>but sir, it's a troop...carrier....

>. Start fresh and see if you come to the same conclusion
thats the conclusion the army came to, light tank crews were disproportionately taking heavy casualties

>Your reasoning of 1 person always dying regardless of crew size, even if we accept it as true, is meaningless
it was the average number of casualties per hit per vehicle
which was true decades later in the gulf war

> Your supposing that every vehicle will he hit once and only once (I think because this is the only possible way your reasoning makes sense)
if vehicles are hit twice, then you would have the same outcome
2 out of 9 crew are dead, a 22% loss
but 2 out of 6 are lost in the smaller vehicle, a 33% loss

tank crew sizes are not the same as IFV dismount sizes
reality is that study after study shows the optimal infantry squad size is 9-10, preferably 13-14 men, comprising two or three 4-man squads and one command element
(only the USMC dares structure like the latter, and they pay for it by not fielding a good IFV that fits them all in one vehicle for best command and control)
just about everyone else went with the 9-10 man squad, BUT to fit that into IFVs was unfeasible, so they cut it down to 7 or 8 men

now, WHY is it unfeasible? strategic manoeuvre. beyond a certain size and weight, IFVs are either too big or heavy to transport easily by ship and rail.

logistics, gentlemen. it all comes down to logistics.

https://i.imgur.com/eYqv7rq.jpg

What I don't get is why couldn't they just length the vehicle by a couple of feet to compensate for lost space and still be able to fit a full nine-man squad in it?

Sure, that might add a couple extra tons but the Bradley's weight classification is almost equal to a WWII medium tank anyway so it's not much of a loss.

>so it's not much of a loss.
it turns out to be, in fact, quite a loss
that's why just about every NATO IFV fielded today, tracked or wheeled, really has fewer dismount seating than optimal

You don't want 18 men in two IFVs when you can afford to have 18 men in 3 IFVs. Cramming men into a vehicle like that is how you lose a quarter of your infantry platoon to a single hit. Only poor countries that can't afford many vehicles (UK) or countries that don't care about their men do this (Former USSR and Eastern Bloc)

>Only poor countries that can't afford many vehicles
>disregard the M113 and Stryker please
idiot

>Bradleys can't even take seven men, just six.
they originally could only take 6, but it was increased to 7 on the A1

>they originally could only take 6, but it was increased to 7 on the A1
fricking P2W microtransaction horseshit

>AAVP7A1
>good IFV
no

>reality is that study after study shows the optimal infantry squad size is 9-10, preferably 13-14 men,
studies after WW2 showed that the british and german 9-man squads were easier to command than the 12-man squads fielded by the US
the limit of the number of individual elements a person can command at a time is 2, 3 can only be controlled for short periods of time
so the US Army followed suit with the rest of the world to a 9-man squad that splits into 2 sections, the 3-section 12-man squad was only ever used as a single-element deathball

>easier to command
yes, and subsequently the increasing importance of networking in the 21st century has only intensified this
effective span of control is thought to be only 2 elements under 1 commander now, which is part of why the latest USMC structure has an assistant squad leader
BUT practicably speaking, the third squad was for attrition replacements

>words words words British/German 9 man squad
Nobody cares.
>Germany
Lost.
>Britain
Would have lost.

thats after the reforms
and even then, its standard practice to deploy undermanned rather than crossloading
so 7-man squads arent unheard of

the original cold war structure was 3 6-man, later 7, squads in 3 vehicles with a platoon HQ in the fourth

>Only poor countries that can't afford many vehicles
>disregard the M113 and Stryker please
>idiot
Damn you're stupid

Focusing on squad size is an error of scale in the first place. Platoon and fire team are the important levels.

I've read everything you posted years ago, probably before you were ever aware of the topic. I'm responding to the underlying argument of bigger squad (up to the sports team cap of ~15) = better by pointing out it's falsely optimized.

>smaller crews generate less casualties
Never once have I heard anyone argue that, nor is that what's being argued here

You know why turrets spin, anon? Because the gunner is fricking dead and his corpse has collapsed over the controls and is jamming them full in one direction.

The video shows only 2 exiting from what I recall.

damage to equipment can't cause it?? also what if the crew member was "mission killed" as well. not dead but just really fricked up. i'd imagine there was crazy spalling in that box.

Arguable. Depends on the programming of whatever computers (or design of mechanical system) control the rotation and the specific damage done. You've never removed the processor/controller on a piece of electronics and watched it repeat the last command indefinitely? I have.

boy, he sure runs awfully spiritedly for a dead person

The fact we have real world footage of something like this is crazy. homies really lacking in 4K

The gunner left with the commander and driver though. Maybe he was injured but there's no evidence of that on video.

The crew survived in the sense that all three managed to abandon tank and run away from it. What happened to them afterwards is unknown, but seeing that they were stranded in the open with Ukie drones overhead and at least two Bradleys roaming about their chances weren't good.

It's such a weird cope. Same as when that guy posted the lost vehicles from the last 3 days and the ziggers shout UH THAT ONE WAS ABANDONED AND THEN DESTROYED BY A DRONE, BUT THEY COUNT IT AS DESTROYED TO RIG THEIR NUMBERS???
As if an abandoned vehicle is any less of a loss to the army than a destroyed one

An completely intact and fully fuelled, armed and functional abandoned vehicle that is not recovered is worth absolutely the same to its owners as one that has everything above turret ring orbiting the moon.

You can literally see 3 men exit the tank and run away at the end of the video. Ukraine still managed to destroy the tank and kill the fleeing crew at the end but saying the crew died during the Bradley attack is just plain wrong.

why does he have to mention he's a gay, tho? Like damn, dude, stfu and talk about the subject and not how you love go suck wieners

executive meddling did mess up some parts of the bradley, but to no ones surprise the movie actually glosses over it
the brad was expected to have the ability to fight in a nuclear wasteland, which meant the crew had to be able to fight while buttoned so firing ports were provided
so they made a special M16 carbine with a shorter barrel and no stock that fit inside a cramped IFV interior

the resulting firing port weapon had a much higher rate of fire to compensate for how short it was, so you can actually land hits
but this also meant it was crazy impractical if it was used outside the vehicle so it had to be secured to the firing port at all times and would result in hearing loss if fired inside an enclosed space

it was of questionable practicality and added yet another gun to the vehicle, and was eventually rendered useless by the extra armor packages that block the firing ports anyways
modern M2s only keep the rear-hatch firing ports for suppressing the rear while dismounting but all the side ports have been sealed shut

this was a legitimate problem that the movie doesnt really focus on in favor of harping on the autocannon

I got Gell-Mann effected by him fairly hard after a couple of his naval videos. Quite a few people I know that focus on areas he's covered have reported similar things, which makes me conclude he's good at making it seem like he understands more than he does.

Also, while I'm pretty tolerant of tangents (my favorite critic is Mauler, for perspective), LP can go off in what seems to be a completely random direction for half the video that has essentially no fricking relevance to the topic at hand. Doesn't stop that part from being entertaining, but again, Gell-Mann effect.

Millions used to be a lot of money in the 70s. But yeah. They ran into too many problems trying to directly influence actors and directors in the 40s and 50s. But they found out if they took over the writers unions they could subtly influence films to make war seem too costly and ghastly, while still portraying the Americans as the "good guys" so no politicians bothered investigating it.