Eden's examples are all those of mechanistic responses. If one wants to instill the fear of flogging or death that prevailed in most Armies of the Napoleonic era, then one man can still control a Regiment -- on a linear battlefield. Don't think I'd want to try it in the mountains of the 'Stan against the wily Pathan...

On the other hand, if one wants troops with drive and who will use their initiative and do innovative things, then 'iron discipline' is contraindicated. I submit in this day, more rather than less autonomy is needed in combat.

Any Tank Platoon leader that insists on fighting all four of his tracks as a unit instead of in pairs is likely to get in big trouble. A Company commander running squads is a menace. Can't do either of those things in most high intensity combat so why do it in training -- then your Squads or tracks are waiting for divine guidance when they should be acting.

I have controlled over 30 people in a gaggle in combat. I use the term control in its figurative sense because I was nominally in charge but I sure had no idea what the majority of those folks were doing. I have controlled three people, each of whom controlled three others -- and in a bad fight, I had no clue what one or two of the three I was supposed to be 'controlling' were doing.

I've in training and combat worked with varying numbers, have read a lot of the studies produced by The US Army Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO), the Marines (and Wilf's UK DERA) which all came up with a combat effective span of 3-5. So a long time ago I came up with White's Control Theorem:

"If you try to control more than three to five subordinates and / or try to do any part of their jobs for them, you are a dangerous micromanager and I do not want to go to war with you."

And yes, circumstances have forced me to go to war with some of those against my 'want.' Proving that my theorem was and is totally correct...