If they are anything like here they spend much of their time responding to false alarms - e.g. burnt toast. Then there is the usual traffic accidents, industrial accidents, and animal rescue.
I would put actual fire fighting as the least of their duties
When not called out they spend much of their time sleeping (night shift) or in the station gym or doing training or cleaning the station.
I disagree - the U.S. military doesn’t get to define the English language. People in the profession of arms are called soldiers, regardless of how their employers choose to refer to them.
Well, to be specific, actually a Cavalry Troop is a unit the same size and organization as an Infantry Company, except we had troopers/troops instead of soldiers. As for your cow/cattle observation, Zeldar, well, yeah, but it’s an improvement over being called “Subject named member”. The Army is like that; grammar never was its greatest strength. On the other hand, where else could you learn to use “fuck” as an exclamation, verb, adverb, and adjective all in the same sentence?
The Navy? 
I’d have to see a reference that says that’s the proper term. Soldier is specific to the Army. The AP Stylebook has entries for serviceman, serviceworman and service member. It does not show a listing for soldier as a generic term for all branches of the military.
Is the OP a question of definition or usage? It seems abundantly clear to me that it is a question of usage. In which case, a generic member of the US armed forces is referred to as a service member, not a soldier.
The question is akin to asking what to call a generic person who has been elected to the House of Representatives or the Senate. They are called a “member of Congress.” One could say that “congressman” or “politician” are terms defined in the dictionary that apply, but those are not the terms used by anyone with a working knowledge of the subject. In fact, if someone were to say that there are 330,000 soldiers in the Air Force, it would either be taken as a statement by an uninformed individual, or possibly with some offense. Like calling a NYPD officer a “gendarme” or “constable.”
“Soldier” with a capital “S” refers to members of the U.S. Army (which is stupid, but whatever); “soldiers” with a lowercase “s”, refers to military personnel everywhere in the world, *including *the United States.
I understand; it’s just a pet peeve of mine. I mean, seriously, “We’re not soldiers, we’re Marines!”, or even worse, “We’re not soldiers, we’re Soldiers! The capital S means we’re *extra *badass!” Get over yourselves. I was a soldier, you’re soldiers too.
So you’re making a usage argument, too: someone shouldn’t be called by term A, they should be called by nearly-synonymous term B.
Perhaps we should forego the terms “service member” and “soldier” and just go with “warrior,” eh?
If I heard that I would think soldiers in the Air Force? since when?
I just don’t think organizations have the right to redefine the language for PR purposes. To me, there’s no real difference between Capital-S “Soldier” and “Sandwich Artist”. It’s branding, pure and simple.
The term “soldier” has been used at least since the European military reforms of the 16th-17th Centuries. It was good enough for those serving under Gustav Adolphus, the Duke of Marlborough, Napoleon, Robert E. Lee and Georgy Zhukov, and it’s good enough for the U.S. military too.
See Alessan’s posts. He contends that a proper term for any U.S. service member is “soldier.” I’m responding to his post.
And the term “warrior” dates from 1250 or so. If soldier is an appropriate term for a U.S. Navy bosun, why can’t you agree that warrior is an even better term for what you did?
Marine has been a distinct term for centuries. I understand that the modern day US Marine Corps is basically a pale imitation of the US Army (they don’t even do the ships company bit anymore), but would you call sailors, soldiers?
That’s the official title as used by companies developing or making equipment for the military. IE “We hope to provide the US Warfighter with a tasty and reliable diet no matter where they are deployed”.
You are not rewriting the language for a particular institution. You are just adopting the already established process of treating a title as a proper noun.
Airman Andrew Higes
Soldier John Hughes
Sailor Mike Burson
Commanding Officer Bob Saget
Even if you write about someone non-military, you don’t go: mr. Smith and mrs. Smith. You go Mr. and Mrs. Smith. No real difference here.
Now, do those in the military usually sign an email like that? No, I haven’t seen it. As they usually use a different title like SSG Hughes, etc. Which, would be Staff Sergeant Hughes, once again, a title.
I guess some clarification on treating a title in general, to refer to a populace, would it be capitalized?
I don’t really think it’s soldiers defining the way people speak. I think there’s been a distinction for hundreds of years between soldiers and sailors, based on the way they go to war. I don’t think that distinction requires a strong knowledge of the military. A few years ago, the Army started asking people to use a capital “S” for U. S. soldiers. I’m not sure that’s catching on outside of the Army.
Well, there was the time when I was in the Coast Guard when we got a message from our Base Commander that while the US Navy Midshipmen were spending the weekend on our base, we should refrain from referring to US Navy personnel as “those fucking squids”. Or at least in their hearing.
I don’t think you really want to tell a Marine that. 
Actually, if anything, the Army seems to be trying to become a little more like the Marines.
Article from the Army itself talking about the importance of the Army’s boats.
You forgot noun. It’s good for that too.