\C!a B~!!>GIJ\ro BOOK 

A Personal Viewpoint 

The true test of a technical manual 

is its usefulness in a practical field 

situation. A true test of TM 5-349, Arctic Construction, came when the 23rd 

Engineer Company (CBT) (HVY), Fort 

Richardson, was tasked to build the 

main supply route for the joint training exercise, "Brim Frost '83" in central Alaska. 

Site Selection 

The first task was to bridge the Delta 

River. This required choosing a site for 

an ice bridge. Site considerations are 

covered in the "Ice Bridges" section of 

TM 5-349. 

Additional site considerations used 

by CPT Chris Turletes, commander of 

the 23rd, included aligning the ice 

bridge with the prevailing wind direction, insuring that streams or creeks 

were not entering immediately 

upstream from the site, removing 

obstructions upwind, and placing snow 

berms downwind. His additional criteria are included in "Ice Bridging;' 

Pamphlet 350-2 of the 172nd Infantry 

Brigade (February 1983) that was 

necessitated by the lack of a specific 

guidance in TM 5-349. 

Approaches 

"Preparation of Approaches" suggests using a timber ramp from the ice 

bridge to frozen fill on the banks. This 

ignores the fact that ice forming at the 

banks usually expands off the river 

and becomes supported by the banks. 

The overhanging ice creates a weak 

spot because of the hinge effect. 

This problem was dealt with in 

"Brim Frost '83" by breaking the hinge 

ice and making the ramps of icecrete: 

crushed ice, aggregate, snow, and water. 

This newer method of approach-ramp 

construction must be included m a 

rewrite of TM 5-349. 

Ice Profile 

The next step in ice bridging is profiling the ice which TM 5-349 addresses 

in general terms only. The reader is left 

guessing where to place the profile 

holes, how to estimate the load-bearing 

capacity for different types of ice, and 

what to do with ice frozen solid to the 

river bottom or unsupported by water. 

The load-bearing capacity for ice is 

given in table XIV of TM 5-349. Unfortunately, this table does not say which 

type of ice these minimum thicknesses 

are for and does not give correction factors for other types of ice. The Ice 

Bridging pamphlet gives the load class 

formulas and also has a table listing 

certain military vehicles with the corresponding minimum ice thicknesses 

required for certain types of ice. 

The Delta River crossing posed many 

problems. The four major river channels had conditions varying from solid 

ice to the river bottom to 40 inches of 

ice over 4-foot air voids. At the beginning of construction, the water flow 

was subterranean. The Arctic 

Construction manual does not mention 

these possible problems, much less 

offer solutions. 

Captain Turletes consulted Edward 

F. Sheehan, long-time resident, geologist, and Senior Tust Manager with the 

Cold Regions Test Center at Fort 

Greely, AK. Mr. Sheehan said that the 

subterranean flow was normal, but 

that it would not continue all winter. 

This information led to the following 

solution: two crossing sites were prepared, one on the ground-supported ice 

sheet and one weaving from sandbar to 

by CPr William J. Stein 

sandbar. The ice was excavated to the 

river bottom in the major channels, 

both across the channels and parallel 

to the flow. Bailey bridges and M-4T6 

bridge sections were stockpiled to put 

across the channels ifthe water started 

flowing above the ground. 

Reinforcement 

Calculations showed that the ice 

bridges over the four channels needed 

to be 8 inches thicker. The TM's section 

on "Reinforced Crossings" says to clear 

the snow cover, but says nothing about 

the snow berms on the edge of the ice 

bridge. 

During the winter exercise, "Jack 

Frost 1979, "near Fairbanks, AK, the 

Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) evaluated the 

ice bridge construction over the Tanana 

River and found a significant reduction 

in the ice thickness under the snow 

berms on either side of the ice bridge. 

When ice bridge construction is complete, the snow berms should be 

removed to prevent weakening of the 

ice bridge. An explanation of the weakening effect of the snow berms on the 

ice bridge is included in the Ice Bridging pamphlet, but not in the TM. 

The next step in reinforcing the ice 

bridge is addressed in the section on 

"Flooding." This very short paragraph 

says to flood the bridge to 2112 times the 

roadway width using one-inch layers of 

water and claims that each inch of 

water will freeze in two hours at 5° F. 

However, the present industry standard is to flood the ice bridge to a width 

of 150 feet. In reality at 5° F, each inch 

of water will take 11 hours to freeze 

with no wind, or 7 hours to to freeze 

(Continued on page 37) 
E . ra1 WOIUME 1,ng 1 ~R~ r WINTER 1984-85 

UNITED STATES ARMY 

ENGINEER CENTER 

AND FORT BELVOIR, VA 

COMMANDER/COMMANDANT 

MG Richard S. Kem 

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT 

COL Ralph T. Rundle 

CHIEF OF STAFF/DEPUTY 

INSTALLATION COMMANDER 

COL Peter D. Stearns 

COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR 

CSM Charles T. Tucker 

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING 

AND DOCTRINE 

COL Don W. Barber 

CHIEF OF PUBLICATIONS 

Stanley Georges 

EDITOR 

Marilyn Fleming 

MANAGING EDITOR 

1 LT Louis J. Leto 

ASSISTANT EDITOR 

Donald Sc hmoldt 

CONTRIBUTING EDITOR 

Ellen D. Shields 

DESIGN DIRECTOR 

Thomas Davis 

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT 

SP4 Jean Tate 

On the Cover 

This German-laid minefie ld won't hold up 

Allied forces invading France as ILt Merle 

Kirste in makes a final sweep on June 13, 

1944. Notice the mines that have already 

been recovered (U.S. Army Photo). 

FEATURES 

10 WW II: Engineers in the European Theater 

by Dr. William C. Baldwin and Dr. Barry W Fowle 

20 The Fort Leonard Wood Museum: A WWII Time Capsule 

by Robert K. Combs 

22 Blackwell Bridge: Historic Structure Saved Through 

Modern Methods 

by Jack Wilson 

24 Men and Machines: A History of Combat Developments 

by CPT Ronald G. Prichard 

27 West Point Engineers: Builders of America's 

Infrastructure 

by MAJ Mark Vincent 

30 An Engineer Platoon Leader's Survival Guide to NTC 

by CPT James G. Liwski 

32 A Close Look at Drill Sergeant School 

by SP4 Thomas Copeland and SP5 Kathleen Ellison 

34 Construction and Maintenance of Delta Creek Airstrip 

by MAJ Thomas A. York 

38 Publications from CERL 

42 The Difference 

by Dandridge M. Malone 

DEPARTMENTS 

Inside Front Cover: A Personal Viewpoint 

2 News and Notes 7 School News 

4 Clear the Way 29 Engineer Problem 

5 Bridge the Gap 37 Hotline Q&A 

6 Engineer People 43 Engineer Solution 

44 Career Notes 

ENGINEER (ISSN 0046-1989) is a n authorized publication of the U.S. Army Engineer Center and Fort Belvoir, VA. Unless specifica lly stated, materia l appearing herein does not necessarily refl ect officia l policy, t hinking nor endorsement by any agency of the U.S. Army. The words he, him, or his are used to represent 

personnel of either sex. All photographs conta ined herein are officia l U.S. Army photogr aphs unless otherwise credited. The use of funds for printing this 

publication was approved by Headquarters, Department of the Army, on July 22, 1981. Material herein may be reprinted if credit is given to ENGINEER 

and to the a ut hor. ENGINEER's objectives are to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas, to inform and motivate, and to promote the professiona l development of all members of the Army engineer community. Direct correspondence with ENGINEER is authorized and encouraged. Inquiries, letters to the editor, 

commenta ries, manuscripts, photographs and general correspondence should be sent to: ENGINEER Magazine, ATZA-TD-P Stop 291D, Fort Belvoir, VA 

22060-5 291. Phone: (703) 664-3082, AV 354. ENGINEER may be fo rwarded to personnel in military units. Address changes should be sent to ENGINEER. 

Subscriptions to ENGINEER are available through the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. A check 

or money order payable to Superintendent of Documents, must accompany all subscription requests. Rates a re $11.00 for domestic (including APO and FPO) 

addresses a nd $13.75 for foreign addresses. Individual copies are available at $3.00 per copy for domestic addresses and $3.75 for foreign addresses. Second 

Class postage pa id at Fort Belvoir, VA, and additional mailing offices. 
-M News & Notes 

Engineers Save Historic Site; 

Clean Hawaiian Habitation Cave 

Working in the heat and blowing dust of South Point, HI, the 25th Infantry 

Division's 65th Combat Engineers worked from August 15 to September 

7 to clear debris from an ancient Hawaiian habitation cave (photo by SP4 

Robert P. Lindsay). 

Engineers from HHC, 65th Engineer 

Bn. Schofield Barracks, HI, preserved 

a portion of Hawaiian history recently. 

From August 15 to September 7, the 

squad of Engineers cleaned an ancient 

Hawaiian habitation cave at South 

Point, on the southern tip of the 

Hawaii. 

The habitation cave area of South 

Point was the site of the first 

Hawaiians' landing in the islands, 

according to SGT Terrence Whitfield, 

HHC, 65th Engineer Bn. During WW 

II, however, the Army Air Corps used 

the cave area as an airfield. After the 

war, when the airfield was deactivated, 

barb wire, fuel drums, and other debris 

were discarded into the caves. 

2 

"The 65th Engineers became 

involved in the cleaning project 

through the Hawaiian Home Lands 

Department;' explained Whitfield. 

"The Department preserves lands 

owned by the original Hawaiians in 

much the same way as Indian reservations preserve Indian lands." 

When the original Hawaiians came 

to South Point, they found several cavelike holes in the countryside called lava 

tubes. These are formed when the surface of a lava flow cools, allowing 

molten lava in the center to flow out. 

This forms a tunnel or "tube!' According to Whitfield, the first visitors to 

Hawaii used these as shelters or 

homes. 

"The cave in which we worked 

extends nearly three quarters of a mile 

to the next cave, which is closer to the 

ocean. Another cave extends nearly 

two miles;' he said. Hieroglyphics and 

other artifacts, including hollowed 

grinding stones found within those 

caves, led the Army to declare the area 

archaeologically significant. 

During their stay at South Point, the 

Engineers cleaned an estimated 20 

tons of debris from the cave. They 

worked daily from dawn to dusk in a 

hot and dusty environment to restore 

the cave site. 

Micro!fech 

Equipment 

Microprocessor technology may be 

the key to making the battlefield of the 

future safer for Combat Engineers. 

Researchers at the Ft. Belvoir 

Research and Development Center's 

Combined Arms Support Laboratory 

have mounted a microprocessorcontrolled backhoe and manipulator 

arm on a cross-country vehicle to 

evaluate their potential in a combat 

situation. By minimizing the manual 

operations required to handle these two 

attachments, the microprocessor system would reduce the danger to the 

driver from weapons or chemical, biological or nuclear agents. 

Once developed, its computer program could record and evaluate data on 

the exact position of the attachments 

and calculate the exact voltages needed 

to perform a specific task. Engineers 

visualize a driver being able to call 

upon a previously entered program to 

dig a standard hole with the backhoe; 

to enter his own data for a special excavation; or to control the backhoe using 

a joystick. The manipulator, meanENGINEER/Winter 1984- 85 
In the future, a microprocessor-controlled backhoe and manipulator arm, 

mounted on a cross-country vehicle, may be used to improve the safety 

and efficiency of Combat Engineers (U.S. Army photo). 

while, would have the capacity to lift 

and stack a pallet of ammunition at 

angles up to 90 degrees when fully 

extended. When close in, this could be 

increased to as many as four palletsall while the driver remains in the 

safety of the cab. 

Data from initial tests currently 

underway will also form the basis for 

using artificial intelligence in other 

types of construction and materials 

handling equipment. 

Link Reinforcement Kit 

In October 1984, the Engineers of the 

559th Engineer Bn. were once again 

leaders in their field, as the 516th 

Engineer Co. became the first unit in 

Europe to construct a medium girder 

bridge (MGB) with a link reinforcement kit. 

At the field construction site in 

Hanau, Germany, the Engineers were 

found adding more than the usual 

number of bays to the bridge under 

construction. 

According to SSG Gary Layton, a section sergeant with the 516th, the reinforcement kit allows them to build a 

22-bay double story bridge that can 

handle a Class 60 load. "Without the 

kit;' he said, "a Class 60 bridge could 

only be 12 bays long, and 22 bays could 

only handle a Class 16 load." 

Mr. Charles Lynn, chief of a New 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 

Equipment Training Team that was 

available from the Field Services 

Activity of St. Louis, MO, discussed 

how the integration of new engineering equipment such as the link reinforcement kit begins with research, 

development and testing at Ft. Belvoir, 

VA. "Then we get the responsibility to 

manage the unit's training;' he said. 

He further added that the instructors 

training the Engineers were from the 

manufacturers of the MGB. 

Assisting Mr. Lynn was SFC Gary 

Stayon from Ft. Belvoir. He further 

described how it was the New Equipment Team's mission to ensure that 

products are designed that can be properly used by troops in the field. 

"As a 12C, my work primarily concerns bridging;' Stayon said. "For 

instance, the original third roller 

assembly used with the link kit kept 

faltering. Consequently, my team convinced the civilian Engineer to redesign the roller assembly, so that we no 

longer experience any problem in this 

area!' 

The majority of the Engineers' actual 

training was done by Mr. Bob Farrar, 

an Englishman from Fairey Engineering LTD of Stockport, England, the 

designers and manufacturers of the 

MGB. 

A man of dry English wit and distinct British colloquialisms, Mr. Farrar 

was always found in the midst of the 

soldiers he was training, showing them 

in detail the proper assembly of the 

reinforcement apparatus. He noted 

that it takes about three bridge builds 

to get a unit well acquainted with the 

reinforcement kit. 

Engineers of the 516th Engineer Co. 

"heave ho" as they adjust the link 

reinforcement apparatus, visible 

below the medium girder bridge 

(photo by SP4 Paul Graveline). 

3 
-

" 

l~,:; ~ fl 

f-·" -> 

CLEAR THE WAY 

by MG Richard S. Kem, Commandant, U.S. Army Engineer School 

The American Military Engineer: 

A Proud Heritage 

As an American military Engineer, you possess a 

multifaceted heritage that reaches as far back as 

Europe during the Renaissance. The Engineers of that 

creative period recognized no dichotomy between military and civil engineering. They moved easily from 

combat engineering to the design and construction of 

civil structures such as canals, cathedrals, and fortifications. For example, Francesco di Giorgio Martini 

of Siena, a Renaissance master known for his painting, sculpture and architecture, was responsible for 

his hometown's water supply and invented the starshaped bastion. Another, Aristotle Fiorviante of 

Bologna, built one of the cathedrals in Moscow's 

Kremlin and laid pontoon bridges for armies on the 

march. 

All of the elements of this 15th century tradition 

are reinforced by our unique American heritage as 

military Engineers. As Combat Engineers, we trace 

our descent to the earliest hours of the U.S. Army at 

Bunker Hill and to the original company of sappers 

and miners who led the way through the British fortifications at Yorktown. Although technology has 

changed dramatically since then, their mission 

remains ours-mobility, countermobility, survivability. We are still sappers-"clear the way." 

Also, since the American Revolution, we have been 

constructors of military fortifications; and that 

military construction mission has grown through the 

years, particularly since World War II. Finally, Army 

Engineers have been instrumental in developing civil 

society since the early 19th century. This started with 

clearing obstacles from rivers, building the major 

highways of the period, as well as the exploration, 

survey, and mapping of our nation's westward expansion. This led to major national responsibilities in 

water-resource development and major programs to 

construct facilities for our space program, to modernize the postal system, and in significant overseas 

construction. 

4 

Because of this diverse background, it is appropriate 

that this historical issue offers articles across the 

breadth of our mission-combat engineering, military 

construction, and our civil works engineering and construction for the nation. The lead article tells how 

Combat Engineers "cleared the way" in the European 

theater during World War II. A second provides the 

origin of the Corps of Engineers civil works mission; 

and another, "The Fort Leonard Wood Museum;' tells 

us how some of this heritage is captured and preserved 

for us and future generations of Engineers. 

We look to this rich and varied past for many reasons. Those of you who attended the commemoration 

at Fort Belvoir's 40th anniversary of the Battle of the 

Bulge experienced first-hand some of the pleasures 

and uses of our history. The talks by Engineers who 

fought in the Bulge not only taught us much about 

leadership in battle, but were inspiring and entertaining as well. 

The content of this issue illustrates many ways in 

which we draw on this heritage. In the first place, our 

past explains the origins of our current missions. For 

example, the article on the builders of America's infrastructure traces the expansion of Engineer participation in the development of public works such as railroads, canals, and highways. 

Finally, our heritage as American military Engineers should provide us a source of pride. The wartime achievements of American military Engineers 

show what an Engineer organization, with its roots 

in such a wide variety of military and civil engineering accomplishments, can do. 

Understanding our roots, fully appreciating the 

major contribution our forebearers made in building 

our great nation and contributing on the battlefield 

to its defense, is necessary. Necessary to appreciate 

that you are a part of a great organization and a great 

tradition; and that you carry a heavy responsibility 

to continue that tradition-in the peacetime Army, on 

the AirLand Battlefield, serving our Nation. 

Essayons! 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 
I ~ tt;:!- '\ j 

\ 

--~-BRIDGE THE GAP_..___~ ...... by CSM Charles T. Tucker, U.S. Army Engineer Center & School 

Yesterday's Engineers, Today's Inspiration 

Past Engineers Show the 

Meaning of "Soldier" 

It pleases me that my first opportunity to write 

"Bridge the Gap" would be for a historical issue. 

When we think about the history of the Army and of 

the Corps of Engineers, we actually think of our 

heritage. We may think of the Continental Army at 

N"alley Forge, Saratoga, and Yorktown. We may also 

hink about the soldiers who gave their lives at 

Normandy, the Bulge, Pork Chop Hill, and Saigon. 

The point is that as Engineers, we must first 

remember our heritage as combat soldiers. Many 

times throughout history, Engineers were forced to 

drop their shovels and pick up their weapons. We see 

a prime example of this in the article, "WWII: 

Engineers in the European Theater." Engineers were 

forced to defend against an overwhelming enemy force 

at Trois-Ponts, even though other American troops 

were ordered to retreat. 

Even at the Normandy landings, Engineers faced 

relentless enemy fire and suffered perhaps more 

casualties man-for-man than any other unit. Without 

their courage and determination, the American forces 

may well have faced utter disaster. 

This is illustrated in a book by Janice Holt Giles. 

In "The Damned Engineers," she explains how LTC 

Peiper led the German offensive at the Battle of the 

Bulge and tried to maneuver his panzers against an 

outnumbered enemy. But every time he tried to move 

his tanks across a bridge, he found that it had been 

blown up by Engineers. The story goes that all he kept 

aying upon discovering the bridges was, "The 

!iamned Engineers:' Again, we see the significant role 

which American military Engineers have played in 

our history. 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 

All of these examples should remind us of our first 

duty-to be a professional soldier. Our prime mission 

on the battlefield is to defeat the enemy. If dropping 

our shovels and leaving behind our bulldozers is what 

we have to do to defeat our enemy, then that is what 

we do. The fact was true on June 6, 1944, and it still 

stands today. 

The AirLand Battle requires all soldiers to work 

together. It demands that we recognize our mission 

in supporting the maneuver forces and executing this 

task in the most proficient and professional manner 

possible. It means reorganizing and fighting as 

infantry, should it become necessary. As Engineers, 

we must realize this. If we qon't win the first battle, 

we may very well lose the· war. 

The American military Engineer has played a major 

role in this country's history and continues to do so. 

Not only was he instrumental against Hitler's final 

desperate attempt to defeat the Allies, but he also 

planted the seed for this country's infrastructure. 

Troops continually work within our communities 

improving roads, dams, bridges, and buildings. They 

constructed the first railroad tracks so that Americans 

could travel easier, faster, and safer. They did all this 

and were proud of their work. 

So, what do I ask of all noncommissioned officers 

and soldiers? Remember that as Engineer soldiers, 

you can be just as proud of your heritage as any other 

soldier. Remember the key role Engineer soldiers have 

in the Army. Remember what your predecessors have 

done and use that to inspire your soldiers. Educate 

your soldiers as to whose footsteps they are following. 

That inspiration and dedication is what we need in 

the AirLand Battle. 

5 
 

-M Engineer People 

SSG Tom Benoit, a soldier assigned 

to the 11th Engineer Bn, Ft. Belvoir, 

VA., claims to be the strongest man in 

the Army. 

In his competition, Benoit usually 

opens by squatting 722 pounds at least 

five times. Then he moves to 766 pounds 

and finally maxes with 805 pounds, 

squatting each of these weights three 

times. He then benchpresses 505 

pounds and dead-lifts 665 pounds. 

In the 14 months that Benoit has 

been powerlifting, he's won over 33 

medals. In a recent meet at Gettysburg, 

PA, held last August, Benoit deadlifted 

665 pounds. That was the first time he 

had ever lifted that much weight. He 

placed first in the dead-lift and bench 

press competitions, and he also 

received a medal for best lifter in the 

270 pound body weight class. 

Right before a lift, Benoit usually 

gets his adrenalin flowing by having 

someone slap his face or by hitting his 

head against the weight bar. "I'm a 

super-aggressive person, so when I 

work out with weights, it's like I'm at 

war.'' 

He enters only four competitions a 

year. He says that ifhe competed in any 

more, his body wouldn't be able to take 

the stress. "You need time in between 

to prepare for meets;' he said. 

Benoit works out at a private gym in 

Strongest Man in the Army 

SSG Tom Benoit, who claims to be the strongest man in the Army, shows 

the strength that he hopes will give him the world champion powerlifter 

title (U.S. Army photo). 

Marlow Heights, MD. He says he feels 

that having the right atmosphere is 

very crucial. He credits his success to 

his personality. "I love all sports and 

I'm very aggressive. Powerlifting is the 

only sport I've found that's individualistic. It's not like team sports, where 

you have to depend on a team's total 

effort. My way a person can be as good 

as he wants to be." 

In his upcoming meet in February 

1985 at the Armed Forces Championship Meets, Benoit intends to walk 

away with a few more medals. With 

proper weight training, working out at 

the gym three times a week, and a 

proper diet, he says he could be the 

world champion power lifter by 1988. 

German Friendship Award 

Given to CSM 

Have something for Engineer 

People? Please send your item 

(with photographs) to ENGINEER Magazine, ATZA-TD-P, 

Stop 291D Ft. Belvoir, VA 

22060-5291. 

The former Engineer School Command Sergeant Major was named first 

military recipient of the Federal 

Republic of Germany Friendship 

Award in recognition of his efforts to 

foster good German-American 

relations. 

CSM Orville W. Troesch Jr. received 

the award from German Charge d' 

Affaires Theodor Wallau during a 

recent ceremony at the German 

embassy in Washington, D.C. 

6 

Troesch, who was honored for his 

endeavors in supporting and sustaining friendship between Germany and 

the United States, served 12 years in 

Germany during a 26-year Army 

career. While assigned in Germany, he 

was actively involved in partnership 

activities, joint training ventures, and 

social events. 

In 1983, during the 300th anniversary celebration of German immigration to the United States, Troesch 

organized activities in support of those 

festivities. Throughout his tenure at 

Ft. Belvoir, he assisted military 

families departing or returning from 

assignments to Germany. 

Troesch was recently reassigned to 

Ft. Sam Houston, TX, as Command 

Sergeant Major of the Fifth Army 

Garrison. 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 

~ 
_f1_S_c_h_o_o_l_N_e_w_s ________ _ 

Department of 

Combined Arms (DCA) 

EOBC Course 

Revision: 

Directorate of 

Engineer Officer Basic Course (EOBC) students will soon receive additional leadership training, as well as courses in the communicative arts. 

The officers, who are being trained to become professional Engineer platoon leaders, will also be given additional night training and orienteering. More time will be devoted to the Engineer Stakes and the Common 

Training Test, and the final ARTEP/FTX has been changed to emphasize 

the role of the Task Force Engineer as both a platoon leader and a planner who integrates with a task force staff. 

The EOBC cadre, which is organized into three training companies, 

recognizes the need to improve certain fundamental tasks for these new 

Engineers. It encourages feedback from Engineer commanders on the 

EOBC curriculum results. 

Evaluation and Standardization (DOES) 

ROTC Training Agreements: 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 

The Engineer School and five university ROTC detachments are now 

affiliated in an agreement signed Aug. 15, 1984. The five are Iowa State 

University, Johns Hopkins University, North Carolina State University, 

Penn State University, and the University of Missouri-Rolla. 

The program's goal is to increase the number of engineer and science 

students who participate in ROTC and to ultimately increase the number 

who will choose Engineer commissions. This program is in its first year, 

with only the Corps of Engineers and the Signal Corps participating. The 

universities were chosen based on three criteria: 

• Sound engineering school 

• Strong ROTC detachment 

• History of commissioning relatively few Engineer officers 

The program will be examined later for possible expansion into more 

universities, as well as expanding the program for other Army branches. 

At the Engineer School, the Engineer Proponency Office was given the 

program responsibility. By agreement, the Professor of Military Science 

at each of the universities is to be an Engineer officer. This branch assignment will occur on the next possible assignment rotation date. 

The program will provide the Professors of Military Science with a direct 

line to the Engineer School for assistance in instructing and informing 

ROTC students about the Army branches, in particular the Corps of 

Engineers. 

The Engineer School will assist the ROTC program by providing slide 

shows, pamphlets, and other audio-visual material that will help to 

publicize the Corps of Engineers as a service choice. 

7 
_'f1 School News 

Directorate of 

Training and Doctrine (DOTD) 

62N30 Basic Course: 

Functional Review: 

The Construction Equipment Supervisor Basic Technical Course 

(62N30) began October 15 at Fort Leonard Wood, MO. The five-week , 

three-day resident course teaches the basic supervisory management and 

technical skills which are required for planning and executing construction projects at the section level. 

The 62N30 BTC is available to active Army or Reserve Component 

soldiers who are qualified in MOS 62E, 62F, 62G, 62H, or 62N and have 

their commander's approval. 

First priority will be given to promotable E5s or E6s who are assigned 

to skill level 3 positions for which the training is designed. Second priority will be given to E5s or promotable E4s who, because of unit shortages, are assigned to E6 positions. 

Time restrictions and the technical subject matter required the course 

to be taught in three phases. First, a diagnostic test is given at the beginning of the course to identify any deficiencies in prerequisite skills and 

to provide the curriculum for remedial training. This training will be 

conducted outside the normal academic day and will prepare each 

student for future BTC classes during the course. 

Next, each student will learn a variety of subjects including equipment utilization and maintenance, interpretation of planning documents, 

production rate estimation, job planning, schedule development, safety 

and quality control procedures, personnel supervision, and personnel 

management. 

Finally, the course will end in a three-hour comprehensive test to evaluate the soldier's knowledge of all the skills taught. This system of instruction will enable the soldier to return to his unit better qualified to resume 

his leadership position. 

Soldiers desiring to attend the 62N30 BTC should initiate the request 

on DA Form 4187 through their company commander in accordance with 

DA Pam 600-8. The POC for further information is lLT Bostian, General 

Engineering Branch, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-5291, (703)664-1997/4834 or 

AV 354-1997. 

The second Engineer Functional Review (EFR) was presented to the 

Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), Deputy Chief of Staff 

for Personnel (DCSPER) May 30, 1984. The Engineer School Commandant uses these annual reviews to express the total personnel requirements and problems for the Engineer community. 

The Engineer Functional Review is used as a management tool to 

ensure that soldiers are trained to man new materiel systems and can 

support the Engineer force structure. The review examines new material 

systems and new or restructured organizations to identify their total 

personnel requirements. This enables the proponent to identify personnel issues which, if not resolved, could slow the fielding of new systems 

and organizations or could hamper unit readiness. 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984- 85 

~ 
Functional Review: 

(Cont.) 

Branch Training 

Team: 

New Training 

Handbook: 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 

Several personnel issues, identified in the May 1984 EFR, were 

women's limited opportunities for early career progression in the Engineer force, the critical shortfall of Army divers, the shortage of Engineer 

warrant officers, and the lack of requirements for MOS 53B (Industrial 

Gas Production Specialist) in either the active or reserve forces. 

The Engineer Proponency Office has now assigned directorates within 

the USAES to solve these issues. If required, outside agencies such as 

other proponents, the Soldier Support Center-National Capitol Region, 

MILPERCEN, or the Army Staff will be asked to assist in problem 

solutions. 

A continuing program called the Engineer School Branch Training 

Team (BTT) has been established by the Directorate of Evaluation and 

Standardization to maintain open communications with Engineer units 

worldwide. 

The Team, made up of representatives from the Engineer School and 

the Engineer Training Center at Ft. Leonard Wood, provides briefings 

on current actions and answers questions the unit may have. The BTT 

goal is to visit each active duty component Engineer battalion, group 

and brigade every two years, and reserve units as scheduling permits. 

Typically, Engineer School members include individuals from the 

Directorates of Combat Developments and Training and Doctrine, as well 

as the training departments. 

Both the Engineer School and the unit benefit from the Branch Training Team program since the visiting team receives feedback from the 

field and communications are improved. The unit also benefits from the 

information it receives. 

Contact the Directorate of Evaluation and Standardization at (703) 

664-3668, AV 354-3668 for further information. 

The Engineer School has adopted the New Equipment Systems Training Development Management Model (NESTDMM) handbook. This 

manual was developed to provide training developers, combat developers, 

and trainers with a management model and procedural guide for meeting 

training development requirements while acquiring new equipment 

systems. 

The NESTDMM handbook will give managers and project officers a 

comprehensive guide which outlines responsibilities and interactions 

that should occur between the different USAES organizations as they 

relate to the Life Cycle Management Model (LCMM). 

Completion of this handbook was made possible through the joint 

efforts of various branch representatives within the Engineer School who 

participated in numerous work sessions. Distribution of these handbooks 

began in October 1984. If you wish to receive a copy, contact Ms. Commie 

Brown, New Equipment Systems Office, (703) 664-2456, AV 354-2456. 

9 
 

WWII 

Engineers 

in the 

European Theater 

D-Day, June 6, 1944: 57,500 American and Allied troops massed 

together on the Normandy beaches to make Operation Overlord 

the largest single assault ever launched . .. and the Engineers 

led the way. 

by Dr wmiam C. Baldwin and Dr Barry w Fowle 

Normandy Landings 

On June 6, 1984 the United States 

and its western Allies celebrated 

the 40th anniversary of the landings 

on the Normandy beaches. Those landings began a drive that led to Germany's surrender less than one year 

later. Contributing mightily to the 

effort were United States Army Engineers who participated in every part of 

that offensive. 

Although Allied forces had already 

landed in North Africa, Sicily, and 

southern Italy earlier in the war, none 

of these landings had been as large as 

Operation Overlord, which was a direct 

assault on Hitler's vaunted Atlantic 

wall. 

The First Canadian Army and the 

Second British Army under the command of Field Marshal Bernard L. 

Montgomery landed on three beaches 

on the eastern coast of Normandy, 

while the First United States Army 

under LTG Omar Bradley landed on 

two western beaches, code-named 

Omaha and Utah. Although the Allies 

had carefully planned the operation, 

the outcome of the assault was 

uncertain. 

10 

Omaha was the most formidable of 

the two American beaches. It stretched 

for almost 8,000 yards between two sections of coastline dominated by rocky 

cliffs. At low tide, the beach had a 

300-yard tidal flat of hard-packed, 

gently sloping sand which could support Allied landing craft. Behind this 

tidal flat lay a rocky shingle and a level 

shelf of sand and grass. Inland from the 

shelf, the ground rose steeply into 

bluffs from 100 to 125 feet high. Five 

small valleys, which cut through these 

bluffs to the beach, were the exits 

through which American troops, vehicles, and supplies had to pass (Figure 1). 

The Germans, recognizing that 

Omaha was a possible invasion site, 

began to fortify the beach. They erected 

hedgehogs, ramps, and "Belgian 

gates"; placed stakes, minefields, 

barbed wire; dug antitank ditches; and 

studded all of these obstacles with 

mines. 

Realizing that the valleys were the 

key to defending the beach because 

they provided exits for American 

troops, vehicles, and supplies, the Germans fortified them with pill boxes, 

dugouts, and interlocking trenches. 

They established artillery and mortar 

positions which could blanket the 

beaches with deadly, accurate fire. 

The Germans decided to defeat any 

invasion attempt on the beaches themselves and, therefore, prepared no positions further inland. 

The American plan for assaulting 

Omaha required the Air Force and the 

Navy to bombard the beach prior to HHour. Landing just behind the first 

wave of American infantry, gap assault 

teams would create gaps through the 

surviving German beach obstacles. 

Each of the 16 gap assault teams was 

composed of 28 Engineers from the 

146th and 299th Engineer Combat 

Battalions, a naval combat demolition 

squad, and a tank dozer. Eight support 

teams and two command teams would 

closely follow the assault teams. 

Each of the assault and support 

teams carried 1,000 pounds of equipment including explosives, demolition 

accessories, mine detectors, and gap 

markers. Each man in the team carried 

a 75-pound load, including 40 pounds 

of explosives; and each team had 1,000 

pounds of extra explosives in rubber 

boats. 

After the gap assault teams cleare 

the initial passages through the bead 

obstacles, troops from the 5th and 6th' 

Engineer Special Brigades would 

enlarge these gaps and begin unloadENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 

~ 
Off the beach and driving forward, Engineers build roads on the coast of northern France near Che rbourg, 

June 8, 1944. Ships of the invasion fleet hover in the background (U.S. Army photo). 

// 

/ 

~ \ 

I 

I 

I 

E A C H 

SUPPLY 

TO ST LO 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 

MA IN Tt 

D U MPS, 

OMAHA BEACH 

AND 

BEACH MAINTENANCE AREA 

INUNDATED AREA 

0 

MILES 

Figure 1 V Br ooA " 

11 
_ _ ., . _ .;~ ~}~·e~~S~;i -·- ·- -.:...:~~....;_~ 

~ -........... --- -- .... :-- : - ... ,'·.,,......_- -- ::::- ~ . ._~~~ -...:_~~~:? .~~?" ... )~--=--- ---- .., ._ ~ .. ~ - -· - ~-· _ , -~ 

Photograph, taken several months after D-Day, shows a general view of beach defenses near Fort de Foucarville in the 

Utah Beach area (U.S. Army photo). 

ing supplies and moving them inland. 

The 37th, 149th, 336th, and 348th 

Engineer Combat Battalions which 

formed the nuclei of the special brigades' battalion beach groups, also 

included quartermaster, ordnance, 

chemical, signal, medical, and military 

police personnel. 

Although American planners anticipated that these Engineers might have 

to fight as infantry in the first phases 

of the landing, they did not anticipate 

the enormous confusion or the stiff 

German resistance that confronted the 

American troops on D-Day. 

Since the preliminary air and naval 

attacks on the German beach defenses 

had little effect, the first waves of 

American assault troops faced intense 

German small arms and artillery fire. 

Most of the first-wave troops landed 

east of their assigned beaches, and few 

landed on time. Of the 16 gap assault 

teams, 9 landed ahead of schedule and 

only 5 landed on their assigned beach. 

The intense German fire forced many 

infantry troops to take refuge among 

the beach obstacles which the gap 

teams were trying to destroy. Unable 

to clear soldiers from the obstacle area 

it had wired, one team was heading 

toward the shingle for cover when a 

German mortar shell detonated the 

charges, killing or wounding 19 of its 

members and as many infantry. By 7 

a.m. as the rising tide drove American 

soldiers inland, the gap assault teams 

had only cleared five narrow lanes 

through the German obstacles. 

As more men and vehicles crowded 

12 

onto the beach, the teams had to devise 

new methods for removing obstacles. 

They discovered that it was easier and 

safer to remove the mines attached to 

the obstacles and use the tank dozers 

and, later, armored bulldozers to shove 

the obstacles aside. Later in the day, 

two landing craft demonstrated that 

they could ram their way through the 

disarmed obstacles. This technique 

became standard practice. 

Also at 7 a.m. the first special brigade Engineers landed 10 minutes 

early and found the situation little 

improved from H-Hour. Because it was 

impossible for them to land and move 

supplies, the battalion beach group 

Engineers joined the gap assault teams 

in removing beach obstacles, aiding the 

wounded, and reinforcing the ragged 

fire line that was forming behind the 

shingle pile. 

With German small arms and artillery fire still intense, artillery shells 

hit a landing craft carrying the first 

wave of 90 men from the 14 7th Engineer Combat Battalion and caused 45 

casualties. This forced the rest of the 

Engineers to jump into neck-deep 

water without most of their equipment. 

The success of the landing now 

depended on getting the troops from 

the beach to the bluffs, where they 

could suppress German fire. 

Elements of the 37th Engineer Combat Battalion then landed near Exits 

E-1 and E-3 (Figure 1) and immediately 

joined the infantry in attacking German strong points. Gathering a leaderless infantry company, lLT Robert P. 

Ross led them and his Engineer platoon against two German machine gun 

emplacements. This make-shift force 

captured the positions, killing 40 

defenders. 

A German minefield located on a 

shelf of land between the shingle and 

the bluff still kept American soldiers 

pinned on the beach. Working under 

heavy German fire, six Engineers from 

the 37th cleared and marked what was 

probably the first foot trail from the 

beach to the bluffs. All six were 

wounded. While the Engineers cleared 

additional paths through the minefields, the officers of the 37th guided 

the infantry through the lanes to less 

exposed positions at the foot of the 

bluffs. 

Although scattered groups of soldiers 

began moving from the beach and up 

the bluffs, the tidal flat became 

increasingly littered with equipment 

and vehicles which threatened to block 

the exits. Privates Vinton W. Dove and 

William Shoemaker, bulldozer operators of the 37th Engineer Battalion, 

worked under heavy German fire during the next several hours, moving 

wreckage and obstacles from the beach, 

clearing a passage for vehicles through 

the loose rock of the shingle, and filling antitank ditches at the foot of the 

bluffs. 

As the infantry gradually subdued 

the German strongpoints at Exit E-1, 

the 37th and 149th Combat Engineers 

built access roads from the beach to the 

exit. By 1 p.m. tanks and artillery 

could move from the beach through the 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 
exit and into the countryside behind 

the bluffs. Exit E-1 became the principal exit from the beach on D-Day, due 

in part to the Engineers' courageous 

efforts. 

The afternoon saw slow but steady 

progress in capturing German positions overlooking the beach, but the 

situation was still confusing. When the 

336th Engineer Combat Battalion 

attempted to land in its assigned sector, German artillery fire was too 

intense and the battalion's landing 

craft was forced to find a better site. 

The battalion finally came ashore 

4,000 yards west of its assigned beach 

and began a perilous two-hour journey 

back to its sector. 

Accompanied by a tractor-pulled 

trailer loaded with explosives, the battalion divided into smaller groups and 

worked its way along the beach, 

covered at times by the smoke of burning American equipment. As these 

groups arrived at their beach, they 

began building a road at Exit F-1. By 

8 p.m. the road to the top of the bluff 

was complete, and tanks began moving 

inland. 

By nightfall, none of the American 

units had reached their D-Day objectives, but the crisis was past. As 

American troops moved steadily inland 

over roads that Engineers opened, 

troops of the 5th and 6th Special 

Brigades still had to remove German 

beach obstacles and minefields along 

with the American vehicles and equipment which covered the tidal flat. By 

the next day, special brigade Engineers 

could begin concentrating on their primary mission of unloading supplies 

and transporting them to inland 

dumps. 

Utah beach was located several miles 

west of Omaha Beach at the base of the 

Cotentin peninsula of Normandy. Its 

tidal flat was wider than the one at 

Omaha, and more importantly, no steep 

bluffs overlooked the beach. 

Behind the tidal flat was a masonry 

seawall and a stretch of sand dunes and 

level fields. The most formidable obstacle to the rear of the beach and the 

dunes was a swampy, low-lying area, 

which the Germans had flooded to form 

a water barrier. Seven causeways 

crossed this inundated area. 

Although the Germans had emplaced some obstacles and strongpoints 

on the beach, the defenses at Utah 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984- 85 

were not as strong as those at Omaha. 

During the night preceding D-Day, 

assaults by the 82nd and lOlst Airborne Divisions had further weakened 

and disrupted German defenses. 

The assault plan for Utah, like that 

for Omaha, required Army-Navy gap 

assault teams to land shortly after the 

first infantry units and create passages 

through the beach obstacles. 

As a result of several miscalculations, 

the entire Utah assault force landed 

2,000 yards south of the intended landing site at a beach that was less heavily defended. Although German artillery fire caused numerous casualties, 

they were light compared to those at 

Omaha. The teams quickly cleared the 

initial gaps, and by 9:30 a.m. the entire 

beach was free of obstacles. 

While the teams were clearing the 

obstacles, other units from the 237th 

Engineer Battalion were creating gaps 

in the seawall and clearing passages 

through the sand dunes. Fortunately, 

the best causeways across the flooded 

area were near the landing site. 

One company of the 237th destroyed 

several obstacles near Exit 2 and 

accompanied an infantry battalion as 

it advanced inland. In the middle of 

this causeway, the Germans had 

destroyed a culvert. While the infantry 

waded to the other side, the 237th 

Engineers, assisted by the 238th, built 

a 30-foot treadway bridge; and by early 

afternoon, Exit 2 was open. 

As the infantry and Engineers were 

clearing Exit 2, another force, including two companies of the 49th Engineer Combat Battalion, moved south 

from the beach toward Exit 1. Under 

small arms and artillery fire, the infantry moved inland to join the lOlst Airborne troops, while the Engineers 

attacked German positions protecting 

the sluice gates that had created the 

water barrier behind the beach. The 

Engineers captured the gates on DDay; and the next day they seized 

another stronghold, capturing 59 

prisoners and 17 tons of ammunition. 

During the next several days, 49th 

Engineers held these positions on the 

southern flank of the beachhead and 

drained water from the flooded area 

behind the beach. 

While Engineers from the combat 

battalions moved inland with the 

advancing troops, members of the 1st 

Engineer Special Brigade remained on 

the beach, improving the exits and 

clearing the obstacles. By nightfall on 

D-Day, the 531st Regiment had cleared 

a new beach and opened another causeway leading inland. 

By the end ofD-Day, American forces 

at Omaha and Utah had overcome 

most of the German beach defenses and 

were advancing inland. Engineers on 

the beaches now faced the formidable 

task of establishing the supply lines 

that would support American forces as 

they fought to break out of the Normandy beachhead and advance across 

northern France. 

Battle of the Bulge_ 

Although D-Day gave the Western 

Allies a beachhead in northern 

France, almost two months of bitter 

fighting had passed before the forces 

were able to force their way out of the 

hedgerow country. After the breakout, 

Allied armies raced across France, liberated Paris, and headed toward the 

German frontier. 

The rapid pace of the advance, 

however, placed a severe strain on 

Allied logistics. The logistical problems, along with bad weather and stiffening German resistance, slowed the 

offensive. By mid-December, American 

armies had reached the Roer River 

inside Germany and the West Wall 

along the Saar River in eastern France. 

Between these two fronts lay the 

Ardennes-a hilly, densely forested 

area. 

In 1944, units of five American divisions and a cavalry group held the 

85-mile long Ardennes front. Three of 

these divisions mostly consisted of new 

soldiers who had recently arrived on 

the continent, while the other two divisions had been badly mauled in the bitter fighting in the Huertgen Forest. 

The shortage of American troops 

forced Allied commanders to man portions of the front lightly. In addition, 

the bad terrain within the Ardennes 

and the belief that the German army 

was near exhaustion had convinced the 

commanders that the sector was relatively safe. 

After months ofretreat, however, Hit13 
ler decided on a bold gamble to regain 

the initiative in the west. Under cover 

of bad winter weather, he and his generals massed 25 divisions opposite the 

Ardennes and planned to crash through 

the thinly-held American front, cross 

the Meuse river, and drive to Antwerp. 

Before daybreak on December 16, the 

German army launched this last desperate offensive, taking the American 

divisions in the front lines by surprise. 

One of these American divisions, the 

106th, was a new unit. Its Engineer 

combat battalion, the 81st, had spent 

the early part of December repairing 

roads and removing snow in the division's sector. Behind the 81st was the 

168th Engineer Combat Battalion 

which had been operating quarries and 

sawmills. 

The massive German assault interrupted these routine tasks. Both battalions found themselves fighting as 

infantry in a brave but futile attempt 

to stem the German assault. On the 

morning of December 1 7, as German 

troops were cutting off and surrounding the regiments of the 106th, the 

division ordered LTC Thomas J. Riggs 

Jr., commander of the 81st, to establish 

defensive positions east of the important crossroads at St. Vith. 

Reinforced by the 7th Armored Division, elements of the two Engineer battalions under Riggs held their position 

against determined German attacks 

until December 21. 

During that afternoon, a heavy German assault, led by tanks and accompanied by intense artillery, rocket, and 

mortar fire, overran the exhausted 

American defenders. Riggs ordered his 

men to separate into small groups and 

attempt an escape to the rear. The Germans captured most of the survivors, 

including Riggs. 

As the American front collapsed, 

GEN Eisenhower and his subordinates 

summoned their slender reserves. But 

while these troops were moving into 

position, the American commanders 

had to rely on rear-area troops already 

in the Ardennes. 

Many of the units along the front 

were corps and Army Engineer battalions, scattered throughout the area 

in company, platoon, and even squadsized groups. Engineers, who had been 

engaged in road maintenance and sawmilling, suddenly found themselves 

manning road blocks and preparing 

defensive positions in the face of powerful German armored columns. Against 

14 

a more powerful enemy force, these 18 

Engineer battalions were very instrumental in delaying an offensive whose 

only hope for success lay in crossing the 

Meuse quickly. 

LTC Jochen Peiper, a Nazi SS officer, 

led one of the armored columns racing 

toward the Meuse. His route took him 

near Malmedy and toward the village 

of Trois-Ponts, the headquarters of the 

llllth Group. 

When the llllth Group commander 

learned on December 17 of the German 

breakthrough, he sent LTC David E. 

Pergrin, the 26-year old commander of 

the 291st Engineer Combat Battalion, to organize defenses. Although 

most of the American troops in the 

area were fleeing, Pergrin decided to 

hold his position in spite of the panic 

and confusion. He ordered his Engineers to establish roadblocks and 

defensive positions around Malmedy. 

During the afternoon of the 17th, 

Engineers manning a roadblock heard 

gunfire coming from a crossroads just 

south of their position. Shortly thereafter, four terrified American soldiers 

staggered up to the roadblock. They 

brought the first news of the "Malmedy 

Massacre" in which Peiper's soldiers 

had captured and murdered 85 American soldiers. 

After the German armored column 

bypassed Malmedy, it headed towards 

Trois-Ponts, where, Company C of the 

51st Engineer Combat Battalion had 

established positions. The 51st, also 

part of the 1111th Engineer Combat 

Group, had received orders to defend 

the village and prepare its bridges for 

demolition. Another detachment of the 

291st wired one bridge south of the 

village; and Company C, reinforced by 

an antitank gun and a squad of armored infantry, prepared its positions. 

When Peiper's tanks approached, the 

Engineers demolished the main bridge 

leading into the village. Although the 

river separating Trois-Ponts from the 

German column was shallow enough 

for infantry to ford, it was an effective 

barrier to tanks. 

By the evening of December 18, the 

small American force at Trois-Ponts 

had come under the command of MAJ 

Robert B. Yates, executive officer of the 

51st, who had come to the village 

expecting to attend a daily staff 

meeting. 

Fearing that the Germans would 

discover the weakness of his force, 

Yates tried to deceive the enemy. During the night, Engineers repeatedly 

drove their trucks into Trois-Ponts with 

their lights on and drove out with their 

lights off, simulating the arrival of 

reinforcements. The Engineers put 

chains on their single four-ton truck 

and drove it back and forth through the 

village to create the impression that 

there were tanks in Trois-Ponts. 

An American tank destroyer, which 

had slipped off the road and into the 

river a few days earlier, provided the 

artillery. It caught fire and its 105mm 

shells exploded at irregular intervals 

throughout the night. The ruses apparently worked, because the Germans 

never launched a determined attack on 

the village. When the 82nd Airborne 

finally relieved the 51st on December 

20, Yates greeted them with the words, 

"Say, I'll bet you fellows are glad we're 

here." 

American troops, including Engineers, finally stopped and destroyed 

Peiper's armored column, but they had 

received invaluable assistance from the 

Engineers who had delayed the Germans and forced them into costly 

detours. 

While the Engineers of the 51st and 

291st Combat Engineer Battalions 

were fighting delaying actions in the 

northern part of the Bulge, other Engineer units were engaged in similar 

rear-guard actions. Farther south, the 

44th Combat Engineer Battalion tried 

to defend Wiltz, a town located a few 

miles southeast of Bastogne. But the 

Germans forced them back, inflicting 

heavy casualties. 

From December 17 to December 19, 

Engineers from the 35th and 158th 

Combat Battalions held critical positions on the outskirts of Bastogne and 

helped to delay the German advance 

long enough for the 101st Airborne 

Division to move into the town. 

During the morning of the 19th, the 

158th received orders to move northwest and left Bastogne before the 

famous siege began. Before the day was 

over, the corps commander ordered the 

158th to reinforce a detachment of the 

299th Combat Engineer Battalion, 

which was defending an important 

bridge at Ortheuville, 10 miles behind 

Bastogne. 

These Engineers held off German 

attacks for two days until the enemy 

troops forced them back. Like other 

Engineer units in the Ardennes, these 

battalions helped to delay German columns racing toward the Meuse. 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984- 85 

... 
Engineers fought as infantry 

throughout the bulge formed by the 

German offensive. Engineer officers 

like LTC Pergrin and MAJ Yates 

insisted on holding their positions even 

when other American troops were fleeing to the rear. The delays which Engineers imposed, often at the cost of 

heavy casualties, gained some of the 

time that Allies needed to rush reinforcements into the area. Gradually, 

the Americans and the British stopped 

the penetration and pushed the Germans back. 

The Battle of the Bulge vividly demonstrated that Engineer troops, located 

in an apparently quiet sector well 

behind the front lines and engaged in 

routine, rear-area tasks, could not forget their secondary mission of fighting 

as infantry. 

Bridging the Rhine _____ _ 

The Rhine River was probably the 

largest and most challenging natural obstacle fac ing the Engineers in 

Europe. The width of the 320-mile 

river, from Basie to the Netherlands, 

varies from 700 to 2,000 feet. There are 

no fords in the river, even at low tide. 

During fl ood periods, the river level 

varies as much as 25 feet and often 

floods as much as a mile or more to the 

levees on either side. 

Elaborate planning for crossing the 

river began as early as August 1944. 

Engineer units and infantry assault 

troops conducted an extensive training 

program behind the lines. Engineers 

made studies of the approaches and 

exits before selectinf; actual crossing 

sites. 

Consideration in selectinf; sites was 

given to location of airfields for air support, location of construction materials, 

and the effect of weather including ice 

floes and floods. Once everything was 

ready, the 12th U.S. Army Group with 

its First, Third, and Ninth U.S. Armies 

and the 6th U.S. Army Group's Seventh 

Army began crossing operations. 

First Army 

After months of trainmg and planning, the 9th Armored Divison made 

the first crossing of the Rhine River in 

the III Corps area entirely by accident. 

On March 7, 1945, CCB, 9th Armored 

Division was surprised to find the 

LudendorfRailway Bridge at Remagen 

still standing. Its commander, BG 

William M. Hoge, then immediately 

ordered its capture. Although badly 

damaged, the bridge provided one-way 

traffic until it finally collapsed a week 

later. Tanks and other vehicles were 

able to cross the Rhine on the existing 

bridge instead of by storm boats as 

previously planned. Rapidly the bridgehead began to expand. 

Photograph shows the collapsed Ludendorf Bridge across the Rhine River at Remagen, Germany (U. S. Army photo). 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 15 
16 

Engineer Remembers WWII 

by ISG Mike Zimmerman and 

2LT Greg Steggerda 

I

t was the first trip abroad for 

many in the 224th Engineer Battalion, Iowa Army National Guard, 

deployed in West Germany for 

REFORGER '84. But SFC Robert 

Popejoy had been there before. 

"About 39 years ago, I was very 

near where we are standing now;' 

stated Popejoy. He entered the military just after his 18th birthday as 

a voluntary replacement in the 97th 

Infantry Division, the most-traveled 

American combat organization in 

World War II, and arrived in Germany just after the famous Battle 

of the Bulge. 

From there he moved with his 

unit, B Company of the 387th Infantry Regiment, to an area east of 

Bastogne where they witnessed the 

round-the-clock bombing of Dusseldorfby Allied bomber groups based 

in England. 

"That was something else;' Popejoy said. "There were dozens of 

planes in the air, both day and 

night, making their runs. At night, 

search lights tried to single them 

out, and then German 88s (sophisticated anti-personnel, anti-aircraft 

weapons) would try to hit them." 

Next, the unit pushed on through 

Bonn, down to Remagen. "Although 

the Allied forces had tried to blow 

up the bridge there, it was still 

standing, as I recall. Later it collapsed;' he said. 

The B Company crossed the Rhine 

River on a float bridge, moving 

north into the German industrial 

area known as the Ruhr Pocket. 

Pushing on, the 97th moved across 

country through Germany into 

Czechoslovakia, to a small town 

near Filzen. It was there that 

Popejoy participated in a historymaking patrol. 

"I was with the rifle squad as a 

machine gunner; we had advanced 

to within 100 yards of the town 

when we came under fire and were 

driven back about a thousand yards 

to a chmch. Artillery was called in;' 

Popejoy relates, "and the patrol 

managed to disengage. Moving back 

SFC Robert Popejoy looks over 

familiar terrain (photo by lSG 

Mike Zimmerman). 

to our line, we saw a sniper in a tree, 

and PFC Mozzetta hit him. That 

was the last shot." 

Having logged over 30,000 miles 

with his WWII unit, across two continents and through two theaters, 

Popejoy has seen many things that 

are difficult to imagine. From Dusseldorf to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 

he has learned of the destruction of 

war and the resilience of soldiers in 

combat. 

SGT Popejoy was discharged in 

1946 and a year later joined the 

Iowa Army National Guard as a 

private. In 1965, with 21 years of 

service, he retired. 

Was it peer pressure, or could it be 

his desire to wear a 25-year ring? 

Only SFC Popejoy knows why. But, 

in 1972 he again joined the Guard, 

at the rank of Staff Sergeant, with 

the 224th Engineer Battalion. 

"I guess I'm what the young fellas 

call a short-timer;' said Popejoy. He 

retires in December, 1985. "However, right now I'm enjoying my 

return to Germany." 

lSG Mike Zimmerman, 135th 

Public Affairs Detachment, Iowa 

Army National Guard, is a professional photographer. 

2LT Greg Steggerda is a press officer with the 135th Public Affairs 

Detachment, Iowa Army National 

Guard. He is a journalism student 

at Dordt College 

To provide additional crossing capability and to allow time to repair the 

Remagen Bridge, the 111 lth Engineer 

Combat Group ordered the 291st Combat Engineer Battalion to construct a 

bridge across the Rhine River near the 

Remagen Bridge. The 291st erected a 

1,032-foot, Class 40 steel treadway 

bridge across the Rhine River in 33 

hours and 30 minutes. With the 988th 

and 998th Engineer Treadway Bridge 

Companies providing the equipment, 

they completed the bridge on March 

11, 1945. 

At the same time, the 51st Engineer 

Combat Battalion, supported by the 

552nd and the 181st Engineer Heavy 

Pontoon Battalions, was ordered to construct a Class 40, 25-ton reinforced 

heavy pontoon bridge across the Rhine 

from Kripp to Linz, Germany. 

Engineers selected a bank site for the 

bridge where a civilian ferry was 

located. The ferry had a cobblestone 

road approach on the west bank and 

required only 50 yards of approach on 

the east bank. The 969-foot bridge was 

completed in only 30:30 and was 

named in memory of MAJ William F. 

Thompkins Jr., commander of the 

552nd Engineer Heavy Pontoon Battalion. Thompkins was killed by enemy 

bombing during bridge construction. 

By March 12, 1945, III Corps had 

firmly established the Rhine River 

bridgehead at Remagen. The decision 

was then made to cross VII Corps to the 

north of III Corps at Rolandsek. 

Once the VII Corps had seized a 

bridgehead on the east bank, the 297th 

Engineer Combat Battalion was tasked to construct a bridge on the site of 

another existing civilian ferry. In less 

than two days, they completed a 1,176-

foot, Class 40 steel treadway bridge. 

In addition to the bridge at Rolandsek, three heavy pontoon ferries were 

constructed: one at Rolandsek, one at 

Konigswinter, and the third at Bonn. 

Additional bridges which were constructed included a heavy pontoon 

bridge at Konigswinter and an M-2 

steel treadway bridge at Bonn. Once 

VII Corps crossed, V Corps began its 

crossings to the south of III Corps. 

Ninth Army 

Planning for Ninth Army to cross the 

Rhine River began during Octobe 

1944. Ninth Army, now under British. 

21 Army Group control, assigned XVI 

Corps to plan and execute the crossENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 

... 

,_ 
// /' 

VICTOR 

'11111&E 

11'19RITllM 

...-st TACTICAi. .... • .. TIIE WOllD 

~--~ 1 ......... 

The Victor Treadway Bridge, the longest tactical bridge in the world, crosses the Rhine River at Henningen, Germany (U.S. Army photo). 

ings. Plans required Ninth Army's XVI 

Corps to make the assault crossing in 

the northern sector of its zone, and the 

XIII and XIX U.S. Corps to pass 

through its bridgehead. 

Ninth Army began its Rhine River 

crossing at 2 a.m. March 24, 1945, after 

one of the war's heaviest artillery barrages. The 258th Engineer Combat 

Battalion ferried the 30th Infantry 

Division assault troops across in four 

hours; and the 79th Infantry Division 

crossed just as quickly, supported by 

the 149th and 187th Engineer Combat 

Battalions. Equipment and supplies 

were not only crossing the Rhine the 

same day, but in less than seven days, 

10 floating bridges were completed. 

On March 26, the Corps Engineers 

reorganized and sent the 1103rd and 

1153rd Engineer Combat Groups forward to support the attack east of the 

Rhine. The next day, the 1148th Engineer Combat Group reverted to the control of Ninth Army, and the Army 

Engineers took control over all Engineer work west of the east bank. By 

pril 10, the major portion of Ninth 

Army's combat elements had crossed 

the river, and traffic began to decline. 

Most of the traffic had passed over the 

ENGINEER/Wmter 1984-85 

Wesel bridges, constructed by units of 

the 1117th Engineer Combat Group. 

Third Army 

The Third Army plan required crossings near Mainz with Frankfurt and 

Darmstadt as the targets. The Army 

Engineer established a special staff 

section which formulated the Engineer 

plan and made estimates of needed 

equipment and material. He estab1 ished schools to train Engineer units 

for the Rhine crossing and to train the 

naval unit in the use of LCVPs (Landing Craft, Vehicle Personnel) and 

LCMs (Landing Craft, Mechanized) on 

rivers. 

Toul, France became the assembly 

point of stocking the equipment needed 

for bridging the Rhine River. Third 

Army assembled a huge fleet of trucks 

to move equipment from the storage 

dumps at Toul, Esch, and Arion to the 

Rhine, a 300-mile round trip since 

some direct roads were not yet cleared 

and streams were not bridged. 

While both XII and XX Corps initially were scheduled to make the 

crossing, only XII Corps was assigned 

the mission. XII Corps made the crossing near Nierstein where a good network of roads intersected, and hills and 

a town masked Engineer approaches to 

the river on the west bank. 

The 1135th Engineer Combat Group 

directed the operation using 100 storm 

boats and motors, 300 assault boats 

and motors, and already assigned 

equipment of 500 boats and 100 

motors. 

Approximately 18 Engineer units 

were attached to the 1135th Group to 

support the crossing which started at 

10 p.m. on March 22, with the 204th 

Engineer Combat Battalion paddling 

the 11th Infantry across in assault 

boats. By dawn most of the 5th Infantry Division had crossed. 

During the night, the 150th Combat 

Engineer Battalion began work on a 

Class 40 M-2 treadway bridge at 

Oppenheim, just north of Nierstein. 

Although artillery fire and the Luftwaffe harassed construction, air cover 

and anti-aircraft fire prevented extensive damage. At daybreak the Engineers moved the assembled parts to the 

crossing site and began work on the 

bridge. By 6 p.m. the bridge was taking traffic. 

In addition to the treadway bridge, 

the heavy pontoon company of the 88th 

17 
Heavy Pontoon Battalion began constructing Class 40 rafts at Nierstein for 

ferrying operations. Sixty-five tanks 

and tank destroyers plus hundreds of 

other vehicles, rations, gasoline, and 

ammunition were ferried across the 

bridge the first day. 

The 87th Engineer Heavy Pontoon 

Battalion began a heavy pontoon 

bridge at Nierstein on the 23rd; and by 

1:30 the next morning, the 1,280-foot 

Class 24 bridge opened for traffic. By 

7 a .m. it had been reinforced to carry 

Class 40 loads. Furthermore, Engineers started another treadway at 

Oppenheim on March 24 which opened 

by noon the next day. 

Five divisions passed over the three 

bridges by March 27 with supplies and 

necessary supporting troops; the entire 

6th Armored Division crossed in 16% 

hours. During the assault phase from 

March 21 to March 31, 60,000 vehicles 

crossed the bridges at Oppenheim. 

While XII Corps crossed the Rhine, 

VII Corps prepared to cross the Rhine 

in the Great Gorge which runs from 

Bingen to Ober Lahnstein. The cliffs, 

depth of the river, and current created 

difficult conditions for ferrying troops 

or building bridges. 

Corps assigned the 1134th Engineer 

Combat Group to support the crossing 

and to ferry the 87th Infantry Division 

across at the main crossing site at Boppard and Rhens. At Boppard, the 159th 

Engineer Combat Battalion, supported 

by the 991st and 1012th Engineer 

Treadway Bridge Companies, erected 

an M-2 steel treadway bridge. Engineers started construction at 8 a.m. on 

the same day as the assault crossing 

and completed the 1,044-foot Class 40 

bridge by 9:30 a.m. the next day. 

On the night of March 25, VIII Corps 

began crossing operations at St. Goar 

and Oberwesel. The Germans strongly 

resisted the crossing at St. Goar, and 

operations were shifted to Oberwesel 

where nearly a whole division was ferried across in 48 hours. By March 27 

the division cleared the east bank of 

the St. Goar area while the 243rd 

Engineer Combat Battalion, supported 

by the 1010th and 1012th Engineer 

Treadway Bridge Companies, began an 

828-foot steel Class 40 treadway bridge 

and completed it 36 hours later. 

Meanwhile, XXth Corps made the 

fourth Third Army crossing of the 

Rhine at Mainz, which was also 

strongly resisted. The first waves of the 

80th Infantry Division were secretly 

18 

paddled across in assault boats on 

March 28 while succeeding waves 

crossed in powered assault and storm 

boats. But by March 29, 24 hours after 

the first crossing, Engineers completed 

a 1,896- foot M-2 steel treadway bridge. 

Built by the 160th Engineer Combat 

Battalion and the 997th Engineer 

Treadway Bridge Company, it was the 

longest tactical bridge across the Rhine 

River. 

By March 30, the date marking the 

end of the assault phase of the Rhine 

operations, the Third U.S. Army controlled the entire west and east banks 

of the Rhine River from Oppenheim to 

Koblenz except for one small pocket 

from Eltville to Winkel. 

Seventh Army 

Seventh Army crossed the Rhine 

River on March 26, 1945, in an area 

from Oppenheim to a point between 

Mannheim and Speyer. XV Corps conducted the assault on a two-division 

front with a width barely exceeding 

nine miles. The 540th Engineer Combat Group supported the 3rd Infantry 

Division crossing on the right, and the 

40th Engineer Combat Group supported the 45th Infantry Division cross 

ing on the left. Not only did Engineers 

raft eight assault battalions of the two 

divisions across the river in 30 

minutes, but all of the assault 

regiments were across in only 1:30. By 

H+24, Engineers had rafted across 

over 1,000 vehicles including 50 tanks. 

Bridge construction began almost 

immediately on D-Day. The 540th 

Engineer Combat Group completed a 

948-foot treadway bridge and a 1,040-

foot heavy pontoon bridge the first day. 

The 40th Engineer Combat Group 

began construction of a heavy pontoon 

bridge and a floating treadway bridge 

the first day, completing both early on 

the second day. 

On March 26, the 343rd and 344th 

Engineer Regiments began constructing semi-permanent bridges for VI 

Corps. The first was a 937-foot railroad 

bridge across the Rhine at Mannheim, 

which took 15 days to build. Engineers 

built a second railroad bridge which 

was 853 feet long at Karlsruhe in 10 

days. 

By March 31, 1945, all four American armies had completed the assault 

crossing of the Rhine River, the last 

great natural barrier protecting the 

German heartland. In 40 days, Germany would surrender. 

ADSEC Engineers_ 

The Advance Section (ADSEC) Engineers of the Communications Zone 

(ComZ) took charge of road maintenance in early July 1944. After the 

Allied breakthrough at St. Lo on July 

26, ComZ Engineers began work on the 

road net within the French border. Fortunately, the Germans had not destroyed many of the small bridges, concentrating instead on the longer spans. 

Unfortunately for the Americans, however, the road net was inadequate for 

military use. 

As a result of the heavy traffic and 

bad weather, roads sometimes disappeared in the mud. Engineers, however, 

were able to temporarily repair roads 

by using corduroy, timber plank, pierced steel planks, and crushed stone. 

Later, while the weather grew warmer 

and the roads began to thaw, Engineers 

applied more crushed stone and used 

more corduroy construction. 

There was an excellent road system 

within northern France. Engineers 

maintained 2,878 miles ofroad during 

the "Campaign of Northern France." 

Maintenance generally included filling 

potholes, smoothing and resurfacing 

craters, and maintaining proper drainage. A shortage of trucks and road 

equipment and one of the most severe 

winters in recent years, however, 

turned normal maintenance into a 

more difficult operation. 

As the Armies moved into eastern 

France, Engineers began preparations 

for the "Campaign for Germany" 

which began on Sept. 14, 1944. ADSEC 

Engineers built 71 semi-permanent 

fixed highway bridges, mostly in 

France and Belgium. For the most 

part, these bridges replaced floating or 

fixed tactical bridges. ADSEC Engineers built 14 bridges over the Meuse 

River in France and Belgium and six 

bridges over the Albert Canal in 

Belgium. 

The Red Ball Highway 

The most famous road which 

ENGINEER/Wmter 1984 85 

... 

I> 
Engineers maintained in ComZ was 

the Red Ball Highway, the route by 

which supplies were sent from the 

coastal ports to the front line troops. 

The Red Ball came as a result of the 

front's rapid advance after the breakthrough at St. Lo on July 26, 1944. 

Until the rail system could be repaired, 

ADSEC established one-way traffic 

over the best roads from Cherbourg to 

Belgium and eastern France to provide 

supplies to the Armies. 

The route began at the port oflsigny 

near Omaha and Utah Beaches and 

ran south to Vire through St. Lo, then 

east to Versailles. At Versailles the Red 

Ball fanned out to Hirson on the Belgium Border, and Commercy east of 

Verdun. 

When ComZ established the Red Ball 

system on Aug. 25, 1944, t he road surfaces were in good condition. To keep 

them that way, ComZ tasked the 355th 

Engineer General Service Regiment 

with maintaining the Red Ball east of 

the Seine River and assigned the 365th 

Engineer General Service Regiment to 

maintain the route west of the river. By 

the time the Red Ball system came to 

an end on Nov. 13, 1944, over 1,000,000 

tons of supplies had passed over it. 

ComZ established other express 

routes during this period. One of these 

routes, the White Ball Highway, served 

the ports of Le Havre and Rouen, 

extending eastward to Paris and Beauvais. Another route, the Green Diamond, was the shortest of the express 

highways. It extended from the OmahaUtah Beach area and Cherbourg to the 

Granville-Dol area on the south of the 

Contentin Peninsula. This transfer 

route allowed shipment of supplies east 

by rail over the central and southern 

lines of France. 

Labor for Roads and Bridges 

The Chief Engineer used as many 

civilians as possible to work on roads 

and bridges in ComZ because Engineer 

troops were in short supply. In September 1944, Engineers hired 15 civilians 

to perform maintenance; and by April 

1945, Engineers had 6,359 civilians 

working on the roads. 

The Office of the Chief Engineer also 

a uthorized prisoners of war to perform 

oad work. Where civilian labor was 

ot available, the maximum number of 

prisoners were assigned under the 

supervision of a minimum number of 

Engineer troops. During February 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 

1945, Engineers used 6,871 prisoners 

of war to repair roads in the ComZ. 

From July 1944 through May 1945, 

Engineer troops performed about onehalf the road work while POWs performed one-third, and civilians 

one-sixth. 

Engineer work on bridges and roads 

in the ComZ was extensive. From June 

6, 1944 to July 1, 1945, ComZ Engineers constructed 237 bridges at least 

40 feet in length. In addition, ComZ 

Engineers maintained 7,688 miles of 

roads. Of that number, 6,903 miles 

were in France, 658 miles were in 

Belgium, 30 miles were in Holland, 

and 97 miles were in Luxembourg. 

The Engineer mission of constructing 

and maintaining roads and bridges in 

the ComZ was vital to the success of 

the troops on the front line. Without an 

efficiently functioning road network, 

vital ammunition and equipment 

would be in short supply in the combat zone. 

Until the major ports in Holland 

were captured and the rail systems 

rebuilt, forwarding supplies to the front 

lines depended on the road network 

from Normandy to the front line. Engineer construction and maintenance of 

the road network in ComZ allowed the 

successful forwarding of those vital 

supplies and the rapid defeat of 

Germany. 

From the Normandy landing on June 

6, 1944, to the surrender of Germany 

on May 8, 1945, Engineers played a key 

role in the campaigns of the U.S. Army 

in the European Theater of Operations. 

Engineers were among the first 

troops to land on the Normandy 

beaches; and throughout the campaign, Engineer troops performed 

important functions in every part of the 

theater. On the front line, Engineers 

built bridges, cleared minefields and 

other obstacles, repaired and maintained roads, and assisted in assault 

crossings. 

Although most of the Engineers' 

work at the front contributed to the forward progress of American armies, 

Engineers were prepared to fight as 

infantry also. This was evident through 

their training and ingenuity to resist 

enemy counterattacks at the Battle of 

the Bulge. 

Behind the front lines, Engineers 

helped to operate the vast and complex 

logistical network necessary to support 

the American advance. The construction and maintenance of roads, railroads, bridges, hospitals, warehouses, 

and other facilities placed heavy 

demands on Engineers. 

When Germany surrendered in May 

1945, there were more than 325,000 

U.S. Army Engineers in the European 

Theater. All of them had reason to be 

proud of their contribution to the 

Allied victory. 

Dr. William C. Baldwin is a historian 

with the Historical Division, Office of 

the Chief of Engineers. He has written 

a history of the US. Army Engineer 

Studies Geater which will be published 

in 1985 and received his Ph.Din military history from the University of 

Michigan. 

Dr. Barry W Fowle is a historian in 

the Historical Division, Office of the 

Chief of Engineers. He retired from the 

Army in 1971 as a lieutenant colonel 

after 23 years of service and attended 

the University of Maryland where he 

received his Ph.D in history. 

n_E_N_G_l_N_E_E_R_H_O_T_L_l_N_E_-----. 

Problems, questions, and comments relating to Engineer doctri ne, 

training, organization, and equipment can be addressed by telephone to the U.S. Army Engineer School 's " Engineer Hotline." The 

Hotline's auto-answer recorder operates 24 hours a day, seven 

days a week. You should give your name, address and telephone 

number, followed by a concise question or comment. You ' ll receive 

a reply within three to 15 days. The Hotline is not a receiving 

agency for formal requests. 

Call commercial (703) 664-3646; WATTS 800-336-3095, extension 

3646; or AV 354-3646. 

19 
Preliminary designs have been made for the Corps of Engineers historical center and museum at Fort Belvoir, 

VA. The center will demonstrate the successful role of the Corps of Engineers and private industry in the growth 

and defense of the United States and other nations. 

Exhibits will focus on the development of combat, civil, and topographic engineering and on engineering equipment. The center will present military construction from seacoast fortifications to missile sites and civil works 

functions and national improvements. It will also feature Engineers as military and civilian leaders such as Lee, 

MacArthur, Warren and Clay. 

The Corps of Engineers Historical Foundation began a campaign to raise $8 million for construction. Contributions to the nonprofit organization are tax-deductible. For more information, write Executive Director, Corps of 

Engineers Historical Foundation, Kingman Building (CEHF), Fort Belvoir, VA 22060, or call (202) 355-2084. (Architectural rendering by Clark, Tribble, Harris, and Li.) 

The Fort Leonard Wood M uL 

A WWII Time Capsule 

he Fort Leonard Wood museum 

allows both military and civilians 

to experience the history of Fort Leonard Wood during World War II and tells 

the story of the early development of 

the fort. In November 1940, after first 

considering an unsuitable Iowa site, 

the War Department announced that 

Pulaski County had been chosen as the 

site of an $8 million Army training 

camp. 

Construction soon began on what 

was to become one of the nation's 

20 

largest military installations. Suddenly, 32,000 workers swarmed over the 

quiet Ozark countryside hoping to find 

good-paying jobs in those late years of 

the Depression and challenged surrounding communities to provide housing, recreational facilities, and law 

enforcement. 

Despite many difficulties, buildings 

appeared at an astonishing rate (1,600 

in less than six months), and the post 

was transferred from the contractors to 

the War Department in June 1941. 

The Engineer Replacement Training 

Center had already been organized 

under the command of General Ulysses 

S. Grant III. In the next several 

months, the 6th Infantry Division from 

Fort Snelling, MN, and the 72nd Field 

Artillery Battalion from Fort Knox, 

KY, arrived to begin training. The 6th 

Division was one of the few regular 

Army divisions comprising the nation's 

defenses in 1941. 

In December, after the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Fort 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 
1seum: 

by Robert K. Combs 

Leonard Wood was to be used as intended by the Mobilization Act of 1935. 

The buildings and training facilities 

were designed to accommodate a maximum of 45,000. During the early war 

years, more than 40,000 troops from 

various branches were continuously in 

training at Fort Leonard Wood with as 

many as 56,000 during the peak periods of WW II. 

Additional facilities assigned in 

December 1942 were constructed for a 

prisoner-of-war camp. The 3,000 GerENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 

man and Italian prisoners were used 

as laborers to build stone bridges, 

walks, chimneys, and culverts which 

still exist. 

Approximately 320,000 soldiers had 

received training at the post when Fort 

Leonard Wood was deactivated in 

March 1946 and left in caretaker status. The land was leased to a rancher, 

and cattle roamed freely over the fort 

while a portion of the post was used 

during summer each year for National 

Guard training. 

Currently, one building is open to the 

public, and the museum is planning to 

restore a complete World War II mobilization complex of twelve buildings. 

The Q-9, or regimental commander's 

quarters had basic luxuries such as a 

private bath, bedroom, and sitting 

room. 

The company supply building, when 

restored, will contain complete stocks 

of World War II issue items such as 

sheets, blankets, and gas masks, as 

well as some of the smaller vehicles, a 

%-ton weapons carrier and the famous 

Willys Jeep. 

The company dayroom will be restored on the exterior, but the interior 

will be renovated for use as a temporary exhibits gallery. 

The mess hall, one of the most ambitious projects, was modernized during 

the 1950s. The interior will have to be 

totally recreated to include three coalfired ranges, the ever-popular potato 

peeler, and exhibits on military cooking, with examples of various field 

stoves, mess kits, and rations. 

Originally the 63-man barracks was 

a drafty wooden box that slept 53 

enlisted men and 10 noncommissioned 

officers on single cots. Coal was used 

for heat during the winter, and the 

original coal-fired hot water heater and 

furnace have been installed. Bunks, 

footlockers, rifle racks, and wall racks 

were the only furniture in the 

barracks. 

The asphalt floor tile and the battleship-gray linoleum have been removed 

to expose the original tongue-andgroove wood flooring. Wall racks have 

been replaced, and the latrines restored to include the correct "whiz" 

showerhead, stainless-steel mirrors, 

and wooden toilet seats. 

Most Army museums discuss the 

combat history of the war, but few ever 

mention training, the backbone of the 

Army. The Fort Leonard Wood museum 

preserves this unique and basically 

unaltered World War II mobilization 

compound. 

Robert K. Combs has been the curator 

of the Fort Leonard Wood Museum since 

1982. He has a bachelor's degree in 

history from San Francisco State University and a master's degree in museum studies from John F Kennedy 

University in California. Mr. Combs 

served his internship at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC. 

and was a historical museum technician at the Presidio of San Francisco. 

Basic trainees enter a restored WWII barracks to view the uniforms and 

historical displays at the Fort Leonard Wood museum (photo by Robert 

K. Combs). 

21 
Engineers from Fort Stewart and the Savannah District inspect the historic Blackwell Bridge (photo by Jonas 

Jordan). 

The 67-year-old Blackwell Bridge saved from a watery grave 

22 ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 
l 

I 

Blackwell 

Bridge: 

Historic Structure 

Saved Through 

Modern Methods 

historic bridge, which would have 

been covered by the new Richard 

. Russell Lake on the Savannah River 

in Georgia, has found a new home 

through the efforts of Savannah District personnel and Engineers from 

Fort Stewart. 

The 67-year-old Blackwell Bridgewhich exhibits important features of 

the American system of pin connections in bridge construction-is now a 

pedestrian crossing over a creek at the 

site of a future state park on the lake. 

Built in 1917 across Beaverdam Creek, 

the single-span bridge is the oldest 

remaining steel truss bridge in Elbert 

County. 

Final bridge relocation operations in 

June 1984 involved lifting the 56,000-

pound span onto newly constructed 

foundations. Structural District Engineers studied different plans to save 

the bridge, including lifting it by helicopter or transporting it by road to a 

new site. 

The solution chosen was to attach 

pontoons to the bridge and float it to 

its new site. Measuring the bridge 

components by hand, the Engineers 

reated a computer model which was 

exposed to vigorous mathematical 

analysis, and produced a flotation plan 

which lessened the risk. 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 

by Jack Wilson 

"Even the flotation scheme, which 

was 10 times less expensive than a 

move over land, was outside the budget;' said John Hager of the district's 

structural section. By checking around 

Corps, "we found eight unused dredging pontoons in Mobile District;' he 

added. 

Fort Stewart's 3rd and 92nd Engineer Battalions agreed to provide their 

manpower and expertise to relocate the 

bridge-with the Savannah District 

doing design work and procuring 

materials and supplies for the venture. 

The battalion commanders agreed that 

the salvage operation would provide 

the Engineer troops with an exceptional training experience. 

In the spring of 1983, the 92nd Engineers spent almost a month at the new 

bridge site constructing embankments 

for the bridge, placing gabion walls, 

and building access roads. In the fall 

they returned to complete the new site 

work, driving piles and placing concrete caps for the bridge abutments. 

Meanwhile at the old site, the 3rd 

Engineers removed the old bridge decking, attached the eight 19-foot dredging pontoons, and added bracing to the 

bridge structure. 

Pontoons were set on 25-foot timber 

crib walls which were built on each 

abutment. A 35-foot lifting beam was 

then set on top of the pontoons. Cables 

were threaded around the main-end 

pins and lifting beam, and then the 

beam was jacked up, raising the bridge. 

In January, after the lake rose and 

lifted the pontoons, the 3rd Engineers 

maneuvered and towed the bridge 12 

miles across the newly forming lake to 

a temporary location to await future 

rising of the lake's water in Junewhen the bridge was towed another 5 

miles to its new location. 

The operation involved guiding the 

bridge through the channel, between 

and over tree stumps only inches under 

the water. If the water level had been 

too high, the structure would not have 

been able to pass under a railroad 

bridge. On the day before the operation, 

district resource management personnel hurried to top trees in the bridge's 

path, remove floating debris, and set 

out buoys marking the channel that 

the bridge would take. 

The Engineers used special Army 

bridge boats which are highly maneuverable, equipped with twin Saber 

diesel engines, and propelled by water 

jets. When fully loaded, they draw only 

26 inches of water. 

"The Engineers did a professional job 

in moving the bridge;' said MAJ John 

Seibert, Savannah District Deputy 

Engineer for civil works. "I was especially impressed with the timeliness of 

personnel in getting the new job done;' 

he said. 

The January bridge-moving operation is believed to be the first attempt 

to move a bridge that size by water. 

Lifting the bridge out of the water by 

cranes onto its newly constructed abutments was a precision job, as well as an 

exercise in caution. No one was absolutely certain if the old bridge could 

survive such a lift, according to Jim 

Parker, Public Affairs Officer. Now at 

its new home, Blackwell Bridge stands 

as a landmark for future generations 

to enjoy as a bit of American Engineering history. 

Jack Wilson is a writer-editor in the 

Public Affairs Office of the Savannah 

District, US. Army Corps of Engineers. 

He was a public affairs specialist at Fort 

Stewart, GA for 10 years. A former journalist with the US. Navy, he served 

with the Polaris Submarine Squadron 

14 in Holy Lock, Scotland, and with 

Submarine Flotilla Two Public Affairs 

Office in Groton, CT He is a graduate 

of Mercer University in Macon, GA. 

23 
18lU!M/l:I33NIDN3 98-17861 

tr,, anONJ 1139Vl/N3H 

f.q ld:J PUO~ Pf ·9 plPl.jJ!ld 

reqwo:J iuawdOft3Aao 

v H AJOJS! jO 

:sau1q:Je:W ua pue 

\ 

I 

\ 

\ 

! 

( 

( 

I 

vZ 
The Corps of Engineers has a proud 

heritage which can be traced from 

the appointment of the first Engineer 

in the Continental Army in 1775. 

While the term combat developments is 

relatively new, the function has been 

familiar to Engineer officers since 

1816. 

The focus of combat development 

activities currently is to formulate, disseminate, and evaluate concepts, organizations, tactics, and equipment for 

the Engineer force. This mission evolved as a variety of organizations helped 

the Engineers keep pace with the 

improvements in technology over the 

past two centuries. 

The first agency for combat developments was created in response to the 

weakness of the U.S. harbor defenses 

identified during the War of 1812. The 

former chief of artillery in Napoleon's 

army, Simon Bernard, and two U.S. 

Engineer officers, Joseph G. Tutten and 

William McRee, were designated as the 

Board of Engineers on Fortifications. 

Their mission was to plan and construct seacoast defenses using the 

latest techniques and technology. The 

board functioned from 1816 to 1824 

and reflected the primary emphasis of 

Engineers until the Mexican Warfortifications. 

The Mexican War brought a new role 

to the Corps of Engineers: river crossings. A pontoon bridge set was purchased from France and shipped to 

General Scott at Vera Cruz, but it 

arrived too late to be used and was sent 

to the United States Military Academy 

at West Point. The academy, created in 

1802 to train officers for the Army, was 

administered by the Corps of Engineers. Engineering students there 

experimented with the pontoon bridge 

and created the first river-crossing doctrine for the U.S. Army. 

Since the termination of the Board of 

Fortifications in 1824, Engineer attention focused on internal improvements. 

The turmoil of the Civil War rekindled 

interests in the combat functions of 

Engineers. 

Like each war before it, the Civil War 

saw the Engineer's role expand. This 

time the Engineers assumed responsibility for military railroad operations. 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 

While there was no formal organization to monitor the evolution of doctrine, tactics, or equipment, Engineer 

officers initiated changes on their own. 

Railroads, river crossing, route preparation, and fortifications were improved 

as Engineer units improvised and 

adapted to keep pace with the war. The 

seacoast blockade renewed interest in 

harbor defense, and in 1864 the Board 

of Engineers on Fortification was again 

established. Its mission was to survey 

all harbors, design fortifications, and 

supervise their construction. 

The conclusion of the Civil War 

brought a change in the system of 

training Engineers. The Corps of Engineers lost responsibility for the Military Academy, but recognized that specialized education for Engineers was 

required. The Engineer School of 

Application at Willets Point, NY was 

organized to fill that need. Besides 

serving as the center for educating 

Engineer officers, this school became 

the source and test center for new 

organizations, tactics, and equipment. 

The Essayons Club, an organization of 

officers and students, served as a forum 

in which new developments were 

discussed. 

The military emphasis of Engineers 

continued to be fortifications and 

harbor defense and was strengthened 

by the report of a Congressional 

committee in 1885. The Endicott Board 

found that the seacoast defenses of the 

United States were woefully inadequate due to recent developments in 

ordnance and years of neglect. A joint 

board of Engineer and Ordnance officers was created to address the problem. This Board on Fortifications and 

Ordnance provided for seacoast 

defenses and related developments 

until it was dissolved in 1920. 

The Spanish American War found 

the entire Army organization understrength and poorly organized for its 

new global mission. The Corps was 

enlarged to three battalions with one 

battalion permanently on station in 

the Philippines. The Engineer School 

was transferred to Washington Barracks (now Fort McNair) which had 

more room and was closer to the Chief 

of Engineers' office. 

Technology was changing rapidly 

because of the internal combustion 

engine, and the Engineers recognized 

that they would have to keep pace. The 

first organization specifically charged 

with monitoring equipment developments was created in 1911. This Board 

on Pontoons and Engineer Equipment 

was comprised of officers from the 

school and from the staff of the Chief 

of Engineers and served as an "on-call" 

advisory body to the Chief. Due to its 

ad hoc nature, this board accomplished 

little before the United States entered 

World War I. 

The Engineer School served as the 

intellectual center for Engineering 

developments. Through several publications such as Professional Papers, 

Occasional Papers, and the Professional 

Memoirs, Engineers discussed their 

role in the new type of warfare which 

was evolving in Europe. Engineers 

went into battle in France in 1917 with 

organizations and doctrine which they 

adopted from the Allies who had more 

experience in trench warfare. Engineer 

equipment, however, remained relatively unchanged from what had been 

used in the Civil War, and WWI proved 

this equipment inadequate. 

During WWI, the Engineer School 

relocated to Camp A. A. Humphreys 

(now Fort Belvoir) in order to provide 

adequate space for training officers and 

enlisted men. While Engineer officers 

universally recognized the inadequacies of their equipment and doctrine, 

the Army was concerned with demobilization after the war. It was 1921 before 

a formal organization was created to 

remedy those deficiencies. 

The Board of Engineer Equipment 

consisted of three officers appointed by 

the Chief of Engineers and one officer 

from the Engineer School. It was 

charged with the design, development, 

construction, and testing of Engineer 

equipment. (The 13th and 29th Engineers, assigned to Camp Humphreys, 

conducted the actual equipment testing.) This board focused its attention on 

float-bridging equipment, searchlights, 

and water-purification equipment. 

While this board represented a tremendous advancement in efforts to improve 

Engineer capabilities, membership on 

25 
the board was an additional duty for all 

the officers. As a result, its accomplishments were limited. 

The Board of Engineer Equipment 

was replaced by the Engineer Board in 

1933. The Engineer Board, with a permanent staff, was able to expand the 

scope of equipment evaluations. This 

board examined all tool kits, rivercrossing equipment, and construction 

equipment; and it focused attention on 

the new areas of mines, countermines, 

and obstacles. When the military units 

of the Corps began to expand before 

World War II, they encountered no difficulty with equipment, for the Engineer Board had done a superb job with 

its evaluation process. 

World War II saw the creation of 

many new types of Engineer organizations and tremendous changes in missions of Engineer units. Some of the 

new Engineer missions included: 

amphibious landings, aviation facility 

construction, and (from the Quartermaster Corps) responsibility for base 

construction. During the war, the 

Engineer Board grew in size and scope. 

It monitored and accelerated equipment research and development programs for Engineers (occurring at a 

variety of locations), and initiated 

changes in doctrine and organization. 

After WWII, the Engineer Board continued in its role (with a much decreased staffing) until 1951. Tremendous 

technological strides had taken place 

during the concentrated war effort; and 

organizations, doctrine, and equipment 

became more sophisticated for the 

entire Army. The Corps of Engineers 

evaluated its organization for research 

and development and restructured it to 

provide for earlier exploitation of 

technology. 

The Engineer Board was dissolved 

and replaced by the Engineer Developments Board. This new board absorbed 

part of the equipment mission of the 

old Engineer Board and took responsibility for organizations, doctrine, and 

technique from the school, but it 

remained part of the school. The 

remainder of the equipment development mission fell to the Engineer 

Research and Development Laboratory 

(ERDL) which had been created in 

26 

1947 and grew out of the sections of the 

Engineer Board which had actually 

designed, constructed, and tested 

equipment. 

This new organization was inadequate, and in 1955 the Engineer School 

was reorganized again. The ERDL was 

separated from the Engineer School 

and evolved into what is currently 

known as the Mobility Equipment 

Research and Development Command. 

The Engineer Developments Board 

became the Engineer Combat Developments Group. This new agency established the foundations of the current 

organization. Its three sections, known 

as Projects A, B, and C, later became 

the Studies, Materiel, and Organization and Doctrine Divisions. 

The entire Army reorganized in 

1962, and the combat development 

activities of all branches were consolidated under the Combat Developments Group which was located at Fort 

Belvoir. The Engineer Combat Developments Group became the CDC Engineer Agency. Its mission and structure 

remained the same for the duration of 

CDC's existence. One of the major initiatives of the Engineer Agency was 

the Universal Engineer Tractor. The 

fact that the CDC Engineer Agency 

was no longer in the Engineer School, 

but part of a consolidated combat 

development community, created many 

problems. The Engineer Agency had to 

be responsive to both the Chief of 

Engineers and the Commander of 

CDC. 

While there were problems, a benefit 

was that combat developments activities were clarified while the Engineer 

Agency was part of the CDC. Responsibility for preparing Tables of Organization and Equipment (TO&E) and 

Basis of Issue Plans (BOIP) became a 

part of the Organization Branch. The 

Material Division accepted responsibility for proponency of Engineer equipment from ERDL in addition to testing 

and evaluation for all developmental 

systems. The Studies Division began 

war gaming and conducting operations 

research to evaluate Engineer mission 

areas. The last area of responsibility 

was the preparation of doctrine and 

literature. 

The Army reorganized again in 1973. 

This, among other changes, saw the 

creation of TRADOC and the return of 

combat developments to proponent 

schools. The Engineer Agency became 

the Directorate of Combat and Training Developments at the Engineer 

School. This new agency performed the 

same functions, but only existed for two 

years. In 1975, in order to maintain all 

authorized 06 slots, the Engineer 

School Commandant approved a separation of combat and training developments. The mission of preparing of doctrine and literature was transferred to 

the new Directorate of Training Developments, while all other missions 

stayed within DCD. This was not a 

total separation, however, for DCD still 

impacts upon doctrine and literature 

through the production of concepts. 

With the creation of the New Equipment Systems Office in 1978, The Directorate of Training Developments 

absorbed the responsibility for writing 

new equipment literature from DCD. 

The testing and evaluation function o 

the Materiel Division was expanded 

and made the separate branch of Concepts and Studies Division. 

Today DCD continues to refine the 

management of new systems. Through 

testing and evaluation of developmental systems, studies and Engineer 

organizational development enhanced 

in 1982 by the introduction of an inhouse computer capability, DCD is 

moving ahead with its mission to 

improve and modernize Engineer support to the Total Army. 

CPT Ronald G. Prichard is Commander, B Company, 1st Battalion. 

(AIT) at Fort Belvoir. He served as platoon leader and executive officer in the 

5th Engineer Battalion. (Corps) (CBT) 

at Fort Leonard Wood and was a project officer with the Directorate of Combat Developments. CPT Prichard is a 

graduate of the US. Military Academy 

and has master's degrees in engineering management and American history 

from the University of Missouri-Rolla 

and George Mason University. 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984- 85 
West Point Engineers: 

Builders of America's 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

The Corps of Engineers civil works program has played a chief role in 

the building and rehabilitation of this 

country's infrastructure. As important 

as that work is now, there was a period 

when the Corps was even more influential. For decades into the 19th century, 

West Point Engineers exerted more 

influence on the planning and construction of this country's civil works 

program than perhaps any other Engineers in history. 

The country's early colonization saw 

the establishment of coastal development as a self-serving means of transortation. As the country expanded 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 

by MAJ Mark Vincent 

westward, requirements for east-west 

transportation also grew. The early 

roads, railroads, rivers, and canals 

became the nation's first engineered 

infrastructure. 

As the need for such works grew, so 

did the demand for civil Engineers. The 

Army's need for Engineers was recognized during the American Revolution 

and did not disappear when the British 

were defeated; fortifications to protect 

harbors, cities, and other defenses were 

still required. So, for similar reasons, 

the Army's requirement for Engineers 

paralleled that of the civilian economy. 

In 1800, the nature of constructing 

masonry fortifications, other defenses, 

and lines of communication was comparable to constructing buildings, 

highways, and other public works. In 

fact, so little distinction existed between civil and military engineering 

that it was said " that nothing is so 

easily converted to civil use, as the 

science common to both the profession 

of a civil and military Engineer." 

The Army's Engineer staff during 

the late 1700s consisted primarily of 

such foreign-trained officers as Richard 

Gridley and Thaddeus Kosciuszko. 

While well respected, their presence 

27 

-
often sparked resentment among 

native-born, self-made Engineers. The 

need for a source of trained Engineers 

in this country was a practical and 

political concept held by many. 

President George Washington was a 

supporter of a school for military 

Engineers, but he doubted the constitutionality of the idea. Although the 

Army itself was small, a pervasive 

argument for creating an academy was 

that its Engineers' "utility would 

extend beyond military works to whatever respects public buildings, roads, 

bridges, canals, and all such works of 

a civil nature." 

West Point 

Although Congress authorized the 

construction of coastal and harbor fortifications in 1794, it was not until 

1802, at the insistence of President 

Thomas Jefferson, that an academy at 

West Point was authorized with the 

purpose of training a Corps of 

Engineers. With its founding, West 

Point became the only engineering 

school in the country, a distinction it 

held for almost 20 years. 

The curriculum at West Point evolved 

into a program that produced Engineers. By 1816, instruction included 

military and civil architecture, and 

permanent as well as field fortifications. In 1823, the first course titled 

"Civil Engineering" was taught. By 

1824, studies included elementary 

parts of buildings; orders of architecture; and construction of buildings and 

arches, bridges, canals, and other public works. In 1826 the courses were expanded still further to include roads, 

tunnels, railroads, artificial harbors, 

and inland navigation. 

During this era, most Engineers 

already in practice had little formal 

education, but instead developed skills 

from experiences as apprentices and 

from individual study. According to 

Daniel Calhoun in his book, The American Civil Engineer, the natme of training at the academy caused the Board 

of Visitors to report that "the pupils of 

West Point will deliver the country 

from the quack engineering which has, 

in diverse instances, inflicted deep 

wounds upon our system of internal 

improvements." 

Coastal Defense 

For a decade, the new Corps and its 

28 

West Point graduates devoted efforts 

almost exclusively to coastal defenses. 

However, the role of the Corps grew 

rapidly in proportion to the swelling 

ranks of its academy graduates. 

In 1816, the Army established a 

Board of Engineers for Fortifications 

within the Corps of Engineers. This 

board devoted increasingly greater portions of its personnel to civilian projects 

with some relevance to Army needs. 

Engineer surveys broadened from 

coastal areas to include rivers, harbors, 

and even canals. 

Surveying 

President James Monroe recommended that the Corps prepare smveys 

and plans for canals between Chesapeake Bay, Lake Erie, and the Ohio 

River in 1823. That involvement led to 

the General Survey Act of 1824 which 

authorized the President to use Army 

officers together with civilian Engineers to survey roads and canals of 

national importance. That legislation 

actually formalized the introduction of 

Army Engineers into civil engineering. 

The General Survey Act thrust West 

Point graduates into the tasks of mapping, exploring, and surveying for 

which they are well known. The Stephen Long expedition that plotted the 

courses of the Platte, Arkansas, and 

Canadian rivers included John R. Bell 

(1812), J. D. Graham (1817), and W. H. 

Swift (1819). 

Benjamin Bonneville (1815) conducted an expedition from 1832 to 1834 

that first accurately mapped the 

hydrography of the territories west of 

the Mississippi River. While western 

exploration was most prominent, West 

Point Engineers were dispatched to the 

limits of all our frontiers. 

Waterways 

River and harbor works soon became 

a major duty of the Corps of Engineers. 

Harbor work on the coast extended 

beyond fortifications to the planning of 

breakwaters and management of harbor improvements. Rivers and lakes 

were surveyed for navigability; and 

reports were prepared recommending 

ways to remove snags and rocks, construct dikes, or bypass falls with 

canals. Other responsibilities included 

planning and building lighthouses, 

beacon lights, bridges, and even 

aqueducts. 

Congressional funding of work was so 

intense that just between 1824 and 

1828, West Point Engineers had planned 34 canal routes and completed 44 

river and harbor surveys. Those represented the majority of general survey 

work performed by the Corps during 

that period. 

Highways 

While the Corps was involved with 

the national frenzy concerning canals, 

it concurrently had significant responsibilities in road work. For instance, 

the first national highway, from Cumberland, MD, to St.Louis, MO, was surveyed and constructed by the Corps of 

Engineers from 1824-1840. While 

working on that road, Richard Delafield (1818) designed and constructed 

the first iron arch bridge in the United 

States at Dunlop's Creek, PA. The 

bridge, which was still in use over 100 

years later, had a span of 80 feet. 

The Corps undertook the planning of 

routes of varying importance throughout the country, most of which were 

supervised by West Point graduates 

serving as general superintendents of 

territorial improvements. 

Thomas J. Cram (1822), while assigned as General Superintendent of Harbors and Roads in Wisconsin, surveyed 

and contracted for the construction of 

1,100 miles of roads in that territory 

alone between 1839 and 1843. The 63-

mile route from Racine to Sinnipee was 

typical of the roads financed by Congress at that time. 

In order to allow a team of horses to 

easily pull two tons of cargo along a 

wagon track 15 feet wide, trees had to 

be grubbed from 34 running miles of 

woods; and 151 bridges with an aggregate span length of over 1,900 feet were 

built. The bridges had hewed-timber 

abutments, stringers, and spiked-plank 

flooring which helped to increase the 

cost of the road to $159 per mile. 

Railroads 

By 1827, Army engineering attention was also directed toward railroads 

which were gaining prominence as 

competitors of canals. William G. 

McNeill (1817) completed the first 

railroad survey performed by the Corps 

in 1828 by comparing canal and railroad alternatives between the James 

and Kanawha rivers in Virginia. 

West Point officers, including 

ENGINEER/Wmter 1984-85 
McNeill and George W. Whistler, were 

sent by Congress to study methods of 

planning, construction, and operation 

f railroads in England. McNeill and 

histler became the most famous 

railroad Engineers of their day. 

Railroad progress made by West 

Point officers remained intensive for 

several decades and included routes in 

the West founded by George McClellan 

(1846), Philip Sheridan (1853), and 

John B. Hood (1853), all of whom 

became famous during the Civil War. 

Civil Practice 

Although the role of the Corps of 

Engineers was immense during this 

period, the influence of West Point 

Engineers was felt outside the military 

service. Academy graduates began 

appearing in civilian engineering practice in 1818. Their numbers increased, 

and by 1837 a census recorded 120 

graduates in civil practice. In all, 237 

of the 940 graduates from 1802 to 1837 

went into civilian engineering at some 

time during their lives. 

Army policies, rather than inhibiting 

this trend, often fueled the departure 

of Engineers from the ranks. Officers 

ere customarily furloughed to duties 

vith private companies to gain experience; often the private firms paid for 

personal expenses above the military 

salaries. Basically, the General Survey 

Act did not let officers perform anything more than surveys, plans, and 

estimates of projects. 

To become involved in the construction phase of the work, an officer had 

to resign from the Army. To further 

complicate matters, by 1830 West Point 

was producing almost twice the number of Engineers that the Army could 

place within its ranks. Secretary of War 

John H. Eaton declared that "the benefit to be derived, however, from their 

(officers') education will not be lost, 

but, on the contrary, will be felt in the 

several states where they reside:' True 

to that observation, those graduate 

Engineers who left the Army's ranks 

contributed as much to our nation's 

early development as the career officers 

who remained. 

Herman Haupt (1835) typified those 

officers leaving the service. Haupt 

spent three months on active duty 

efore resigning to work on the Noristown Railroad. Haupt eventually 

became a professor of engineering at 

Pennsylvania College and developed 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 

one of the earliest rational methods of 

analysis of stresses in trusses. 

The Haupt lattice truss design was 

named for its inventor. Haupt's reputation as chief Engineer or superintendent of several railroads during the 

1850s resulted in his recall into service 

in 1862 as a general in charge of building, maintaining, and operating the 

railroads for the Union during the war. 

Many other graduates were committed to lives of service with private 

railroad companies. Possibly West 

Point contributed more to railroads 

through its civilian Engineers than 

through the military Engineers who 

remained Army officers. By 1903, 212 

West Point graduates had become president, superintendent, or chief Engineer on railroads or other public works. 

Public Works 

West Point graduates were also prominent leaders of that part of the infrastructure including municipal engineering and buildings. George S. 

Greene (1823) made noteworthy contributions to urban water supply by 

helping to develop systems for New 

York City and Washington, D.C. Montgomery Meigs (1836) was also involved 

with water supply, but he is best known 

for the design and construction of the 

dome and wings of the United States 

Capitol Building. 

The time from 1820 to 1860 has been 

called the most sensitive period of 

national growth. The Federal government, through its Corps of Engineers, 

tried to satisfy the extraordinary demands by its citizens for Engineering 

assistance. The rank of Engineering 

graduates of West Point met those 

needs. The almost limitless opportunities within the embryonic nation drew 

graduates from the service to other 

positions, both private and public, and 

spread the talents of the Engineers. 

The combined successes that those 

Engineers achieved in developing the 

early elements of our first infrastructure-the roads, harbors, railroads, and 

other public works-earned them a 

special place in our history. Never 

before or since that era has one group 

so positively influenced the shape of 

the building of America as did the Civil 

Engineers of West Point. 

MAJ Mark Vincent is an assistant 

professor of civil engineering at the 

United States Military Academy. A 

1973 USMA graduate, he has commanded an assault bridge company in 

USAREUR, instructed at the Engineer 

School, and served as a project manager 

and engineer in the Seattle District. 

Vincent has a master's degree in civil 

engineering from the University of 

Illinois and is a registered professional 

engineer. 

Engineer Problem 

Your platoon has been ordered to install a standard pattern minefield . 

Given the following requirements. determine the total number of 

mines. number of regular strips. number of antihandling devices. and 

total manhours. 

Given : 

Desired density 

IOE representative cluster 

composition 

Front 

Depth 

Antihandling devices 

Type mines available 

AT = 3 APF = 4 APB = 2 

AT = 2 APF = 2 APB = 2 

250m 

300m 

10% 

M14. M15. M16A1 

REFERENCES: FM 5-34; FM 20-32. Mine/ Countermine Warfare; 

ERRATA information provided by Engineer School. 

(Problem submitted by SSG Gene R. Shelnutt. Department of Military 

Engineering). 

29 
An 

Engineer Platoon Leader's 

Survival Guide to NTC 

S by CPT James G. Liwski o, you're going to the National 

Training Center! Everywhere you 

turn these days, you hear that name 

... another war story from the guys at 

the club. Another article describing the 

numerous pitfalls. Another memo from 

the battalion commander emphasizing 

his "concern." 

Engineer Employment Considerations 

•Task organization based on Engineer work requirements 

• Single point of contact 

• Normal association 

• Centralized control 

With all the attention focused on 

NTC, you want to make sure that your 

platoon does the best possible job of 

supporting your task force. The question you ask yourself is . .. how? 

• Integral part of Combined Arms Team 

• Early involvement in planning 

• Engineer effort forward 

• Engineers as terrain experts Part of that "how" has been developed at the Engineer School. Due 

largely to the efforts of CPT Dave 

Dunaway (Unit Training, DOTD), the 

Engineer School has produced an 

Engineer NTC Train-Up Package that 

presents a coherent training strategy 

for success at the NTC. The package 

consists of three parts. 

•Engineer construction equipment moves slowly 

•Once Engineers are committed as infantry, no further Engineer 

effort can be expected 

Part one contains a discussion of the 

significant recurring problems in the 

Engineer support at the NTC, a list of 

key skills obtained from a Battalion 

Management Training System 

(BTMS), analysis of the NTC mission 

and terrain, and suggestions to assist 

you in supporting maneuver units 

more efficiently. 

Part two addresses Engineers as part 

30 

Task Force Support To Engineers 

• Intelligence from scouts 

• Incorporation of Engineers into troop-leading procedure 

•Early warning orders 

• Logistical support (particularly class IV and class V) 

• Labor support for constructing and breaching obstacles 

•Cooperation on obstacle-breaching battle drill 

• Team locations 

• Tactical Operations Center (TOC) locations 

• Engineer vehicles that task force cannot fix 

• Class IV recovery plan 

• Bulldozers operating at night 

• Withdrawal routes for the teams and Engineers 

• Priority of repair at unit equipment repair points (UERP) 

• Priority of obstacle construction start time 

• Task force collection points for medical evacuation and 

maintenance (UERP) 

• Replacement time lag for destroyed vehicles 

• Routine for replacing destroyed vehicles 

• Informs when brigade will pull assets: bulldozers and 

swing platoon 

of the Combined Arms Team. A sample briefing is included to assist you i 

starting an early and effective working 

relationship with the brigade and task 

force commanders and their staffs. 

Done well, the briefing will allow 

Engineer platoon leaders to establish 

credibility and give the task force an 

appreciation of Engineer capabilities 

and specific information on how they 

can fully integrate Engineer efforts 

into Combined Arms operations. 

Part three contains " 1ofTthe- shelf' 

materials which will assist your preparation for effective Combined Arms 

Operations at the NTC. It contains 

training tips, emerging doctrine, and 

a variety of other materials. 

It's truly an impressive package. 

What makes it t\pique, however, is the 

Engineer briefing mentioned in part 

two. 

The Engineer briefing is an integral 

part of the package. It provides the 

starting point to sell yourself and the 

Engineer capabilities that you supervise to the maneuver force commander. 

The briefing is prefaced by a short 

introduction by your battalion or company commander. The entire briefingi 

takes about 30 minutes, not including 

time for questions. It's an ideal topic 

for a professional development class for 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 
task force officers or any other suitable 

meeting to prepare for the NTC. 

The briefing covers topics such as: 

• Command/Support Relationships 

• Engineer Employment Considerations (See chart) 

• Obstacle Employment Principles 

• Engineer Assets 

• Mobility, Cou ntermobility, Survivability Missions 

• Engineer Planning Factors and 

Work Rates 

• Family of Scatterable Mines 

(FASCAM) 

• Task Force Support to Engineers 

(See chart) 

• Engineer Platoon Leader Responsibilities (See chart) 

An M-1 tank provides a smoke screen for advancing friendly forces during NTC training at Fort Irwin, CA (U.S. Army photo). 

• Engineer Platoon Sergeant 

Responsibilities 

Engineer Platoon Leader Responsibilities 

• Receive the warning order 

• Move the platoon 

•Reconstitute: sleep; evacuate casualties; resupply ammunition, 

fuel, and basic load; recover and repair vehicles; rezero MILES; 

maintain personal hygiene; provide food for troops 

• Forage class IV from battlefield 

• Establish a hasty platoon defense 

• Go to the after action review 

• Liaison with the company XOs who have picked battle 

positions 

• Liaison with XOs for primary obstacle line 

• Write the operations order with staff 

• Organize reserve obstacles and closures 

• Receive full operations orders 

• Coordinate with S4 for class IV 

• Coordinate with the fire support officer 

• Meet the class IV drop on the ground 

• Coordinate with Engineer swing platoon 

• Coordinate with Engineer support platoon 

•Maintain the platoon (coordinate I, III, V, IX) 

• Fill out casualty feeder report 

• Send courier with casualty reports 

• Receive replacements 

• Contact team commanders to start obstacle work 

• Coordinate resupply of class IV 

• Inspect obstacle construction 

• Escort and control all bulldozers in area 

• Submit all obstacle reports to the task force 

• Prepare and submit minefield reports 

•Conduct leader's reconnaissance of Engineer withdrawal and 

battle positions 

•Provide security on obstacles 

• Provide anti-reconnaissance 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 

The list of topics discussed is extensive. In fact, you'll probably learn 

something yourself from reviewing the 

briefing. 

The best part of this briefing is the 

clear, concise way it presents the many 

varied Engineer considerations in support of a task force. It establishes you 

as the Engineer "expert" and gives you 

needed exposure and credibility as a 

critical member of the commander's 

staff. This facet has been an annoying 

problem experienced by your predecessors at the NTC. 

Dedicated use of the package along 

with careful research of the briefing 

topics will help cement your position 

as part of the team; and that's half the 

battle! 

That's the Engineer NTC Train-Up 

Package . . . problems identified, 

resources listed, and an Engineer briefing to help get you on-board with the 

task force. 

So, if you're going to the National 

Training Center, or even if you just 

want to get a better handle on Engineer support of a task force, get a copy 

of t h e Engineer NTC Train-Up 

Package-your survival gu ide to NTC. 

Requests for copies of the Engineer 

NTC Train-Up Package should be forwarded to: 

U.S. Army Engineer School 

ATTN: ATZA-TD-U-D 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5291 

AV 354-2070/2286 

CPT James G. Liwski, a graduate of 

the United States Military Academy, is 

assigned to the Unit Training Division, 

DOTD, at the Engineer School. He was 

the assistant operations officer and 

platoon leader with the 9th Engineer 

Battalion in Germany 

31 
SFC Jeffrey Singer's expression depicts the seriousness of the drill sergeant's job (U.S. Army photo). 

a Close Look at 

Drill Sergeant School 

by SP4 Thomas Copeland and SP5 Kathleen Ellison 

' ' This is probably one of the 

toughest schools a noncommissioned officer can attend;' said 

MSG Samuel Clark, chief instructor at 

the Fort Leonard Wood Drill Sergeant 

School. "Not everyone can be a drill 

sergeant. Only the best soldiers out of 

each career field are selected:' 

Between 450 and 500 drill sergeants 

are presented with their distinctive 

"brown round" hats each year. Only 10 

percent of the students do not graduate 

from the school usually because ofreasons ranging from medical to academic. 

Formerly, the attrition rate was as 

high as 25 percent, and because of this 

the school supervisors were prompted 

to add a three-week drill sergeant 

orientation phase to the regular eight32 

week course. 

"The orientation phase introduces 

the candidates to different levels of 

instruction;' said SFC Jesus Gomez, 

senior course manager. Here we teach 

classes on subjects like uniform regulations, drill and ceremony, trainee treatment, and the role and responsibility 

of the NCO. Many of these courses may 

be repeated in the actual course, but 

presenting this material to them before 

starting the actual course greatly 

increases their chances of graduating 

and their ability to be a good drill 

sergeant. 

"Another thing that separates our 

school from other drill sergeant schools 

is that we have a group-paced format 

rather than a self-paced one," Gomez 

added. We noticed that the self-paced 

class people were looking out only for 

themselves. With our group class everyone learns at the same pace. If someone is having difficulty with one subject, another student will help him so 

that the class can go on;' Gomez said. 

Classes include basic rifle markmanship, stress management, leadership 

and physical training. 

"During the summer the first formation is at 5 a.m., and the day lasts until 

4:30 p.m. In the course of eight weeks, 

the drill sergeant candidate must successfully complete 103 course modules;' according to Clark. , 

For most candidates, the course 

proves both mentally and physically 

demanding. "During the three-week 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 
orientation phase," said SFC Allen 

Clark, master fitness trainer and assistant chief instructor, "we give the candidates a complete diagnostic test. It 

covers height, weight and a diagnostic 

physical training test. During that 

three weeks we get everyone up to 

about the same physical readiness level 

and able to easily pass the Army 

Physical Readiness Test. 

"When the actual course starts, we 

use the level they were at as a starting 

block. From there we push them to 

their fullest. We have them run more 

than they ever thought they could. 

Sure, there's a point where the human 

body can't go any further. But there is 

also that little something down there 

that drives you to do that last effort," 

Clark said. 

The academic portion of the course is 

also challenging. Everything the candidates learn will not only be passed on 

to new soldiers, but they must be able 

to do it professionally and proficiently. 

Everything the trainee does, the drill 

sergeant candidate does. 

"I think being a drill sergeant brings 

prestige and job satisfaction to the 

NCO;' Clark said, "At the end of the 

basic training cycle, the drill sergeant 

can see the improvement in the people 

he's had to train and turn into soldiers:' 

"I was kind of sad when I first got 

here;' said SFC Leonard Wilson, a 

candidate in his fourth week, who had 

been selected by the Department of the 

Army. "But once I got here it was all 

right. With more than 18 years in (the 

Army), it was something that I still 

hadn't done. Being that it was a new 

challenge, I went for it." 

"The course is very challenging. You 

really learn a lot that you may have 

taken for granted. It is different when 

you have to teach someone something 

that you have learned;' Wilson said, 

who before coming to the school was a 

mortar platoon leader at Fort Riley. 

"I volunteered for the school," said, 

SGT Jeffrey Thomason, a former crane 

operator at Fort Bragg. " I've always 

liked the overall appearance that you 

had to maintain and the respect that 

you get from it. The PT hasn't been too 

tough on me so far, although the oral 

presentations were pretty stressful at 

times." 

I called my branch at DA and told 

them I wanted to go (to Drill Sergeant 

School), and so they sent me here;' said 

the former Fort Hood atomic demolitions munition platoon sergeant. "The 

drill sergeant is the first impression of 

the Army these young soldiers have 

when they first come in. He provides 

them a role model, someone to 

emulate." 

Students said the school does what 

it can to help them through the course. 

Many said the group pace was a great 

help. 

The requirements listed in Army 

Regulation 614-200, Section II, state 

that male candidates must be in grades 

E5 through E7. Female candidates 

must be in grades E4 through E7 . Candidates must possess a high school 

diploma or GED equivalent and have 

demonstrated leadership ability. Upon 

graduation, drill sergeants have a twoyear stabilized tour, with an option for 

another year. 

Biographical information on SP4 Copeland and SP5 Ellison was not available at the time of publication. 

Drill sergeants enforce the highest standards during basic training at Fort Leonard Wood (U.S. Army photo). 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 33 
Delta Creek Airstrip was constructed by the 562nd Engineer 

Company, 172nd Light Infantry Brigade (Separate), at a remote site on a 

dry creek bed. The airstrip, 30 miles 

west of Delta, AK, was built in the 

summer of 1982 to support Brim Frost 

'83, a major Army field exercise in 

January and February. 

This was a joint operation with the 

23rd Engineer Company (CBT) (HVY) 

which assisted in developing the road 

network, clearing bivouac sites, and 

providing general maintenance support of the airstrip. The runway length 

was 4,000 feet with 500 feet of clear 

zone on each end. 

Design Criteria 

The airstrip was designed to be a 

medium-lift, support-area strip that 

would require minimum maintenance 

for two months. It had to support aircraft with a maximum gross weight of 

130,000 pounds and included: 

• a minimum runway length of 3,500 

feet and runway width of 60 feet; 

• a parking apron for four C-130 

Hercules; 

• a refueling apron to support two 

C-130s or "bladder birds" that could 

distribute fuel to ground fuel 

storage; 

• a helicopter refueling area to support four helicopter refueling pads. 

Orientation of the airstrip was based 

on two considerations: the prevailing 

34 

Construction and 

Maintenance of 

Delta Creek 

winds and the cleared approach and 

departure zones. Approach zones had 

to allow aircraft to head into prevailing winds. A 50: 1 ratio was maintained 

for the height of obstacles in the 

approach and departure zones. For 

example, a one-foot tree must be 50 feet 

from the end of the runway clear zone. 

The airstrip was oriented to avoid 

forested approach and departure zones, 

thus overriding the consideration for 

prevailing winds. This decision became 

costly when aircraft with troops and 

equipment were diverted to a paved 

airstrip in Delta Junction for two days 

during the exercise airlift. The prevailing crosswinds had made landing of 

fully loaded aircraft too dangerous. 

The airstrip required less than 2 percent slope from end to end, less than 

1.7 percent slope from centerline to 

shoulder, and 2 percent moisture content. The C-130s needed airstrip soil 

that could support 75 psi on impact. 

Penetrometer readings were taken on 

diagonals across the airstrip at 50-foot 

intervals and consistently gave 150 psi 

readings. The sieve analysis results 

showed that the soil was poorly graded gravel with a California Bearing 

Ratio (CBR) of 30. 

Site Selection 

A relatively level site was needed to 

minimize the amount of earth that had 

to be moved to meet slope requirements. All equipment and personnel 

Airstrip 

by MAJ Thomas A. lVrk 

were brought in and resupplied by 

helicopters because no existing roads 

lead to the area. 

Heavy Engineer construction equipment could not be used because the 

CH-54B skycranes could lift a maximum of 22,000 pounds. A D-5 bulldozer was the largest that could be 

airlifted into the site. 

A gravel airstrip was preferred 

because it could be used year-round 

with few drainage problems. An airstrip built in marshlands or swamps 

would only be suitable for winter construction and use. 

A nearby water source was necessary 

to provide water for compaction. 

The site had to permit proper orientation of the runway allowing for prevailing wind direction and cleared 

approach and departure zones. 

A primary consideration was that the 

airstrip would be surrounded by a minicity of 10,000 soldiers and various fuel, 

medical, food, ammunition, and maintenance support packages. This entailed a vast road network and area 

that would support bivouac sites hidden from view and required the integration of the road with forest cover. 

A year-round water source was necessary to support construction in the 

summer and to provide water for personnel in the winter. The Delta Creek 

River has meandering six to eight-foot 

streams that were two to three feet 

deep in the summer. The streams 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 
became subterranean flows in the 

winter, an action t h at was n ot 

anticipated. 

Valuable time was lost because a twomile winter road had to be constructed 

in December to reach a nearby lake 

that would become the primary water 

source. A water-purification unit capable of 420 gallons per hour produced 

water (over 40,000 gallons during the 

exercise) from this lake. Two-inch cotton water-distribution hoses were insulated inside six-inch fuel hoses during 

extreme cold. 

Construction 

The airstrip and surrounding road 

network were constructed in two 

months using a John Deere 570-A road 

grader and 450-C bulldozer, two Caterpillar D-5 bulldozers, a 13-wheel compacting roller, two 2Y2-ton dump trucks, 

and a jeep. 

Communications rigs, medical 

teams, and daily helicopter support 

were a lso added to t he construction 

package. A 500-gallon water tank was 

placed in the bed of one of the dump 

trucks modified with a spray bar to be 

used in the compaction process. H elicopters provided fuel for all operations 

by sling-loading in 600-gallon fuel 

blivets. 

Clearing and grubbing operations 

took about one week. Cut and fill 

operations with compaction took t he 

remainder of the time. Delays were 

caused when the Air Force recommended widening the strip from 150 to 

300 feet. The extensive work dedicated 

to the surrounding road network and 

bivouac sites caused significant delays 

to the original estimate of two weeks. 

Maintenance of equipment and resupply of repair parts for low-density 

construction equipment were continual 

problems. A skycrane lift in early 

September replaced deadlined equipment with new equipment including 

an additional D-5 bulldozer and two 

new 2Y2-ton dump trucks. 

Penetrometers and nuclear densometers were used to test the density of 

t he poorly graded gravel during the 

initial site selection and during the 

compaction process. 

Fill operations required some innovative ideas because lifting equipment 

such as 2 Y2 -cubic yard scoop loaders 

were too heavy to be flown in by skycrane. A ramp was constructed that 

allowed the bulldozers to push gravel 

from a borrow pit into awaiting dump 

trucks. 

Construction was hampered by problems with helicopter support. Bad 

weather, damaged multileg slings, and 

limited weekend availability for National Guard skycranes caused planning problems. The total dependence 

upon air resupply kept planners busy 

adjusting critical path networks. 

The project took 62 days, used 3,900 

gallons of diesel fuel and 1,400 gallons 

of gasoline, and cost $4,000 for repair 

parts. During the compaction process, 

120,000 gallons of water with glacier 

silt were added to fill the voids in the 

top six-inch compacted layer. 

When completed, the airstrip was 

5,000 feet long and 300 feet wide. The 

runway was 4,000 feet long and 150 

feet wide. The end-to-end slope was 

0.67 percent. 

Maintenance and Use 

Two months later, a similar construction team followed a freshly cut road 

(the width of one D-7 blade) into the 

airstrip to clear an accumulated twoA D-5 bulldozer performs grubbing and clearing operations for the Delta Creek Airstrip and surrounding road 

network (photo by MAJ Thomas A. York). 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984- 85 35 
Parking aprons and refueling areas for helicopters and C-130s appear on the outline of the airstrip (photo by 

MAJ Thomas A. York). 

foot snowfall. Skycranes were scheduled as backup mobility for some of the 

heavy equipment if the road couldn't 

be opened by December 10 due to maintenance, hot springs, or Air Force 

bombs that were found on a bombing 

range in one area of the main supply 

route. 

The main supply route was opened 

on schedule; and the snow removal of 

the airstrip, road network, and bivouac 

site took approximately seven days. 

Scoop loaders did the work of bulldozers in clearing new roads in forested 

areas. 

On January 6, the unit convoyed ten 

dump trucks and logistics vehicles to 

the airstrip for final preparation. The 

first C-130 was scheduled for a January 

11 touchdown. Avalanches in the Paxson area 60 miles south of Fort Greely 

delayed the convoy for 24 hours. 

The airstrip was opened on time with 

a 150 foot width cleared. Snow berms 

were kept below ten feet so that C-130s 

would not hit their wing tips during a 

possible skid or turn. The berms were 

lowered by driving D-5 bulldozers over 

them. 

Temperatures were below -40 °F, and 

the unit had its highest number of coldweather injuries during this period. 

36 

The equipment was kept running for 

24 hours. Turbochargers were being 

damaged on the diesel trucks because 

operators were not manning the trucks 

at all times and keeping the RPMs up 

to 1,500. Operators needing sleep could 

not stay in their vehicles because of 

possible carbon monoxide poisoning. 

During the extremely cold weather, 

maintenance was cumbersome, minds 

became tired and did not reason clearly, and hidden problems in machinery 

emerged. Only one maintenance tent 

was available, and it could support only 

one piece of equipment at a time. Herman Nelson heaters (40,000 BTUs per 

hour) were critical, but suffered periodic service problems. 

Scoop-loader tires were going flat 

when they were off-loaded from low boy 

tractors or from railroad flat cars. 

Parachutes covered the tires with 

pumped in heat and made the tires 

pliable so they could be repaired. 

Maintenance of the airstrip was relatively easy. When ruts developed, 

gravel and water mixtures were placed 

in the ruts and frozen. Spalling ofrocks 

below the six-inch compacted surfaces 

began to appear after the 200th aircraft had landed. The refueling parking apron was bermed in case of fuel 

spills which did not occur. 

The C-130s that were loaded over 

27 ,000 pounds used the entire runway 

for takeoff and sometimes did not leave 

the ground until they were in the clear 

zone. Blowouts were a major concern 

due to the gravel airstrip. The only incident occurred at Elmendorf Air Force 

Base and was attributed to the gravel 

at Delta Creek Airstrip. 

When the last aircraft departed 

Delta Creek Airstrip on Feb. 12, 1983, 

over 400 C-130s had safely landed. 

landed. 

MAJ Thomas A. York is the Deputy 

Commander; US. Army Engineer District, Pittsburgh. He was the Assistant 

Inspector General, 172nd Infantry Brigade at Fort Richardson, AK, and commanded A Company, 10th Engineer 

Battalion, and the 562nd Engineer 

Company while stationed there. He also 

held command and staff assignments 

in Germany and Korea. MAJ York has 

a bachelor's degree in engineering 

management and a master's degree in 

civil engineering from the University of 

Missouri and is a graduate of the Command and General Staff College. 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 
Ice Bridging by the Book: 

A Personal Viewpoint 

(continued from inside front cover) 

with a 15 mph wind. Research on ice 

growth by CPI' Larry Jinkins was used 

during "Brim Frost '83" and it shows 

that the convection cooling of the wind 

has a direct bearing on the freeze time 

for the water layers. 

The methods of pumping water or the 

locations of the pump holes are not 

explained in TM 5-349. They are 

explained in the pamphlet. 

Arctic Construction correctly states 

that the carrying capacity of the 

induced ice is one-half that of natural 

ice. However, induced ice beyond onehird the total thickness may cause a 

downward thawing of the natural 

crystalline ice. 

Mobility 

The vehicles crossing the Delta River 

ice bridge had to stop and be 

unchained, cross the ice bridge, then 

stop so the chains could be put back on. 

This mobility reduction made convoys 

prime enemy targets before and after 

crossing the ice bridge. 

This chaining and unchaining could 

have been eliminated by using a log 

tread way frozen onto the top of the ice 

bridge and covered with four inches of 

snow. The snow would prevent the logs 

from absorbing solar radiation and 

melting the ice. These ice-reinforcing 

methods are mentioned in TM 5-349. 

Construction 

Constructing a road or winter trail 

is another problem. Since TM 5-349 

was published 23 years ago, machines 

have been built that cut snow, then 

compact it using vibration or heat 

transfer. There are now newer methods 

of determining thaw depth and new 

onstruction techniques using various 

insulations (sulfur foam, polyurethane, 

reinforced sytrofoam, and modified concrete) to preserve the upper level of perENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 

mafrost and promote roadbed stabilization. A recent study by CRREL shows 

that the use of membrane encapsulated 

soil layers (MESL) is effective in road 

construction in an arctic or subarctic 

environment. 

Building Materials 

Utilities, buildings, and airfields cannot be left out of a new arctic construction manual. Many studies have evaluated the use of snow and ice as building 

materials and the effects of insulation 

and aerodynamic considerations for all 

types of construction. An excellent 

source of information concerning utilities construction would be the underground utilidor (utility corridor) built 

in permafrost at Barrow, AK. 

significance must not be overlooked. 

History shows that the subarctic can be 

a theater of war (Norway, Finland, 

U.S.S.R.). The Army Engineer must 

have an updated and accurate manual 

to provide the know-how to support the 

mobility and survivability of the 

Army's Combined Arms Team. 

Since 40 percent of all landmass in 

the northern hemisphere is in the 

subarctic or arctic, its military 

CPT William J. Stein is a deputy division chief and project inspector at Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, PA. 

He was a platoon leader in the 23rd 

Engineer Company (CBT) (HVY) and 

the training support branch chief at Fort 

Richardson, AK, where he was an assistant G-3 coordinating Air Force tactical 

support for the Brim Frost exercise CPT 

Stein is a graduate of the Engineer Officer Advanced Course and has a bachelor's degreee in mechanical engineering 

from the University of Missouri at Rolla 

f1_H_o_t_lin_e_Q_&_A __ _ 

0. I need the latest reference manual, film, or television tape for 

Engineer River Crossing Operations. 

A. FM 90-13 or ETM 350-1 00 covers Engineer River Crossing Operations. DA 

PAM 108-1 answers questions about available films. 

0. I need to know the NSN and supply catalog for short, medium, and 

long picket fences. I also need the NSN for general, barbed tape 

obstacle, and information on how to obtain it. 

A. U-shaped pickets come in two sizes: 60-inch (NSN 5660-00-370-1 587) and 

30-inch (NSN 5660-00-270-1589). This information can be found in CTA 50-920, 

Section II , ~xpendable Items and in the Army Master Data File. GPBTO can· 

be requisitioned through normal supply channels. The NSN is 5660-00-921-5516. 

0. What is the classification of the M -10 5-ton truck with a water 

distributor mounted on the rear? 

A. The vehicle classification is as follows: Overall weight 20,050 lbs (empty ), 

28,383 lbs (full) . Vehicle classification is 15 empty (E), 21 cross-country (C), 

25 highway (H). Additional information can be obtained from TM 5-3825-221-5 

and TM 5-3825-227-12. Information on the 5-ton truck may be obtained in TM 

9-2320-260-10-1. 

0. Where are the 160 radios to be mounted on the new 510-M929 squad 

vehicles? 

A. Radios in squad vehicles, particularly the M929 Series Vehicles are currently 

being tested and evaluated at U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command at 

(TACOM). It is expected that the results w ill have been completed by Dec. 3, 

1984, and the requested information will be made available at that time. The 

tested mount is located between the operator and passenger seats on the rear 

panel. 

0. We are trying to determine a way to winterize graders for snow 

removal. Does the Army have a temporary cab canvas-type window? 

A. At the present time there is no standard winterization kit in the supply system. 

However, a commercial kit can be purchased from Safety Cab Co. , Fresno, CA, 

and it was used for graders sent to Alaska . The phone number for the Safety 

Cab Co. is: (209) 268-5545. The AMC Systems Manager at TACOM, AV 

786-7349, can be called for further assistance. 

37 
Publications 

fro.,.._ 

CERL 

This is ENGINEER's second annual listing of publications produced by the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (USA-CERL). 

The list is divided into two sections: material related to 

Combat Engineers and material related to Facility Engineers. These sections are subdivided into a list of fact sheets 

of current USA-CERL research efforts and a list of technical 

reports/publications produced since October 1983. 

Fact sheets are typically short summaries of USA-CER!Js 

research on a given subject. Technical reports and publications are lengthier documents presenting the results ofUSACERIJs research on a specific topic. 

Fact sheets are available from the Public Affairs Office, 

U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, 

P.O. Box 4005, Champaign, IL 61820-1305. 

Technical reports and publications are available at a 

nominal cost from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 , or 

through the Defense Technical Information Center, Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA 22314. When ordering publications from NTIS or DTIC, please use the ADA numbers 

listed. Additional information on these publications can be 

obtained by writing to the USA-CERL Publications Branch. 

COMBAT ENGINEERING ACTIVITIES 

Fact sheets are available on the following USA-CERL 

studies in progress on Combat Engineer activities: 

Engineer Unit Microcomputer Applications - Discusses 

the use of microcomputer software applications for managing construction activities for the 18th Engineer Brigade in 

Germany. 

Engineer Modeling Study- A computer program designed 

to determine the effects of Combat Engineer activities in 

the outcome of a battle. 

Flotation Bridging I Rafting Concepts for River Crossing 

Operations - Evaluation of methods available for floating 

vehicles across nonfordable streams. 

Foam Overhead Cover Support Systems (FOCOSJ - A 

rapidly constructed foam-filled fabric arch used with a topsoil covering to protect infantry operators of antitank 

weapons. 

38 

Rapidly Emplaceable Overhead Cover Support Systems 

- Use of preformed fiberglass plastic, rapidly emplaceable 

overhead cover support systems such as foxhole covers. 

Foam Domes as Expedient Facilities - Use of foam domes 

in providing housing and storage for mobilization efforts 

and other semipermanent facilities. 

Programmable Pocket Calculators for Engineer Troop 

Units - Use of programmable pocket calculators to support Combat Engineer activities. 

Computer-Based Engineer Training System - PLATO-like 

training system to deliver training to Combat Engineers on 

station in lieu of centralized schooling. 

Combat Engineer Command and Control Subsystem -

Development of a Combat Engineer command and control 

system to support the maneuver control system of the 

Army's automated command and control system. 

Foam Protective Shelters - A study of foam structures for 

command, control, and communications uses. 

Flotation Bridging I Rafting System for Airborne I 

Airmobile Operations - Evaluation of methods to float 

vehicles, using on-site foamed plastics as floats, and ways 

of attaching float bodies, maintaining float stability, and 

preventing use-induced damage. 

FACILITY ENGINEERING ACTIVITIES 

Fact sheets are available on the following USA-CERL 

research efforts on Facility Engineer activities: 

PAVER - A maintenance management package to aid pavement engineers and managers in achieving maximum benefits from dollars spent on road maintenance. 

Improved Roofing Materials and Systems - A qualitycontrol (QC) specification that will improve QC of built-up 

roof construction. 

Corrosion Mitigation - A means of gathering corrosionrelated data and information about utility systems and 

structures and determining their useful life. 

Paint Laboratory- Current programs include applied 

research in the field of protective coatings for steel and 

aluminum, quality assurance, paint testing, and field 

consulting. 

Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA) Program 

- Techniques, equipment, and aids to improve the effectiveness of the resident engineer's QA mission. 

Concrete Quality Monitor (COM) - System that provides a 

means of assessing the quality of fresh concrete while it is 

being placed, thus averting replacement of defective 

concrete. 

Soil-Cement/ Roller-Compacted Concrete Quality 

Monitor- Determines the cement and water content of 

soil-cement and roller-compacted concrete. 

Pipe Corrosion Management System - A maintenance 

management package to aid facility engineers in making 

decisions for pipe-maintenance strategy. 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 
RAILER- A railroad track maintenance management system 

that assists installation personnel in achieving maximum 

benefits from maintenance dollars. 

Ceramic Anode - A high-technology anode for cathodic 

protection of civil works structures, underground pipes, 

and water towers; produced at Y. the cost and at \ 00 the 

weight of the currently used silicon-iron anodes. 

Automated Voice Recognition System - Transforms averbal recording such as inspection information or data into a 

written report. 

Electromagnetic Pulse (EMPJ Protection - Design and 

construction of structures for protecting communications 

and computer equipment from an EMP. 

Underground Heat Distribution Technology - Maintenance procedures for buried prefabricated conduit heat 

distribution systems emphasizing preventive care and 

maintenance of manholes. 

Paint Test Kit - A simple, portable test kit which field personnel can use to check the basic qualities of oil-based and 

latex paints. 

The USA-CERL Welding Technology Center- Describes 

services USA-CERL can provide on welding research and 

advice, with phone numbers and point of contact. 

Electrical Reduction Methods - Ways to reduce electricity 

used in barracks, administrative and maintenance buildings, and community facilities. 

Analysis of Energy Consumption Data - Provides energy 

usage patterns, application of time series analysis techniques to hourly data, and energy use versus climatic 

variations. 

Solar Energy System Feasibility Analysis (SOLFEASJAn interactive, user-oriented computer program for 

estimating the economic feasibility of an active solar thermal energy system early in the building design process. 

Building Loads Analysis and System Thermodynamics 

(BLAST) - Programs for predicting energy consumption 

and energy system performance and cost in buildings. 

Heat Recovery Incineration Technology - On-site incineration of waste used with a waste heat boiler to provide 

energy. 

HVAC Controls Retrofit- Use of retrofit controls for improving the performance of existing heating, ventilating, and 

air-conditioning systems. 

Installation-Wide Energy Conservation ProgramsDemonstration project at Fort McClellan, AL, to validate 

effectiveness of energy conservation technologies identified through the Army energy program. 

Solar Energy Acceptance Test Procedures - Procedures 

to test a solar energy system to insure it meets specifications before accepting the system from the contractor. 

Fuel Selection Strategy- Development of Army-wide fuels 

selection strategy and criteria based on current and emerging energy-related technologies and on projections of 

future fuel availability and cost. 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 

Photovoltaic Power Systems - Test results on a photovoltaic power system for a permanent military facility. 

Modular Solar Domestic Hot Water Systems- A two 

component system for DOD barracks buildings. 

Computerized Evaluation of Utility Plans (CEUPJ- Computer programs that analyze the electrical and water distribution and sanitary sewerage collection systems on military 

installations for their adequacy in supporting future construction and base mobilization. 

Computer-Aided Engineering and Architectural Design 

System (CAEADSJ- Automated design tools used by 

designers (architects, engineers, specifiers, estimators) 

through the 35 percent level of the building design process. 

Systematic Evaluation of Architecture (SEARCHJReviews architectural plans against measurable criteria 

found in design guidance and Army and Engineering 

regulations. 

SKETCH- Permits computer entry of single-line floor-plan 

drawings for automatic generation of double-line drawings 

in production of plots and criteria evaluation. 

Habitability Program- Procedures and design information 

to assist installation personnel in providing input for 

improving constructed facilities. 

Construction Management Microcomputers - Provides 

the area engineer an opportunity for improvements in construction scheduling and resource allocation using 

microcomputer technology. 

Decision Support System I Directorate of Engineering 

and Housing - Microcomputer-based information 

management system to assist DEH in managing installation 

facility engineering activities. 

Facility Space Planning System - Procedures for identifying space planning requirements for administrative offices 

and managing space planning activities to meet future 

needs. 

Industrialized Building Systems- Use of industrialized 

building systems to provide more facilties for the construction dollar in less time. 

One and Two Step Facility Acquisition - Procurement processes which incorporate performance specifications and 

allow contractors to submit a design proposal along with 

the bid for new facilities. 

Facilities Technology Application Tests (FTATJ-A 5-year 

program which demonstrates the use of over 35 technologies is available through Corps of Engineer research 

laboratories in support of the Directorate of Engineering 

and Housing. Technologies will be demonstrated in areas of 

energy, environmental quality, buildings, and pavements 

and roads. 

Training Ranges- Planning and management of training 

ranges designed to accommodate new weapons systems. 

PORTAWASHER- High-pressure cleaning system for sanitizing dumpsters, washing heavy equipment, cleaning 

latrines, and recovering liquid spills at half the cost of traditional procedures. 

39 
Sanitary Landfill Leachate Control- Provides guidance for 

identifying and solving installation leachate problems from 

abandoned and existing refuse disposal sites. 

Army Sewage Treatment Alternatives- Alternatives for 

upgrading existing trickling filter sewage treatment plants. 

Hazardous/Toxic Waste Management Information 

System- Provides identification of those chemical substances both listed and defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) . 

Composting Toilet Technology-A waterless, odorless, 

low-maintenance waste treatment alternative to pit latrines 

and vault and chemical toilets that requires no chemicals 

and creates no polluting discharge; may be a practical alternative to present remote-site technology (at training and 

firing ranges) and for mobilization application. 

Installation Compatible Use Zone (ICUZJ-A program to 

prevent noise-sensitive development in high-noise areas 

through cooperative efforts of installations and adjacent 

communities. 

Vehicle Maintenance and Consolidated Washing Facilities - A revolutionary approach to control water pollution 

originating in vehicle exterior cleaning and maintenance 

areas. 

Early Warning Analysis System (EWASJ - Allows MACOM 

and installation environmental planners to identify potential 

problem areas at the "what if" stage of planning with both 

tabular and mapped output. 

Integrated Noice Contour System (INCSJ - Provides 

MACOM and installation environmental planners with contours showing the noise impact of installation activities. 

Environmental Technical Information System (ETISJAnalyzes environmentally related impacts resulting from 

DOD programs. 

Civil Works Computer-Aided Environmental Legislative 

Data System (CW-CELDSJ- Aids planners in certifying 

compliance with 15 environmental statues as mandated by 

Office of Management and Budget. 

Mobilization Facilities Planning System- Evaluates the 

capability of an installation to respond to mobilization tasking or other crisis response. 

Training Range/Facility Management- Methods to manage training ranges and facilities assets while maintaining 

environmental conservation. 

Stationing Analysis Model (SAM}- Systematic process 

for comparing installation facility assets with projected unit 

force and equipment demands. 

Water Conservation/Recycle Technology- Application of 

water conservation technologies for use at military 

installations. 

Acoustic Noise Warning System- A microphone and 

"smart" monitor to alert the range control officer when 

operational noise levels exceed an established limit. 

PCB Transformer System - Provides guidance to Army 

DEH's on regulations and options for use of transformers 

containing PCB in the insulating field. 

40 

Hazardous Materials Management System (HMMSJProvides environmental officers at Army installations with 

information for compliance with laws on use, transportation, and safe handling of hazardous materials and wastes. 

Training Area Research/Basic - Predicts impact of training 

on various ecosystems. 

The Commercial Activities System (CASJ - Takes users 

through a cost comparison form for comparing in-house 

and contracted costs of commercially available activities. 

Capability to Assist in Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS} Preparation - Outlines USA-CERL.'.s capability to 

assist installation personnel in preparing various environmental impact statements. 

Fort Hood Geographic Information System (G/SJ -

Computer-based system to help in management of an 

installation's land resources. 

Hopper Evacuation System (HES} Demonstration -

Describes air pollution control capabilities of a HES in a test 

on a coal-fired boiler at Chanute Air Force Base. 

Listing of FY 84 USA-CERL technical reports/ publications 

on Combat Engineer activities: 

Technical Report P-158, "Automated Construction Management System (ACMSJ Volume/: User's Guide," by 

Jennifer Young, June 1984, ADA143031; 

"Volume II: Program Documentation," by Charles E. Herring Jr., June 1984, ADA143032. 

Interim Report M-348, "Development of Polyurethane 

Foam Flotation Bridging I Rafting Systems up to 

Military Load Class 20," by 0 . S. Marshall Jr., May 1984, 

ADA142379. 

Technical Report M-353, "Performance of Battlefield 

Overhead Cover Support Systems in a Simulated 

Nuc/earB/astEnvironment,"by Alvin Smith, July 1984, 

ADB0855271. ' 

Listing of FY 84 USA-CERL technical reports/ publications 

on Facility Engineer activities: 

Environmental Research 

Technical Report N-182, "Upgrading Army Sewage 

Treatment Plant Trickling Filters with Synthetic 

Media," by Calvin P. C. Poon, Richard J. Scholze, John T. 

Bandy, and Ed D. Smith, August 1984, ADA145648. 

Technical Report N-60, "Acoustic Directivity Patterns for 

Army Weapons, Supp/ement2,"by Paul D. Schomer 

and Richard Raspet, August 1984, ADA145643. 

Technical Report N-186, "Prediction and Modeling 

Helicopter Noise," by Richard Raspet, Mark Keif, and 

Raymond Daniels, August 1984, ADA145764. 

Technical Report N-184, "Rotary-Wing Aircraft Noise 

Measurements: Analysis of Variations and Proposed 

MeasurementsStandards,"by Paul D. Schomer, 

September 1984, ADA146207. 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 
Technical Report N-163, ''An Interactive Soils Information System Users Manual," by Will iam D. Goran, 

September 1983, ADA133480. 

Technical Report N-1'71, "Feasibility of Department of 

Defense Used Lubricating Oil Re-refining," by John 

Kunarewicz, Timothy Shea, and Walter J. Mikucki, 

December 1983, ADA136641. 

Technical Report N-168, "Solvent 'Cradle-to-Grave' Management Guidelines for Use at Army Installations," by 

B. A. Donahue and M. B. Carmer, December 1983, 

ADA137063. 

Technical Report N -164, ''A Health Risk Assessment of 

the Use of Hexachloroethane Smoke on an Army 

Training Area," by Edward W. Novak, Lester B. Lave, 

James J. Stukel, and Steven Miller, December 1983, 

ADB079544. 

Technical Report N-165, "Recreational Reuse of Waste 

Disposal Sites: Chanute Air Force Base, IL," by 

Terence Harkness, Lawrence J. Schmitt, and Robert E. Riggins, November 1983, ADA138248. 

Technical Report N-166, "Strategies for and Validity of 

Noise Monitoring in the Vicinity of Civilian Airfields 

and Army Installations," by Paul D. Schomer, Richard E. 

DeVor, and Robert D. Neathammer, January 1984, 

ADA137780. 

Technical Report N-170, "Interactive Hazardous Materials Information System (HM/SJ: Description and 

Assessment," by M. Messenger, R. D. Webster, C. Corbin, and Lester Pritchard, December 1983, ADA138329 . 

Technical Report N-173, "Landfill Gas Control at Military 

Installations," by R. A . Shafer, A. Renta-Babb, J. T. 

Bandy, E. D. Smith, and P. Malone, January 1984, 

ADA140190. 

Technical Report N-167, "Community Reaction to Impulsive Noise: A 10-year Research Summary," by Paul D. 

Schomer and Robert D. Neathammer, February 1984, 

ADA141762. 

Technical Report N-160, ''Appropriate Technology for 

Treating Wastewater at Remote Sites on Army Installations: Preliminary Findings," by E. Smith, C. Poon, S. 

Struss, J. Bandy, and R. Scholze, April 1984, ADA142096. 

Technical Report N-177, "Effects of Tracked Vehicle Activity on Higher Vertebrate Populations at Army Installations," by W. D. Severinghaus, April 1984, ADA142653 . 

Technical Report N-180, "Description and Implementation of the Hazardous Materials Tracking System 

(TRACKER)," by Manette Messenger, William R. Nicholls, 

and Ronald D. Webster, June 1984, ADA144107. 

Technical Report N-181, "Development of Prediction 

Techniques for Soil Loss and Sediment Transport at 

Army Training Areas," by Robert E. Riggins and Lawrence J. Schmitt, June 1984, ADA144110. 

Technical Report N-183, "Landfill Liners and Covers: 

Properties and Applications to Army Landfills," by R. 

Shafer, A. Renta-Babb, E. Smith, and J. Bandy, June 1984, 

ADA144003. 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-~5 

Technical Report N-178, "Noise From Traffic and Noise 

Barrier Performance: A Prediction Technique," by 

Kenneth McK. Eldred, Richard Raspet, and Paul Schomer, 

July 1984, ADA144287 . 

Technical Report N-69, "Economic Impact Forecast 

System (EIFSJ II: User's Manual, Updated Edition," by 

D. P. Robinson, J. W. Hamilton, R. D. Webster, and M . J. 

Olson, May 1984, ADA117661 . 

Energy Research 

Technical Report E-197, "Summary of USA-CERL 

Research on Control of Heating, Ventilating, and AirConditioning Systems," by Douglas C. Hittle and David 

L. Johnson, July 1984, ADA145530. 

Technical Report E-190, "Use of the Building Loads 

Analysis and System Thermodynamics (BLAST) 

Computer Program to Review New Army Building 

Designs for Energy Efficiency," by Donald J. Leverenz, 

Dale J. Herron, JoAnn Amber Eidsmore, and Robert E. 

O'Brien, October 1983, ADA134487 . 

Technical Report E-188, "Energy Impact Analysis of the 

Military Construction-Army Building Delivery 

System," by D. Leverenz, D. Herron, A . Stumpf and A . 

Eidsmore, October 1983, ADA135277. 

Technical Report E-189, ''An Estimate of Process Energy 

Consumption in DARCOM," by Ben J. Sliwinski, October 1983, ADA135418. 

Technical Report E-187, "Energy Conservation 

Strategies for Army Installations," by D. C. Hittle, 

January 1984, ADA137918. 

Technical Report E-191, "Wind Power Generation Design 

Considerations," by Elizabeth Elischer and Larry M . Windingland, December 1983, ADA138841 . 

Technical Report E-192, "Procedures for Acceptance 

TestingofSolarEnergySystems,"by D. L. Johnson and 

D. M. Joncich, April 1984, ADA141839. 

Technical Report E-195, ''A Photovoltaic Power System 

for the Holman Guest House, Fort Huachuca, AZ," by 

D. M . Joncich, May 1984, ADA142646. 

Technical Report E-194, "Development of a Modular 

Solar Domestic Hot Water System for Department of 

DefenseBarracks,"by D. M . Joncich and R. E. Kirts, 

May 1984, ADA142678. 

Technical Report E-196, "Investigation of Power Factor 

Controller Applications," by Mary B. Ch ion is and Ben J. 

Sliwinski, July 1984, ADA144466. 

Technical Report E-193, "Evaluation of Microcomputer 

Energy Analysis Programs," by Linda Lawrie, William 

Klock, and Donald Leverenz, July 1984, ADA144684. 

Facility Systems Research 

Technical Report P-146, "Microcomputer Selection 

Guide for Construction Field Offices, Updated Edition," by M . J. O'Connor, T. Kruppenbacher, and G. Colwell, September 1984, ADA146615. 

Technical Report P-166, "The Application of Artificial 

Intelligence to Contract Management," by Timothy 

Kruppenbacher, August 1984, ADA146681 . 

41 
Technical Report P-762, "ADP Documentation and 

Specifications for Microcomputer Applications to 

the Military Construction Process (MICRO)," by Carl 

E. Delong, August 1984, ADA146738. 

Technical Report P-141, "Housing Operations Management Systems (HOMES) Volume I: Executive Summary," by Robert Blackmon, August 1984, ADA146936. 

Technical Report P-164, "Economic Analysis Models for 

Evaluating Costs of a Life Cycle Cost Data Base," by 

L. Murphree and R. Neathammer, September 1984, 

ADA146801. 

Technical Report P-144, "Development of a Facility 

Management and Improvement Manual for Army 

Service Schools," by Robert L. Brauer, Cynthia Mc Neilly, 

and Kim Groesbeck, March 1983, ADA135145. 

Technical Report P-750, "Strategy for Development of an 

Expedient Facilities Catalog," by R. L. Schneider and Ed 

Goodale, December 1983, ADA136616. 

Technical Report P-155, "The Microcomputer 

Knowledge Base: Introduction and User Instructions," by Frank Mabry, William Hohensee, and Gregory 

Norris, January 1984, ADA137694. 

Technical Report P-749, ''A Model for Training Range 

Planning Data," by R. L. Brauer, Martin Koch, Hugh 

Henry, and Samuel T. Brooks, April 1984, ADA141140. 

Technical Report P-157, ''A Concept Description for a 

Directorate of Engineering and Housing Decision 

Support System (DEH DSSJ," by Allen W. Moore, Janet 

R. Randle, Simon J. Kim, and Robert E. Buhts, August 

1984, ADA145075. 

Engineering and Materials Research 

Technical Report M-355, ''A Review of Metallic Surface 

Treatments for Corrosion Mitigation," by V. Hock, J. 

Rigsbee, and J. Boy, September 1984, ADA146701 . 

Technical Report M-358, "Recommended Aluminum 

Pipe Welding Procedures for Corps of Engineers Construction," by Robert Weber, September 1984, 

ADA146712. 

Technical Report M-333, "Preliminary Investigation of 

Ceramic-Coated Anodes for Cathodic Protection," by 

E. G. Segan and A. Kumar, August 1983, ADA133440. 

Technical Report M-334, "Evaluation of Contractor 

Quality Control of Built-up Roofing," by Myer J. Rosenfield, October 1983, ADA135672. 

Technical Report M-336, "Construction of Aluminum 

Standing-Seam Roofing at an Army Facility," by Myer 

J. Rosenfield, November 1983, ADA136401 . 

Technical Report M-335, "Criteria for Evaluating Impact 

Damage Resistance of Exterior Insulation and Finish 

Systems," by Alvin Smith, Robert E. Muncy, and Steven 

C. Sweeney, November 1983, ADB079523. 

Technical Report M-339, "Fixity of Members Embedded 

in Concrete," by Fernando Castilla, Phillippe Martin , and 

John Line, February 1984, ADA138862. 

Technical Report M-337, "Development of Concepts for 

Corrosion Assessment and Evaluation of 

Underground Pipelines," by A. Kumar, E. Meronyk, and 

E. Segan, April 1984, ADA140633. 

Technical Report M-344, "Deform#ltion and Fracture 

Maps for Polymer-Foams, Solid Polymers, and 

Polymer-Composites," by M. E. Ashby and P. W. R. 

Beaumont, April 1984, ADA141197. 

Technical Report M-345, ''An Investigation into Polymer 

Design and Synthesis for Infrared Energy Absorption," by Alvin Smith, May 1984, ADA141265. 

Technical Report M-342, "Evaluation of Commercial 

Magnetic Descalers," by Debbie J. Lawrence, May 1983, 

ADA143020. 

Technical Report M-346, "The Effects of Minor Constituents in Calcium Silicate Insulation on the Corrosion 

of Underground Heat Distribution Systems," by E. G. 

Segan, D. W. Blackmon, and C. March , June 1984, 

ADA143378. 

Technical Report M-351, "Evaluation of the Pavement 

Condition Index for Use on Porous Friction Surfaces," 

by Starr D. Kohn and Mohamed Y. Shahin, July 1984, 

ADA144521 . 

Technical Report M-347, "Investigation of Tri-Service 

Heat Distribution Systems," by Ellen G. Segan and 

Ching Ping Chen, June 1984, ADA145181 . 

Technical Report M-343, "Construction of Experimental 

Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Roofing," by Myer Rosenfield, 

April 1984, ADA145406. 

THE 

DIFFERENCE 

A major malfunction in the development of company-level leaders will 

certainly occur when the leadership of 

a unit does not put enough effort into 

recognizing, emphasizing, and using 

the difference. 

The line is totally unimportant in 

terms of making the 43 better individuals than the 126. Any one of the 169 

can be as good as any other. The line 

is extremely important, though, in 

terms of making it possible for the 

officers to lead the unit. 

by Dandridge M. Malone 

42 

Of 169 soldiers in a full-strength company, 43 are officers and 126 are not. 

And that's the difference. There is a line 

between them. 

Any organized effort involving two or 

more people must have someone in 

charge. There must be leaders and 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 
followers, and leaders and followers do 

different things. Leaders analyze, 

rganize, deputize, and supervise. 

ollowers execute. 

The line establishes the difference 

between the two. New lieutenants and 

new sergeants, just as they have a hard 

time balancing mission needs with personnel needs, also have a hard time 

learning the difference between leaders 

and followers. 

Somewhere among your soldiers, 

there's probably one that you have 

started on the road to becoming a 

leader. You picked him out because he 

seemed to be the focus in one of those 

informal buddy groups that hang 

around together. He knew better than 

anyone else what was inside his buddies, how they felt about the Army and 

about their jobs. He could speak for 

them and pass on their attitudes and 

needs to the leadership. 

That's what makes an informal 

leader. He knows his buddies' attitudes 

and needs, and they think he's the one 

who can get something done about 

them. That's why they put him in 

charge, informally, of course. Then you 

came along and put him in charge, forally, because he's a leader in your 

yes and theirs. 

But at this stage, there is no way he 

can do the balancing between mission 

and men, which is so critical. He knows 

little about the needs of the mission. 

When you bring him across the line 

that separates leaders from followers, 

the needs of the mission are what he 

must learn. And then he will begin to 

understand the price he has to pay to 

become a leader. 

Nothing good ever comes for free. 

What he will learn is that never again, 

as a leader, can he be one of the boys. 

He has crossed the line. He has 

graduated. He is different. 

Now that he's different, he's got to 

find some new buddy groups. He's got 

to hang around with leaders. And 

that's why brand-new sergeants should 

be reassigned within their units. And 

that's why, in good units, there are 

separate NCO clubs where they can 

talk about it some more. And that's 

why there are separate NCO rooms in 

the barracks and why there are 

eparate NCO get-togethers, meetings, 

nd activities. 

All this has nothing to do with NCO 

prestige. The purpose of all this separating is to teach, to develop, to 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 

strengthen, to clarify the difference 

between those who are part of the 

leadership and those who are not. The 

better the leadership of the unit does 

this separating, the better the unit will 

be led. 

Adapted from an article appearing in 

the September-October 1982 issue of 

INFANTRY journal. 

Dandridge M. Malone, a retired 

Infantry Colonel, has published many 

articles, books, and technical reports. 

He has a master's degree in social psychololgy from Purdue University and 

completed the Armed Forces Staff College. He has served in staff or faculty 

assignments at the US. Army Command and General Staff College, the 

US. Military Academy, and the US. 

Army War College. M Engineer Solution 

A . To determine the number of mines needed: 

1 . Number of IOE clusters 

Front (250m) + 9 = 28 

2. Mines in IOE 

IOE cluster composition AT = 56 

(2-2-2) x 28 

APF = 56 APB = 56 

3 . Mines in mainfield AT = 750 APF = 1000 APB = 500 

Front (250m) x desired 

density (3-4-2) 

4 . Subtotal of mines AT = 806 

5. Compute 10% for 

mine rejections 

6. Total mines needed 

AT = 81 

AT = 887 

B. To determine the number of strips needed: 

APF = 1056 APB = 556 

APF = 106 APB = 56 

APF = 1162 APB = 612 

1 . Add desired density AT 3 + APF 4 + APB 2 = 9 

2 · 2 x total desired density (9) = 5.4 

5 

3 . 3 x AT desired density (3) = 9 

4 . Number of strips 

(highest number from lines 2 and 3) = 9 

C. To determine the number of antihandling devices ~ 

1 . AHO (given 10%) x AT mines 

.10 x 887 = 89 

D. To determine the total manhours needed: 

Total AT mines + Total APF mines + Total APB mines x 1 .

2 

4 8 16 

_____ 887 _ _ + __ 1_1_6_2 _ __ + ___ 6_1_2 _ __ x 1 .2 

4 8 16 

222 + 146 + 39 x1 .2 = 489MH 

Note: Most figures are rounded up to the next whole number. 

43 
-M Career Notes 

Commissioned Officers' Branch 

Officer Retention 

Program: 

44 

On December 1 the Army began using centralized DA-level boards to 

select other than Regular Army officers for Conditional Voluntary Indefinite (CVI) and Voluntary Indefinite (VI) status. 

LTC Dennis Dalton, chief of MILPERCEN's Officer Personnel Management Branch, said, "these boards will be responsible for the qualitative 

management of the officer corps. They are needed to maintain the 

necessary strength limits in both high and low density branches." 

Officers with 21

/ 2 years of service who wish to apply for CVI should submit their applications through their chain of command to their career 

management divisions. The application should include a statement that 

the officer understands that CVI status may include a branch transfer. 

The officer will also be required to list three under-strength branches in 

order of his preference. 

The revised system also gives officers the opportunity to voluntarily request re-branching when they apply for CVI status. Applications which 

contain branch transfer volunteer statements will be processed in the 

same manner as normal requests for branch transfers under existing 

regulations. Officers approved for voluntary branch transfers will be considered for CVI status in their new branch. 

Centralized boards will consider applications along with other applicants from the same year group. This will ensure that the process is 

applied fairly to officers with both three and four-year obligations. 

Officers who are approved for CVI status will be extended on active duty 

through their eight years of service, unless they are separated sooner or 

released from active duty under appropriate regulations;' Dalton said. 

"Officers who are disapproved for CVI status will be reassigned to the 

reserve components after they complete their active duty obligated tour;' 

he added. 

Centralized boards will screen the files of officers who have applied for 

CVI status. The board's review will be based on the officer's performance 

and potential, and on recommendations from the chain of command and 

the officer's career management division. 

Dalton said the board will then list, by branch, the files of officers 

approved for CVI status. The board will then determine if re branching 

is required to properly align branches. If necessary, a proportional number 

of officers in the top, middle, and lower third of the list will be transferred from over-strength to under-strength branches. During re-branching, 

MILPERCEN will consider officers' preferences and criteria provided by 

branch proponents (such as military and civilian education level) as much 

as possible. 

All officers approved for VI will be allowed to remain in the Army until 

selected for 04 and integrated into the Regular Army, unless separated 

sooner under other regulations. 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 
Advanced Civil 

School Board: 

Engineer Branch will hold its last FY85 Advanced Civil School Board 

on March 1, 1985. Applications should be sent to U.S. Army MILPERCEN, 

ATTN: DAPC-OPF-D, 200 Stoval St., Alexandria, VA, 22332. For further 

information, call CPT Corley, AV 221-7504/7506. 

NCO & Enlisted Soldiers' Branch 

MOS 62F 

Reclassification: 

ENGINEER/Winter 1984-85 

Are you confused about whether you are a crane operator, a forklift 

operator, or maybe both? Well, here's the latest scoop on MOS 62F, crane 

operator reclassification, from the Engineer Proponency Office. 

Two years ago the Directorate of Training and Doctrine (DOTD) submitted a request to MILPERCEN recommending that forklift operations 

should be deleted from MOS 62F. At that time, the job title for that MOS 

was "Lifting/Loading Equipment Operator." 

This decision was made because, of 1,700 MOS 62F personnel in the 

field, only one-third were working within Engineer units. The other twothirds were assigned to either ordnance, transportation, or quartermaster 

units as forklift operators. 

This was an unacceptable situation for the Corps of Engineers for two 

reasons. First, once individuals were assigned to one of those other 

branches, they usually stayed there, separated from and lost to the 

Engineers; and second, because they were in other than Engineer units, 

it was difficult to keep them proficient in their MOSs due to their limited 

duties. Crane operations, the main focus of the MOS, was not available 

for training purposes. 

In January 1984, MILPERCEN published five reclassification 

guidelines for the 62F MOS: 

• Personnel and positions associated with Rough 'Thrrain Forklift (RTFL) 

operation in ammunition units will be reclassified to MOS 55B and further identified with additional skill identifier, Bl (Rough Terrain Container Handling Operations). 

• Personnel and positions who operate RTFL equipment in Transportation Terminal units will be reclassified to MOS 57H and further identified with ASI Bl. 

• Personnel and positions which are a part of the operation ofRTFL equipment in supply units will be reclassified into MOS 76V and further 

identified with ASI Bl. 

• Personnel and positions associated with the operation of container 

cranes will be reclassified into MOS 57H and further identified with ASI 

G 1 (Terminal Crane Operations). 

All other MOS 62F positions and personnel are scheduled to remain 

unchanged. MILPERCEN has also revised the MOS 62F job title from 

Lifting/Loading Equipment Operator to Crane Operator. 

45