No, I don't think that there is any danger of that - a battalion commander has a full staff, with two majors and several captains to help him handle all of the moving parts. Heh, I can't ever recall having read of/spoken to/seen a battalion commander that worried that he had too many troops or weapons for his assigned mission. Besides, many attachments are then tasked out to the line companies, so they don't really affect the battalion span-of-control - which in any case, I would argue is less and less applicable at the higher levels of organization.
It would be far, far more dangerous not to have the weapons that he needs in his "toolkit". Armored Cav Squadrons have six company-sized units, and usually get two more attached, "back in the day" Army mech inf battalions had 4 line companies, an AT-company, and an HHC, and then got an arty battery and engineer company, etc tacked on - so there are other examples. I know some infantry battalions attached the battalion mortar platoon to the howizter battery, and the battery commander then made sure that the tubes were properly positioned to support the riflemen, so the "span of control" didn't change (much), in spite of the addition of a howitzer battery.
IIRC, US Army infantry battalions, even with attachments, still end up being rather smaller than the GCE of the "typical" MEU.
Besides, here on the SWJ, the large, 13-man USMC rifle squad reigns supreme, it would be most hypocritical of us to then advocate a small battalion
Bookmarks