>Satisfied?
Absolutely, but ................
No, honestly i appreciate your comments and see the logic behind it, apart from what is probably largely a question of semantics.
I guess using the term "squads" sets a bad analogy, but what we are talking about does have a historical precedent (IMO), the smallest administrative group in an army, which has a nominated leader and which could, in certain circumstances be detached on some form of independent action, be it collecting firewood, foraging, scouting ahead or patrolling a district (although these groups were not used as independent tactical units on the battlefield). I also believe that in those ancient societies where they had an essentially full time fighting forces (the Imperial Romans) or at least a (relatively) highly organised fighting force (e.g. the Macedonians or Spartans) these sub-units were likewise a permanently defined part of the larger formation.
I also stand by what i said re: modern armies, but with hindsight should qualify it as practising squad size. If say, a British mech-infantry company was supplied with 12 APC's during the last army reorganisation, each APC intended to carry 8 men. But, 5 years and an election later, when the unit is called to action, it only has 72 men on strength (the rest having taken better paid jobs elsewhere), does it leave 3 APC's behind, no it goes of to war with 12, 6 man squads.
Anyway this is all straying from the point of this daily, like you said 18 points of magic divides by 6 just fine, 'nough said.
Adrian
Powered by hypermail