I think you are right on that Spr. Earl.
I note there was a letter to the Times basically confirming that point of view. A retired Brigadier emphasizing the difference between the American Army model, which is also applicable to all Navies and Air Forces, where they "Man Equipment" while the Traditional Army "Equips the Man".
The Man - (sorry to all the women out there - this is just rhetorical) - is still the key element because, at the end of the day, machines don't talk to each other people do. The impression that a motivated armed soldier in face to face confrontation makes is profound. And often the soldier's choosing not to act when he could has a more profound impression than if he had chosen to act.
Think back to the young soldier at OKA, shorter than the Mohawk he was facing down by a head, but armed and backed up by a brigade of support. He didn't act. He gained more sympathy for the government cause by choosing not to act than if he had lashed out and shot the Mohawk.
Still, back on track, there is a role for an armoured scout car, as you say much like the Ferret. Just as there is a role for unarmoured scout cars and heavy tanks.