[Malorn]

I didn't want to pollute the OP with opinion and keep it to just the facts, so I'll give some of my own thoughts now.

I'm a bit torn. I see the value of each, and I was a huge proponent of the 1+1=3 thing.

For the 2-man argument, I see the following advantages:

• We will see a lot more tanks. This is great. Unless tanks are resource-expensive, in which case it might not matter.
  
• I think one problem of PS1 was that not enough people pulled tanks because you needed a gunner and people didn't want to invest in certs or pull a tank so someone else could reap the benefit and fun.
  
• Since tanks probably cost resources, giving the driver the ability to gun seems like justice and would result in more tanks overall. If you're going to spend some hard-earned resources, why not get some value out of it?

For the 3-man argument there are some good benefits too..

• It gives the lightning more defined role since it would effectively become the 1-man tank option. The ATV/Quad (what name did they settle on?) also has increased value if the person pulling the vehicle is just using it for transit from point A to point B. With the 2-man design I question the value of the lightning - why pull one if you can get a bigger, better MBT?
  
• It allows the MBTs to be stronger. They have to be if you have more people and roughly the same firepower. So it is more rewarding in a sense to form up a tank crew if you know that your MBT will make a bigger difference than say a Lightning. Having dedicated tank crews that are more durable and make a bigger difference justifies the extra manpower and makes that tank more valuable. I liked being a key part of a tank crew in PS1 knowing that we were making a difference because our tank was helping push back the enemy. If I had the option of gunning or simply driving but having a better tank, I would choose the latter.

I used to be solidly in the dedicated-driver camp, but I see clear tradeoffs. It's not black & white to me anymore.