The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[AlexTX ret]

Disagree in a way... IFV's manned by Infantry as an intregal part of the infantry platoon is bad from infantry becouse it creates a huge tax on infantry skills and manpower. IFV's manned by dedicated IFV crewmen, i.e. 19Whatevers, in a dedicated IFV platoon, could be a valuable battlefield support. Still chewing on Ken's dragoon concept as an alternative to my infantry is infantry is infantry theory.
Reed

Is your IFV a minitank that carries a section of infantry on the side?

Is it a battle taxi with support weapons added to it as an upgrade ie. M113A3 ACCV?

Is it supposed to take the place of larger, greater weapons load and more expensive MBT or is it an addtional asset? Can it be used in the anti-tank Role? Is it easily transportable with a possible reduction in armor?

Is it meant to operate on its own (or with others of its kind) or must it operate in a mixed weapons force? Is it part of a greater weapons system that does as many of the battlefield tasks as possible ie Stryker with a 90mm gun?

I'm not asking these as b*llsh*t questions for in many (those that can afford them) countries this is a raging fire storm. The loss of the IFV/APC if loaded is 3 crewman and a section of infantry in one strike. If it's an IFV unloaded, there is the loss of small unit assets. In both cases, if unloaded, there is the psychological loss of all the section's personal assets such as extra clothing and possibly extra ammunition as well.

The US answered the question with the Stryker which came out of our Iraq experience. But will it work in a bigger more intense battlefield?

One final question. Where do the vehicle crewmen fit in the command structure? Are they part of the squad/platoon or are they part of the company's assets?

What is your take in all this?