Maybe looking at it this problem in terms of numbers is hampering out thinking. What if we look at this problem in terms of effects? What effect do we want to achieve with our tanks? To round out the Combined Arms team. Are we going to send The Armour Regiment in alone on a Brigade attack or keep it alone in a firebase while 2 pure LAV-only infantry battalions wheel in and fight through the objective? I doubt it. Combined arms is our future.
We need the ability to use a tank sub-unit (I don't care about the numbers), properly commanded, sense-led, to apply manoeuvre or firepower effects to the enemy to oppose your will on him. This sub-unit has to have the capability to combine and form a combat team with an infantry sub-unit or sub-sub unit to do its business.
The tank sub-unit must have an integral sustainment capability in the form of an echelon and must have breaching equipment.
We need sufficient numbers of these tank sub-units to achieve the higher commander's effect on the battlefield.
We need sufficient numbers of these tank sub-units so that we can train and sustain expeditionary operations indefinitely.
We need to maintain the Armoured Unit (Regiment for lack of a better term) in order to place our training in the proper context, to train our leaders to work in not only a 'pure' armour unit (if it comes to that) but also in a combined arms Battle Group. This armoured unit can also be used not only to force generate sub units for operations, but form the basis of a Battle Group with augmentation, thus giving the Army another set of command headquarters to draw experienced people from or generate units for operations.
Looking at our advances in digitization, communications and the fact that the with the LAV III the infantry has far better firepower and observation ability than it did with the M113, meaning the tanks are no longer the only ones who can shoot on the move, see at night and suppress with fire. This means that if you are looking at a combat team, you can be more effective than previous with less tanks.
I would rather see more smaller tank sub-units, well-trained and tightly practiced, well-versed in all its BTS and in working flexibly with their infantry, artillery and engineer brethren, with integral forward sustainment ability, than maintaining our Cold War ORBAT "because it worked before". Red-5 also points out that this will lessen the temptation to split the sub unit (just because you CAN does not mean you SHOULD). This is a good thing - the basic manoeuvre element of Armour is the sub-unit, the basic fire element is the troop. A smaller Sqn lessens span of control and may actually improve the ability to generate combat power. I would rather see 2 smaller tank squadrons in Af than 1 big one.
We don't know that the 19-tank Squadron worked so well as we never tested it in battle. Much as the enemy has changed, we should too. Let's stop wrangling over numbers and concentrate on maintaining a capability and effect.
I think a much more worthy and relevant fight, with more adverse effects were it to be lost, would be to prevent centralization of CSS assets in the NSE or Svc Bn in order to maintain the flexibility of the sub-unit commander to operate as a self-sufficient entity, not tied to someone else's view of priorities. Keeping the Maint Tp and cans trucks in the Echelon is far more important to our ability to do the job than bickering over whether 12, 14 or 19 tanks is better.
