Interservice rivalry

[1] The latter case can arise, for example, when a navy operates naval aviation units, which can be viewed by the air force as an infringement of its traditional responsibilities.

That is, elements of two or more services participated in close cooperation with mutually agreed goals, relatively little interservice rivalry, and a command structure that, at least at the "sharp end" of operations, promoted, rather than inhibited, a spirit of jointness.

He also saw the benefit of placing them under operational commanders who possessed at least a rudimentary understanding of the tactics, techniques, needs, capabilities, and limitations of each of the services functioning in their combat zone.

The situation, with its origin traced back to the Meiji period, came with both geopolitical and military consequences leading to Japan's involvement in World War II.

Significant examples of this rivalry include the Navy taking several weeks to inform the Army of the disastrous results of the Battle of Midway, and dysfunction between the IJA and IJN during the Guadalcanal campaign.

[citation needed] The U.S. Department of Defense was originally created to provide overall coordination for the various branches of the U.S. Armed Forces, whose infighting, particularly between the Army and Navy, was seen as detrimental to military effectiveness during World War II.

[19] Such officers may be described as being "purple,"[20] a reference to the combination of the symbolic colors of each branch: red (Marines), green (Army), and blue (Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard).

The newly-created U.S. Air Force sought to create a doctrine which relied heavily on strategic long-range bombing and the Army a large number of reservist troops.

Both the Air Force and the Army claimed that the future of warfare depended on the issue of nuclear deterrent, and as such the use of naval gunfire support, as well as the amphibious assault doctrine of the U.S. Marine Corps, was outdated and would never be used again.

The aftermath backfired against the Navy, and caused Congress to review, and after investigation enabled the implementation of the creation of a Strategic Air Force supporting a nuclear mission.

Previously, during the presidencies of Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff position rotated between different service branches.

[25] In December 2018, with the incumbent Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford scheduled to retire the following year, Secretary of Defense James Mattis recommended to President Donald Trump that he pick incumbent Air Force Chief of Staff General David L. Goldfein to be Dunford's successor.

For example, British special forces have rivalries with regular infantry units due to the latter being taught close-quarters combat, which the former was historically responsible for; this rivalry also relates to budgets, as infantry units requiring CQC training also require costly equipment and training facilities, thus using up money that could otherwise be spent on special forces or other purposes.