Tomexe

What was the M114s real failing? The aluminum hull, long overhang on the nose, and gasoline engine each come up for blame when the vehicle is discussed. But the CVR(T)'s all originally had Jaguar gasoline engines, both the CVR(T) and the BMD are also of all aluminum construction. And the BMD also has the very long nosed "boat" hull. So what is the real story? Tom.

Roman legions are fun to study. I just love the detective work in teasing out how they ran. The Osprey Roman titles are not bad if you need a quick reference, especially the ones by Nick Sekunda. Their quite portable, and good at digesting the rival opinions about what did what. Adrian Goldsworthy's books are also very good. I have ready The Punic Wars, In The Name of Rome and The Complete Roman Army For the Late Roman Army try Warren Treadgolds "Byzantium and its Army, 284-1081" IIRC its in The Complete Roman Army that he published the translations of those wonderful papyri that pretty much nail down what a 2nd Century turma, century and cohort should be. For the Late Roman Army try Warren Treadgolds "Byzantium and its Army, 284-1081" While there are analogs to modern military ranks in Republican and Principate Legions and auxilia. They are not identical. Because the Legions were much simpler in both their logistics and support weapons, jobs we currently divide between at least two men, an officer and a NCO, were done by one. A Centurion was BOTH a Captain and a First Sergeant. There was not a need for the job to be split because Centuries are not that big in total number of men. And since they only needed food, water, and a limited amount of donkey fodder and all other gear was carried on their poles or on the 10-12 asses assigned to each Century, they were really self contained and did not need what we would call a battalion level headquarters all the time. According to Treadgolds theory the big legions were split up by Diocletian (other sources attribute this to Constantine thirty years later) in the 280s because 5000 men under one commander made that man too dangerous. Too likely to put himself up as a emperor himself. The legions were split into pairs of cohorts, and at that time they acquired a headquarters similar to the independent auxilia cohorts and a battalion staff. It was the Greek speaking Eastern Empire, who combined Roman tradition with a revival of the even OLDER Hellenistic military treatises native to that part of the Roman Empire that created military organizations that look VERY close to the regiments of 17th-19th century armies, except for their lack of the "doubled" command structure. That last feature was the addition of Western Europe's feudal military aristocracy as it tried to find a survival strategy. Since the 19th century the nation states have co opted this feature to attract the university educated to military service to handle new technologies and increasingly complex logistics. Today, if the doubled officer/NCO command structure had not been provided for us by history we would have to invent it. The need to manage logistics, the huge amount of information generated by modern communications, and the service and maintenance of our wonderful modern technologies pretty much DEMAND that the command be split in this fashion. No one person can handle it all- yet there still has to be someone to make final decisions and bear responsibility for them. The big legions though, going back to the early republic, had a big gap between the centuries and the legion command staff. To make things even more strange to us, for several centuries the Legions had no commander present! Due to a historical accident and the fears and jealousies of the Roman polity, when the Roman army was increased from two legions to four in the middle 4th Century BC they refused to create a new office to command the two new legions. Originally there was one legion for each of the two Councils and the council was both 1/2 of the split Roman head of state AND commander of the legion. When they doubled the army, politics and jealousy kept the Senate from acting on creating offices for the new forces. Thus each pair of legions SHARED a commanding officer, who ALSO was the force commander- and one of the heads of state besides. Yet this force was the one that finally ended the century long war with the Samminites. Because it had won, there was no pressing need felt to make adjustments to this command situation. Over time this system became a cultural fossil until we get to the Punic Wars with Rome giving Councils and Pro-councils armies 4 legions strong. Such was the Roman resistance to creating new offices that even when they extended the military imperium down to the office of praetor you still had praetors/pro-praetor getting 2 legion commands! It was a force of two combined 4 legion consular armies that were colossally defeated at Cannae. And thats probably where they started thinking that each legion having a full time commander was a good idea, for its after the Second Punic War that you see the term legates in the context of a legionary office appearing. Its ambiguous, but it seems that the legatus- literally delegate- was not originally a separate office but one of the existing tribunes who simply was given the authority by the council, praetor, or provincial governor in charge of his legion to act as his proxy in all matters regarding the legion. It had become a separate office by Octavian's time. The tribunes themselves are one of those things that don't fit when comparing the legion to a modern unit, for while they have the experience and education to be equivalent to a modern field grade officer- they have no permanent command or staff. The military tribunes appeared at about the same time as the four legion army, the maniple, and the three line battle formation. Its very tempting to think they were all a package of reforms but there is no real proof of that. Its also not a given that the tribunes were originally military in their function. It has been suggested that they may have originally been intended to act like the Spartan ephors and were there as much to watch the conduct of Council and Centurions and report on it to the Assembly of Plebes though if that was they case they very quickly became a strictly military office. In 311, if Livy is to be believed, sixteen tribunes were elected to 4 legions, which is suspiciously like one for each of the ordines and one for the equities. Sometime between then and the Punic Wars the number increased to six, and then stayed at that level till the Third Century AD. How they functioned has been long debated. There were not enough for one per cohort, too many for one per ordine. The thing that Nick Sekunda suggested thats intriguing was to simply take them at face value- that they were officers at the disposal of the legion commander, senior to centurions, and did what he told them and commanded the units he assigned to them on missions designated by him until further orders. This might be commanding one of the lines, a sector of the line, the reserve, the camp, whatever fit the commanders concept of how he wanted to fight the battle. To me this sounds intriguingly like tribunes were like the Combat Team headquarters of US Armored Divisions in WWII. A headquarters that various assets rotated through- except that this was all contained in one man. When operating he surely had at least a musician and maybe a standard bearer but they were borrowed out of the legions pool and not part of any special unit. The tribunes generally seem to have worked mounted. Given their social status tribunes probably did have a personal staff of servants and perhaps even bodyguards- but they would of come from his own estate and how they fit into the Army structure is unclear and the size would of varied from man to man and era to era. In the Legion of the Principate, one of the Tribunes was the tribunes lacticalvi, identifiable by a wide purple band on his sleeve and the hem of his skirt (till trousers came in fashion, then he wore a purple belt or sash). As previously mentioned he was a young member of the senatorial class during this time. His office and this practice seems to have arisen in the late Republic, possibly during the troubled times of Marius and Sulla. Their job was originally as much to look out for the interests of the Senate and the Senatorial class as be an officer and regardless of their age and experience they were made senior to the other five tribunes. Prior to this all six tribunes were essentially equal. Pliny described tribunes dividing up into pairs and then rotating command tasks between pairs by month and between the two individuals on alternate days. This was probably quite literally true for a complete legion in camp being supervised by a "officer of the day". This description has often been extended to describe authority on the day of battle as well but that may be taking the illustration a bit to far. Tribunes in that time tended to be experienced men who had either been tribunes before or had been centurions or cavalry decurions. Even ex-councils and praetors would often serve as tribunes. In the Principate, even the normal tribunes tended to have much less experience, as by then the office was a step on a career path to commanding a auxiliary cohort, and beyond that becoming a provincial official. Another fun puzzle is the over sized first cohort in the legions of the Principate. Why was it there and how was it used? For years its been included as the model of the legion of the Principate at its height, but no one has figured out what they did with it. In some recent studies its now been questioned whether it really was the classic model. First of all not all of the legionary fortresses that have been excavated and are known to be occupied between c100 and c280 have the necessary over sized barracks blocks to house such a unit. And most such units are along the European frontiers of the Rhine and Danube. And then when the big legions were split up in the 280's they were split into 5 pairs of cohorts each of the small size, suggesting that perhaps they were already gone before the legions were divided. It brings up the possibility that the big first cohort may not have been around as long as previously thought, and may have only existed in some units to begin with. And as to the question why it existed, the more intriguing idea is that it was not a infantry combat unit at all. Experiments with modeling and reenacting Roman era combat cast doubt on how well a 160-200 man century could be commanded and maneuvered on the battlefield, and how they could integrate with the other 9 conventional cohorts and the similar cohorts of auxilia in a battle line. Another possibility is that the big cohort was designed to house and protect the legions immunes the soldiers with technical skills like the artillerymen- who in this time not only manned and serviced the torsion artillery but fabricated them and their munitions. The Legions in this early part of the Principate (and going back through to the late Republic at least) fabricated their own armor and weapons, as well as buildings of the semi-permanent winter camps and the later permanent stone legionary fortresses. But the Legions had to compete with the civilian world for these technically skilled individuals, and when they got a hold of one they could not give him up easily. As early as the Punic Wars, draftees with such skills were identified and recorded by the legion, so their skills could be called upon as needed, and they were given the status of immunes. Freedom from night guard duty and various manual labor tasks came with this,- though depending on their special skill they might still be working very hard indeed (masons and carpenters come to mind). This special status may eventually may not have been enough to prevent a shortage of such special skills. It would be highly logical to then take such skilled persons out of the line cohorts and concentrate them in a single unit. Skilled men would not be wasted in combat, and the centuries would not keep having men disappear out of their rank and be more able to keep a constant strength. Being a immunes had always been a position of honor in the Roman Army, so concentrating them all in the First Cohort, previously the unit of honor also makes sense. Making the first cohort a non combat unit gave its Centurions- the primi ordines, the five most experienced men in the legion- more time to focus on administrative tasks or doing things like helping tribunes lead vexillations. And the reduction from 6 to 5 centuries seems to clearly be to remove from the Primus Pilus the task of running a century on top of all his other duties.

Roman legions are fun to study. I just love the detective work in teasing out how they ran. The Osprey Roman titles are not bad if you need a quick reference, especially the ones by Nick Sekunda. Their quite portable, and good at digesting the rival opinions about what did what. Adrian Goldsworthy's books are also very good. I have ready The Punic Wars, In The Name of Rome and The Complete Roman Army For the Late Roman Army try Warren Treadgolds "Byzantium and its Army, 284-1081" IIRC its in The Complete Roman Army that he published the translations of those wonderful papyri that pretty much nail down what a 2nd Century turma, century and cohort should be. For the Late Roman Army try Warren Treadgolds "Byzantium and its Army, 284-1081" While there are analogs to modern military ranks in Republican and Principate Legions and auxilia. They are not identical. Because the Legions were much simpler in both their logistics and support weapons, jobs we currently divide between at least two men, an officer and a NCO, were done by one. A Centurion was BOTH a Captain and a First Sergeant. There was not a need for the job to be split because Centuries are not that big in total number of men. And since they only needed food, water, and a limited amount of donkey fodder and all other gear was carried on their poles or on the 10-12 asses assigned to each Century, they were really self contained and did not need what we would call a battalion level headquarters all the time. According to Treadgolds theory the big legions were split up by Diocletian (other sources attribute this to Constantine thirty years later) in the 280s because 5000 men under one commander made that man too dangerous. Too likely to put himself up as a emperor himself. The legions were split into pairs of cohorts, and at that time they acquired a headquarters similar to the independent auxilia cohorts and a battalion staff. It was the Greek speaking Eastern Empire, who combined Roman tradition with a revival of the even OLDER Hellenistic military treatises native to that part of the Roman Empire that created military organizations that look VERY close to the regiments of 17th-19th century armies, except for their lack of the "doubled" command structure. That last feature was the addition of Western Europe's feudal military aristocracy as it tried to find a survival strategy. Since the 19th century the nation states have co opted this feature to attract the university educated to military service to handle new technologies and increasingly complex logistics. Today, if the doubled officer/NCO command structure had not been provided for us by history we would have to invent it. The need to manage logistics, the huge amount of information generated by modern communications, and the service and maintenance of our wonderful modern technologies pretty much DEMAND that the command be split in this fashion. No one person can handle it all- yet there still has to be someone to make final decisions and bear responsibility for them. The big legions though, going back to the early republic, had a big gap between the centuries and the legion command staff. To make things even more strange to us, for several centuries the Legions had no commander present! Due to a historical accident and the fears and jealousies of the Roman polity, when the Roman army was increased from two legions to four in the middle 4th Century BC they refused to create a new office to command the two new legions. Originally there was one legion for each of the two Councils and the council was both 1/2 of the split Roman head of state AND commander of the legion. When they doubled the army, politics and jealousy kept the Senate from acting on creating offices for the new forces. Thus each pair of legions SHARED a commanding officer, who ALSO was the force commander- and one of the heads of state besides. Yet this force was the one that finally ended the century long war with the Samminites. Because it had won, there was no pressing need felt to make adjustments to this command situation. Over time this system became a cultural fossil until we get to the Punic Wars with Rome giving Councils and Pro-councils armies 4 legions strong. Such was the Roman resistance to creating new offices that even when they extended the military imperium down to the office of praetor you still had praetors/pro-praetor getting 2 legion commands! It was a force of two combined 4 legion consular armies that were colossally defeated at Cannae. And thats probably where they started thinking that each legion having a full time commander was a good idea, for its after the Second Punic War that you see the term legates in the context of a legionary office appearing. Its ambiguous, but it seems that the legatus- literally delegate- was not originally a separate office but one of the existing tribunes who simply was given the authority by the council, praetor, or provincial governor in charge of his legion to act as his proxy in all matters regarding the legion. It had become a separate office by Octavian's time. The tribunes themselves are one of those things that don't fit when comparing the legion to a modern unit, for while they have the experience and education to be equivalent to a modern field grade officer- they have no permanent command or staff. The military tribunes appeared at about the same time as the four legion army, the maniple, and the three line battle formation. Its very tempting to think they were all a package of reforms but there is no real proof of that. Its also not a given that the tribunes were originally military in their function. It has been suggested that they may have originally been intended to act like the Spartan ephors and were there as much to watch the conduct of Council and Centurions and report on it to the Assembly of Plebes though if that was they case they very quickly became a strictly military office. In 311, if Livy is to be believed, sixteen tribunes were elected to 4 legions, which is suspiciously like one for each of the ordines and one for the equities. Sometime between then and the Punic Wars the number increased to six, and then stayed at that level till the Third Century AD. How they functioned has been long debated. There were not enough for one per cohort, too many for one per ordine. The thing that Nick Sekunda suggested thats intriguing was to simply take them at face value- that they were officers at the disposal of the legion commander, senior to centurions, and did what he told them and commanded the units he assigned to them on missions designated by him until further orders. This might be commanding one of the lines, a sector of the line, the reserve, the camp, whatever fit the commanders concept of how he wanted to fight the battle. To me this sounds intriguingly like tribunes were like the Combat Team headquarters of US Armored Divisions in WWII. A headquarters that various assets rotated through- except that this was all contained in one man. When operating he surely had at least a musician and maybe a standard bearer but they were borrowed out of the legions pool and not part of any special unit. The tribunes generally seem to have worked mounted. Given their social status tribunes probably did have a personal staff of servants and perhaps even bodyguards- but they would of come from his own estate and how they fit into the Army structure is unclear and the size would of varied from man to man and era to era. In the Legion of the Principate, one of the Tribunes was the tribunes lacticalvi, identifiable by a wide purple band on his sleeve and the hem of his skirt (till trousers came in fashion, then he wore a purple belt or sash). As previously mentioned he was a young member of the senatorial class during this time. His office and this practice seems to have arisen in the late Republic, possibly during the troubled times of Marius and Sulla. Their job was originally as much to look out for the interests of the Senate and the Senatorial class as be an officer and regardless of their age and experience they were made senior to the other five tribunes. Prior to this all six tribunes were essentially equal. Pliny described tribunes dividing up into pairs and then rotating command tasks between pairs by month and between the two individuals on alternate days. This was probably quite literally true for a complete legion in camp being supervised by a "officer of the day". This description has often been extended to describe authority on the day of battle as well but that may be taking the illustration a bit to far. Tribunes in that time tended to be experienced men who had either been tribunes before or had been centurions or cavalry decurions. Even ex-councils and praetors would often serve as tribunes. In the Principate, even the normal tribunes tended to have much less experience, as by then the office was a step on a career path to commanding a auxiliary cohort, and beyond that becoming a provincial official. Another fun puzzle is the over sized first cohort in the legions of the Principate. Why was it there and how was it used? For years its been included as the model of the legion of the Principate at its height, but no one has figured out what they did with it. In some recent studies its now been questioned whether it really was the classic model. First of all not all of the legionary fortresses that have been excavated and are known to be occupied between c100 and c280 have the necessary over sized barracks blocks to house such a unit. And most such units are along the European frontiers of the Rhine and Danube. And then when the big legions were split up in the 280's they were split into 5 pairs of cohorts each of the small size, suggesting that perhaps they were already gone before the legions were divided. It brings up the possibility that the big first cohort may not have been around as long as previously thought, and may have only existed in some units to begin with. And as to the question why it existed, the more intriguing idea is that it was not a infantry combat unit at all. Experiments with modeling and reenacting Roman era combat cast doubt on how well a 160-200 man century could be commanded and maneuvered on the battlefield, and how they could integrate with the other 9 conventional cohorts and the similar cohorts of auxilia in a battle line. Another possibility is that the big cohort was designed to house and protect the legions immunes the soldiers with technical skills like the artillerymen- who in this time not only manned and serviced the torsion artillery but fabricated them and their munitions. The Legions in this early part of the Principate (and going back through to the late Republic at least) fabricated their own armor and weapons, as well as buildings of the semi-permanent winter camps and the later permanent stone legionary fortresses. But the Legions had to compete with the civilian world for these technically skilled individuals, and when they got a hold of one they could not give him up easily. As early as the Punic Wars, draftees with such skills were identified and recorded by the legion, so their skills could be called upon as needed, and they were given the status of immunes. Freedom from night guard duty and various manual labor tasks came with this,- though depending on their special skill they might still be working very hard indeed (masons and carpenters come to mind). This special status may eventually may not have been enough to prevent a shortage of such special skills. It would be highly logical to then take such skilled persons out of the line cohorts and concentrate them in a single unit. Skilled men would not be wasted in combat, and the centuries would not keep having men disappear out of their rank and be more able to keep a constant strength. Being a immunes had always been a position of honor in the Roman Army, so concentrating them all in the First Cohort, previously the unit of honor also makes sense. Making the first cohort a non combat unit gave its Centurions- the primi ordines, the five most experienced men in the legion- more time to focus on administrative tasks or doing things like helping tribunes lead vexillations. And the reduction from 6 to 5 centuries seems to clearly be to remove from the Primus Pilus the task of running a century on top of all his other duties.

Did the crews get away though, or did the vehicle catch fire or explode?

So wheeled vehicles are faring better than the tracks in Afghanistan?

How well have the light armor units, particularly the German Wiesels and the British Scimitars and Spartans, fared in Afghanistan? How much of a problem have they had with IEDs? Have they had any problems that would be unusual for vehicles of their size and weight? No surprise fire or explosion problems have cropped up in combat? I have seen the footage of the Light Dragoons Scimitars and the Spartans attached to them wearing RPG cages. Has it worked as well for them as it has on the larger vehicles?

Dont forget the RPG-2 was in there before we got to the RPG-7 we know today. It was even more like the Pf250 than what we have now.

WWI was inevitable in a practical sense. There was going to be a Balkan War again, and one that included Austria-Hungary. Any war that involved Austria-Hungary against Serbia would involve Russia automtically. The Czar and his administration, while not wanty war by a long shot, were adimant about this. This was the only thing other than a direct attack on Russia itself that Russia really would go to war for given its condition. Any war between big Russia and comparitively little Austria-Hungary would bring in Germany, both because Germany had the same attitude toward the German speeking people outside its borders as Russia had to their co-religionists and co-linguists in Serbia. Germany might bully Austria itself from time to time but would never disown them. And on the side of those who practiced Realpolitk Germany wanted Poland to secure East Prussia. Any war between Russia and Germany would bring a French attack on Alsace. France had been burning to avenge 1870 and recover its lost territory. Yet at the same time there was a deep distrust within France's own goverment and military about how well they would perform against Germany in another one on one struggle. Thus they would not fight without a major power as a ally. Russia new how week they themselves were and so redilly accepted an alliance with France. This was a semi-secret alliance. The details were never made public or acknowldged offically, but both sides made damn sure that everyone knew about it. The problem came when the Bosnian Serbs came to beleve that French and Russian military propaganda was reality and then Germany called the bluff of Russia and France. Now France and England were heavily involved in war plans togeather, because England was worried about Germany's expanding naval power and its attempts at taking over colonies in Africa and Asia. But England was not so agressive as to jump into a Continental war just on a threat that was still at the time mostly a potential one. The one key was the preservation of the territory of Holland and Belgum. Two of Englands biggest and oldest trading partners. England WOULD go to war to protect them. Once France had convinced England that Germany would attack Belgum for certain, and possibly Holland as well. If Germany made a mistake it was invading Belgum instead of following the attack path that they had used in 1870. Why they felt that they could not beat the French along the 1870 rout again, we do not know. The Germans apparently thought that they could beat the British and Belgans before England could mobilize a large enough army. But why they thought that the British would accept such a defeat and not immediately try to liberate Belgum is a mystery. After the Boer War the Germans should of know that England and its Empire could put a million men in the field easily if given just a year. That gave them a increadably narrow time frame in which to beat France. Another thing you have to understand is the importance of personal and national honor in the diplomacy of the time. Countries today throw away clients and Allies right and left but back then it was considered a cornerstone of any goverment administration that if you said "Do not cross this line" you meant it even if it was a hopeless fight. Russia went to war even though it was the absolute LAST thing that country needed at the time. War was the last thing England wanted yet she comitted too. In both cases it was because they had made promises to clients and Allies and the thought of the time demanded that these promises be backed up by force or become a hollow shell of a country.

15mm guided missile, I don't know about that one- and even if technically possible it would require the modification of the Hague Convention.

The difference between the Mk 11 and the M24 in accuracy was also so small that it was dwarfed by the safety factor of the semi-auto fire and the 20rnd mag for infiltration/exfiltration. The M24 is going to be around for a long time though due to the numbers in store that are not going anywhere. And there probably will be another Army bolt action sniper weapon, even though there is not a active solicitation for one currently, but it just will not be in 7.62x51. People are quite envious of the UKs .338 rifles- and the AR10 design cannot accomidate a magnum cartridge. However a new bolt gun will certainly not be acquired in the numbers that the M24 was and it will just be another tool in the box alongside the M110 and M107. Even the USMC has taken over a large number of Mk11 rifles acquired through "blue" channels for use in Iraq alongside the M41A3. Like anyone thought the SEALS could of ever used 5,000 sniper rifles to begin with!

The M110 and the USN/USMC Mk11 Mod 0/1 are the same except in detail, the Army wanted a different stock, different scope and BUIS, and a flash hider and suppressor that were compatable with each other. The Mk 11's have been out for about 7 years now.

Hmm, if the tank and the APC are now so close in performance, including their armor protection, why not consider perminantly pairing them in the armored battalions? One tank and one APC and one dismount section, in a single unit of 2 vehicles/15 men, three of those make a 45man/6 vehicle platoon? Heck, since the Merkava can cary a few infantry itself for short distances, there are all sorts of things that could be done with such a combination.

I am going to assume the OP is talking about the Heavy Division Armored Cavalry Squadrons, plus possibly the Squadrons of 3 ACR(H). I am going to assume you do not want either the platoons or the troops in general to be larger in number of men or vehicles than they currently our now. I will start at the bottom with the Cavalry Recon Platoon. Verson A: Tank Section: 3 M1A2 SEP BFV Section: 3 M2A3 Dismount Section: 3- 5 man Recon Teams identical to those of the Stryker Battalion recon platoon. One thing I cannot answer with this is where the PL and PSGT should be. In M1's or in Bradleys or one in each. Probably though you would need to carry 1 spare Abrams VC and 1 spare Bradley VC. Verson B: 3 Armored Cavalry Squads each: 1 M1A1 SEP 1 M2A3 BFV 1 5 man dismount team identical to those in the Stryker Battalion Recon Platoon. Yes, there is a difference in how the men and vehicles are used with the different arrangements, even though there are the same number of men and vehicles. Each Troop would have 3 of the above platoons. Plus a troop HQ of 1 Abrams, 1 Bradley and 1 M113, for the CO, XO, and 1st SGT respectively, one M577 for the rest of the staff and a Recovery Section of 2 M88's If mortars are still considered important, there would be a Mortar Platoon of 1 M113 (PL and FDC) and 3 M1064, taking a M577 out of storeage and updating its driveline and electronics is also a option, it would give more room for the FDC crew though it would be less able to defend itself than a M113 with a ACAV kit. The troops in the 3rd Cav could consider eliminating this mortar platoon since their squadrons have the 155mm Battery. The divisional squadrons, if they don't have their own 155mm battery should keep their mortars. The all tank D company I don't see a use for currently. There does not seem to be much trade for all that anti-tank firepower, lumped into one place while at the same time most divisions have grown a 4th ground manuver brigade. So the D tank company should be replaced by a D cavalry troop. The 155mm battery, for those squadrons that have one, will be E battery. Squadrons that dont have their 155mm battery, and the divisional Squadrons probably should not since they should not be beyond the divisional artillery's range, should have a RSTA company with UAVs and a Scout/Sniper platoon as E company. This organization could also be switched to operating with Strykers. Substitute 1 Stryker MGS for each M1 and a Stryker of the correct varient for each M2 or M1064. Six men- loaders in the tanks and the gunners in the Bradleys- would be deleted from the organization.

Over the last century though there are still dozens of different organizations to choose from! Even right now squads/sections range from 7 to 14 men and platoons from two to five sections! Some of those organizations are fixed to a particular location or way of fighting. But there is still a lot of variation even on countries that do ask their men to deploy world wide. The only really new trend I see is of having platoons with TWO equally capable headquarters. And even this has been tried once before, in the 1942 organization for US Parachute Infantry regiments the rifle platoons had two lieutenants, but casualties were so high and volunteers so few that they were quickly unable to fill the billits. If I have a prefrence, its for the old WWII US 12 man squad. Because of the many combinations of pairs, tripletts and quartets you can make out of that number. You can have four three man gun crews or three four man fire teams. Sadly there are not many vheicles that can carry 12 men at once, without two or three of them being the crew, although if you got over the idea of all 12 having to ride in one vheicle, it does divide nicely into two, three, or four vehicles.

That still leaves a lot of room for how to prioritize "fire", "manuver" and "close combat"