Under current MTOEs, the mech infantry platoon dismounts 3 x 9-man rifle squads. The only thing lacking from the light platoon is the weapons squad's 2 x M240 and 2 x Javelin, which, IMO, is more than made up for by the 4 x 25mm, 4 x M240 and 4 x TOW. The CO has 9 x 9-man rifle squads (81 pax), the BN has 18 x 9-man rifle squads (162 pax) and the BCT has 36 x 9-man rifle squads (324 pax)

The issue of seating for attachments is valid.

Having 6 x M2s in the mech platoon would be nice, but I think it would be more complicated to C2 (3 x 2-vehicle sections plus 3 x 9-man squads is 6 elements for the PL to C2, vice 5 currently, in what is already the most complicated platoon. The M3 scout platoon is fought as 3 x 2-vehicle sections, or 2 x 3-vehicle sections, the limited dismounts are part of the sections). AFAIK, the US has never tried the 3 x vehicle section platoon in the infantry. In the mid-90s, we tried having a squad dismount from each section (the 2 x 9 + 5 platoon), but decided that was too light on dismounts, so we went to the current 3 x 9 model.

As I've noted before on other threads, I think that the US Army has had a gap in the "middle" between mech and light since the introduction of the Bradley. BG was de Czege identified this in 1985 or 1986. The SBCTs begin to correct this gap, but the force is out of balance- most of the force should be organized along the SBCT lines, with a ratio of 27 / 9 / 12 ratio of infantry / "tank" (MGS) / recon platoons. A "heavier" variant of the SBCT, with 1:1 replacements of ICV with M2s and MGS with M1s, while retaining that balance, would be a better general purpose organization, IMO, with a few HBCTs retained as the breakthrough/counterattack force (much like the armored divisions in WW2, with a similar percentage of the force).