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

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.

CPT(P) (Join to see), there are 5 branches of the armed services. You forgot the Coast Guard!

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

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

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. . . . . . . .