6 versus 8 dismounts.
A deal breaker or just a nice to have?
If the Redback has more internal volume, this may help future proof reconfigurations in a vehicle class that should be around for a few decades.
A lot to consider in the final decision for sure, but flexibility should count for something!
Regards S
I always thought the more dismounts the better, but in this case it doesn't conform to the current section size present within the battalions (9 now, up from 8 under Beersheba). Any increase in related section size may require an increase in battalion size?
IIRC the current APCs and PMVs are each crewed by two members of the section with the remaining seven acting as dismounts. With the IFV this would be altered to three crew and six dismounts. If the Redback is chosen and all eight seats are filled with the crew still being derived from the section, then we are looking at 11 man sections.
If the section is engaged in activities that require small unit tactics and where casualties are more likely (jungle or urban warfare) then I can see the need for the increased section size or increased number of dismounts. The added fire support and mobility offered by these vehicles may also be less of an advantage - cover and concealment being in far greater supply, with terrain (buildings or jungle) serving to constrain movement to set paths, which could serve as funnels.
But this is without considering the other advantages an IFV has in a myriad of other environments and settings. AFVs have been effectively utilised in many recent urban engagements - from Marawi to Fallujah, Mosul and Raqqa. Tracked vehicles may also have a mobility advantage in the difficult terrain present in or getting to these areas (trenches aimed at stopping wheeled vehicles come to mind).
Edit: It is also perhaps worth considering that, with an IFV in support of the section, the need for one brick to support the other in fire and movement becomes less relevant (as was a part of Beersheba). APCs and PMVs were never designed to take part in the fighting - with tanks expected to provide infantry support. However a tank could only cover so many targets and areas at once - meaning to some degree a section may need to support itself with one brick laying covering fire and the other moving.
With an IFV in support of the section this is less of an issue - with a dedicated GPMG, 30mm autocannon and potentially a HMG/AGL providing support to both bricks.
If Army chooses to go with the Redback it would logically have the choice to go with the eight seat option or to downsize to six seats.* The former would provide additional room for attached personnel or larger sections (32 dismounts vs 24 in a platoon), though increasing section size would significantly increase the size of the infantry battalions and would de-standardise it from the PMV battalions.** On the other hand, the current six dismounts would conform with the current section size - with the overall firepower, mobility and protection offered by the IFVs being worth the conversion of one dismount into a crew member.
* Which would then be a case of seeing how modular the Redback is during the RMA.
** On the potential de-standardisation, I am sure this would occur regardless once conversion to IFVs begins in earnest. Three man crews operating an AFV is substantially different than operating a battle wagon like the PMV.
