- Reaction score
The key issue, and I think one where the answer varies depending on who one asks, is the question of span of control. How many entities can you mange before it's necessary to hand off part of the leadership task to someone else?
My understanding has always been that the optimum for us humans is five (maybe that's because of the number of digits on one hand ). Once you try to control more than five entities, especially in complex and fluid situations, you lose effectiveness.
Generally speaking that's roughly what we do in most of our organizations when you look at sections in a platoon, platoons in a company, companies in a battalion and battalions in a brigade and so on.
While there is some benefit to be garnered from technology I'm not sure one can increase the entities managed by one person or headquarters much beyond that.
Incidentally D&B, I'm with you on the "equip the man v man equipment" issue. For all intents and purposes we've switched to an army that mans equipment for quite some time now. That's one of the main reasons I get so wrapped around the axle about the fact that well over half of our army (the reserve part and quite a bit of the regular part) are not being given any equipment to man. We keep pretending that this doesn't matter in order for the Army to be effective. It does and it will matter.
This is an interesting read:
THE EVOLUTION OF THE U.S. ARMY INFANTRY SQUAD: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? DETERMINING THE OPTIMUM INFANTRY SQUAD ORGANIZATION FOR THE FUTURE