RE: NBC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sportyspam@harm.dhs.org [mailto:sportyspam@harm.dhs.org]
> Subject: Re: NBC

>   At a guess I'd say that in the future squads might be 2 or 
> 3 people as
> any more would be overkill for taking things out, but no more 
> usueful for
> ensuring squad survivablity [so when you lose a squad you 
> lose twice as
> many people]

The smallest tactically useful element today IS the two man team;
although I
think that you'll likely find that 4 is probably as small an INDEPENDANT
grouping as you'll likely get. In my current unit the Ops people have
been
hashing over a wide variety of tactically deployable elements and the
smallest reasonable for independant tasking is four. For a quite large
number of reasons but including:

Command and Control; too many elements in an operational force and you
add
too many complexities of command, 

Training; it literally takes years for the average soldier to develop
the
skills and experience to be an effective small unit leader; for the
Australian Army; on average at least 3 to 4 years. The youngest ever
Section
Commander(Squad leader) I knew was 21 and he had a real hard time of it
for
the first 18 months as a Corporal (US Buck Sergeant equiv).

Medical; if a casualty occurs you are hard pressed to maintain security
or
continue with a task with less than 4 men; one wounded at LEAST one to
carry
him and you really need 2 more to be able to operate effectively.

Cheers,

Owen G