact with the local economies and people. These are the guys that train the indigenous security forces so the above group does not have to come back. If you want to continue to have this “you break it you fix it” mentality then lets embrace it and build the force to support that objective so we do not live through the same mistakes of the Iraq and Afghanistan reconstructions. Major General Green is a perfect example of a leader that was well suited for this “Nation Building” mission. Again the Navy and Air Force would have to support this mission with logistics, power projection and air support.
I am not saying they could exist alone but that we have to be together so why have this arbitrary separation of the Departments with so much overlap and top heavy expensive leadership.
Pic included in honor of MG Green
Occupational forces are totally different. That is where we need to create a career nation building force, bring the US Corp of Engineers back into the “Army” fold. These will be the guys that interact with the local economies and people. These are the guys that train the indigenous security forces so the above group does not have to come back. If you want to continue to have this “you break it you fix it” mentality then lets embrace it and build the force to support that objective so we do not live through the same mistakes of the Iraq and Afghanistan reconstructions. Major General Green is a perfect example of a leader that was well suited for this “Nation Building” mission. Again the Navy and Air Force would have to support this mission with logistics, power projection and air support.
I am not saying they could exist alone but that we have to be together so why have this arbitrary separation of the Departments with so much overlap and top heavy expensive leadership.
Pic included in honor of MG Green
(0)
(0)
Lt Col Stephen Petzold
They have talked about making some support functions joint, such as medical, but each of the branches has vastly different philosophies that it has stymied efforts to do that so far.
(0)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
It is amazing how much "They" talk with nothing getting done! From a 1st hand experience!!!!
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
PO3 Michael James
It may appear that way, however, IT IS NOT.. without our Coast Guard we, as a Nation, would be faced with more than "drug wars".. We may as well just bend over..
(0)
(0)
CPO Rob Daniel
Coast Guard isn't DoD, they are Homeland Security and before that DoT.
When they were DoT, the would come under Navy during wartime. With the creation of Homeland Security, I am not sure if that is still the case.
When they were DoT, the would come under Navy during wartime. With the creation of Homeland Security, I am not sure if that is still the case.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
...because they are Homeland until mobilized under DoD during war - therefore only a pseudo-military-branch. I still love & appreciate them though.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
In Colonial America, "The earliest mention of Ranger operations comes from Capt. John "Rorat" Smith," who wrote in 1622, "When I had ten men able to go abroad, our common wealth was very strong: with such a number I ranged that unknown country 14 weeks"
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSgt (Join to see) - I can't say that I have ever heard of that name. I am curious if this unit was composed of British Soldiers as opposed to Colonists.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Yup English colonials, the first mention of any Rangers was Scotland. OUR Rangers originated with Rogers Rangers, because he used and applied Ranger tactics that had been around refined them and made a (nominally) sanction "official" unit.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSgt (Join to see) - I have read of how the term started. The US later kept the term for our special units. In that time the term Commando was common but the US wanted to use a term that was unique to the US. So they kept the term Ranger.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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)...
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google