Talk:Armed services

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force

Propose to convert to a redirect

This article really just needs to be a redirect to Armed forces, as it is not actually adding any new information. I am proposing to do so, and will if there are no justified reasons to not. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Services is not same as armed forces. It seems to me the confusion is due to the poor quality of the armed forces article. Armed forces in a nation is a far larger organisational structure than the collective Armed Services--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think my main point is that the two references mean the same thing. If the armed forces article needs work, find people to work on it or do it yourself, but the two phrases refer to the same concept. There isn't anything in this article that isn't already, or can't be, incorporated into armed forces. The two phrases are used interchangeably. PHARMBOY (TALK) 10:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "Military branch" instead of "Military"

I agree that "Armed forces" should redirect to "Military", as it is a synonym. However "Armed services" has a subtly different meaning - it refers to the group of "Military branches/services", so this redirect should go to "Military branch". (Hohum ^@) 20:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In many countries, including ours, "armed services" (or "the services") is entirely synonymous with "armed forces" (or "the forces")! So no, it doesn't have a different meaning at all. Just as "service personnel" (and "servicemen and women") and "military personnel" are entirely synonymous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Compare and contrast. "The navy is one of the armed services", "The navy is a part of the military". "The military is composed of various armed services". (Hohum ^@) 17:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, historically at least, "Military" is closely associated only with the Army. For example, the Citizen Military Force was army-only, there was a Citizen Naval Force and Citizen Air Force. Armed forces and armed services are effectively synonymous; without doing my due diligence, I would have thought that armed forces was more common. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So in Australia, you could say the military was one of the armed services, which is the reverse of what I expected. Live and learn. (Hohum ^@) 02:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is because in Britain traditionally "military" only refers to the Army too, and was only used as an adjective (e.g. "military police" only refers to the police of the Army; "service police" is the term used in the RAF and for the police of the armed forces as a whole). "Military" as a term for the armed forces as a whole (and a noun) originated as an Americanism. "Armed forces", "armed services", "forces" or "services" are the traditional Commonwealth terms. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]