The new Joint Board could initiate recommendations on its own. More important, a working staff (named the Joint Planning Committee) made up of members of the plans divisions of both Service staffs was authorized. Membership was expanded to six: the Chiefs of the two Services, their deputies, and the Chief of War Plans Division for the Army and Director of Plans Division for the Navy. Denied the capacity to originate opinions, the Joint Board was limited to commenting on problems submitted to it by the secretaries of the two Military Departments it was described as 'a planning and deliberative body rather than a center of executive authority.' As a result, the Joint Board had little or no impact on the conduct of the First World War.Īfter World War I, the two Service secretaries agreed to reestablish and revitalize the Joint Board. But, the Joint Board accomplished little its charter gave it no actual authority to enforce its decisions. The Joint Army and Navy Board was intended to plan for joint operations and resolve pr oblems of common concern to the two Services. By the turn of the century, war had become too complex for ad hoc joint planning to be successful.Īfter the Spanish-American War, a joint board composed of the military heads of the Army and the Navy and the chief planner of each Service was established in 1903. However, confusion and lack of coordinated, joint military action raised public criticism in the Cuban campaign of the Spanish-American War (1898). Porter in the Vicksburg Campaign of 1863 is a fine example of joint military planning and execution.

Captain Thomas MacDonough's naval operations on Lake Champlain were a vital factor in the ground campaigns of the War of 1812.

American history reflects the importance of joint operations.

Commander in chief example