Last time I worked with 1RCR, the boats were all crewed by 2 pers (3IC was the crew comd / gunner) and the remainder were dismounted. I think this variation of the sect org is actually in the new(er) pam as well, a lot of this boils down to unit SOPs though. Same way how the Patricias have their weird take on the arrowhead and the Royals don't. Though I imagine it's not something exclusive to 1RCR.
So, your pet peeve might not actually exist at all as far as the mechanized battalions are concerned.
Thanks - Problem solved
Three man crews are generally based on the concept that you need one person to physically manoeuvre the vehicle, a second to actively engage targets and a third who is free from both maneuvering and engagement tasks so that he can actively seek fresh targets, determine effects on targets, observe for threats, communicate with leadership or other vehicles and give directions to the other two crew members.
Reducing a crew to two compromises the ability of doing one or more of the above tasks.
But surely the underlying supposition is that the LAV is a Fighting Vehicle? My contention is that it is sufficiently poor at that task that it is bordering on reckless to use it in that manner. It is particularly reckless when a section of under-utilized infanteers are being hauled around in the back listening to their I-pods and waiting for an opportunity to do something.
At very least the infantry should de-bus before the crew heads off to play with the enemy's tanks and ATGMs. If they believe that an extra pair of eyes will improve their chances in that game then good luck to them.
The Stryker uses the same vehicle as an armoured truck. One that stays one tactical bound behind the troops it transports and from that position, the same position a dismounted machine gun would adopt, the vehicle commander employs his own machine gun in support of the troops he transported, while he waits to recover the debussed troops. He isn't manoeuvring against the enemy. And he shouldn't be. He transports troops to and from the fight.
Mechanically the LAV 6.0 is a Stryker with a bigger machine gun mounted. The turret, in my opinion, doesn't improve the odds of the LAV surviving when operating against tanks. If I were riding in the back and saw enemy tanks my first words would be "Let me out!"
The LAV is an excellent troop transporter. The turret, while it improves the level of support it can offer, does not turn it into a Fighting Vehicle.
WRT "Span of Control"
Football vs Rugby
One brain on the sidelines (or as I like to think of it, the Chateau) constraining and controlling the actions of 40 or 50 others on the field who are opposed by 40 to 50 equally constrained and controlled brains under the direction of another Chateau brain.
Or
15 autonomous brains imprinted with the same instructions prior to the game facing 15 similarly instructed autonomous brains. You could say the same for soccer - the world's most popular game. Even the Chinese and Al Qaeda's people play it.
D&B's maroon beret - famously worn by men who had Field Marshal's batons in their packs, according to Montgomery. In the 1940s, certainly in 1946, their training emphasized that everybody had to know the objective, the intent and how to read a map. It was anticipated that the battalion would be scattered all over creation and the role of the individual trooper was to form on the objective and, if he were the only trooper to arrive, continue the mission independently and pursue the mission's intent by any means that occurred to him.
It has been a long time since the Crimea - a war of close ordered files and bright uniforms that generals could see and direct. The evolution from then has been towards loose files scattered across the field operating with forced autonomy because the general can't see them and can't communicate with them and can't orchestrate their actions in real time. And more binoculars and radios don't really improve the situation because now the Chateau general's brain is overwhelmed by chattering voices seeing different things and reporting their different circumstances.
Ultimately his best play was before the battle - to train the troops to operate autonomously.
The balance, of course, is to make sure that the autonomous entity on the field is trained and equipped to operate effectively and that requires some mass. And that mass is what we are discussing here.
For distributed operations I prefer the independent 50 man company divisible into two 24 man platoons, each capable of independent action. The longer those platoons live and work together as single entities then the more effective they become. Constant movement into and out of the platoon merely prevents them becoming effective.
And I don't think the next war between the US and its near-peer will be anything other than a distributed war. The theater will be the whole planet and you will be hard pressed to find a schwerpunkt on which to concentrate your effort.
Edit - I see GR66 beat me to the punch.
). Once you try to control more than five entities, especially in complex and fluid situations, you lose effectiveness.
