Posted on Jul 6, 2015
Why does the U.S.A need 4 Branches of the Armed Services? (ARMY, Air Force, Navy, Marines)
26.7K
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
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google