By Order of the Secretary of the Army:

MARK A. MILLEY

General, United States Army

Chief of Staff

 Official:

U.S. Army Engineer School

(573) 563-8080/DSN 676-8080

COMMANDANT

BG Robert F. Whittle Jr.

563-6192, <robert.f.whittle.mil@mail.mil>

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT (AC)

COL Marc F. Hoffmeister 

563-6192, <marc.f.hoffmeister.mil@mail.mil>

DEPUTY COMMANDANT (DC)

Mr. James R. Rowan

563-8080, <james.r.rowan4.civ@mail.mil>

REGIMENTAL COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR (RCSM)

CSM Trevor C. Walker

563-8060, <trevor.c.walker2.mil@mail.mil>

REGIMENTAL CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER (RCWO)

CW5 Jerome L. Bussey

563-4088, <jerome.l.bussey.mil@mail.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT (DAC) – USAR

LTC(P) Charles W. Lewis

563-8045, <charles.w.lewis36.mil@mail.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT (DAC) – ARNG

LTC Daniel K. Runyon

563-8046, <daniel.k.runyon.mil@mail.mil>

CHIEF OF STAFF (CoS)

LTC Brian P. Hallberg

563-7116, <brian.p.hallberg.mil@mail.mil>

COMMANDER, 1ST ENGINEER BRIGADE

COL Kip A. Korth 

596-0224, <kip.a.korth.mil@mail.mil>

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND LEADER DEVELOPMENT (DOTLD)

COL Michael R. Biankowski 

563-4093, <michael.r.biankowski.mil@mail.mil>

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION (DEI)

Mr. Robert F. Danner

563-2845, <robert.f.danner.civ@mail.mil>

COUNTER EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS CENTER (CEHC)

COL Christopher T. Kuhn

563-8142, <christopher.t.kuhn.mil@mail.mil>

MSCoE CDID, RDD

LTC(P) Timothy R. Vail

563-5055, <timothy.r.vail.mil@mail.mil>

ENGINEER DOCTRINE BRANCH, MSCoE CDID, CODDD

LTC Carl D. Dick

563-2717, <carl.d.dick.mil@mail.mil>

ORGANIZATION BRANCH, MSCoE CDID, CODDD

LTC Leonard B. Scott IV

563-6282, <leonard.b.scott.mil@mail.mil>

TRADOC CAPABILITY MANAGERS (TCMs)

Maneuver Support—

COL John C. Morrow

563-7244, <john.c.morrow2.mil@mail.mil>

Geospatial—

COL Kevin R. Golinghorst

563-8263, <kevin.r.golinghorst.mil@mail.mil>

PERSONNEL PROPONENCY

MAJ Serafina S. Moore

563-3019, <serafina.s.moore.mil@mail.mil>

Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is published three

times a year by the U.S. Army Engineer School and

the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence G-37 

Publications, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. 

Articles to be considered for publication are 

due 1 December, 1 April, and 1 August. Send submissions by e-mail to <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe

.mbx.engineer@mail.mil>. Due to regulatory 

requirements and the limited space per issue, we

normally do not print articles that have been published elsewhere.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to 

Engineer Professional Bulletin, 14010 MSCoE Loop, 

Building 3201, Suite 2661, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 

65473-8702.

CORRESPONDENCE, letters to the editor, manuscripts, photographs, official unit requests to receive

copies, and unit address changes should be sent

to Engineer at the preceding address. Telephone:

(573) 563-4137, DSN: 676-4137; e-mail: <usarmy

.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.engineer@mail.mil>;

Web site: <https://home.army.mil/wood/index.php

/contact/publications/engr_mag>.

DISCLAIMER: Engineer presents professional 

information designed to keep U.S. military and civilian engineers informed of current and emerging 

developments within their areas of expertise for the 

purpose of enhancing their professional development. Views expressed are those of the authors and 

not those of the Department of Defense or its elements. The contents do not necessarily reflect official 

U.S. Army positions and do not change or supersede 

information in other U.S. Army publications. The 

use of news items constitutes neither affirmation 

of their accuracy nor product endorsement. Engineer reserves the right to edit material submitted for 

publication.

CONTENT is not copyrighted. Material may be 

reprinted if credit is given to Engineer and the author.

OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION is targeted to all engineer and engineer-related units.

PERSONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS are available for 

$24.00 ($33.60 foreign) per year by contacting the 

U.S. Government Publishing Office, P.O. Box 979050, 

St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. ADDRESS CHANGES for 

personal subscriptions should be sent to the U.S. 

Government Publishing Office at the above address.

GERALD B. O’KEEFE

Administrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army

1821503
MANAGING EDITOR

Diana K. Dean

EDITOR

Cheryl A. Nygaard

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Jennifer Morgan

COMMANDANT

Brigadier General Robert F. Whittle Jr.

Volume 48 PB 5-18-3 Headquarters, Department of the Army September–December 2018

U.S. ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

Engineer 1

FEATURES

06 Lessons Learned From Deploying a MEB to a DSCA Operation

By Colonel Jan K. Behn, Colonel Craig W. Strong, Lieutenant Colonel 

James R. Hewitt, Major Jonathan D. Wymer, Major Jeremy D. Chancellor, 

and Major Alex M. Zeller

10 Master Planning in a Contingency Environment: Planning and 

Executing Installation Improvements in Kuwait

By Lieutenant Colonel David W. Noble

13 Training Engineer Leaders of the Future: Engineer Basic Officer 

Leaders Course Modernization

By Major Niall T. McCracken, Captain Adam J. Leemans, and Mr. John

R. Espe

16 Maneuver Support, Sustainment, Protection, Integration Experiment

 By Mr. Dennis G. Hutchinson

19 How the 2d Cavalry Regiment Built a Premier Trench Range in Europe

 By Captain Spencer W. Donaldson

24 The Modern Battering Ram: MICLIC in Kuwait

 By Private First Class Victoria R. Herrera

25 What to Expect When You're Expecting to Work With USACE

By Captain Spencer L. Diamond and Captain Daniel B. Powell 

28 The Prestigious Sapper Tab—Earning and Maintaining the Right 

to Wear It

By Master Sergeant Matthew B. Zwolinski

31 A Case for Creativity: Having Fun With Doctrine

 By Captain Justin M. Verde

36 The Evolution of Engineer Qualification Tables

 By Captain Dominic A. Senteno

38 561st Engineer Construction Provides Partner Nation Construction

Efforts During Pacific Partnership 2018

By First Lieutenant Jessica E. McAllister

41 Balikatan Exercise 2018

 By First Lieutenant Abigail J. Toth

44 Preparing for a Firefight: Organizing, Equipping, and Training a 

Wildland Firefighting Task Force

By Captain Matthew T. Nichols, First Lieutenant Charlene L. Coutteau, 

and First Lieutenant Mark L. Rubio

48 Amphibious Combat Engineering: An Australian Engineer’s 

Perspective

 By Captain Liam J. Clarke

52 7th Dive Detachment Contributes to Search for Missing Service 

Members

 By First Lieutenant Connor R. Wernecke

57 Survey Team Establishes New Geodedic Control 

 By Mr. Mark W. Huber and Mr. George H. Ohanian

ENGINEE

The Professional Bulletin of Army EngineersR

Front cover: U.S. Army Reserve Soldiers from the 449th 

Mobility Augmentation Company, 478th Engineer Battalion, 926th Engineer Brigade, 412th Theater Engineer 

Command, based at Fort Thomas, Kentucky, fire an inert 

Mine-Clearing Line Charge during a Gate III or section 

gunnery and Engineer Qualification Table X11 validation 

exercise at Fort Knox, Kentucky. (U.S. Army Reserve 

photograph by Sergeant First Class Clinton Wood)

Back cover: U.S. Army photos

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

By Brigadier General Robert F. Whittle Jr.

03 Lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major Trevor C.

Walker

04 Show the Way

By Chief Warrant Officer Five Jerome L. 

Bussey

34 Engineer Doctrine Update

54 Book Review: Engineering Victory: 

The Union Siege of Vicksburg

Reviewed by Mr. David S. (Scott) Franklin

55 Book Review: Dragons at War: Land 

Battle in the Desert

Reviewed by Mr. James E. Mc Carthy

60 Engineer Writer's Guide

61 Engineers' Creed

September–December 2018
2 Engineer September–December 2018

 

Clear the Way

Brigadier General Robert F. Whittle Jr.

97th Commandant, U.S. Army Engineer School

 

Initiative in the Engineer 

Regiment

I

nitiative has always been one of 

the great strengths of the Engineer Regiment. As exemplified by 

our motto, Essayons, initiative is the 

key to success for taming the physics of 

the modern battlefield and in arriving 

at engineering solutions for the U.S. 

Army. Initiative is also a vital element 

of mission command.

Mission command is defined as “the 

exercise of authority and direction by 

the commander using mission orders 

to enable disciplined initiative within 

the commander’s intent to empower 

agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations.”1

 The 

most important element in the success of mission command 

is the ability of the follower to exercise the initiative necessary to achieve the commander’s intent. I am emphasizing three important aspects of initiative to leaders at 

all echelons:

■ Recommend. Do not approach your boss and say, “Sir,

how do you want to use me and my formation?” Instead,

present your commander with several feasible courses of

action along with a recommendation about how to 

employ your unit. You are the expert regarding your

formation. If you simply ask what tasks your commander wants you to accomplish, you will not be able to

influence the missions that you receive.

■ Plan. Be comfortable forming plans without detailed

orders from your higher headquarters. Remember, mission orders are “directives that emphasize to subordinates the results to be attained, not how they are to 

achieve them.”2 When receiving orders, guidance, or

direction from commanders, focus on the task and purpose. Do not ask for details about how the commander

wants something done; that will 

constrain you, stifle your creativity,

and restrict the scope of your potential courses of action. Once you

receive a mission, apply the military

decision-making process and determine the resources that are needed

to achieve the task and purpose and

the specific support that is needed

from adjacent units and higher headquarters. Then, coordinate with your

headquarters to obtain the resources

and support needed to accomplish

the mission.

■ Execute. When executing, remember that the purpose is more important than the task. Battlefield conditions can change, and tasks may

no longer fit the situation. Consider

an example that I have heard relayed by our senior Army

leadership several times: If the task and purpose are to

take Hill 501 to destroy the enemy, but the enemy is on

Hill 502 and Hill 501 is empty, then take Hill 502 and

destroy the enemy. The final task differs from the original;

however, the situation changed—and the modified task

achieves the basic goal and facilitates victory. 

We will always simultaneously serve as followers and 

leaders. As followers, we must encourage our leaders to 

give us mission orders and we must take the initiative. As 

leaders, we must issue mission orders and tell our Soldiers 

what needs to be done—not how to do it. Encouraging and 

rewarding initiative will enable future victories on the battlefield and the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the American Soldier. 

Endnotes:

1

Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-0, Mission Command, 

17 May 2012.

2

Ibid.

“The most important element in the success of mission 

command is the ability of the follower to exercise the initiative 

necessary to achieve the commander’s intent.”
September–December 2018 Engineer 3

Lead the Way

Command Sergeant Major Trevor C. Walker

Regimental Command Sergeant Major

Essayons! As I write my last article as the U.S. Army Engineer 

School (USAES) command sergeant major, I want to start by expressing what an honor it has been to serve 

the Engineer Regiment for the past 

14 months. It has been a true privilege 

to serve with the Soldiers, civilians, and 

Families of this great organization. I 

want to thank each one of you for doing 

what you do every day to make this the 

best regiment in the Army. Words cannot express how proud I am of what you 

are doing to make sure that we remain 

ready to take on any mission that the 

Army gives us. Some of you may notice 

that there is not an immediate replacement for me; and for others, the transition may appear seamless. USAES does 

great work to make sure that the absence of one person does 

not create a single point of failure. The Engineer Personnel 

Development Office sergeant major will be filling the USAES 

command sergeant major gap until Brigadier General Robert 

F. Whittle selects my permanent successor in the near future.

In September of this year, I had the honor and privilege 

of continuing to serve our great Nation as the first command 

sergeant major of the Security Forces Assistance Command. 

This new command will oversee the five Regular Army security force assistance brigades and the only Army National 

Guard security force assistance brigade. The command 

will be headquartered in the U.S. Army Forces Command 

(FORSCOM) headquarters building at Fort Bragg, North 

Carolina. It is exciting to help build this new command and 

to be a part of history.

We continue to improve the readiness of the Army. In 

August, USAES received approval for recoding operations 

sergeant positions in brigade engineer battalions (BEBs) 

from master sergeants to sergeants major. This will occur 

in armored brigade combat team BEBs in fiscal year (FY) 

2020. These positions, available only to the regionally

aligned armored brigade combat 

teams, will be developmental assignments for new sergeants major to gain 

invaluable experience. This will maintain the momentum of force modernization within armored brigade combat team BEBs and will coincide with 

FORSCOM Commander General Robert B. Abrams’ Freedom 6 priorities:

■ Maximize unit readiness.

■ Operationalize the Army Total Force

policy.

■ Master the fundamentals.

■ Strengthen leader development.

■ Care for Soldiers, civilians, and

Families.

■ Inform the force of the future.1

In May, USAES received a U.S. Army Training and 

Doctrine Command tasking to resource the increased 

length of Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 12B, 

Combat Engineer, and MOS 12C, Bridge Crew Member, One-Station Unit Training, expanding it from 14 to 

22 weeks. Upcoming changes to Basic Combat Training in 

FY 19 will place more emphasis on the basics and reflect 

a decisive-action training environment while increasing 

Soldier lethality, one of the six Chief of Staff of the Army 

modernization priorities, which are—

■ Long-range precision fires.

■ Next-generation combat vehicle.

■ Future vertical lift.

■ Army network.

■ Air and missile defense.

■ Soldier lethality.

We are still in the planning phases of the One-Station 

Unit Training extension. The outcome will be that units 

receive better-trained, more disciplined engineers with 

“Thank you for your leadership and professionalism. 

The Engineer Regiment cannot accomplish the mission 

without your continued support.”

(continued on page 5)
4 Engineer September–December 2018

 

Chief Warrant Officer Five Jerome L. Bussey

Regimental Chief Warrant Officer

Show the Way 

Greetings from the U.S. Army 

Engineer Regiment and 

School. As always, our engineer warrant officers continue to 

enhance the capabilities of our leaders by providing sound technical engineering advice. They continue to train 

and gain the requisite skills to lead 

their teams. Our instructors continue 

to develop creative ways to challenge 

our students in Warrant Officer Basic, 

Advanced, and Intermediate-Level 

Education Courses at Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri. 

Command Sergeant Major Trevor 

C. Walker departed as our school command sergeant major. He is at Fort 

Bragg, North Carolina, serving as the 

first Security Forces Assistance Command Sergeant Major. Command Sergeant Major Walker 

was instrumental to the Engineer Regiment. Not only did he 

tackle relevant issues related to noncommissioned officers, 

but he also assisted in shaping the warrant officers and commissioned officers of the Regiment. Thanks, Command Sergeant Major Walker, for all you have done for the Regiment. I 

know you will have a huge impact on your new organization.

Our instructors continue to challenge our students 

to reach higher levels of learning and to be the technical experts on whom our leaders can count. After 6 years 

of gathering dust in Brown Hall, our LabVolt© system was 

revived by our team. This system is designed to provide 

our students with realistic training on alternate-current 

power transmissions—training that was lacking in previous 

classes. It was astounding to see the work that our Military 

Occupational Specialty (MOS) 120A, Construction Engineering Technician, Warrant Officer Basic Course students 

put in on various projects during the course. Students in the 

last graduating class examined ways to create electricity 

using thermoelectric-generation technology; they demonstrated the characteristics of a soft-start motor controller for 

a three-phase motor circuit. Another team used an ammunition box to build a waterproof, multifunctional radio, which 

featured a solar/wind-charging cable, a USB charging port, 

and wireless connectivity to play music from a smartphone 

or other smart device. These are just some of the projects 

developed by students in Phase III of the MOS 120A Warrant Officer Basic Course.

Instructors of the MOS 125D, Geospatial Engineering Technician, Warrant 

Officer Advanced Course are training the

students to write scripts using common

industry standard programming languages and applications. These scripts

emphasize solving labor-intensive tasks

and eliminating complex workflows that 

are currently used. Geospatial tasks 

are becoming increasingly complex and 

time-consuming, and traditional tools 

and workflows are not capable of meeting the challenges that lie ahead. We are 

placing emphasis on data science, automation, and computational thinking to 

meet these challenges and demands. The 

last Warrant Officer Advanced Course 

capstone project demonstrated the complexity of the course and the added rigor 

to ensure that the students are receiving the best and most 

up-to-date training, which will provide our leaders with a 

timely common operational picture. 

Congratulations to all fiscal year 2018 warrant officer 

selectees. You are about to embark on a rewarding and challenging career change; but always remember, you are still 

Soldiers and must continue to do Soldierly things. Just as 

you were a top-notch noncommissioned officer, we want you 

to be the best engineer warrant officer that you can be. We 

had a good year of assessing and selecting engineer noncommissioned officers to be engineer warrant officers. Although 

the number of packet submissions doubled from last year, 

we cannot be complacent, thinking that our mission is complete. The fiscal year 2019 mission has increased the need 

for quality noncommissioned officers to become engineer 

warrant officers. Thanks to all our noncommissioned officers, warrant officers, and commissioned officers for helping 

with this effort; we appreciate your hard work in helping the 

warrant officer cohort. Soldiers who want to be an engineer 

warrant officer can visit the following Web sites: 

■ U.S. Army Warrant Officer Recruiting Prerequisites for

MOS 120A, <http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant

/prerequ/WO120A.shtml>.

■ U.S. Army Warrant Officer Recruiting Prerequisites for

MOS 125D, <http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant

/prerequ/WO125D.shtml>.
September–December 2018 Engineer 5

 

Over the past few months, engineer warrant officers 

have been making an impact in the field and leading engineering teams in many locations around the globe. They are 

providing technical expertise for building and improving 

roads on U.S. Marine bases; improving parking lots at the 

Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana; and 

assisting the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

and other U.S. government agencies with the collection 

and processing of geospatial data. Stay tuned for future 

Engineer and Army Engineer articles that will showcase 

the significant impacts our warrant officers are having in 

the field.

Team, thank you for being there when called upon. 

ESSAYONS!

(Lead the Way, continued from page 3)

increased mental and physical toughness. The extension 

will reduce first-unit-of-assignment training and integration tasks. More information is contained in the regimental 

update that Brigadier General Whittle sent out to leaders 

of the Engineer Regiment in July. The update is also posted 

on the Army Career Tracker Career Management Field 

(CMF) 12 enlisted community blog site.

In July, we received approval for an MOS 125D, Geospatial Engineering Technician, degree plan with Park University. This degree plan offers a bachelor of science in geography degree for 125Ds. Park University has awarded credit 

for training that has already been completed in the Army 

to help 125D Soldiers pursue their degrees. Soldiers can 

find information about this program on the Army U Web 

page at <https://armyu.army.mil/> and on the engineer credentialing milsuite site at <https://www.milsuite.mil/book

/groups/engineer-credentialing-forum/overview>. This is a 

great opportunity for 125Ds to begin or continue working on 

their degrees and to receive credit for training that they have 

already completed. This is just the beginning for the Engineer Regiment; we are also currently working on a degree 

plan for MOS 12Y, Geospatial Engineer. We will continue to 

pursue degree plans for all of our engineer MOSs, providing 

a platform for our Soldiers to be successful. In the future, the 

Regiment will be working with Park University to provide 

the same opportunities for our MOS 12N, Horizontal Construction Engineer; MOS 12H, Construction Engineering 

Supervisor; and MOS 12T, Technical Engineer, in the form 

of a construction management degree. Our goal is to provide 

a degree path for all CMF 12 Soldiers. As we complete each 

program, it will be added to the Army U site and the engineer credentialing milsuite page.

The Chief of Staff of the Army has approved the Army 

Combat Fitness Test. This physical fitness test is based on 

unit and/or individual occupational physical demands. Occupational fitness requirements for close-combat battalion and 

below units will be maintained regardless of age or gender. The Army Combat Fitness Test is scheduled to replace 

the Army Physical Fitness Test of record for the Army no 

later than the first quarter of FY 21. In FY 19, 60 battalions across the Regular Army, Army National Guard, and 

U.S. Army Reserve will be selected to run a pilot test on the 

scoring and equipment standards ahead of the first year of 

Army implementation, scheduled for FY 20. More information on the Army Combat Fitness Test can be found on the 

Army Career Tracker CMF 12 enlisted community page at 

<https://actnow.army.mil/>.

I want to continue to urge you to frequently visit the 

Army Career Tracker CMF 12 enlisted community page 

to view policy updates and initiatives currently being 

worked by the Engineer Regiment. There are approximately 

90,000 Regular Army and Reserve Component Soldiers in 

the Engineer Regiment, and the community page has only 

about 5,000 members at this time; however, membership is 

steadily increasing. If you are not a member, I urge you to 

become one. As a member of the page, you will receive messages when there are additions from the newsletter. This 

can help you stay informed about what is going on within 

the Regiment. In addition, USAES will initiate questions in 

the blog area on this site, asking opinions on initiatives or 

possible changes. We want your feedback because the outcome will likely affect you in the future. We also want your 

feedback on the community page itself. Does it have everything it should have? If there is something that you think is 

important but is not on the page, please let us know. It is all 

a part of improving the Engineer Regiment.

I want to thank the USAES staff, 1st Engineer Brigade, 

the Office of the Chief of Engineers, and the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence team. Thank you for your leadership and professionalism. The Engineer Regiment cannot 

accomplish the mission without your continued support. 

Also, thanks to all engineers across the Army; you are all 

true professionals, and I look forward to seeing your accomplishments in the upcoming years. I have the utmost confidence in the way the Engineer Regiment is headed, and I 

know that you all will benefit from the hard work that everyone does at USAES and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Finally, I really enjoyed the time I spent as your USAES 

command sergeant major. This was truly one of the best 

positions I have had in my time in the military. The best 

parts were visiting the engineer units to see everything 

that is going on to support the Army mission and being an 

advocate for those units, helping them with their mission 

sets. Thanks for letting me be a part of your team. Sapper 7

fading out. 

Essayons!

Endnote:

1Paul Boyce, “Abrams: Make a Difference for Soldiers,” 

<https://www.army.mil/article/181058/abrams_make_a

_difference_for_soldiers>, accessed on 28 August 2018. 
6 Engineer September–December 2018

“This is not a time to think about your house; a time to 

think about your earthly possessions. This is a time to think 

about securing your life, the lives of your children, the lives 

of your neighbors”1

Hurricane Irma ripped through the islands of Saint

Thomas and Saint John on 6 September 2017,

 with wind speeds of more than 140 miles per hour.2

Within weeks, Hurricane Maria, a second Category 5 storm, 

hit Saint Croix, Saint John, and Saint Thomas, wiping out 

what Hurricane Irma had missed. This was an unprecedented disaster for the Virgin Island Territories, leaving 

them flooded, powerless, and damaged beyond imagination.3

 Support forces under the Emergency Management 

Assistance Compact4

 arrived in the territories within days 

after the hurricanes hit, and a joint task force (JTF) was 

established on 26 September 2017. An infantry brigade combat team (BCT) stood up and initially commanded the JTF 

until the arrival of the 67th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade (MEB), Nebraska Army National Guard, on 14 October 

2017.5

 This article summarizes the 67th MEB experiences 

and lessons learned during the mission. The 67th identified 

key points for advanced planning for the JTF and the addition of MEB capabilities.

Advanced Planning Considerations

Supporting fellow Americans in disaster relief is an 

honor and responsibility. It is an honor to work with 

the best military and civilian leaders in the world and 

a responsibility in that it provides an opportunity to offer 

input for improved response capabilities in the future. This 

specific experience indicated that three advanced planning 

considerations need to be implemented now. 

First, the assigned JTF should come from an inland 

state that is not affected by the storm. For hurricane relief 

in U.S. territories, this specification does not include coastline states that have experienced or are preparing to experience the hurricane season themselves. Assistance should 

come from farther inland. Being at the epicenter of a disaster significantly reduces the capabilities of the JTF. For 

example, JTF members may have limited access to equipment, which may have been damaged, or they may have 

Families who need their Soldiers and civilian leaders home 

with them. The JTF is responsible for giving the supported 

area a chance to “catch its breath” until the transition 

phase, when the impacted area can take over its own hurricane relief.

Second, with assets (including commercial assets) such as 

airlift and sealift in short supply, the economy of planning 

and assigning an appropriate JTF should not involve multiple rotations of units during limited timeframes of operational need. The JTF for the Virgin Island mission consisted 

of two separate brigades that executed all levels of mission 

planning and mission execution and a transition of authority weeks into the disaster. Imagine a race car driver stopping his or her car in the middle of the racetrack to change 

drivers with only a few laps to go. The lesson to be learned 

from this metaphor is that the transition of authority from 

one brigade to another within weeks of the initial unit’s 

defense support of civil authorities (DSCA) assignment is 

akin to stopping a race car mid-race to change not only the 

driver but also the motor and pit crew.

Third, assigning the right size and appropriate JTF for 

DSCA missions is important. The transition between a BCT 

and MEB would be appropriate in a combat zone as forces 

move through phase lines within a division area of operation. 

A MEB would not be the right size of unit to assign to forward 

line operations at the start of a combat mission; however, 

the initial assignment of an infantry BCT was essentially 

the wrong tool for the DSCA operation. MEBs “provide an 

economy-of-force capability so that BCTs or maneuver units 

By Colonel Jan K. Behn, Colonel Craig W. Strong, Lieutenant Colonel James R. Hewitt, 

Major Jeremy D. Chancellor, Major Jonathan D. Wymer, and Major Alex M. Zeller

From Deploying a MEB

 to a DSCA Operation

Lessons Learned

“A commander with the right tools is 

prepared to evolve with the mission 

to ensure that the needs of the operational phases are anticipated and 

that unforeseen needs arising . . can 

be engaged in a smart manner.”
September–December 2018 Engineer 7

can focus on combat operations.”6

 This does not mean that a 

BCT is not capable or that the unit assigned to the mission 

is not able to execute in an honorable and professional manner. MEBs are literally designed to support missions such 

as domestic disaster relief. According to Lieutenant Colonel 

Trevor J. Mann (Virgin Island Counterdrug Coordinator), 

“The BCT brought an infantry mission command. The difference is the MEB was more uniquely designed to command 

here because of the mission of a MEB.”7

Memorandums of agreement should be established 

between specific units/JTFs and territories as soon as possible and in advance. Once in place, the framework to identify 

needs, capabilities, and response actions could be planned 

ahead of time. Proactive efforts taken under a memorandum 

of agreement with a previously assigned territory partner 

establish a networked relationship and, more importantly, 

a level of trust that affects open, honest communication and 

shared expectations and goals from the start of mobilization 

to the stand-down. Agreements and plans include provisions 

for regional training with territorial partners, reconnaissance, and terrain familiarization. They should also include 

advanced monitoring/awareness of factors that might result 

in deployment, such as weather conditions and the identification of advanced-party needs for transitioning to the zone 

prior to the disaster strike, preplanning for the movement 

of equipment and personnel to and from the site, and evaluating the equipment and personnel needed for the anticipated mission (including linking/relationship building with 

on-site points of contact required to execute assignments 

before arrival).

Design of the JTF

The JTF assigned to a DSCA mission can expect the 

following operational requirements when considering key tasks for disaster operations:

■ Security.

■ Medical support.

■ Chemical hazards detection.

■ Route clearing and debris removal.

■ Supply distribution.

■ Joint reception staging and integration.

■ Personnel tracking.

For environments like those of the islands, aviation 

and sea movement capabilities should be included. The 

assigned JTF must be multifunctional and able to bring 

together multiple capabilities to work in unison and in 

coordination with civilian leaders. The JTF also needs 

to plan for transitions within the mission as the environment begins to stabilize between the response and recovery phases.8

 Improved response time by local authorities 

can reduce immediate security issues related to looting. 

Transition to a more robust distribution operation may 

occur as roadways are cleared. The JTF commander must 

have access to unit resources and an understanding of how 

A Soldier from the 67th MEB assists with a clean-up project at a local St. Croix cemetery, ensuring that 

the graves of Soldiers and first responders were set back in place.
8 Engineer September–December 2018

transitioning capabilities can and should be used, if available. Should a cook be assigned to control traffic? Should a 

military police Soldier be used to deliver supplies? Should 

either be assigned to clear roadways with construction 

equipment? How much risk can a commander assume if 

the needs start to outweigh the availability of troops in the 

assignment of tasks? The more knowledge and practice the 

JTF commander has with multifunctional support options, 

the easier it will be to anticipate the needs of the mission 

and thoughtfully advise civilian authorities about the capabilities and limitations of available resources.

The 67th MEB also significantly benefited from the 

assignment of joint personnel, such as a U.S. Air Force strategic air planner and an Army aviation liaison. The Nebraska 

National Guard is blessed to have the capabilities of its own 

internal air wing (155th Air Refueling Wing) for air assets 

and subject matter experts. Other areas that integrated and 

worked seamlessly with the staff were the judge advocate 

general and the chaplain. The assignment of a contingency 

contracting team and public affairs officer was deemed vital 

for establishing long-term resource support and assisting in 

telling the “Guard story” in the area of operations.

Being a multifunctional Army National Guard brigade 

ensured that not only could staff fill key roles, but their civilian skills could also be called upon as well. In the 67th MEB 

example, the adjutant for the unit was also a reporter for a 

local news station, enabling public affairs officer support. A 

commander with the right tools is prepared to evolve with the 

mission to ensure that the needs of the operational phases 

are anticipated and that unforeseen needs arising from chaotic disaster sites can be addressed in a smart manner.

MEB Capabilities

The MEB is uniquely structured to handle all tasks 

that might potentially be assigned to a BCT, but 

with added expertise in key DSCA operationsrelated fields such as engineering; military police; hazmat; 

and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear areas. 

As a modular brigade headquarters, the organization can 

track and control operations in the operational environment 

and be prepared to request and receive force structure to 

augment mission success. Lieutenant Colonel Mann asks, 

“What’s one of the first boots on the ground we want? We 

want military police and engineer assets. The MEB has 

military police and engineers . . . that are in your table of 

organization and equipment. The MEB has military police 

and engineers assigned to you. They are units that you know 

how to command and control and you employ in your fight, 

so it should come natural.”9

 In a division support area, the 

MEB is responsible for—

■ Managing terrain.

■ Collecting information.

■ Informing and influencing activities.

■ Controlling air and ground movement.

■ Targeting.

■ Clearing fires.

■ Conducting security.

■ Recovering personnel.

■ Considering environmental impacts.

■ Conducting minimal essential stability tasks. 

The MEB controls the terrain within its assigned area of

operations, which allows freedom of mobility for operational

Soldiers from the 67th MEB help clean up a school in Saint Croix.
September–December 2018 Engineer 9

and tactical commanders.10 In DSCA operations, the primary 

tasks include chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear 

operations; support to civilian law enforcement agencies; 

and other tasks that ensure the success of disaster relief 

efforts during postincident response. The MEB is designed 

to provide mission command over chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear and military police units that can support typical disaster relief tasks. 

The 67th MEB oversaw aviation operations to help 

transport personnel and equipment throughout the three 

islands, provided logistical resupply to include refueling 

the generators that kept emergency personnel able to operate equipment, and provided military police support to the 

local Virgin Island police departments. The MEB has an 

advanced understanding of military policing operations, 

which allowed the command post to more effectively battletrack operations on the ground and provide more expertise 

to subordinate units augmenting the local Virgin Island 

police departments. Additionally, the MEB provided support 

to other units such as medical professionals who augmented 

local hospitals and preventative medicine personnel who 

inspected areas for significant hazards, such as mold and 

disease. The multifunctional headquarters of the MEB was 

able to adjust to changing tasks throughout its time as the 

mission command nexus during operations. 

Placing liaison officers (including one Airman who was a 

subject matter expert in Federal Emergency Management 

Agency operations and related incident command system 

documents and requirements) alongside Virgin Island territorial emergency management agency personnel also paid 

dividends. The relationships built with civilian leadership 

in the emergency management arena improved mission 

success and provided networking opportunities that should 

be built upon so that lessons learned and best practices are 

not lost and preparations for future hurricane seasons can 

be made.

Conclusion

According to Mr. David W. Haas, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency Deputy Chief for the Virgin

.Island mission, “We couldn’t have done it without 

the [Army] National Guard or Department of Defense, especially early on in the disaster. You are the 911 force; you are 

who we rely on significantly to fill capability gaps early on in 

any disaster, as responders are overwhelmed.”11 Assuming 

this statement to be true (and we do), how are we capitalizing on this belief? The hurricane planning season for next 

year is now. Partnerships need to be formally established, 

and units need to be begin initial planning and training. We 

have experienced the what, when, where, why, and how, but 

the who needs to be solidified in a more timely and thoughtful fashion before we find ourselves too deep within the eye 

of the next storm.

Endnotes:

1

Don Buchanan, “Governor Says Territory Must Prepare for 

Maria,” The Source, 17 September 2017, <https://stcroixsource

.com/2017/09/16/governor-says-territory-must-prepare-for

-maria/>, accessed on 31 July 2018.

2

A. J. Willingham, “A Look at Four Storms From One Brutal

Hurricane Season,” 21 November 2017, <http://www.cnn.com

/2017/10/10/weather/hurricane-nate-maria-irma-harvey-impact

-look-back-trnd/index.html>, accessed on 31 August 2018. 

3

Cory Schouten, “The Caribbean’s Long Hard Road to Normalcy after Irma,” 13 September 2017, <https://www.cbsnews.com

/news/hurricane-irma-caribbean-islands-severe-damage/>, 

accessed on 29 July 2018.

4

What is EMAC?, 2011,<https://emacweb.org/index.php/learn

-about-emac/what-is-emac>, accessed on 18 September 2018.

5

Don Walton, “Guard Unit From Nebraska Headed to Virgin

Islands,” 13 October 2017, <http://journalstar.com/news/local

/guard-unit-from-nebraska-headed-to-virgin-islands/article

_b3fca12c-07f0-51d5-99da-f1fbef622e69.html>, accessed on

29 July 2018.

6

Field Manual (FM) 3-81, Maneuver Enhancement Brigade, 

21 April 2014.

7

Trevor J. Mann, personal interview with Second Lieutenant 

Rachel Hofstra, 11 November 2017.

8

Joint Publication 3-28, Defense Support of Civil Authorities, 

31 July 2013.

9

Mann, 2017.

10FM 3-81.

11David Haas, personal interview with Second Lieutenant 

Hofstra, 10 November 2017.

Colonel Behn is the director of Domestic Operations, Joint 

Force Headquarters, Nebraska Army National Guard. She is 

a graduate of the Advanced Operations Course. She holds a 

bachelor’s degree in education from the University of Nebraska, 

Lincoln.

Colonel Strong is the commander of the 67th MEB. He is 

a graduate of the U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, 

Pennsylvania. He holds a master’s degree in economics from the 

University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Lieutenant Colonel Hewitt is the plans officer for the 67th 

MEB. He is a graduate of the Command and General Staff Officer Course and the Intermediate-Level Education course, Fort 

McCoy, Wisconsin. He holds a master’s degree in management 

from Doane University, Crete, Nebraska.

Major Chancellor is in charge of logistics for the 67th MEB. 

He is a graduate of the Command and General Staff Officer 

Course and the Intermediate-Level Education course, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He holds a master’s degree in information 

management from Grantham University, Lenexa, Kansas.

Major Wymer is the chaplain for the 67th MEB. He is a graduate of the U.S. Army Advanced Operations Course. He holds a 

doctorate of ministry degree from Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, Evanston, Illinois.

Major Zeller is in charge of operational planning and training for the 67th MEB. He is a graduate of the U.S. Army Maneuver Captains Career Course. He holds a bachelor of fine arts 

degree from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
10 Engineer September–December 2018

Camp Patriot, Kuwait, was the military melting pot 

at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Stood up 

in January 2003 by a cohabitating U.S. Navy and 

U.S. Marine presence, Camp Patriot served as the staging 

ground for U.S. military forces entering Iraq. Embedded 

within the larger Mohammed Al-Ahmed Naval Base and 

commonly referred to as Kuwait Naval Base (KNB), Camp 

Patriot quickly became a strategic and enduring location 

for sustained operations. “We are guests here,” said Captain Donald P. Cook, the first commanding officer of Camp 

Patriot, in 2003.1

 “Our role and our relationship is and has 

been extremely important to our hosts, and our relationship 

has developed into a very unique friendship that can never 

be forgotten,” he added.2 

Over the course of time, oversight of the camp has transitioned from Navy, to Marine, and then to U.S. Army units. 

Field artillery, infantry, and engineer units have called 

Camp Patriot home since its establishment 15 years ago.

In January 2018, the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

decided that U.S Army Central Command (ARCENT), as the 

predominant user of the location, would relieve U.S. Naval 

Forces Central Command and become the lead Service for 

KNB. This action was the latest in Army-level oversight on 

the development of Camp Patriot. 

ARCENT, which established its foothold in KNB in 2005, 

had drafted the initial Camp Patriot master plan, published 

in 2008. As is typical of other military master plans, the 

Camp Patriot master plan provided guidance on the future 

of the camp infrastructure, renovations, new construction, 

and occupation. Unfortunately, in reality, minimal improvements were approved for Camp Patriot over the course of the 

decade since the master plan was written.

Members of the 40th Brigade Engineer Battalion (BEB) 

became the most recent occupants and custodians of 

Camp Patriot in November 2017. As garrison command lead 

for Camp Patriot, the “Battering Rams” battalion hosted a 

By Lieutenant Colonel David W. Noble

Planning and Executing Installation 

Improvements in Kuwait
September–December 2018 Engineer 11

theater-wide effort for an updated installation master plan 

at KNB a month later. Battalion representatives overseeing 

construction, camp operations, and force protection activities were integrated with the master planners to develop a 

revised master plan more suitable for the evolving operational purpose of the site. These personnel kept in mind 

the words of Major General Meredith “Bo” Temple, former 

U.S. Army Chief of Engineers, who in the January 2008 

edition of Public Works Digest, states, “Area development 

plans are, basically, mini master plans that enable an installation to complete a comprehensive planning process that

is National Environmental Policy Act-compliant and sustainable, resulting in a holistic set of requirements sited 

in a well-planned community. This process achieves goals 

of sustainable development and creates quality neighborhoods that are walkable and are great places to work, live, 

and play.”3

During the December 2017 Camp Patriot master plan 

development sessions, the 40th BEB, working with Cornell, 

Howland, Hayes, and Merryfield (CH2M); the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers; ARCENT; and Area Support Group–

Kuwait engineers, developed a proposal that would exponentially improve Camp Patriot. 

Engineers at Camp Patriot have initiated many of the 

projects incorporated in the master plan during the December 2017 planning sessions. Officers and noncommissioned 

officers began the planning and execution of renovations, 

new construction, and relocations of many facilities across 

the site in accordance with the master plan. Degreed engineers were afforded the opportunity to refresh their knowledge by taking project ownership, developing construction 

designs, and establishing timelines to organize various 

projects. 

Facilities and activities at Camp Patriot (top left: the dining facility; top right: the chapel 

entrance; bottom: a flag ceremony)
12 Engineer September–December 2018

Phase 1 electrical, water, sewage, latrine, and shower 

projects were initiated through the Department of Public 

Works. The camp motor pools, originally at two separate 

locations, were consolidated into one motor pool. The repurposing of existing structures increased transient billeting 

capacity by 50 percent. The creation of the town center consolidated the chapel; fitness center; education center; and 

Morale, Welfare, and Recreation facilities into one central 

area, increasing resiliency. Over the course of the deployment, the battalion implemented trafficability, utility, operational, and quality-of-life improvements.

The incoming 150th BEB, Mississippi Army National 

Guard, recently conducted its predeployment site survey of 

KNB and Camp Patriot. The reconnaissance included extensive emphasis on the initiatives started by the 40th BEB. 

The ability to transition the master plan and provide direction and guidance to continue ongoing efforts resulted in a 

minimum 18-month period to accomplish the original planning goals. At the current rate, the improvements, along 

with Phase II–IV efforts, will have a positive impact on 

Camp Patriot for years to come.

During the 2017–2018 battalion deployment to Kuwait in 

Support of Operation Spartan Shield, engineers were able 

to capitalize on the vast technical opportunities that managing Camp Patriot afforded. Leaders became more knowledgeable about base camp and project management through 

the adherence to, and implementation and oversight of, the 

Camp Patriot master plan.

Endnotes:

1

Joseph Krypel, Camp Patriot: Rotating Door of Diversity, 

7 May 2003, <http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story

_id=7299>, accessed on 30 July 2018.

2

Ibid.

3

Merideth Temple, “Master Planning—The Essential Process to Manage Change,” Public Works Digest, January 2008, 

p. 3. 

Lieutenant Colonel Noble is the commander of the 40th Brigade Engineer Battalion, Fort Bliss, Texas. He holds a bachelor’s degree in communications from the University of Tampa, 

Florida, and a master’s degree in business administration from 

the University of Phoenix.

Grading of the expansion area to allow follow-on Wheeled fleet at the new expansion area

occupation

Ribbon-cutting ceremony for a maintenance bay Installation of temporary perimeter fencing to secure 

the expansion area

Motor pool expansion
September–December 2018 Engineer 13

Big changes are occurring at the U.S. Army Engineer 

School (USAES), Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and 

the Engineer Basic Officer Leader Course (EBOLC). 

These changes are being driven by recent developments in 

doctrine and policy, as well as feedback from U.S. Army 

Forces Command (FORSCOM) units and collective-training

establishments. In light of changing demands from the field 

Army, the Department of Instruction, USAES, engaged with 

numerous stakeholders, including the Combat Training 

Center and Army National Guard, U.S. Army Reserve, and 

operational force leaders, to obtain feedback on the capabilities of new platoon leaders to identify where training can 

be improved to better prepare future leaders. This feedback 

and the subsequent revision process were the result of a 

critical-task and site selection board, held in March 2018, 

which brought in leaders from a broad range of Regular 

Army, Army National Guard, and U.S. Army Reserve engineer units to use a critical eye to review tasks taught during EBOLC. The outcome was a comprehensive new Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 12A, Engineer Officer, 

critical-task list that was approved by the USAES commandant for implementation in associated professional military 

education courses. Combining the realignment of the course 

with updated Field Manual (FM) 3-0, Operations,

1

 EBOLC 

is designed to better prepare platoon leaders for the threats 

and missions associated with large-scale combat operations 

versus counterinsurgency operations. 

Feedback and doctrine updates have resulted in significant changes to the content, context, and focus of teaching 

within the Tactics Division of EBOLC. Heavily impacted 

areas include— 

■ Decisive action. The Stability Operations Module of

the course has been reduced, and the Assured Mobility

Module has been transitioned to reflect new emphasis on 

forced-entry operations. Forced-entry operations training

supports the decisive-action planning and execution

emphasized in FM 3-0.2 While route clearance operations are still important to the assured mobility mission, 

the emphasis on breaching enemy obstacles and gap

crossing has increased.

■ Task force engineer. An entire Task Force Engineer 

Module has been created to emphasize the importance of 

the mission and help the new engineer lieutenant differentiate between platoon leader responsibilities and

responsibilities of the task force engineer. New engineer 

leaders will be exposed to staff responsibilities and instructed on integrating staff planning into platoon operations

under the maneuver task force model.

■ Field training exercise. In the updated construct, the 

time that students spend in the field has been increased 

by 30 percent, allowing more time for officers to develop

and practice their tactical knowledge and understanding 

while being assessed under pressure. Field Training Exercise I focuses on common small-unit tactics to ensure that

students understand basic Army Techniques Publication

(ATP) 3-21.8, Infantry Platoon and Squad, tactical operations and team-through-platoon-echelon leadership roles

in the field.3 It also establishes a universal foundation 

upon which Soldiers can build before undertaking 

engineer-focused missions in subsequent field training

exercises. Field Training Exercise II introduces engineer mobility, counter-mobility, and survivability tasks

By Major Niall T. McCracken, Captain Adam J. Leemans, and Mr. John R. Espe

Engineer Basic Officer Leaders Course Modernization

Training Engineer Leaders of the Future:
14 Engineer September–December 2018

that were studied in the classroom environment. Field

Training Exercise III builds upon these tasks at the

platoon level in support of a maneuver formation operating in a more dynamic and complex environment

against a peer/near-peer threat. 

■ General engineering. The General Engineering Division 

of EBOLC is charged with providing a baseline understanding of construction and bridging missions to every 

new officer in the Engineer Regiment. This task is difficult

due to the fact that not all students have a background in

construction or engineering. The instructors must know

how to engage students to ensure that the material is 

challenging enough for degreed engineers and not too 

overwhelming for students who are new to engineering 

concepts. In an effort to match the requirements of the

Engineer Regiment and to reflect changes recommended 

by the critical-task and site selection board, the division

completed a module overhaul. The focus transitioned

from creating technical experts to developing project

managers with technical understanding. This better prepares EBOLC graduates to apply resource and time management skills to any mission that they encounter. It also 

sets the conditions for future construction platoon leaders to fill the role of a project manager who trusts his or

her noncommissioned officers and warrant officers to provide experience and technical expertise.

■ Project management. EBOLC has always included 

some project management-related instruction; however,

it was not always clear how it related to the rest of the 

material in the course. All of the project management

instruction is now presented at the beginning of the

construction portion of the General Engineering Module.

Students begin by learning about the different constructtion MOSs, the various construction units in the Engineer Regiment, and the roles and responsibilities

within those construction units. The instruction then

focuses on how to break a project down into individual

construction activities, estimate durations, sequences, and

schedule activities. This logically leads to the criticalpath method of scheduling, generating Gantt© charts, and

learning how to level resources. Lastly, students learn

how to develop a bill of materials, quality control plan,

and safety plan. The final test requires that students

apply these lessons and develop a plan to complete a 

small construction project using joint construction 

management software and Microsoft® Project®.

■ Technical leaders. Throughout the horizontal- and 

vertical-construction blocks of instruction, certain learning objectives were reevaluated to determine their relevancy. In one example, students spent half a day learning how to estimate earthwork volumes using the counting squares and stripper methods. These methods are

generally inaccurate and have been largely replaced by 

software such as Terramodel®. Furthermore, warrant

officers and MOS 12T, Technical Engineers, are trained

to estimate earthwork volume. This class was modified

to include how earthwork volumes are calculated and 

to focus on how to most efficiently move the material

around a worksite. These changes have resulted in 

drastically improved engagement from students, who 

have a better understanding of their roles and responsibilities as platoon leaders when their platoons are

engaged in missions of these types.

An EBOLC student briefs his analogue OPORD.
September–December 2018 Engineer 15

■ Interactive learning. Another major revision across 

the course was a reemphasis on homework. By having 

students preread modules, more class time is spent on 

discussions and hands-on training. For example, in the 

utilities class, what was formerly classroom instruction 

delivered primarily through a PowerPoint® presentation

became an interactive class taught in a Southeast Asian

hut with exposed utilities. The instructor, an MOS 12H, 

Construction Engineering Supervisor, led students 

around the structure, showing them how the utilities were

installed. The structure contains intentional design flaws 

throughout, enabling the instructor to show the students

how plumbing is installed in right and wrong ways. Time

for this type of instruction is only possible because students are required to review the material before class. A 

graded quiz is given each morning to assess students’ 

comprehension of the reading assignment. While some

pushback might be expected from the students, they

actually enjoy this style of instruction because the classroom time is better spent solving practical, realistic 

problems.

Units receiving EBOLC graduates get officers with a

strong understanding of the fundamentals of engineer 

operations at the platoon level. These officers have a solid 

grasp of mission planning and operations order production 

and briefing, competence in combat and general engineering, and a knowledge of project management processes and 

geospatial fundamentals. They have a baseline knowledge 

of task force engineer duties and planning processes. And 

they have been educated on garrison functions, including 

training, personnel, maintenance, and supply management 

at the platoon level. However, gaining units must understand that these officers are not finished products and that 

they still have much to do to master the fundamentals of 

leadership at the junior company grade level. This is why 

unit level leader development programs are so important. 

Recommended focus areas for new

lieutenant development for companies and battalions include planning/

conduct of qualification ranges, 

platoon/company/battalion battle 

rhythm events, counseling and development of subordinates, maintenance of/accounting for equipment,

and building of confidence in integrating and interacting with maneuver commanders in a tactical environment over a long period of time.

Conclusion

Revisions across technical 

and tactical aspects of engineer officer training have 

resulted in a course that is more 

relevant and more engaging for new 

officers and better meets the needs 

of the operating force. Ultimately, 

these changes are possible as a result of the hard work and 

dedication of a team of highly motivated instructors from 

the USAES Department of Instruction and the 554th Engineer Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood, who are committed to 

continuously improving training and building future engineer leaders. If you would like to join this team and help 

prepare the next leaders of the Engineer Regiment to meet 

the challenges of the future, then please contact the EBOLC 

chief by telephone at (573) 239-0009 or e-mail at <usarmy

.leonardwood.engineer-schl.mbx.dotlddoi@mail.mil>.

Endnotes: 

1

FM 3-0, Operations, 6 October 2017.

2

Ibid.

3

ATP 3-21.8, Infantry Platoon and Squad, 28 April 2016.

Major McCracken is a senior instructor at USAES. He holds a 

master’s degree in management from Robert Gordon University, 

Aberdeen, Scotland, and is currently working toward a master 

of arts degree in military and security studies at King’s College, 

London, with a focus on Arabian geopolitics. His military training includes the Intermediate Command and Staff College at the 

Defence Academy, Shrivenham, United Kingdom.

Captain Leemans is the chief of the General Engineering Division, USAES. He holds a bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering from the U.S. Military Academy–West Point, 

New York, and a master of science degree in energy and sustainability from the University of Southampton, United Kingdom. 

He is a professional engineer (mechanical engineering), project 

management professional, and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design©-accredited professional for building design 

and construction. 

Mr. Espe is the chief of the Tactics Division, EBOLC. He 

holds a bachelor’s degree in social science from Washington 

State University, Pullman. He is a retired major and a graduate 

of the Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

EBOLC students prepare demolition charges.
By Mr. Dennis G. Hutchinson

I

n 2017, the Army Capability Integration Center 

(ARCIC) initiated a new, live, prototype experiment 

venue–the Maneuver Support, Sustainment, Protection, 

Integration Experiment (MSSPIX). This article describes 

how government and private-sector organizations can participate in this new experiment.

The venue is one of four integration experiment venues 

organized under the Army Capability Integration Center 

Live Prototype Assessment (ALPA) effort. The other three 

are the Army Expeditionary Warrior Experiment at Fort 

Benning, Georgia; the Maneuver Fires Integration Experiment at Fort Sill, Oklahoma; and Cyber Quest at Fort Gordon, Georgia. All of these venues are intended to execute 

an annual assessment of prototype technologies that provide 

Soldiers with new or improved capabilities. As noted in the 

Army Campaign of Learning, Annual Planning Guidance 

for FY19–23, “ALPA assesses the recommended solution 

approaches to solve/mitigate the Army’s most critical capability gaps identified in the capability development community’s [capability needs analysis].”1

MSSPIX differs from the other venues; it is a collaboration between the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

(MSCoE), Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and the Sustainment Center of Excellence (SCoE), Fort Lee, Virginia. Both 

centers of excellence leverage their battle laboratories (the 

Maneuver Support Battle Laboratory [MSBL] and the Sustainment Battle Laboratory [SBL], respectively) to plan, 

execute, and report/document the experiment each year. 

A crawl-walk-run approach was adopted to build 

MSSPIX. The “crawl” phase, which was executed in 2017, 

was led by the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command 

(TRADOC) Capability Manager–Maneuver Support. This 

effort consisted of six individual experiments simultaneously conducted at Fort Leonard Wood. The results were 

captured in a single report. Some of the assessed technologies included a fire control system, leader-follower technology, an explosive ordnance disposal common robotic system, 

and a training package for operation of a base camp.

In 2018, responsibility for planning and execution at 

MSCoE shifted to MSBL. MSBL personnel introduced the 

“walk” phase. U.S. Army Research, Development, and Engineering Command and Engineer Research and Development 

Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, elements were asked 

to provide research or engineering efforts that were mature 

enough for a prototype assessment and appropriate for the 

venues and proponents involved. The elements also needed 

to be willing to provide resourcing for inclusion in the 

assessment. 

By the execution on 3 April 2018, nine technologies from

the government and private-sector organizations were 

included in the experiment. The capabilities assessed 

included the integration of chemical, biological, radiological, 

and nuclear (CBRN) sensors on robotic platforms; an additive manufacturing capability used to build structures; software to enable the informed identification of base camp and 

airfield site selection; software to aid in planning the design 

and operations of base camps; a remote bridge assessment 

tool; and a render-safe technology for explosive-ordnance disposal Soldiers. Additionally, there was one technology that 

leveraged the venue for the conduct of a limited objective 

assessment. This limited objective assessment was included 

on short notice at the request of the Requirements Determination Division, Capabilities Development and Integration 

Directorate, MSCoE. 

A CBRN Soldier puts an unmanned aerial vehicle into

operation.

16 Engineer September–December 2018
The “run” phase, MSSPIX 2019, will be executed in April 

2019 at Fort Leonard Wood. In October 2017, the Concept 

Development and Learning Directorate, ARCIC, sought 

proposals and sent a technology call memorandum through 

formal channels to Army organizations. The U.S. Army 

Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, then 

posted a Broad Agency Announcement to the Federal Business Opportunities Web site at <www.fbo.gov>, seeking proposals from the private sector. Currently, MSSPIX 2019 is 

slated to assess 26 technologies—15 from government organizations and 11 from private-sector organizations. 

For MSSPIX 2020, the desire is to sustain the process 

to receive proposals and conduct technology selection activities. The five overarching experiment objectives, which will 

remain unchanged, answer the following questions:

1. How does the Army better enable Force 2025 and 

Beyond Soldiers to understand the operational environment (conditions, circumstances, and influences) in 

support of the employment of capabilities that enable 

commanders’ decisions? (MSCoE)

2. How does the Army conduct shaping activities to influence the local population, enemy forces, and other 

actors as well as the terrain within the operational 

environment? (MSCoE)

3. How does the Army better mitigate the effect of obstacles designed or employed to impede freedom of movement? (MSCoE)

4. How can maneuver support forces be better enabled 

to provide enhanced technical protection capabilities? 

(MSCoE)

5. How does the Army provide the capability to extend 

endurance and operational reach, increase operational 

readiness, reduce demand, and execute responsive 

sustainment to widely dispersed units in support of 

multidomain battle operations? (SCoE)

Although the objectives never change, the desired focus 

areas are subject to change each year based on changing priorities. The focus areas provide technology providers with 

a clearer view of what MSCoE and SCoE are interested in 

assessing. As an example, gap crossing could be a focus area 

under Objective No. 3 above. 

The execution date for MSSPIX 2020 has not been determined but will likely fall in the April–May 2020 timeframe. 

After the technology call memorandum is signed by the 

Concept Development and Learning Directorate, another 

Broad Agency Announcement will be posted to the Federal 

Business Opportunities Web site by the Army Contracting 

MSSPIX 20 Kick-Off—TBD in May or June 2019

MSSPIX 19 Execution—29 April–9 May 2019

Technology Selection Results

Released—28 March 2019

Technical Selection Board—28 February 2019

CoE Assessment of 

Proposals—31 January 2019

Technology Call Proposals 

Due—6 January 2019 Technology Call Posted

to FBO—15 November 2018

Technology Call Packet Approved by 

ARCIC CDLD—1 November 2018

Legend:

ARCIC - Army Capability Integration Center

CDLD - Concept Development and Learning Directorate

CoE - center of excellence

FBO - Federal Business Opportunities

MSSPIX - Maneuver Support, Sustainment, Protection, Integration Experiment 

TBD - to be determined

Note: All dates are tentative and subject to change.

Draft timeline for MSSPIX 2020 future operations

September–December 2018 Engineer 17
Command. This is expected to happen in October or November 2018. For private-sector organizations that have search 

filters set to monitor postings, the recommended subject will 

be “MSSPIX 20 Technology Call.” Additionally, the North 

American Industry Classification System code previously 

used was 541 (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services)/541990 (All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services). 

To participate in MSSPIX, technology providers (government or private-sector organizations) can expect to incur 

travel expenses for their organization to attend limited 

planning events and the assessment, costs for the development and delivery of training for their users to fully understand the technology, costs associated with attaining a 

safety release, and shipping costs to transport the technology to the assessment location. As a general practice, safety 

releases require funding only if an item requires testing. 

Testing may be avoidable if the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, is 

provided sufficient information from historical records to 

assess a technology. The MSSPIX team will connect technology providers with points of contact in the Army Test and 

Evaluation Command early in the current-operations stage. 

The assessment and analysis, as well as access to Soldiers 

who will use the technologies, are provided at no cost to 

technology providers. Building the assessment is a cooperative effort between the MSSPIX team, technology providers, 

and technology sponsors. A sponsor (typically a TRADOC 

representative from a center of excellence/capability developer) represents Soldiers employing a capability.

It’s important to note that MSSPIX is not a test. In 

Army acquisition language, tests are used to support 

acquisition decisions. While testers can certainly leverage MSSPIX results, this does not alleviate developmental or operational testing requirements. MSSPIX will not 

provide a comparative analysis of systems, regardless of 

their status (fielded Army equipment or capability from the 

private sector.) 

In summary, if you have a technology that you believe 

is a good fit for MSSPIX and would like for it to be used by 

Soldiers during an assessment, watch for the technology call 

each fall on the Federal Business Opportunities Web site. 

While there are some limits to what can be assessed, every 

attempt is made to accept all proposed technologies that 

show a clear alignment to the experiment objectives and 

subordinate focus areas. 

Endnote:

1

TRADOC, Army Campaign of Learning, Annual Planning 

Guidance for FY19–23, 18 October 2017, p. 7.

Mr. Hutchinson is a capability development experimentation 

analyst for MSBL, Fort Leonard Wood. He holds a bachelor’s 

degree in business administration from Columbia College, Missouri; a master’s of business administration degree from Webster 

University; and a master’s degree in project management from 

Western Carolina University, North Carolina. 

An engineer Soldier works with the Remote Bridge Assessment Tool.

18 Engineer September–December 2018
September–December 2018 Engineer 19

I

n the summer of 2017, the 2d Cavalry Regiment (2CR), 

Vilseck, Germany, built a premier training range in 

Europe. The range included a nearly 900-meter-long 

Eastern-style doctrinal defensive trench line. The range 

was constructed as the result of Regimental Commander 

Colonel Patrick Ellis’ vision to employ his engineers to 

build the trench and conduct a live-fire exercise in it during the first iteration of enhanced Forward Presence (eFP), 

Poland, in October. Located on the northeastern border of 

the North Atlantic Trade Organization (NATO) Bemowo 

Piskie Training Area, eFP Poland is a U.S.-led battle group, 

established in March 2017. Managing the construction of 

the trench entailed not only monitoring the physical aspect 

of building the trench, but also fostering interpersonal relationships among members of NATO. This combined effort 

resulted in the shaping of a diplomatic expression of partnered deterrence against Eastern aggression.

The physical aspect of building the trench referred to as 

Objective Ford required research, resources, and ingenuity in design. No other U.S. unit in recent history has constructed a trench of this magnitude; therefore, a template 

for construction did not exist. However, the need has been 

identified, as trench warfare has surfaced in Ukraine. It is 

common knowledge among engineers that maneuver units 

are not training to fight a civil war against U.S. obstacles 

and designs, but instead to fight against a foreign near-peer 

adversary using its own doctrine. Research into Eastern 

doctrine was required to establish a base of knowledge; and 

By Captain Spencer W. Donaldson

Bunker under construction
20 Engineer September–December 2018

in this case, that research needed to be supplemented with 

U.S. doctrine to ensure safety. Resourcing the equipment 

and materials was necessary in order to build the bill of 

materials. Doing so in a foreign country in which the United 

States has only recently established its military presence is 

a mission in itself. Finally, the range was constructed in a 

race against time, with minimal resources on hand to be prepared for the battle group’s troop level live fires.

After receiving the mission to build a trench on a forward base, a pre-site assessment 

needed to be conducted. Designing 

and constructing the trench entailed 

researching designs, studying range 

regulations, and visiting an existing 

trench range in Germany. Constructing a fighting trench is not a focus 

for Regular Army units or personnel at the Maneuver Support Center 

of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri. The first step in researching trench design and construction 

is to consider what already exists. 

Trenches on training ranges in Germany differ greatly from a trench 

designed to be defended. A typical training trench is about 10 feet 

deep and built with formed concrete 

and railroad ties. This design, while 

nothing close to an Eastern design, 

addresses two important factors for 

every range: The trench must be safe 

for training, and it must be robust 

enough to endure long periods of 

inattention.

Defining the requirement entailed researching the desired end state and then researching 

its construction. Visits to the battle group provided information on the design of a contemporary trench in Ukraine and a realization about 

how to conduct engagement area development of Objective Ford. To meet those Eastern 

specifications, 2CR designed Objective Ford to 

replicate a location where an Eastern defense 

would emplace its armored vehicles and bunkers. Inside the trench, special care was taken 

to build the bunkers and apply Eastern dimensions for the trench line. An Eastern trench line 

has different styles of turns depending on the 

type of terrain. In the case of the flat, open terrain of Objective Ford, Eastern defense called 

for a zigzag pattern. The dimensions inside 

the trench line were then addressed. Eastern 

front-line trenches are designed for combat 

versus training, with high walls meant to keep 

rounds inside the trench. The Eastern design is 

only hip tall and one person wide. Special care 

was taken to test and modify these dimensions before construction to meet safety standards while still replicating an 

Eastern-style trench. In the case of a training range, the floor 

is expanded to allow a Soldier in full gear to pass another 

Soldier in the trench. The constant zigzags inside the trench 

favor the defender while an opposing force is attempting to 

clear the trench. The communication trenches behind the battle positions are deeper, and fewer zigzags are implemented 

to allow for expedient movements. Common construction 

Construction of the first section of retaining wall

2d Cavalry Regiment sappers and 18th Military Police Brigade carpenters 

establish an on-site workshop.
September–December 2018 Engineer 21

techniques taught in the Missouri 

University of Science and Technology Geological Engineering Program were applied to safely design 

the wall. 

During the planning phase, time 

and effort were put into resourcing 

the required materials, personnel, 

and equipment. Lumber size and 

price standards vary across Europe 

and even within Poland. Developing 

a bill of materials and cost analysis 

required a reconnaissance of local 

lumberyards for available materials. 

The task force engineer was tasked 

with the reconnaissance of rental 

equipment and lumberyards in the 

area. The English language is not as 

prevalent in Poland as it is in Western Europe, so acquiring costs was painstaking, as it is necessary to work through interpreters to understand foreign 

business rules. Power tools, hardware, and quick-setting concrete were resourced from local vendors to complete the bill 

of materials. 

In the wake of ongoing summer training, a multinational effort was made to resource equipment and personnel 

to support the construction of Objective Ford. Most of the 

2CR earthmoving equipment, prime movers, and operators 

were already committed to the preplanned summer training operations in southern Europe. Working through minor 

issues, 2CR effectively transported construction equipment 

from Germany to support operations and then heavy equipment operators from 2CR became the primary means of 

excavation. Polish allies provided further equipment 

support. Due to the large scope of the project, Polish bucket 

loaders were called upon to perform bulldozing operations. 

The sandy soil of northeast Poland permitted bucket loaders 

to perform such operations as digging vehicle fighting positions. In order to move construction equipment to and from 

the project site, the battle group called on recovery assets in 

its forward support troop and a British attachment.

 By the end of the project, Soldiers from every U.S. Army 

engineer company in Germany had worked on the trench. 

The primary work force for building the retaining wall was 

the battle group sapper platoon, supplemented with infantrymen who rotated every week. Carpenters from the 18th 

Military Police Brigade, Sembach Kaserne, RhinelandPalatinate, Germany, were requested to construct the more 

technical portions, such as the bunkers and target boxes.

Developing, excavating, 

and building a combat training trench with a sapper platoon and limited equipment 

required resourcefulness. 2CR

flexibility was required to support construction when both

2CR engineer companies were 

already committed to summer training. In lieu of an 

engineer company command 

leading the construction, the 

Regimental engineer deployed 

forward to the eFP battle 

group to manage construction 

of the project. 

Ingenuity was needed to

outfit and train Military Occupational Specialty 12B, Combat Engineers (Sappers), to

complete the job of Military

Occupational Specialty 12Ws, Sappers constructing the retaining wall.

Sapper sifting concrete in the trench.
22 Engineer September–December 2018

Carpenters. Outfitting and training sappers required a 

vertical-construction subject matter expert. Fortunately, 

a former civilian construction contractor was serving as 

a squad leader in the platoon. His expertise was priceless 

throughout the project, from selecting the tools and hardware to leading Soldiers in the trenches. Planning how to 

construct the trench required ingenuity, as field manuals do not cover how to construct a retaining wall. A work 

rate guide does not exist for building a retaining wall, 

despite extensive research, including phone calls with home 

improvement experts. Developing a work rate for building 

the retaining wall included a systematic time analysis with 

experts from the Corps of Engineers Reachback Operations 

Center, Huntsville, Alabama.

In planning to develop the trench for a live-fire range, 

certain live-fire standards had to be met and the trench 

had to be built to last. To make the range meet live-fire 

standards, exposed metal had to be minimized, which was a 

factor to be considered when constructing the retaining 

walls. To extend the life of the trench, the posts were set 

into the ground with concrete and anchored with cables. For 

safety and longevity, 2CR incorporated an anchor that is not 

of Eastern design. To follow safety principles but still simulate a regional peer threat, 2CR chose to bury the anchors 

and compact them with locally sourced plate compactors. 

The design required a wider trench to facilitate the work. 

2CR excavated a modified antivehicular ditch, a common 

equipment operator task. Boards were 

screwed to posts from the outside, and then 

an anchor cable was installed below grade. 

The soil was then backfilled against the 

exterior of the wall, covering the anchors 

and screws.

Fostering interpersonal relationships 

among NATO countries required overcoming the language barrier, learning 

military customs and courtesies, and 

assuming risk where possible. Construction in foreign countries is a challenge, 

as the business rules vary across borders. 

Interpreters were invaluable in dealing 

with local vendors. Standards for products 

such as lumber vary, and business often 

takes place during an extended conversation over coffee. With only 2 months

available for construction, time was

valuable so contracting was not an option. 

In Poland, construction vendors do not have 

modern equipment to process purchases, 

2d Calvary Regiment engineer directing Polish operators 

to set anchors

Polish engineers construct a vehicle fighting position.

Sapper testing the anchoring system
September–December 2018 Engineer 23

even at wholesale stores, so valuable time was allotted to 

allow them to acquire the right equipment.

While building the trench, 2CR adjusted to the customs 

and courtesies of its ally. A major cultural difference was 

encountered, as the management of facilities in Poland is 

kept at a higher level than U.S. personnel are accustomed 

to. Support for construction of the trench on Bemowo Piskie 

Training Area required approval from the Polish government, and requests for engineer equipment and carpentry 

facilities down to the tactical level were routed through 

allied commands. 

2CR assumed risks by using personnel who were not 

trained in construction to construct the most unique trench 

range in Europe. Further risks were assumed by conducting a live-fire exercise outside of Polish range norms. Heavy 

vertical-construction missions such as those of Objective 

Ford are normally tasked to echelon-above-brigade units 

because they are outfitted and trained for them. With a subject matter expert and the proper care to outfit and train its 

sappers, 2CR accomplished this task. Polish range regulations are designed for the way in which the Polish military 

conducts training; 2CR techniques for assaulting the trench 

differ greatly from Polish techniques. Common U.S. Army 

techniques for assaulting the trench and using fire support 

needed to be coordinated with Polish range control. 2CR 

subsequently assumed full responsibility for conducting the 

live-fire exercise, and only with this assumption of risk was 

an outstanding live-fire training event conducted.

2CR achieved deterrence at a strategic level by using 

Eastern doctrine in its construction practices, publicizing 

the multinational effort, and executing a realistic live-fire 

exercise. From 30 September to 3 October 2017, eFP Poland 

conducted the first live fire on Objective Ford and Public 

Broadcasting Service’s NewsHour publicized the event. Colonel Ellis clearly stated that the purpose of the range was to 

train NATO troops against a near-peer threat.1

 2CR sent a 

strategic message of deterrence by training to defeat NATO 

adversaries. Potential aggression is deterred by improved 

capability, and realistic training improves capability. Each 

time NATO uses Objective Ford, whether eliminating supporting vehicles or navigating the zigzag turns inside the 

trench, its soldiers become more familiar with an Eastern 

trench. 

During the live-fire exercise, 2CR practiced its full 

spectrum of warfighting capabilities to defeat the simulated defense; then, the infantry practiced clearing nearly 

900 meters of trench line with Eastern-style bunkers. The 

commitment of 2CR to the defense of NATO borders was captured by Public Broadcasting Service’s NewsHour, and the 

strategic message of readiness was broadcast to the world.2

Endnote:

1

Ryan Chilcote, “After Russia’s Ukraine Incursion, NATO

Troops Drill for War on a Cold-War Scale,” NewsHour, Public 

Broadcasting Service, 11 December 2017, <https://www.pbs.org

/newshour/show/after-russias-ukraine-incursion-nato-troops

-drill-for-war-on-a-cold-war-scale>, accessed on 26 July 2018.

2

Ibid.

Captain Donaldson served as project manager with the 2d 

Cavalry Regiment and as the breach observer-controller for the 

live-fire project. He holds a bachelor’s degree from the U.S. Military Academy–West Point, New York, and a master of science 

degree from Missouri University of Science and Technology at 

Rolla. He is a certified project management professional. 

A bulldozer is used to backfill after anchoring.
24 Engineer September–December 2018

I

n the winter of 2018, the 40th Brigade Engineer Battalion, 2d Brigade, 1st Armored Division, used its Assault 

Breacher Vehicles (ABVs) to launch Mine-Clearing 

Line Charge (MICLIC) rockets. Engineer Soldiers rarely get 

to train with MICLICs; however, a few combat engineers 

from Company B, 2d Platoon (War Dogs), were part of an 

exercise that qualified them on the MICLIC system for use 

in future operations.

The MICLIC is a reduction asset for breaching operations. It allows Soldiers to clear minefields in order for 

mission-essential vehicles and personnel to maneuver 

through an area. To enable a successful MICLIC deployment, there cannot be any deficiencies in manpower or 

equipment. Poor maintenance or lack of system knowledge 

may cause unnecessary hazards and casualties. 

Soldiers assigned to Companies A and B detonated a 

MICLIC for the first time on Udari Range Complex, Kuwait, 

on 8 February 2018. First Lieutenant Derek R. Wilson served 

as the officer in charge of the MICLIC range, and Sergeants 

Dustin L. Calderwood and Eugene M. Perez taught safety 

classes prior to deploying the MICLIC. The focus of these 

classes was on driver and commander stations, preventive 

maintenance checks and services, and precombat checks and 

inspections. Functions of the MICLIC tub, Modification Mark 

II rocket launcher, and operation fuse and misfire procedures 

were covered during the safety briefing. The purpose of preventive maintenance checks and services is to ensure that 

the system and equipment are poised to increase readiness 

and avoid a failure that could potentially render the system 

inoperable. Precombat inspections and precombat checks 

help leaders ensure that the MICLIC system is combat-ready 

prior to its use. The instructor’s intent was to provide the 

Soldiers with the knowledge they needed in order to accomplish future missions and operations with the MICLIC. 

The opportunity to train the Soldiers on the MICLIC 

was a source of pride for the range instructors. “It’s a great 

accomplishment—knowing that my Soldiers are qualified 

and have a better understanding of the ABV vehicle and the 

responsibility that comes with it,” stated Sergeant Perez. 

“By doing that, it enables this company to continually provide ABV support for future missions,” he said. 

Private First Class Herrera serves as a combat engineer 

Bradley operator for the commander and a representative for the 

unit public affairs program and Digital Training Management 

System in Company B, 40th Brigade Engineer Battalion, Fort 

Bliss, Texas. She graduated from Combat Engineer One-Station 

Unit Training with Company D, 31st Engineer Battalion, Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri. 

By Private First Class Victoria R. Herrera

“The MICLIC is a reduction asset 

for breaching operations. It allows 

Soldiers to clear minefields in 

order for mission-essential vehicles and personnel to maneuver 

through an area.” 
September–December 2018 Engineer 25

An assignment to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) offers an excellent experience and repre-

.sents the most available broadening program for 

engineers, with opportunities at every grade. The transition to USACE, while exciting, requires many adjustments. 

Many Soldiers have little exposure to, or experience working with, USACE before receiving an assignment; this creates opportunities for transitional friction. The purpose of 

this article is to facilitate a better understanding of working 

within USACE. 

In-processing With the Corps

Upon notification of assignment to USACE, you 

should introduce yourself to the commander as 

normal. Most of your future communication will 

be with the deputy commander and your sponsor. You 

may not be assigned to the district headquarters, which 

makes early and open communication key to expectation 

management. There will be no replacement or reception 

unit to help you in-process. Your sponsor should provide 

you with a packet or checklist and the point of contact 

for all in-processing tasks. There is a personnel office for 

in-processing and personnel actions. However, the points 

of contact at some district offices are at different locations. You should contact your sponsor 2 weeks ahead of 

arrival and ask him or her to initiate your network account 

request so that you have network access upon arrival. 

Also, if working in a metropolitan area, ask your sponsor about public transportation benefits. Serious house 

hunting should be delayed until after your duty location 

is pinpointed.

Living in the Corps

USACE is a project-funded service organization. The 

source of the entire district budget, including funds 

for payroll, office supplies, and the building lease, is 

the income generated by the projects that are managed by 

the district. USACE-managed work and services for local, 

state, or federal entities are split between military construction and civil works. Military construction pertains to any 

branch of the Department of Defense and includes construction, renovation, repair, and facility maintenance. Anything 

not categorized as military construction is considered civil 

works; this includes waterway management, emergency 

management, dams, bridges, canals, locks, hydrology, recreational areas, and Superfund remediation.

The organization of USACE districts is vastly different 

from that of traditional military units. The district commander chairs a corporate board; the governing board members are the chiefs of the district divisions. As a Soldier, 

you will likely have a civilian for an immediate supervisor; 

however, the civilian will not rate you. Rather, the district 

deputy commander will likely be your rater and the district 

commander your senior rater. The complex and vertically 

aligned organizational structure requires that you coordinate efforts outside of your chain of command and with 

people over whom you have no authority. You must communicate clearly across this wide range of people, ensuring that 

all information makes it to your subordinates and coworkers. 

Of the 37,000 USACE employees, approximately 700 are 

Regular Army Soldiers. It is commonly understood that our 

By Captain Spencer L. Diamond and Captain Daniel B. Powell
26 Engineer September–December 2018

contribution to USACE is not as technical experts but as 

leaders. Most civilians are understanding and patient as 

we take the time necessary to get up to speed. A surprising number of people have worked in USACE for as long as 

some of us have been alive. Personnel actions are largely 

reactive, which often results in weeks or months of underlap 

in positions. The reasons for this can be as predictable as 

retirements or as unexpected as promotions to other positions. The process of hiring someone is almost always initiated after the departing employee leaves his or her position, 

which often results in a capabilities gap. However, expectations are managed by having others cover to ensure success. 

Soldiers generally have a great reputation for being 

responsible workers and leaders. Therefore, it is likely that 

you will have little direct supervision. While the freedom of 

independence is exciting, you may find that it is challenging 

to stay motivated and difficult to stay fit. This autonomy 

can extend to your Family as well. A spouse may experience 

challenges in developing social interactions, especially if he 

or she is a stay-at-home parent. Coffee groups and Family 

readiness groups are not likely to exist. Finding a local support structure early on goes a long way to building Family 

readiness. Local and state events are abundant, and breaking out of the Army’s social shell provides many opportunities to experience new types of people who are not part of the 

typical military demographic. 

An assignment to USACE may mean that you will be living completely on your own for the first time. Many USACE 

offices are located far from sizeable military installations. 

Much of the normal Army support structure for Families is not available. There may be no Army child development center; and school and daycare costs, which may be 

dictated by the local economy, can vary widely. Look into 

Tricare Prime Remote® (a managed medical care option 

available in remote areas of the United States), as opposed 

to the nearest military clinic or hospital, to receive medical services near your residence. You will be required 

to commute to work at your own expense unless you are 

able to use public transportation. If assigned to an urban/

metropolitan area, you may receive financial assistance 

such as a cost of living allowance and even public transportation benefits. USACE supplements public transportation costs but will not pay for parking passes. Contact your sponsor regarding public transportation benefits 

1 month before reporting so that the passes are ready when 

you arrive.

Working in the Corps

USACE has a flexible work schedule policy; employees may work anytime between 0630 and 1700, with 

established core times of 0900 to 1500. Policies vary 

by location, but most districts have their employees assume 

responsibility for their own work schedules, physical fitness, 

deployment readiness, and welfare. Your pay will still come 

from the Army; USACE reimburses the Army. 

USACE uses its own vocabulary and acronyms, and each 

branch or division within the district uses its own dialect. 

Acclimating to new diction is not a new challenge, but is 

something to keep in mind. Most of us will likely become 

project engineers in the construction branch of a district. 

Project engineers administer contracts as contacting officer 

representatives. Contracting officer representatives (COR) 

ensure that contractors comply with contract requirements, 

process monthly invoices, analyze submittals for compliance, prepare formal correspondence, and interface with the 

customer and contractor on behalf of the contracting officer. 

Project engineers are generally 

responsible for multiple small 

projects (under $500,000), one 

large project (over $10 million), 

or a combination thereof, depending on office workload and other 

factors.

Another common assignment

is as resident engineer. A district 

may have multiple resident offices 

throughout its area of operations. 

Each of those offices has a resident engineer, who is responsible 

for making sure that the project 

engineers and other field staff 

successfully administer assigned 

contracts. Serving as a resident 

engineer is much like running a 

small company or detachment 

command. Resident engineers 

sign for office property, approve 

and verify time sheets, approve 

leave, and manage the office 

workload. Some may be assigned 

Major Brian L. Corbin, deputy commander of the Philadelphia District, addresses 

the crowd during a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Absecon Inlet construction 

project, Atlantic City, New Jersey.
September–December 2018 Engineer 27

as a resident engineer immediately upon arrival, and

others may spend time as a 

project engineer before moving on to become a resident 

engineer. 

Some Soldiers may work 

as project managers. Project 

managers are responsible for

a project from its conception 

through its close-out and 

may have extensive portfolios consisting of more than

50 individual contracts in 

various stages of progress. 

Project managers coordinate

assets from across the district to ensure that each contract is planned, resourced,

and executed to the satisfaction of the customer. Generally, one would be assigned to this position only after

adequate exposure to the district, as it requires extensive knowledge of USACE contract administration and project management. 

Special-projects positions are not uncommon in USACE. 

Other USACE positions that Soldiers have filled include 

design engineers, various section chiefs, and design 

managers. 

Disaster relief support is unpredictable. Stay abreast of 

the weather within your district and its area of operations. 

Many deployment notifications occur with little or no 

notice. Most personnel who deploy in support of disaster 

relief do so on 30-day assignments. However, there have 

been assignments as long as 90–180 days. Most who deploy 

to support disaster relief do so as a quality assurance 

representative, project engineer, or battle captain.

Training in the Corps

Most USACE divisions have Soldier-specific development programs that require Soldiers to pursue 

and earn either project management professional 

(PMP) accreditation or professional engineer licensure, as 

applicable. PMP accreditation can be pursued in a couple 

different ways. The first option involves self-study; you 

study on your own time and at your own expense and then 

apply for reimbursement after passing the test. For the 

second option, USACE has a list of courses that includes 

a weeklong PMP preparation course offered throughout 

the year. This course, which fills up fast, is a temporary 

duty assignment paid for by USACE. Because only degreed 

engineers can earn a professional engineer license, that 

training is not facilitated like PMP training; however, 

USACE will reimburse you for training courses and testing 

fees upon successful licensure. Some districts may also have 

professional engineer study groups available. Coordinate 

with your leadership as early as possible to be included in 

the next fiscal year training. 

Soldiers are also required to attend an annual District 

Officer Introductory Course during their first USACE tour. 

Taking this weeklong course is a great way to learn more 

about USACE and to network with other Army personnel 

assigned throughout the Corps.

As a project engineer or resident engineer, you will be 

required to become COR-certified. There are three main 

classes required for COR credentialing: Fiscal Law, Ethics, 

and COR With a Mission Focus. Fiscal Law, which is the class 

most applicable to a project manager or project engineer/

resident engineer, takes the longest time to complete. The 

Ethics, COR With a Mission Focus, and a few other annual 

training classes require a day or less to complete.

Conclusion

An assignment with USACE represents an excellent 

opportunity. USACE is a diverse organization that

.will expose you to a cornucopia of fields and experiences. The environment is much different from that to which 

Soldiers are accustomed—mostly in a positive manner. Flexible work schedules open the door for significant Family 

time and a wide range of exposure. Civilians are excellent 

coworkers and welcome our leadership and enthusiasm. 

Come with a good attitude, and you will have a rewarding 

broadening experience. 

Captain Diamond is the resident engineer for the Philadelphia District, Dover Air Force Base, Dover Delaware. He holds a 

bachelor’s degree in economics from James Madison University, 

Harrisonburg, Virginia, and a master’s degree in public administration from Webster University.

Captain Powell is the budget management chief for the 

Philadelphia District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He holds a 

bachelor’s degree in civil engineering technology from Southern 

Polytechnic State University, Marietta, Georgia, and a master’s 

degree in civil engineering from Missouri University of Science 

and Technology at Rolla. He is a licensed professional engineer.

Mr. Tom S. Lavender, project manager for the Philadelphia District, and Captain Brian N. 

Clason brief Major General Donald E. Jackson on recovery efforts after Hurricane Maria.
28 Engineer September–December 2018

The sapper and the sapper tab represent the elite 

engineer in the U.S. Army—a leader among leaders, peers, and subordinates. Sappers transcend 

their counterparts to support the maneuver commander in 

all aspects of mobility, countermobility, and survivability. 

From preparation to performance, these engineers must 

accomplish many feats to earn and wear the coveted sapper 

tab. The dedication and effort that sappers put forth certify them in their profession, designate them as experts in 

their units, and allow them to lead from the front. To protect 

the right to wear the tab, sappers must prove themselves 

to their peers and leaders on a daily basis. However, others 

forge their way into this elite group by wearing an unearned 

sapper tab or falsifying documents. It is the responsibility of 

Soldiers to defend the prestige of the sapper tab.

The sapper tab was established by the Chief of Staff of 

the Army on 28 June 2004. The tab is authorized for award 

to U.S. military and civilian personnel and foreign military personnel who meet the prescribed eligibility criteria. 

The basic eligibility criteria for sapper tab award include 

successful completion of all requirements for graduation 

and a graduation certificate from the Sapper Leader Course 

conducted by the U.S. Army Engineer School (USAES), Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri. The sapper tab may be awarded 

retroactively to anyone who met these criteria on or after 

14 June 1985, which is when the first validation class was 

conducted. Requests for retroactive awards can be submitted to the Commandant, USAES, Maneuver Support Center 

of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood.

Earning the Sapper Tab

Soldiers must compete to get accepted into the Sapper Leader Course. They must meet two important 

prerequisites—passing the sapper physical fitness 

test and completing the 12-mile road march. They must also 

meet height, weight, and tape standards in accordance with 

Army Regulation (AR) 600-9, The Army Body Composition 

Program.

1

 An inspection and inventory of equipment are 

conducted to check for all required packing list items, and 

paperwork is screened for accuracy and to confirm that a 

proper physical has been conducted. Once candidates have 

met all entry requirements, they are approved to participate 

in the Sapper Leader Course. 

The course includes rigorous training on small-unit tactics, endurance, and combat engineer battle drills while in a 

physically demanding, stressful, and austere environment. 

The preparation and train-up conducted prior to attending 

the course will be exposed based on student performance 

and proficiency in basic and advanced skills. The training 

objective is physical and mental toughness acquired through 

tough individual events and team-building activities 

focused on leadership skills, technical proficiency, and selfconfidence.

The course is divided into two phases—general subjects 

and patrolling. The scope of the first phase includes training on rappelling, helocasting, demolition calculations, 

construction, placement, and priming. The methods include 

classroom instruction, practical exercises, squad events, and 

By Master Sergeant Matthew B. Zwolinski
September–December 2018 Engineer 29

written examinations. The curriculum for 

the first phase includes—

■ Physical fitness.

■ Conventional and expedient demolitions.

■ Air operations.

■ Mountaineering.

■ Water operations.

■ Land navigation.

■ Communications.

■ Medical techniques.

■ Foreign weapons.

■ Identification of threats and ordnance. 

To ensure full effort, the general subjects phase is allocated 1,000 available 

points. However, the breakdown of points 

for each event in the phase is not disclosed 

to the students. To pass the general subjects phase and meet graduation criteria, 

each student must earn a minimum of 700 

points. An example of how students exhibit 

their proficiency in basic skills is evident 

in the land navigation event. Participants 

must locate a minimum of four of six points 

across the unforgiving terrain of Fort Leonard Wood during 

3 hours of day and 3 hours of night. This land navigation 

challenge and three written examinations can be retested 

one time. 

Once students complete the general subjects phase, they 

advance to the patrolling phase the following day. During the patrolling phase, students receive more classroom 

instruction, conduct more practical exercises, and participate in platoon level field training exercises (FTXs) to demonstrate their leadership performance. This phase focuses 

on continued—

■ Physical stamina.

■ Troop-leading procedures.

■ Fundamentals of patrolling.

■ Combat orders.

■ Survival skills.

■ Raiding.

■ Reconnaissance.

■ Ambushing.

■ Breaching.

■ Military operations in urban terrain. 

One of the major events in the patrolling phase is the 

FTX. Students rotate among assigned leadership positions 

as squad leaders, platoon sergeants, and/or platoon leaders. 

Up to seven FTXs are executed throughout this phase during a barrage of engineer and infantry missions. In these 

leadership positions, students are evaluated on tactics, techniques, procedures, performance, and accomplishment of 

the mission. All sapper students are required to achieve a 

50 percent “GO” rate in assigned graded positions to meet 

graduation criteria.

The valuable training that students receive from attending the Sapper Leader Course improves leadership skills, 

advances troop-leading ability, improves technical and 

tactical proficiency, restores navigational skills, broadens 

demolitions expertise, and increases self- and equipment 

competency. Students must participate in all training to 

meet graduation requirements. Graduation also requires 

achieving a minimum of 70 percent on all written examinations including air operations, demolitions, and patrolling 

examinations. 

The scoring of students can include merits and demerits issued throughout the duration of the course. Examples 

include receiving a merit for executing tasks above and 

beyond expectations or receiving a demerit for failing to 

follow instructions. In addition, peer-to-peer student evaluations are done at squad and platoon levels to assess the 

strengths and weaknesses of the participants. Students can 

be administratively dropped from the course if they do not 

take these evaluations seriously.

Another area that may affect the eligibility of a student 

to graduate is absence from training for more than 24 hours 

due to sick call. Any student receiving quarters or a profile 

is medically dropped from the course. In short, students and 

their units must be dedicated and must undergo months 

of preparation to meet all the requirements for successful 

graduation from the Sapper Leader Course. 

An unsuccessful student has one chance to recycle 

through each phase of the course. However, students who 

fail a second time are dismissed.

Examples of the sapper tab
30 Engineer September–December 2018

Wearing the Sapper Tab

According to Department of the Army (DA) Pamphlet 

(Pam) 670-1, Guide to the Wear and Appearance of 

.Army Uniforms and Insignia, a maximum of three 

combat and special skill badges and tabs may be worn on the 

combat uniform or similar utility uniform. The maximum 

of three tabs does not include tabs that are part of the unit 

shoulder sleeve insignia (such as airborne or mountain tabs).2

When a Soldier earns the right to wear the sapper tab, 

he or she proudly wears it as public evidence of the effort 

and sacrifice made during the 28-day course. All who have 

earned the right to wear this prestigious symbol of accomplishment have endured one of the most challenging and 

rigorous schools the Army has to offer.

Previous Army regulation once specified an order of precedence for the wear of multiple tabs; however that order 

of precedence no longer exists. A debate about precedence 

continues to be a discussion among units, on social media, 

and in published material. For example, the September 

2017 issue of Army Magazine contains a picture of a first 

sergeant wearing the sapper tab over his ranger tab.3

 A subsequent letter to the editor was published in the December 

2017 issue of Army Magazine to “correct” the first sergeant 

for improperly wearing the tabs.4

 The letter states that the 

ranger tab has a higher order of precedence and, therefore, 

should have been worn above the sapper tab. However, 

regarding any authorized uniform, the order of precedence 

for combat and special-skill badges, and tabs, is established 

only by group. There is no precedence for combat or specialskill badges or tabs within the same group.5

 For example, 

personnel who are authorized to wear the parachutist and 

air assault badges may determine the order of wear of those 

two badges. Where Army Regulation (AR) 670-1, Wear and 

Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insigna6

 mentions order 

of precedence, placement guidance, and general wear policy 

for special skill badges and tabs, it refers to DA Pam 670-1.7

As confirmation, guidance from the office of the U.S. Army 

Deputy Chief of Staff (G-1) states that there is no order 

of precedence for special-skill tabs. Most Soldiers who are 

authorized to wear more than one permanent tab wear them 

in order of tab size, but there is no Army regulatory guidance for this. Therefore, the first sergeant pictured in the 

September 2017 issue of Army Magazine did not violate any 

regulations by wearing the tabs that he had earned as he 

saw fit.

Verifying the Sapper Tab

Unfortunately, there are many past and present 

Soldiers who have chosen to abuse honor and 

integrity to purposely gain recognition, promotion,

position, and/or status based on the sapper tab. Therefore, the chief of operations of the Sapper Leader Course

performs “tab checks” as a result of a formal inquiry regarding a Soldier. Over the last 5 years, roughly 220 Soldiers

have been formally tab checked and questioned about

the authenticity of their sapper tab. Of those, more than

170 Soldiers have been identified as fraudulently wearing

this symbol of excellence and expertise. Requests for tab

checks must be made by e-mailing the sapper training

company (STC) at <usarmy.leonardwood.engineerschl.mbx

.1st169thsapperldrcrs@mail.mil> to ensure a proper document trail. Tab checks will not be initiated by STC, and STC

will remain impartial throughout the verification process. 

In order to initiate an inquiry, the originating unit must 

provide justification. If available, additional information 

such as the Soldier’s full name, social security number, 

enlisted or officer records brief, and other supporting documentation should be included in the request to support 

the investigation. 

After a review of the justification and Soldier’s information, the STC commander must approve the inquiry in order 

for a full tab check or investigation to occur. If the inquiry 

is approved, the sapper graduation database is searched 

for attendance and/or proof of graduation. In addition, an 

Army Training Requirements and Resource System query is 

made to pull the Soldier’s training record and a memorandum for record is produced to reflect the information found. 

The STC commander reviews and forwards the inquiry 

and any supporting documents to USAES for validation 

and action. After the inquiring unit receives the completed 

and validated packet, it may contact STC to request additional information or subpoenas for expert witnesses. The 

appointed unit investigating officer should attach appointment orders to the request. This is a formal process, which is 

necessary to ensure confidentiality and to ensure that inquiries are handled in a professional and expeditious manner. 

It is unethical to capitalize on “stolen valor” to gain recognition or to profit by committing a fraudulent act. To help 

eliminate integrity violations and deter dishonest actions by 

Soldiers, it is important to stay informed and vigilant and 

to understand the process of conducting a sapper tab check. 

Each individual command determines the consequences of 

wearing an unearned tab.

Revoking the Sapper Tab

The sapper tab is authorized for permanent wear 

on Army uniforms; however, it may be revoked for 

numerous reasons. Commanders who are allowed to 

award the three authorized tabs, including the other specified special-skill badges, are also authorized to revoke such 

awards. When the original awarding authority has departed 

the command, the revocation request will be referred to 

the same authority for appropriate action. Revocations will 

normally be announced in permanent orders. The sapper 

tab may also be revoked by the Commandant, USAES, or 

the Awards and Decorations Branch, Human Resources 

Command, based on the recommendation of the field commander (colonel and above) of the individual in question. 

The recommendation to revoke the sapper tab can be based 

on an exhibited pattern of behavior, expertise, or duty performance that is inconsistent with the expectations of the 

Army, which include a degree of confidence, commitment, 

(continued on page 33)
September–December 2018 Engineer 31

Most people love trick plays—the Philadelphia 

Eagles© stealing Super Bowl LII©; Penn and 

Teller© pulling a card out of an audience member’s 

pocket, a queen sacrifice in chess, William Shakespeare’s 

moving forest in Macbeth.

1

 However, militaries—successful 

ones—historically really love trick plays—Ulysses’ Trojan 

horse, General George S. Patton’s inflatable Army, Colonel 

Robert Baden-Powell’s defense at the Siege of Mafeking;2

and the list goes on. In fact, trick plays, or deceptions as one 

might call them, are so popular that there is a joint publication (JP) that addresses them, JP 3-13.4 Military Deception.

3

There is something undeniably exhilarating about bending 

rules and tricking opponents into doing what you want them 

to do. As the shapers of the battlefield, engineers should be 

particularly adept at this.

If these deceptive plays are so exciting, why do we tend 

to avoid them? To start, there are very real risks associated 

with them. When we set out to deceive, we are betting that 

we are smarter than the enemy and that often has negative consequences. In a typically narrow timeline, we are 

reallocating our limited assets away from what they are typically designed to do. General Patton’s inflatable Army, for 

example, took a tremendously successful leader and a number of troops out of a pivotal operation under the assumption that the demonstration would work. However, the risk 

is not always met with reward. This is perfectly described 

in the cult classic film Monty Python and the Holy Grail,4

in which, after a failed initial frontal assault, King Arthur 

recreates a “Trojan Rabbit” in an attempt to deceive the 

enemy. Arthur is met with disappointment when his England-based French adversaries launch it back to him among 

a slew of other direct attacks, namely verbal insults. The 

suggestion of deploying a reserve “Trojan Badger” was ineffective because King Arthur’s strategy evolved from tactical 

deception to standard operating procedures.

Similar to the concept of The Six Degrees of Separation5

concept in social circles, there is undoubtedly an nth degree 

of separation between any engineer task and the destruction of an enemy. If you ask an engineer what the Regiment does, the answer will be something like “use engineer 

and other organic or augmenting assets to conduct combat 

(mobility, countermobility, and survivability), general, and 

geospatial engineering . . .” Unfortunately, while detailed 

and all-encompassing, this synopsis of the full breadth of 

the Engineer Regiment, its vast array of assets and capabilities, work rates, and employment techniques overwhelm 

the audience with more information than is necessary. That 

is not to say that the information is pointless; but rather, 

that the briefing of it should be condensed to meet the commander’s intent and relevancy. A better way to describe 

By Captain Justin M. Verde

“There is something undeniably exhilarating about bending rules and tricking opponents into doing what you want 

them to do. As the shapers of the 

battlefield, engineers should be 

particularly adept at this.”

Having Fun With Doctrine
32 Engineer September–December 2018

our mission might be to say that we help achieve victory 

over the enemy in interesting and unique ways. While this 

leaves a large portion of Engineer Regiment capabilities 

unaddressed, it does complete two crucial tasks: It shows 

the maneuver commander that we can provide options for 

what he or she cares about, and it begins dialogue about how 

we can do that through detailed analysis of the breadth of 

our capabilities. This is the most crucial step of maneuver 

support, and it cannot be overstated. Before we can show 

anyone what we can do as engineers (conventional or otherwise), we must get them to listen to us.

As we transition to a more conventionally focused training regime, defense and countermobility are going to play 

a larger role than in recent years. This means that the 

engineers are going to be busy doing what we love to do—

blowing things up and preparing to destroy the enemy, both 

well-outlined in doctrine. In the defense, we typically see 

this accomplished through the “big three”: tank ditches, 

concertina wire, and fighting positions. Occasionally, we get 

ambitious and bring out the lesser-used abatis, minefields, 

Antipersonnel Obstacle Breaching System, M131 Modular 

Pack Mine System, and Volcano Mine Dispensers. However, 

the real phenomenon behind the Engineer Regiment is that 

when we are fighting a conventional peer threat, we will 

not be bound by environmental laws, rules of engagement 

(not to be confused with William M. Riesman’s The Laws of

War6

), or Field Manual (FM) 3-34, Engineer Operations7, 

all for which the enemy will be well-versed. Instead, we are 

going to need to get creative. Wars are not won by doing 

what the enemy expects us to do.

Training military deception (MILDEC) is not straightforward, but JP 3-13.4 does an admirable job of methodizing 

MILDEC planning, as opposed to describing its techniques. 

In nontechnical language, it directs commanders how to 

think about MILDEC instead of listing MILDEC procedures, 

stating bluntly, “MILDEC procedures are specific (unique or 

changing) with regard to each operation.”8

 The publication 

describes what principles and means a MILDEC should use, 

along with the four basic deception techniques:

■ Feints. A feint is an offensive action involving contact 

with the adversary, conducted for the purpose of deceiving the adversary as to the location and/or time of the

actual main offensive action.

■ Demonstrations. A demonstration is a show of force in

which a decision is not sought and no contact with the

adversary is intended. The intent of a demonstration is to

cause the adversary to select a course of action that is

favorable to U.S. goals.

■ Ruses. A ruse is a cunning trick designed to deceive the

adversary to obtain friendly advantage. It is characterized by deliberately exposing false or confusing information for collection and interpretation by the adversary.

■ Displays. Displays are the simulation, disguise, and/

or portrayal of friendly objects, units, or capabilities in

the projection of the MILDEC story. Such capabilities 

may not exist, but are made to appear so (simulations).9

Creativity goes beyond deception though. It involves 

using standard men, weapons, and equipment in 

nonstandard ways. Typically, junior Soldiers, both enlisted 

and commissioned officers, flourish with this. With little 

doctrinal experience and a healthy amount of fear to meet 

mission requirements, Soldiers who are new to the Army 

provide fresh insight into overcoming difficult challenges. 

That is not a bad thing (most of the time); but at some point 

in the planning-to-execution transition, there is a loss of 

that creativity such that we, as leaders, avoid thinking outside of conventional doctrine. Why not use a mine-clearing

line charge to hit a tank? Trees limit observations and 

fields of fire, so why not push the tree line back and create 

standoff? Why not build fake fighting positions? No time to 

emplace a minefield? Why not put a dummy minefield in? 

The Army likes the idea of unconventional thinking enough 

that it even made a doctrinal symbol for it (Figure 1). With 

no combined arms training strategies guiding leaders in the 

subject, it is difficult for leaders to include training tasks.

A leader can assist in training Soldiers to use MILDEC 

by including it in planning procedures and fostering a climate for the expectation of creativity. Commanders should 

dictate or prescribe MILDEC, as it is usually not implied. 

When in doubt, subordinate leaders usually maintain doctrinal solutions that have served them well in the past. This is 

reasonable. People tend to stick with things with which they 

are comfortable, especially when their jobs or careers are 

on the line. A commander should include MILDEC in planning scenarios, mandating that subordinate leaders learn 

about what is foreign to them and become familiar with it, 

thus increasing their “normal” to include “abnormal” ideas. 

After this, the commander must provide an environment 

in which creativity can flourish. He or she must convince 

Soldiers that creative solutions are not only acceptable but 

also encouraged. For this to happen, commanders must do 

the following: 

■ Provide subordinates with room to lead, through 

delegation.

■ Actively disallow overcommitment to standard doctrine 

by forcing a creative solution.

■ Pivotally allow for failure.

Engineers are the problem solvers of the Army. As the 

shapers of the battlefield, we are expected to have the 

Figure 1. Dummy minefield shown with 

feint, decoy, and dummy indicator
September–December 2018 Engineer 33

answer when a maneuver commander is presented with 

complex obstacles and problems. Fortunately, doctrine is 

notably ambiguous in this regard in order to allow subordinate leaders to creatively overcome these obstacles. It is our 

responsibility to incorporate this aspect of doctrine into our 

planning and execution processes. The Engineer Regiment 

and all of its associated capabilities are crucial to a successful operation. We must be able to build trust in our nonengineer counterparts in order to fully use our vast resources. 

This trust is built through explaining our relevancy to the 

maneuver commander and employing our equipment in 

ways that have never been seen.

Endnotes:

1

William Shakespeare, Macbeth, Millennium Publications, 

Garden City, New York, 2014.

2”The Relief of Mafeking,” History Today, 5 May 2000, 

<https://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/relief

-mafeking>, accessed on 11 July 2018.

3

JP 3-13.4, Military Deception, 14 February 2017.

4Mel Brooks, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Columbia 

Tri-Star Home Video, 2002.

5John Guare, Six Degrees of Separation, Dramatists Play 

Service, New York, 1992.

6

William M. Reisman, The Laws of War: A Comprehensive 

Collection of Primary Documents on International Laws Governing Armed Conflict, Vintage Books, New York, 1994.

7

FM 3-34, Engineer Operations, 2 April 2014,

8

JP 3-13.4, Military Deception, 14 February 2017.

9

Ibid.

Captain Verde is the planner for the 37th Brigade Engineer 

Battalion, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 82d Airborne Division. He 

holds a bachelor of science degree in physics from the U.S. Military Academy–West Point, New York.

competency, and discipline. The sapper tab may be revoked 

for dismissal, dishonorable discharge, conviction by courtsmartial for desertion in time of war, and failure to maintain prescribed standards of personal fitness and readiness 

to accomplish missions commensurate with position and 

rank and upon a relief or release for cause. An award, once 

revoked, will not be reinstated except when fully justified by 

the commander of the Awards and Decorations Branch, U.S. 

Army Human Resources Command.

Closing

The sapper tab is desired by many, but attainable only 

by a select few. The training and preparation necessary for the Sapper Leader Course are key and vital 

aspects that many Soldiers and units do not take seriously 

prior to attendance at the course. As a sapper community, 

we must continue to develop and maintain the building 

blocks required to ensure persistent exposure of the course 

within the military and through all channels of the media. It 

is important to assist in the recruitment and growth of the 

sapper community by continuing to honor and respect all 

who have been involved in establishing its legacy. In doing 

so, sappers will continue to be one of the most effective and 

elite groups of leaders on the battlefield, which in turn, will 

diminish and eliminate the fraudulent wearing of the tab. In 

order to preserve the accomplishments of sappers, the displaying and bearing of this symbol, which represents a high 

degree of skill, proficiency, and excellence, must remain 

authentic. Our Engineer Regiment and the Army depend on 

it. Sappers Lead the Way! 

Endnotes:

1

AR 600-9, The Army Body Composition Program, 28 June 

2013.

2

DA Pam 670-1, Guide to the Wear and Appearance of

Army Uniforms and Insignia, 25 May 2017.

3

Kenneth Herron, “Final Shot,” Army Magazine, September 

2017.

4

Steven R. Slocum, “Tabs Appear Out of Order,” Army Magazine, December 2017. 

5

DA Pam 670-1.

6

AR 670-1, Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and 

Insignia, 31 March 2014.

7

DA Pam 670-1.

Master Sergeant Zwolinski is a former chief instructor of the 

Sapper Leader Course, Fort Leonard Wood. He is a graduate of 

the U.S. Army Engineer Advanced Leader Course, Senior Leader 

Course, Precommand Course, Ranger School, Sapper Leader 

Course, Airborne School, Jumpmaster School, Pathfinder 

School, Mountain Warfare School, Urban Mobility Breacher 

Course, British Search Course, Basic Instructor Course, Battle 

Staff Course, Equal Opportunity Leaders Course, Combative 

Level 1 Course, and Combat Life Saver Course. He is currently 

attending the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy.

(“Sapper Tab,” continued from page 30) 

Go to:

<https://home.army.mil/wood/indexphp/contact

/publications/engr_mag>
34 Engineer September–December 2018

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update pdate

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate

Concepts, Organizations, and Doctrine Development Division

Publication 

Number Title Description

Publications Currently Under Revision

Waste Management 

for Deployed Forces

This update will incorporate current regulations and 

best practices and techniques for conducting waste 

management activities while deployed.

TM 3-34.56

Tentative

Publication

Date

2d quarter,

FY 19

Living Doctrine for 

Engineer 

Reconnaissance

This product will incorporate audio, video, and 

pictures to enhance understanding and training of 

Army Techniques Publication (ATP) 3-34.81.

ATP 3-34.81 1st quarter,

FY 19

This update focuses on engineer support to largescale ground combat operations and will nest with, 

and incorporate topics from, Field Manual (FM) 3-0, 

Operations.

FM 3-34

2d quarter,

fiscal year

 (FY) 2019

Engineer 

Operations

Training Tools Under Development

How can you provide feedback to doctrinal publication reviews?

As Soldiers and civilians, you have the opportunity to provide feedback to our doctrinal publications as well 

as those staffed across the Army. For existing publications, please e-mail us directly with your feedback. For 

doctrinal publications that are under assessment or revision, the staffing process includes a 45-day period for 

comments, which are accepted regardless of rank or position. However, there are requirements associated 

with the level of comment. Below are the descriptions associated with critical, major, substantive, and 

administrative comments. We have added additional notes annotating the rank equivalent associated with 

the level of comment. 

C—Critical. Contentious issue that will cause nonconcurrence with publication; requires general officer 

 level backing.

M—Major. Incorrect material that may cause nonconcurrence with publication; requires colonel level or 

 above backing.

S—Substantive. Factually incorrect material.

A—Administrative. Grammar, punctuation, and style.

Regardless of level of comment, we welcome the feedback to ensure that the information we are capturing for 

the Regiment is current, relevant, and useful for the force. 

Living Doctrine for 

Combined Arms 

Mobility

This publication will incorporate audio, video, and 

pictures into each chapter in order to enhance 

understanding of ATP 3-90.4 (with additional support from the U.S. Marine Corps for this multi-Service 

publication).

ATP 3-90.4 1st quarter,

FY 19
September–December 2018 Engineer 35

Please contact us if you have any questions or recommendations concerning engineer doctrine:

Lieutenant Colonel Carl D. Dick, Telephone: (573) 563-2717; e-mail: <carl.d.dick.mil@mail.mil>.

Mr. Douglas K. Merrill, Telephone: (573) 563-0003; e-mail: <douglas.k.merrill.civ@mail.mil>.

Engineer Doctrine Team, e-mail: <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.cdidcodddengdoc@mail.mil>.

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update pdate

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate

Concepts, Organizations, and Doctrine Development Division

New Engineer Publication Highlights

New Living Doctrine media and products are being developed to increase doctrinal knowledge and ease 

of use. ATP 3-34.81, Living Doctrine for Engineer Reconnaissance Publication, is in the final review stage. 

See the following Common Access Card site for an example of living doctrine: <https://rdl.train.army.mil

/catalog/search?current=true&search_terms=living%20doctrine>.

ATP 3-34.45/Marine Corp reference publication 3-40D.17, Electric Power Generation and Distribution, was 

published to the Army Publication Directorate on 6 July 2018. Updates to this multi-Service manual include 

the following:

■ This ATP is a compilation of tactics, techniques, and procedures found in doctrine, lessons learned, and

other reference material that, for the first time, provides an integrated systematic approach to electric

power generation, distribution, and management. It codifies lessons learned over the past 16 years and

serves commanders and their staffs as a comprehensive guide for planning, producing, distributing, and

managing electrical power in support of military operations.

■ The chapters cover the role of electrical power in support of military operations, an overview of tactical

electrical power systems, the supply of medium voltage, utility power, and the planning and construction 

of power systems.

■ The appendixes provide information on each of the Service electrical power capabilities of the U.S. 

Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force, including worldwide power voltages and plug and outlet 

configurations.

Joint Publication (JP) 3-15.1, Counter-Improvised Explosive Devices Operations, was published to the Joint 

Education Directorate on 17 July 2018. The doctrinal guidance is being expanded to counter emerging 

threats that go beyond the scope of this JP. Accordingly, relevant material in this JP will be consolidated into 

existing joint doctrine and this publication will be removed from the joint doctrine hierarchy no later than 

12 months from the signature date. Updates to this manual include the following: 

■ Describes the improvised explosive devices network and threat.

■ Covers planning for counter-improvised explosive device operations discusses, staff responsibilities, and 

describes a counter-improvised explosive device task force. 
36 Engineer September–December 2018

This article discusses the current structure of engineer 

qualification tables (EQTs). The Engineer Branch is 

very diverse, with disciplines ranging from combat 

and general engineering to electrical power generation to 

geospatial engineering. There are engineer units that specialize in horizontal or vertical construction, bridging, or 

route clearance, each unit having its own tasks that require 

qualification to be deployable. Individual engineer Soldiers 

have requirements to maintain personally assigned weapon 

systems and crew-served weapons, so they revert to squad 

and platoon gunnery tables to ensure that those standards 

are met. The challenge for engineers is to clearly articulate 

the engineer-specific training events necessary to become 

elevated to trained in their overall readiness status on 

mission-essential tasks. The EQTs were designed to provide 

battalion and brigade maneuver commanders with quality 

oversight to validate engineer training. 

However, the EQTs fail to address the full spectrum of 

engineer tasks or give a set standard for each table. Without a common published standard, engineer units across 

the Army cannot know if newly arrived Soldiers who have 

completed the EQTs at previous assignments are capable 

of completing the EQTs at their new duty stations. Qualification tables should provide predictable and reproducible 

outcomes. My recommendation is to establish EQTs that are 

similar in design to gunnery tables—with the same level of 

detail—for each of the tasks that engineer units must complete, up to platoon level.

The EQTs were last published on 3 September 2009 in 

Field Manual 3-20.21, Heavy Brigade Combat Team Gunnery, which allows unit commanders to add or delete tasks 

based on “capabilities, mission analysis, and modularity 

build.”1

 Once the focus of the training has been decided, 

the commander then selects on which squad and individual 

tasks to train to support the culminating platoon training 

event. After selecting the training tasks, engineer commanders rely on the Combined Arms Training System to provide 

guidance on tasks, conditions, and standards. This differs 

from the tank and Bradley fighting vehicle gunnery tables 

for the Armor and Infantry Branches.

Although the EQTs progress from individual and team 

levels up to platoon level tasks in the same manner as the 

gunnery tables, they do not match the detail of the gunnery 

tables. For example, the gunnery tables for maneuver elements contain their own tasks, conditions, and standards 

within each table. These include the ammunition allocation needed for each table, breaking down in detail which 

tasks must be accomplished to complete each of the tables to 

standard. The gunnery tables also state the minimum standard for qualification and provide a scoring sheet. This does 

not imply that engineer commanders, with the support of 

their noncommissioned officers, do not establish minimum 

standards and scoring sheets before the start of training. 

However, the fact that there are not set standards across 

the Engineer Branch shows a lack of continuity and common understanding of the EQT tasks that a commander 

elects to train. This makes predictable and reproducible 

results difficult to attain.

The biggest drawback to the current EQTs is that they 

do not include tasks for engineer units that do not conduct 

route clearance or sapper training. However, most maneuver commanders use the completion of EQTs I–XII as the 

annual training guidance for all engineer elements. The 

majority of the tasks highlighted in the EQTs focus on demolitions and clearance of obstacles. The EQTs completely 

ignore key tasks such as the construction of structures and 

infrastructure and the use of engineer equipment such as

the bulldozer.

For engineers to provide maneuver commanders with 

verifiable training oversight, enable them to validate engineer training, and provide the Engineer Branch with predictable and reproducible standards, it is our duty to publish a manual that provides clear guidance on the tasks to 

be trained. Initially, it would be advantageous to develop a 

consensus of separate qualification tables for all engineer 

equipment and techniques, with templated scenarios of what 

must be learned to be considered trained. Ideally, this would 

be followed by providing standard definitions and scoring 

criteria from the individual level to platoon level for each 

table; whether the criteria are set by time, distance, check 

points, or overall effects is up for discussion. 

To summarize, the way ahead for EQTs involves—

■ Establishing tables for all engineer equipment and tasks

from earthmoving to breaching to bridging.

■ Setting standards for evaluations.

■ Designing tables similar to gunnery tables.

By Captain Dominic A. Senteno

“Qualification tables should 

provide predictable and reproducible outcomes.” 
Figure 1. Mine Clearing Line Charge table structure and platoon proficiency practice with example score sheet

September–December 2018 Engineer 37

The development of tables like the one in Figure 1 would 

provide clarity and guidance similar to that provided by 

maneuver gunnery tables and would allow our profession 

to deliver predictable and reproducible outcomes across all 

engineer elements. The establishment of tables for earthmoving and bridging elements, as well as sapper and route 

clearance companies, is necessary for the growth of our profession and organization.

Endnote:

1

Field Manual 3-20.21, Heavy Brigade Combat Team Gunnery, 3 September 2009.

Captain Senteno serves as the assistant professor of military 

science and the executive officer for the Reserve Officer Training Corps, 8th Brigade, U.S. Army Cadet Command, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. His previous 

assignment was with the 58th Combat Engineer Company, 2d 

Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, California. He is a graduate of the Maneuver Captains Career Course, 

the Urban Mobility Breachers Course, the Engineer Explosives 

Ordnance Clearance Agent Course, the U.S. Army Airborne 

School, the U.S. Army Air Assault School, and the Sapper 

Leader Course. He holds a bachelor’s degree in mathematical 

sciences from the U.S. Military Academy–West Point, New York.

PMCS - preventive maintenance checks and services

U - Untrained

 #/#/# - The total number of T/P/U tasks

Legend:

MICLIC - M58 Mine-Clearing Line Charge 

T - Trained

P - Practiced

% - percent
38 Engineer September–December 2018

On 2 July 2018, the 561st Engineer Construction 

Company, 84th Engineer Battalion, 130th Engineer Brigade, 8th Theater Sustainment Command, 

Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, welcomed back 15 Soldiers after 

4 months aboard the U.S. Naval Ship Mercy hospital vessel 

supporting the Pacific Partnership 2018 (PP18) mission in 

the Indo-Pacific region. 

The 13th iteration of the Pacific Partnership (PP) mission 

began in early 2018. PP is the largest annual multilateral 

humanitarian assistance and disaster relief and preparedness mission conducted in the Indo-Pacific region. More 

than 800 Service members and civilians from the United 

States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Sri Lanka, 

Peru, and South Korea supported the mission with medical, dental, civil engineering, and veterinary skills. The projects, engagements, and exchanges carried out during PP18 

improved capacity, enhanced regional partnerships, and 

increased multilateral cooperation for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief preparedness. 

During PP18, Soldiers from the 561st worked beyond 

the normal duties of their specialties as plumbers, 

electricians, carpenters, and masons. They helped construct and renovate schools, community halls, and medical 

centers in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. 561st Soldiers were part of the U.S. Naval Ship Mercy sail-in echelon, 

utilizing water taxis to shuttle the Soldiers and other members of the construction teams from the vessel to the project 

sites on-ground. The teams often consisted of Hawaii Army 

National Guard Soldiers, U.S. Navy Seabees, U.S. Airmen, 

Indonesian army soldiers, Sri Lankan sailors, and Peruvian sailors.

Construction in Indonesia

The U.S. Naval Ship Mercy visited Indonesia for 

the first time in 2018. The PP18 mission in Indonesia included two engineer civil action programs 

(ENCAPs): the School District 83 Elementary School and a 

community hall. Fifteen Soldiers from the 561st Engineer 

Construction Company worked alongside Soldiers from the 

Hawaii Army National Guard and Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 4 Seabees, who had arrived a month earlier to 

begin construction.

By First Lieutenant Jessica E. McAllister

Pacific Partnership 2018
September–December 2018 Engineer 39

The project scope for the elementary school in 

School District 83 included the construction of a 

112-square-meter, two-classroom school building 

using concrete reinforced with steel. The team used 

locally procured materials from nearby vendors and, 

with the help of translators, worked alongside Indonesian army soldiers. The successful completion of 

the project resulted in improvements to the existing 

facilities, allowing for smaller class sizes for 360 children and providing additional jobs for teachers. 

The Padang Village community hall project 

included the construction of a community hall building. The plans called for a building of 56 square 

meters, constructed with concrete reinforced with 

steel. The successful completion of the community 

hall provided enduring infrastructure, directly contributing to the economic and social development of 

the community. The building serves as a logistical 

hub for the community of more than 3,000 personnel and as a storm shelter for the local village during 

natural disasters. 

Construction and Renovation

in Sri Lanka

The sail-in echelon aided in the construction 

of three ENCAPs in Sri Lanka: the Kappal 

Thurei Medical Center, Andankulam Midwife 

Clinic, and Vyravar Kovilady Preschool. PP18 participants interacted closely with the Sri Lankan navy 

and used the country’s naval base when transporting to and 

from the ship.

The scope of the Kappal Thurei Medical Center project included a 56-square-meter emergency room building

constructed of concrete reinforced with steel. Plans for the 

emergency room building included plumbing and three 

toilets. The successful completion of the project provided 

much-needed improvements to the existing medical facilities. The clinic provides services for the population of 

approximately 6,000 residents. Approximately 70 patients 

are seen daily at the facility. Due 

to a lack of space in the previous 

medical center, the doctor was 

unable to provide emergency 

services; the new emergency 

room allows doctors to stabilize 

critical patients prior to transport to the hospital, located 

7 miles away.

The scope of the project for 

the Andankulam Midwife Clinic 

included the installation of 

112 feet of chain link security 

fencing with gates through 

the existing porch, newly constructed concrete stairs, and 

structural and cosmetic improvements. The Andankulam clinic 

provides services to more than 

600 families in need of nutritional education, family health 

services, and vaccines. The clinic 

is staffed by one midwife, who 

Soldiers install light fixtures.

Soldiers from the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force level the ground to build 

a sidewalk for the emergency room in Sri Lanka.
40 Engineer September–December 2018

provides prenatal care to an average of 60 pregnant women 

per month. This project was critical to improving the comfort 

and living standards of the community.

The scope of the Vyravar Kovilady Preschool renovation included the construction of a three-stall squat toilet 

block, septic tank, and soakage pit. The sail-in echelon also 

improved structural weaknesses and cosmetic faults. The 

preschool serves approximately 30 students (ages 2–5) and 

a staff of three teachers. The school previously had one toilet, which was shared among the students and faculty. This 

project was critical in improving the comfort and quality of 

life for the students and teachers.

Renovation in Vietnam

The largest involvement of the PP in Vietnam occurred 

during 2018. Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 5 

arrived in Vietnam with the advance fly-in echelon 

to begin construction. The U.S. Naval Ship Mercy engineering team participated in the construction of two ENCAPs 

in Vietnam: the renovation of the Ninh Xuan #2 Primary 

School and the Dien Dong Medical Clinic.

The Ninh Xuan #2 Primary School ENCAP involved the 

renovation of two school buildings and included installing 

aluminum windows and doors and replacing light fixtures, 

ceiling fans, three toilets, three sinks, and one water tank. 

The successful project supports 1,100 local schoolchildren in 

the Khanh Hoa District and helps provide primary education classes to 140 students throughout the school year. 

The Dien Dong Medical Clinic ENCAP involved a renovation of the existing clinic, including the replacement of 

sinks and toilets and cosmetic improvements. The successfully completed project supports more than 3,800 local Vietnamese villagers in the Khanh Hoa District. An average of 

25 patients is seen at the clinic per day. The renovation provided five functioning restrooms, increasing the comfort and 

quality of care for patients.

Conclusion

The United States has a strong legacy of cooperation 

and defense ties with countries across the IndoPacific region, dating back to a devastating tsunami in Southeast Asia in 2004. PP continues to emphasize 

direct care, responsiveness, preparedness, and civil-military 

exchanges in the region.

The sharing of technical expertise and processes proved 

invaluable to the 561st Soldiers and their joint counterparts. The Soldiers of the 561st learned new techniques 

and skills from their counterparts. Four Soldiers earned the 

Navy Enlisted Aviation Warfare Specialist badge during the 

mission. The world-class construction efforts of the 561st 

and its partners directly improved the lives of more than 

11,000 residents and serve as a lasting reminder of the 

capabilities and effects that these partnerships craft for thousands more.

First Lieutenant McAllister is a vertical-construction platoon 

leader for the 561st Engineer Construction Company, Schofield 

Barracks, Hawaii. She holds a bachelor’s degree in systems 

engineering from the U.S. Military Academy–West Point, New 

York. She is a graduate of the Engineer Basic Officer Leadership Course.

Engineer is always looking for good-quality, action photographs (no “grip 

and grins,” please) to use on the outside covers. If you have photographs of 

Soldiers who are in the proper, current uniform and are participating in training events or operations or photographs of current, branch-related equipment 

that is being used during training or operations, please send them to us at 

<usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.engineer@mail.mil>. 

Ensure that photographs depict proper safety and security procedures, 

and do not send copyrighted photographs. All photographs must be highresolution; most photographs obtained from the Internet, made smaller for 

e-mailing, or saved from an electronic file such as a Microsoft® PowerPoint or 

Word document cannot be used for print. In addition, please include a caption 

that describes the photograph and identifies the subject(s) and photographer 

(if known). Please see our photograph guide at <http://www.wood.army.mil

/engrmag/Photograph%20Illustration%20Guide.htm> for more detailed 

information.

We Need Your Photographs!
September–December 2018 Engineer 41

From April to May of 2018, Soldiers from the 523d 

Engineer Support Company, 84th Engineer Battalion, 130th Engineer Brigade, 8th Theater Sustainment Command, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, deployed to 

Cabanatuan, Republic of the Philippines, in support of the 

34th annual Balikatan Exercise. Among the ranks of this 

vertical-construction platoon were trained electricians, 

plumbers, and carpenters. 

The Balikatan Exercise is an annual, multifaceted, 

multilateral exercise that supports the Indo-Pacific Security Cooperation Initiative. The 2018 exercise combined a 

staff exercise, live-fire exercise, and humanitarian civicassistance component to enhance the operational readiness 

of U.S. Army Soldiers and the armed forces of the Philippines (AFP) while increasing interoperability. 

Task Organization 

The 523d was task-organized under the Joint Civil 

Military Operations Task Force, which was responsible for conducting broad-spectrum civil and military operations. These operations included five engineer 

civil action programs (ENCAPs), cooperative health engagements, civil affairs operations, and community relations 

activities. 

The 523d vertical-construction platoon controlled 

ENCAP Site 5, which was co-located with Cabu Elementary

School, while members of the U.S. Marines, Navy, and Air 

Force controlled the other four sites. The ENCAP Site 5

mission was to enhance the operational readiness of U.S. 

forces, AFP forces, and other international partners through 

joint engineer construction, demonstrating U.S. and AFP 

commitment to the welfare and social development of local 

communities and, thus, assisting in preserving the alliance 

between the partners.

Project Scope

The project scope for the 523d was simple, yet unique: 

construct a two-classroom building designed by the 

Philippines Department of Education. While on-site, 

the engineers also used the ENCAP site as a logistics hub 

for civil and military operations in the region. The existing 

school suffered from overcrowding and was forced to operate 

on a split schedule in order to accommodate more than 900 

students. This limited the time available for educating students and placed a huge burden on the teachers. Therefore, 

the intended effects of the project were to increase the capacity for students, reduce class sizes, and return the school to 

normal operating hours.

Construction 

Within 24 hours of arriving on-ground, the 523d and 

the 548th Engineer Construction Battalion, its 

Filipino engineer counterpart, staked the layout at

By First Lieutenant Abigail J. Toth
42 Engineer September–December 2018

the new construction site and started digging foundations. 

Over the next month and a half, engineers hand-placed 

53 cubic meters of concrete, laid more than 1,500 concrete 

blocks, hoisted five metal trusses, and installed the roof system. Inside, they installed the electrical wiring, painted, and 

hung chalkboards. In total, 

the project required more than 

20,000 Soldier hours, saved 

more than $500,000 through 

the utilization of troop construction, and was finished 

5 days ahead of schedule.

The task force responsible 

for construction at ENCAP 

Site 5 included 27 U.S. Army 

Soldiers, six U.S. Marines, 

30 AFP soldiers, and 11 Japanese soldiers. These 74 engineers were organized into multinational teams of different 

specialties to increase collaboration and enhance interoperability. The task force worked 

12-hour days and sometimes 

initiated night shifts to avoid 

potential heat casualties.

Lessons Learned

While the construction 

project was finished 

ahead of schedule, 

the operational environment and variables posed challenges. The lessons learned highlighted the importance of—

■ Communication. The foundation for success is communication. The English, Tagalog, and Japanese languages were spoken by the joint service teams. A

523d Soldiers and host nation counterparts manually hoist a metal truss for the roof system.

Project officer First Lieutenant Toth (left) meets with Major General Hermingildo Francisico C. Aquino of the AFP and Lieutenant General Lawrence D. Nicholson, commander of the III Marine Expeditionary Force, during the classroom dedication ceremony.
September–December 2018 Engineer 43

common platform for communication was necessary to 

transmit and exchange ideas, methods, and plans. Communication by illustrations and numbers was essential

for success. Words lost meaning during translation,

whereas construction plans and sketches provided a clear

and shared vision. Captain Roy R. Bauding, 548th Commander, stated, “Many of my troops have a lot of experience in construction, but they could hardly express themselves to relay their ideas and suggestions.” Innovative

communication in joint and multinational exercises is

vital to success.

■ Resource and project management. U.S. forces gained

unique knowledge about resources and project management. The 523d was responsible for coordinating the

delivery, inventory, and use of $56,000 worth of materials. Experience dealing with 160 different line items

taught leaders about contracts and the importance of

holding host nation contractors to exact specifications.

Additionally, most of the power tools and advanced equipment normally used by U.S. and Japanese soldiers were

not available. However, Filipinos are accustomed to 

using ingenuity to complete jobs without ideal resources.

Therefore, soldiers learned about resource management 

from the AFP, while leaders learned about project management from Captain Bauding. Due to an unpredicted

local election, the project needed to be completed 5 days 

ahead of the original schedule. Rather than simply

increasing work hours, the leadership developed a new

plan that redefined phases of the construction. Captain

Bauding’s experience in working with constricted timelines and limited resources allowed his Soldiers to adapt

to an uncommon construction flow. The method was not

revolutionary; however, it forced the leaders of the 523d

to think outside of the box. Resources and time are critical constraints, but abstract management and innovation

will win every time.

■ The engineer professional. As professionals, Soldiers

of the Engineer Regiment were entrusted to complete the

construction with little oversight. ENCAP Site 5 operated

autonomously. The 523d tactically controlled all personnel who entered the school grounds and often housed

visitors and important dignitaries. As Army and engineer professionals, the 523d Soldiers accepted the mission to build a product that upheld the engineer obligation to society, the client, and the profession.

Conclusion

The Tagalog word Balikatan translates to “shoulder 

to shoulder.” The Balikatan Exercise is a cornerstone of the relationship between the U.S. military 

and the Philippines. The troop construction and its direct 

effects will leave a lasting legacy on the residents and on 

diplomatic relationships. The challenges and rewards 

of working with host nation forces illustrate that engineer civil-action programs across the Indo-Pacific region 

are imperative. The 523d was assigned a unique mission, 

with real-world effects, and was successful in highlighting 

world-class engineering to the host nation counterparts. 

Using troop construction, more than $500,000 was saved 

and the project was finished 5 days ahead of schedule. The 

523d left behind an effective product that will enhance the 

quality of life for the community. 

First Lieutenant Toth is a vertical-construction platoon 

leader for the 523d Engineer Support Company. She holds 

a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the U.S. Military Academy–West Point, New York. She is a graduate of the 

Engineer Basic Officer Leadership Course and the U.S. Army 

Airborne School. She is a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design green associate and a credentialed Envision 

Sustainability Professional.

523d Soldiers and host nation counterparts constructed a two-classroom schoolhouse to serve the local community.
44 Engineer September–December 2018

I

magine that you are deployed to a battlefield on fire, 

with just 6 days’ notice. You are unaccustomed to 

the terrain; the smoke billows, concealing groups of 

Soldiers from your view. You are combating a dynamic, unfamiliar threat that spreads very rapidly over any terrain. The 

weapons and tools with which you have previously trained 

have no effect on this threat. The radios that you 

have in your company cannot be used to communicate with anyone else on the battlefield, including 

medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) personnel, coalition partners, or tactical superior leadership. The 

“enemy” that you are fighting can use your clothing 

as well as the organizational clothing and individual equipment that you are carrying against you. 

This is not war; this is wildland firefighting. It is a 

mission unlike any other that you have trained for 

or are equipped to accomplish. Nevertheless, your 

Soldiers are fit and they learn quickly. That is all 

you need to succeed.

The Umpqua North Complex wildfire near Glide, 

Oregon, began as the result of a series of lightning 

strikes during the third week of August 2017. Low 

precipitation, high winds, and highly unstable 

atmospheric conditions during the summer months 

created ideal conditions for the fire to spread across 

more than 43,000 acres of Oregon forest. On 1 September 2017, the Department of Defense answered 

Captain Matthew T. Nichols, First Lieutenant Charlene L. Coutteau, 

and First Lieutenant Mark L. Rubio

Soldiers practice building a handline to prevent a fire from 

spreading.
September–December 2018 Engineer 45

a request from the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) 

for military aid to help contain the Umpqua North Complex 

wildfire under defense support of civil authorities orders. 

On 7 September 2017, 250 Soldiers from the 23d Brigade 

Engineer Battalion (BEB), 1-2 Stryker Brigade Combat 

Team, deployed to the Umpqua National Forest. The 23d 

BEB rapidly reorganized into a task force of three strike 

teams (companies) and 10 crews (platoons). NIFC advisors came from a multitude of federal agencies to train and 

advise the task force. The advisors arrived 2 days before the 

23d BEB departed Joint Base Lewis–McChord, Washington. Integration and predeployment activities were efficient 

but condensed to allow for further training upon arrival at 

the base camp. The NIFC rushed hand tools, radios, and 

fire-resistant personal protective equipment to JBLM and 

the base camp in Oregon to equip the Soldiers for their 

mission.

Wildland Firefighting Tools

Due to the remote locations of wildfires, it is often not 

feasible to move fire engines and pumps to the fire 

line to provide water for fire suppression. Instead, 

wildland firefighters rely on a multitude of construction 

equipment and hand tools to separate burning debris from 

unburnt debris, with a buffer space of mineral, soil, rock, 

or other fire-resistant terrain (such as a road, river, or rock 

face). Each tool assists wildland firefighters with suppressing the fire or halting its spread until it burns itself out. 

Some common firefighting tools include bulldozers, chainsaws, water hoses, Pulaskis, shovels, McLeods, and bladder bags. 

The Pulaski is one of the most versatile wildland firefighting tools. The combination axe head/adze allows for the 

digging and chopping of limbs, roots, and logs. Due to its utility, most crewmen carry the Pulaski as their tool of choice. 

The adze on the back side of the axe head differentiates the 

Pulaski from other axes, such as those used in logging and 

included as basic-issue items for many military vehicles.

McLeods are a combination of a hoe and a rake. Although 

they have a cutting edge, they are mostly used for their raking side. The raking side allows for the cleanup of the handline so that it is level. A handline is a strip of land cleared 

of all vegetation to prevent fire from spreading. McLeods are 

usually positioned at the end of the handline-digging crew. 

Digging a handline (the most common mission) requires 

Pulaskis, McLeods, shovels, and chainsaws. The crew uses 

the hand tools to scrape down to mineral soil or rock and 

create a buffer between the fire and unburnt debris. The 

crew digs the handline along the perimeter of the fire, which 

can be hundreds of yards or even miles in length. Crews can 

expect to dig handlines for extended periods of time.

Other tasks conducted by firefighting crews include mopping, gridding, and chipping, which help prevent the fire 

from spreading. Mopping and gridding consist of patrolling 

through burnt areas, usually along the perimeter next to 

an unburnt area, and ensuring that the fire is out and the 

ground is cold, leaving no chance for the fire to reignite and 

spread. Completion of this task relies heavily on the use of 

shovels and bladder bags. The shovel is used to move soil 

onto the hot spot to deny it access to oxygen. The bladder bag 

is used to put out smoldering roots and debris (hot spots) with 

water so that they do not reignite nearby unburnt debris. 

Common Interagency Communications

Firefighters who work to extinguish a fire come from 

a variety of agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service; the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior; the U.S. National Park Service; and a 

multitude of state and local organizations. Wildfires cause 

crews to spread out along long distances in remote areas 

where cell phone service is not reliable. Fire behavior

Pulaski McLeod can change rapidly based on changes in wind, temperature, 

Soldiers hauling hose down a dozer line
46 Engineer September–December 2018

humidity, and cloud cover. As such, crews must receive regular weather updates. This creates a challenge for keeping 

firefighters from different agencies connected across miles 

of forest. 

Handheld radios are important for providing crews with 

the means to reach support, receive weather updates, and 

call for MEDEVAC. The type of radio primarily used in 

wildland firefighting is the Bendix King© (BK) very high 

frequency radio. The NIFC and many other federal agencies use these radios as their main communication devices. 

State and local agency personnel can also sign for radio 

sets from the incident command to access the radio communications network. This network has a number of 

frequencies arrayed to support command and tactical traffic. The command network consists of a number of repeaters and a few frequencies. The incident command post has 

a communications team that hikes or flies frequency repeaters to mountaintops and ridges to ensure long-distance 

radio communications 

on a handful of command frequencies. 

This ensures that fire 

divisions can reach 

the incident command 

post, MEDEVAC helicopters/ambulances, 

and crews in remote 

areas.

The incident command also designates 

most of its available 

frequencies as “tactical” networks, which 

are not repeated 

across distances. 

These frequencies are

assigned to task 

forces, divisions, and 

others to provide 

line-of-sight communications to crews in closer 

proximity to each other. Most radio traffic 

within a division is sent over these frequencies in 

order to keep command frequencies free of routine 

traffic.

Wildfire in the Umpqua National 

Forest

Prior to deployment to the Umpqua 

National Forest, Soldiers learned the 

basics of analyzing weather conditions, 

predicting fire activity, and employing fire shelters. This training in fire behavior and survival 

techniques provided Soldiers with the basic competencies needed for safely conducting wildland 

firefighting operations.

On 7 September 2017, the bulk of Task 

Force Spearhead moved to the Umpqua North 

Complex base camp and began hands-on training, utilizing firefighting tools to learn a variety of fire suppression 

techniques. During this initial training, Soldiers learned 

how to construct a handline. To do this, crews organized 

themselves in lines according to tool type. Cutting tools 

such as the Pulaski were placed at the front of the line to 

loosen and remove roots and tree limbs. Shovel and McLeod 

teams followed closely behind the Pulaski teams and swept 

out all remaining grass and foliage. Teamwork and communication were essential in handline construction to 

ensure that the depressions were wide enough to prevent 

fire from jumping the line. While digging handlines, Soldiers also practiced what they had learned prior to deployment by moving along fire escape routes and employing 

fire shelters.

Another skill set that Soldiers acquired during initial 

training involved gridding and mopping. Gridding occurs 

when a crew sweeps through burned-out areas known as 

“the black” in order to identify hot spots. While gridding, the 

crew moves in a staggered line along a section of burned-out 

area. As they move forward, crew members reach down into 

the ash and use their hands to identify the hot spots. When 

a hot spot is discovered, the crew stops in place to maintain 

the continuity of the formation. Crew members closest to 

the hot spot move forward with their tools and dig deeper 

into the hot spot. Mopping involves exposing the heat in the 

hot spot to the surface. The crew members turn and mix the 

cooler soil outside the hot spot into the warm soil closest to 

the center of the hot spot. The cool soil snuffs out the hot 

spot and prevents the fire from flaring back up. Although 

this may seem monotonous, it is one of the most important 

tasks required for clearing an area. 

Finally, crews learned many preventive and repair skills 

needed to mitigate conditions for future burning. Some of 

these skills included constructing water bars, initiating controlled burns, and conducting chipping and clearing operations. Water bars are trenches that are placed on sloped 

terrain; the skills used to construct water bars are the 

same ones employed in constructing handlines. Water bars BK handheld radio

A Soldier conducts a controlled burn to reduce the amount of quickburn fuel on the forest floor.
September–December 2018 Engineer 47

prevent the erosion of soil that has loosened 

after a wildfire. The construction of water 

bars is an important repair technique used 

to prevent runoff and mudslides from damaging roads and polluting bodies of water. 

In a similar way, controlled burns help prevent conditions from worsening. In order to 

properly conduct a controlled burn, several 

crew members light drip torches filled with 

fuel. They walk along a piece of terrain, 

staggering their movement, with flames 

trailing behind. This staggered formation 

is necessary because it ensures that the 

crew member farthest from the road has 

a clear escape route. The drip torch burns 

up all the fast-burning fuel such as low 

shrubs, grass, and leaves. Burning all the 

vegetation that is low to the ground prevents future fires from spreading quickly. 

The final repair tasks that crews employed 

were chipping and clearing. Firefighting 

crews and chainsaw teams remove loose 

brush and logs along the roadside and feed 

them into the chipper. By clearing brush, 

trimming trees, and removing stumps, crews prevent rotting conditions and mitigate the encroachment of bees and 

snakes in recreational areas. Chipping prevents hazardous 

forest conditions and increases the aesthetic value of the forest for recreation.

Best Practices

We offer some best practices to future engineer Soldiers who may deploy on a wildland firefighting

mission. Our advice for companies assigned this 

mission is to maintain a high level of physical fitness. 

The rigors of manual labor in rough terrain tested and 

motivated our Soldiers. In addition, as most organizational

clothing and individual equipment is not flame-resistant,

the amount of gear necessary can be reduced. Rapid changes 

in elevation bring rapid changes in temperature, so snivel 

gear, an extra pair of boots, and a variety of socks should be 

included on the packing list.

Finally, bring a camera. You are about to deploy to 

an area with some of the most beautiful and scenic treasures our Nation has to offer. Stop to smell the ash and fir 

trees, and snap a photograph. This is a once-in-a-lifetime 

experience that you will remember fondly—and one that 

will authorize you bragging rights when you return to 

home station.

Captain Nichols is the commander of Company B, 

23d BEB, 1-2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team, Joint 

Base Lewis–McChord. He is a certified project management professional. Captain Nichols holds a bachelor’s 

degree in construction management from California 

Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, and a 

master’s degree in geological engineering from Missouri 

University of Science and Technology at Rolla.

First Lieutenant Coutteau is the route clearance

platoon leader for Company B, 23d BEB. She is a graduate of the Engineer Basic Officer Leadership Course 

and the U.S. Army Airborne School. First Lieutenant 

Coutteau holds bachelor of science degrees in German and defense and strategic studies from the U.S. 

Military Academy. 

First Lieutenant Rubio is a platoon leader for 

Company B, 23d BEB. He is a graduate of the Engineer 

Basic Officer Leadership Course. First Lieutenant Rubio 

holds a bachelor’s degree in environmental engineering 

from the U.S. Military Academy–West Point, New York. Soldiers grid and mop to prevent a fire from reigniting.

Soldiers feed branches into a wood chipper to clear an impassible road.
48 Engineer September–December 2018

I

n 2015, the Australian Army designated the 2d Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (2RAR), as the core 

of an amphibious force. Over the next 3 years, 2RAR 

trained and grew in size until the Amphibious Ready 

Group consisted of a reinforced battalion strength organization with combined arms enablers aboard three amphibious platforms. Beginning in 2015, a combat engineer troop 

(designated 21 Troop) was raised within the 2RAR support 

company to provide specialist amphibious combat engineer 

support to the battalion. In Australian Commonwealth 

nomenclature, an engineer or cavalry troop is equivalent 

to a U.S. Army platoon and a squadron to a U.S. Army 

company. This arrangement was unique in the Australian 

Army, as traditionally, a combat engineer regiment provides 

engineer support. The establishment of an organic combat 

engineer troop within the battalion provided an unparalleled opportunity to develop amphibious engineering tactics, 

techniques, and procedures.

While the Australian amphibious force is relatively new 

and relatively small, the experiences gained in amphibious 

combat engineering are relevant to U.S. Army engineers, 

particularly those in the Pacific Region. History has shown 

that amphibious operations are central to any conflict in 

this theater; for example, consider the island-hopping campaign in the Southwest Pacific and Pacific Ocean theaters 

during World War II. These campaigns were conducted with 

approximately equal numbers of U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) 

and U.S. Army divisions. In the European theater, major 

amphibious operations (Torch, Overlord, and Husky) were 

U.S. Army affairs. Prospects for conflict in the region (in 

areas such as the South China Sea and Korean Peninsula) 

suggest that U.S. Army engineers would be well-served to 

consider a shipboard amphibious engineering capability.

Amphibious operations are those in which a force maneuvers directly from the sea to achieve objectives ashore. This 

is distinct from sealift operations, in which a force is transported by ship and then disembarks in a secure assembly 

area before engaging in operations. Amphibious operations 

are the domain of the USMC, which typically secures points 

of entry for Army follow-on forces to flow through by sea 

or airlift. Part of the invasion of Afghanistan in November 

2001 was achieved by the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit 

projecting into southern Afghanistan before seizing Kandahar Airfield, which became a significant theater air point 

of disembarkation. The potential for future conflicts in the 

Pacific may result in a requirement for the Army to augment USMC amphibious operations or conduct them independently. The potential for a situation to rapidly escalate 

may also result in an Army force that sailed for sealift being 

retasked to execute an amphibious operation.

Central to modern amphibious theory is the concept of 

ship-to-objective maneuver (STOM), in which the amphibious force uses a combination of surface and air assets to 

deploy forces ashore in the most advantageous position to 

achieve its objectives. This differs significantly from what 

most people envision as amphibious warfare—namely, the 

D-day amphibious assault depicted in the opening scenes of 

Saving Private Ryan.

1

 STOM negates the requirements to 

seize and hold an expanding beachhead where combat power 

is massed prior to breakout and confront prepared enemy 

By Captain Liam J. Clarke
September–December 2018 Engineer 49

defenses immediately after 

landing. Ideally, the minimum 

forces required for the mission 

should be projected ashore 

where the enemy is not located 

and the objective is struck as 

rapidly as possible. 

STOM is enabled by thorough reconnaissance using all

available means. This is critical to ensure that the vulnerable troops making landfall 

do so away from the enemy 

location. To be successful, the 

intelligence gathered should be

leveraged by the supporting

engineer commander. Equipment and specialized training

differentiate sappers from 

infantrymen. Without the tools 

of the trade, combat engineers 

become riflemen. In conventional, land-based operations, 

the heavy, bulky equipment is carried in troop vehicles; this 

enables the troop to bring everything everywhere—and to be 

able to do anything anywhere. This approach is not compatible with STOM, where time is of the essence to get the force 

ashore before the enemy can respond. With the limiting factor of the capacity of ship-to-shore connectors resolved, operational tempo may be achieved by minimizing the force to 

be landed.

Taking advantage of the intelligence information gathered before the operation allows the engineers to organize 

the force and equipment. The planning required for engineer equipment should be shared down to the lowest level 

to ensure that the mission can be completed with maximum 

efficiency. This extends to the prioritization of personnel and 

the equipment they need for projection from ship to shore 

since it is unlikely that an amphibious force will be able to 

project itself in a single lift. The risk of subsequent waves 

being significantly delayed or not arriving should be considered during planning. Thus, each engineer element must 

plan to execute the mission with only the stores and equipment on hand, rather than relying on subsequent waves of 

troops arriving.

It is not uncommon for engineers to land ashore without their vehicles. They may be without the vehicles for a 

short period or for the duration of the mission. Sappers may 

need to pack their stores and equipment from the insertion site to the objective while keeping up with their supported force; this highlights the importance of proper task 

organization of equipment. The selection of innovative 

equipment and the novel use of stores aid the amphibious 

engineer in achieving the mission. With the luxury of access 

to integral vehicles during conventional land-based operations, sappers may become complacent, bringing along the 

same equipment for every mission instead of looking at the 

situation with a critical eye. For example, 21 Troop replaced 

hand axes, hammers, and wrecking bars with a smaller, 

lighter combination tool carried by the individual. This 

tool was not as effective as the individually designed tools; 

however, the degraded performance was offset by versatility 

and portability. 

Stores can also be adapted outside of their primary or 

conventional use. If a mission requires a position to be 

seized and defended (such as with a coup de main operation), there may not be time to prepare defensive positions 

before the arrival of an attacking force. It is equally unlikely 

that light plant equipment would be deployed to speed up 

the process during such an operation. Instead, fighting positions for primary weapon systems can be expediently prepared using shaped and bulk explosive charges. Similarly, 

small quantities of explosives could be used to prepare an 

abatis style obstacle held as a reserved demolition to cover 

the withdrawal of an amphibious force following a raid. 

This option would negate the requirement to carry chainsaws, which are problematic due to the flammability of their 

fuel supplies. 

These examples are not meant to suggest that smallengine equipment does not have its place; provided it is 

maintained and supplied with fuel, small-engine equipment will continue to operate after explosive stores have 

been expended. This emphasizes the importance of including the relative advantages and disadvantages of potential 

equipment types in mission planning. Options are limited 

by the stores that are initially loaded onto the ships; this 

requires a focus on innovation and adaptability before the 

force begins to embark. Versatile stores and equipment 

should be prioritized over specialized items, even at the cost 

of reduced performance. Additionally, the quantity of limited 

A sapper with search equipment prepares to board an MRH-90 helicopter.
50 Engineer September–December 2018

supplies such as demolitions and fuel must be monitored as 

they are consumed during the course of the mission. Timely 

and accurate reporting of these critical stores is essential 

to enable the planning process and demonstrate the need 

for engineers to be actively engaged with their supporting 

logisticians.

Once the amphibious engineer is ashore, discrete engineering tasks can be executed as they would be during conventional operations. For example, the tactics to breach, 

proof, and mark a lane through an obstacle do not change 

because the mission was launched from an amphibious platform. The techniques and procedures for discrete tasks may 

need modifications to suit the restricted stores and equipment availability. For example, during an assault breach, 

clear lanes which would normally be marked with star 

pickets were instead marked with lightweight poles made 

from sections of electrical conduit, allowing the marking kit 

to be carried by a dismounted single sapper. A significant 

difference between conventional and amphibious combat 

engineering is the lack of inherent flexibility that engineers 

would normally have with access to their full suite of equipment once ashore. Supported commanders must be made 

aware of this limitation of their assigned engineers; the 

reduced scope to be retasked during the mission itself will 

likely be at odds with what an Army maneuver commander 

is accustomed to from his or her conventional experience.

This is not to say that engineers lack usefulness once 

their primary task is completed or their limited stores are 

expended. The stated secondary role of the Royal Australian Engineers is to fight as infantry. Assuming proper 

training, engineers provide supported commanders with 

operational flexibility. A maneuver commander who sees an 

attached engineer troop as simply an additional rifle platoon is wasting a specialized asset and depriving himself 

or herself of the force-multiplying effects that sappers bring 

to the combined arms fight. Similarly, a commander who 

views engineers as a burdensome liability once their task 

is completed fails to recognize the opportunity to increase 

the combat power provided by engineers in a new role. For 

engineers to effectively demonstrate this versatility, the 

engineer commander must ensure that the troops are sufficiently trained and that suitable advice has been provided 

to the supported commander. 

It is unlikely that engineers will embark on shipping as 

a formed body; instead, they will likely be dispersed across 

platforms to ensure that the loss of a ship does not deprive 

the task force of an entire capability. Junior engineer commanders may find themselves directly reporting to, advising, 

and contributing to the planning activities of more senior 

commanders than usual. For 21 Troop, it was common for a 

corporal to be reporting directly to an infantry major while a 

lieutenant worked at the battalion level. In the Royal Australian Engineers, a corporal (as opposed to a sergeant in a 

U.S. squad) leads a combat engineer section of eight men and 

a major (rather than a captain) commands Australian company/squadron size organizations. Instilling the requisite 

tactical knowledge and confidence in junior commanders to 

work at higher levels of command is important to ensure that 

engineers are incorporated into the plan under normal circumstances. In an operational environment where seats on 

the mission are scarce, it is even more critical that engineer 

commanders accurately champion their capabilities. 

Markers guide assaulting troops into a cleared line that has been breached through an obstacle.
September–December 2018 Engineer 51

Exercise Talisman Sabre 15 was conducted in the Northern Territory, Australia, where 2RAR provided two company 

size combat teams as part of a combined USMC and Australian task force to execute a point-of-entry seizure operation. During this, 2RAR’s first major amphibious exercise, 

21 Troop formed the depth element of a company attack. 

From this position, 21 Troop was able to provide an additional assault platoon, support by fire, and breaching parties to reduce obstacles depending on how the attack developed. The troop was integrated into the operation during the 

planning stages to ensure that it enabled the commander 

with a degree of flexibility that no other element could have 

provided. As it transpired, the troop was required to clear 

the objective of booby-traps—an enemy course of action not 

identified during planning. This was countered with search 

equipment and lightweight hook and line kits, which had 

been derived from larger, in-service variants. This simple 

example, albeit in a training environment, highlights the 

wide-ranging impact that engineers can have on an amphibious operation when they have versatile equipment and are 

in the right place at the right time. 

Life aboard an amphibious platform presents challenges 

to an embarked force unaccustomed to that environment. To 

the uninitiated, the tight quarters may make it seem like 

people are in each other’s pockets; however, the first attempt 

to pass information dispels the notion that proximity yields 

speed. Mobile telephones and radios do not work within the 

steel bowels of a ship, and the crew rapidly tires of passing personal messages over the public address system if the 

practice is even indulged at all. While not specific to engineers, holding routine meetings between commanders and 

subordinates ensures that information is communicated regularly. Informing cabinmates of movements and expected 

times also assists in the passage of information. Verbal time 

and date stamping ensures that old news is not circulated 

when situations change. 

Amphibious operations present unique challenges to 

combat engineers; and while it may be easy to dismiss overcoming these challenges as the role of the USMC, it is possible that the U.S. Army may need to execute amphibious 

operations in the near future. Unit training plans do not 

necessarily need to be comprehensively redeveloped because 

of this potential, but it is worth considering how Army engineer units could adapt to the amphibious environment if 

required. This may take the form of professional development discussions amongst unit leadership, tactical exercises 

without troops, or trials of new or existing equipment in 

alternate roles—or even cross-training with USMC combat engineers. Consideration should be given to the likely 

platforms to be embarked (regarding deck space), possible 

operational duration, and the type of operation (humanitarian assistance through conventional warfighting). At most, 

this preparation could provide an invaluable baseline prior 

to conducting amphibious operations with short notice and, 

at the least, could provide Army units with stimulating and 

demanding training outside of the norm.

Endnote:

1

Saving Private Ryan, DVD, directed by Steven Spielberg, 

performed by Tom Hanks and Matt Damon, Dreamworks Video, 

United States, 1998.

Captain Clarke, a Royal Australian engineer, is posted to 

the Australian Army Headquarters, Canberra, Australia. He 

has deployed with the Resolute Support Mission in Kabul as 

an engineer planner. In 2015, he was the troop commander of 

21 Troop, posted to 2d Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment.

All photographs provided by Warrant Officer Class Two 

Thomas Jesser. Warrant Officer Class Two Jesser was the first 

Troop Sergeant of 21 Troop, from 2015–2016. Following his 

promotion to Warrant Officer Class Two, he is now a company 

sergeant major at the Australian Army’s First Recruit Training 

Battalion.

Sappers place lightweight lane entry 

markers during a 

breach.
52 Engineer September–December 2018

From 1964 to 1975, more than 2.5 million U.S. Army, 

Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force Service members 

deployed to Vietnam in support of U.S. operations 

there.1

 On 23 May 2018, 12 Soldiers from the 7th Engineer 

Dive Detachment, 84th Engineer Battalion, 130th Engineer 

Brigade, 8th Theater Sustainment Command, Joint Base 

Pearl Harbor–Hickam, Hawaii, made the same journey but 

with a different purpose. Working as members of an underwater recovery team led by the Defense Prisoner of War/

Missing in Action Accounting Agency (DPAA), their mission 

in Vietnam was to search for, and attempt recovery of, stillmissing Service members from the Vietnam War.

More than 1,500 U.S. personnel remain unaccounted for 

in Southeast Asia—a number that DPAA constantly works 

to reduce. In keeping with our Nation’s pledge to make every 

effort to bring home those still missing from past conflicts, 

7th Dive Detachment Soldiers had the privilege to participate in the very meaningful mission.

The divers worked at a site located off the coast of the 

Nghe An Province of Vietnam, in the Gulf of Tonkin. Following various DPAA recovery missions to this particular site in 

previous years, the agency’s scientific recovery experts have 

gradually narrowed the most likely location of missing U.S. 

personnel. However, the mapping of the underwater site 

is an ongoing and complicated process. 

The sea floor is invisible and constantly 

changing due to coastal storms, variable 

sea conditions, and dragnet fishing in 

the area.

The depth at which the divers worked 

was shallow enough that the primary 

factor limiting the divers’ bottom time 

was not (as it typically is) the accumulation of nitrogen gas in their bodily tissues due to the increased ambient pressure underwater. A diver’s body absorbs 

more nitrogen at deeper depths in order 

to reach equilibrium with the pressure from the surrounding water. This 

absorbed gas must be released gradually as the diver returns to the surface, 

By First Lieutenant Connor R. Wernecke

A Soldier lowers a dredge basket 

down to a diver during an underwater 

recovery operation.
September–December 2018 Engineer 53

so bottom time is limited by the rate of nitrogen absorption 

at a given depth. At depths shallower than 30 feet, nitrogen 

absorption is relatively slow; therefore, divers can remain at 

those depths for extended periods. However, regardless of 

the depth or bottom time, closely managing the divers’ rate 

of ascent back to the surface is vitally important in preventing diving injuries. If a diver ascends too quickly, nitrogen 

that was absorbed at depth will expand in response to the 

decreasing ambient pressure of shallower depths. Expanding nitrogen gas bubbles can block blood flow or interfere 

with the diver’s nervous system, leading to serious injury. 

Working at depths of only 20 to 25 feet, divers’ physical 

endurance was the primary limiting factor. The team master diver limited working dives to 180 minutes to mitigate 

the effects of fatigue and dehydration. 

Divers used a system of 86 1-square-foot grids, emplacing them according to direction from the team’s scientific 

recovery expert. Once in place, the divers used a 6-inch 

dredge hose to dredge one grid at a time. The system created 

suction known as the Venturi effect (which is the creation 

of a partial vacuum when the flow of a fluid is restricted, 

thereby increasing its speed of flow) at the diver’s working 

end of the hose.2

 Water was pumped through a fire hose and 

into a device that restricted the water flow, increasing the 

speed of the pumped water through the device and creating 

a partial vacuum in the 6-inch suction hose that was also 

connected to the pump. The entire contraption was clamped 

to a large mesh basket that collected the material excavated 

by the divers.

Once a grid was complete, the diver unclamped the pump 

and its accompanying hoses. A crane hook was lowered 

from overhead and used to lift the basket out of the water. 

The entire process was slow and methodical, as the divers 

worked in conditions of zero visibility and frequently during

high surf. It was particularly challenging to remove full 

baskets of sea floor material from the water and emplace 

empty baskets with the crane, as the operator required close 

communication between the diver, the diving supervisor, 

the crane operator, and the team linguist. Nevertheless, the 

team completed this difficult task multiple times per day for 

the duration of the mission.

While the work environment was challenging and the 

work repetitive, the Soldiers of the 7th never lost their focus 

on the mission. The team’s scientific recovery expert and aircraft equipment specialist must conduct a detailed forensic 

review of any potential evidence before any conclusions can 

be drawn.

Regardless of the conclusions, the 7th Engineer Dive 

Detachment was honored to have the opportunity to participate in such a solemn mission. The experience gave the participating Soldiers a new perspective on the promise within 

the Soldier’s Creed to “never leave a fallen comrade.”

Endnotes:

1

“Vietnam War Statistics,” History-World.org Web site,

<history-world.org/vietnam_war_statistics.htm>, accessed 

on 13 August 2018.

2”What is the Venturi Effect?” Reference.com Web site,

<https://www.reference.com/science/venturi-effect

-202884285e3ab0ee>, accessed on 13 August 2018.

First Lieutenant Wernecke serves as the executive officer 

of the 7th Engineer Dive Detachment. He holds a bachelor’s 

degree in engineering psychology from the U.S. Military 

Academy–West Point, New York. He is a graduate of the 

U.S. Army Air Assault School, the U.S. Army Sapper Leader 

Course, the Engineer Basic Officer Leadership Course, and 

the U.S. Navy Joint Diving Officer Course. 

“We are, have been, and will remain a values-based institution. Our values will not change, 

and they are nonnegotiable. Our Soldiers are warriors of character. They exemplify these values every day and are the epitome of our American spirit. They are the heart of the Army.”

General Peter J. Schoomaker, Army Chief of Staff, arrival message, July 2003.

Army

Values

L

D

R

S

H

I

P
Book reviews are a feature in each issue of Engineer. Authors of book reviews summarize the contents of books of interest 

and point out the key lessons to be learned from them. Readers who wish to submit book reviews may forward them to <usarmy

.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.engineer@mail.mil>. 

54 Engineer September–December 2018

Engineering Victory: The Union Siege of Vicksburg, by Justin S. Solonick, Southern Illinois University Press, 2015, 

ISBN 0-8093-3391-0.

Reviewed by Mr. David S. (Scott) Franklin

There are abundant books and articles on the campaigns and battles of the Civil War; however, one 

military action that has received scant attention

is the Union Siege of Vicksburg, which took place in 

Vicksburg, Mississippi, from 22 May 1863 to 4 July 1863. 

Justin S. Solonick’s work Engineering Victory: The Union 

Siege of Vicksburg should serve as a commencement of dialogue with historians about the importance of the Vicksburg 

Campaign to the success of the Union Army in the Civil War 

and provide greater focus on engineer operations on both 

sides during the bloody conflict. According to Solonick, “This 

largest siege in United States military history has gone 

largely ignored by historians.” Historians are more enamored 

with the campaigns of the East, spotlighting the Army of the 

Potomac, than with the Army of Northern Virginia. Suffering 

even greater disregard is the conduct and operations of Army 

engineers, both North and South, during the Civil War—

and during the Siege of Vicksburg in particular. Solonick 

cites two major reasons for the Union victory—the West 

Point engineering theory and Western improvisation and 

ingenuity.

Solonick’s book begins with an examination and explanation of the techniques of military engineering that were 

in practice in the Army during the Civil War. These techniques were taught at the U.S. Military Academy–West 

Point, New York, with particular attention being paid to 

siegecraft. Although, the present-day Soldier may be unfamiliar with the terms and techniques of 19th century engineering doctrine, Solonick defines and explains the terms 

and ideas in such a way that makes them very accessible 

and understandable for the novice. For more enhanced clarity, Solonick provides contemporary sketches and drawings 

from the two major engineer manuals in use at that time—

Dennis Hart Mahan’s A Complete Treatise on Field Fortification1

 and James Chatham Duane’s Manual for Engineer 

Troops.

2

 By outlining and explaining the curriculum at the 

U.S. Military Academy, Solonick lays the groundwork for part 

of his thesis. Solonick attributes partial credit for the Union 

success at Vicksburg to the fact that even though there was 

a dearth of engineer Soldiers at Vicksburg, many of “those 

officers in the Union Army fronting the rebel defenses . . . 

who had received exposure to the engineering curriculum at 

West Point were more than adequately prepared to implement a scientific siege and reduce the Gibraltar of the Confederacy.” He contends that, due to the fact that the U.S. 

Military Academy was established as a school of engineering, all graduates, irrespective of their assigned branches, 

received and were familiar with basic engineer courses and 

techniques, including Major General Ulysses S. Grant, commander of the Army of Tennessee and a 1843 graduate of 

the U.S. Military Academy. Thus, the officers were able to 

adequately guide and direct the Soldiers under their command in the proper laying of a siege at Vicksburg.

The second part of Solonick’s thesis supports the idea 

that Western improvisation and ingenuity contributed to 

the ability of the Union Army to achieve success at Vicksburg. Solonick often refers to the lack of engineer Soldiers 

at Vicksburg. However, Vicksburg was not the only campaign in which the Army was in need of engineer Soldiers. 

At the start of the Civil War, the entire Army had only four 

companies of engineer Soldiers, commonly referred to as 

the Battalion of Engineers. The situation was such that the 

Army began recruiting volunteer engineer regiments, and 

along with the Battalion of Engineers, served with the Army 

of the Potomac. In fact, the argument could be made that 

these Western Soldiers would have been the type to have 

formed the backbone of the corps of sappers and miners 

less than 100 years earlier, during the Revolutionary War, 
September–December 2018 Engineer 55

for that corps was formed by “able-bodied men, intelligent, 

sober, and engaged for the war.”3

 Solonick cites several 

examples of the ingenuity of these Western Soldiers, but 

leans heavily on two specific examples. The first example 

resulted in an improvised sap roller in which bales of cotton 

were stacked onto a flat cart that was pushed ahead of the 

approach trench as it was being dug. The Confederates fired 

a lighted projectile into the “experiment” and burned it to the 

ground. The second example involved the construction of an 

observation tower, the purpose of which remains somewhat 

a mystery. Although these items illustrate the ingenuity of 

the Western Soldiers, the items were not effective. Therefore, 

citing them as examples of why the Union Army was victorious at Vicksburg is a stretch. A more plausible explanation 

is that hardworking Western Soldiers under the direction 

of a few trained engineers and West Point–educated officers were able to sway the outcome in favor of the Union. 

Another ancillary conclusion that could be drawn from these 

examples is that the Soldiers had the freedom to try these 

improvisations, which went against contemporary doctrine. 

This book is great for anyone interested in Civil War 

history or engineer operations. It sheds some light on a 

topic that is often overlooked. This work also provides an 

extremely useful, illustrative example of how a well-trained, 

well-informed cadre of leaders can have a positive influence 

on their Soldiers and affect the outcome of an operation.

Endnotes:

1

Dennis Hart Mahan, A Complete Treatise on Field Fortification, Praeger, 1969.

2

James Chatham Duane, Manual for Engineer Troops, Nabu 

Press, 2013.

3

Raphael Prosper Thian, Legislative History of the General 

Staff of the Army of the United States (Its Organization, Duties, 

Pay, and Allowances), From 1775 to 1901, U.S. Government 

Publishing Office, Washington, D.C., 1901, p. 492.

Mr. Franklin is the collection curator at the U.S. Army Engineer Museum, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Columbia College, Missouri.

Dragons at War: Land Battle in the Desert, by Daniel P. Bolger, Ballantine Books, 1986, ISBN 0-8041-0899-4.

Reviewed by Mr. James E. Mc Carthy

I

n Dragons at War: Land Battle in the Desert, Lieutenant 

General Daniel P. Bolger (Retired) describes the troubles, travails, and triumphs of the 2-34 Infantry Battalion on an early National Training Center (NTC) rotation 

with a descriptive narrative, rich in tactical lessons. Dragons at War captures the pace of an unrelenting rotational 

unit experience in what is today termed a decisive-action 

training environment. In terms that an average reader can 

understand, Bolger describes the 1982 contemporary operating environment, relevant doctrine, major weapons systems 

and, most importantly, tactical and leader lessons that any 

NTC veteran will surely recognize. Location names such as 

Drinkwater Lake have evolved since the early days of NTC, 

but the themes and lessons remain the same. Although one 

might argue that the work is dated, the lessons are remarkably relevant for units that are preparing for NTC today.

Dragons at War describes in some detail the rotational 

design of its time. Surprisingly, the rotations were battalion 

task force-centric, as opposed to the brigade combat teamcentric rotations of today. The 2-34 Infantry Battalion—one 

of only two battalion task forces in the brigade—deployed 

as a part of First Brigade, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized). The 14-day rotation was broken into two periods 

of force-on-force scenarios, with a 4-day period of live-fire 

exercises between them. The 2-34 Infantry Battalion task 

force was allocated a normal (for the era) share of attachments, and Bolger describes the task force efforts to receive 

and integrate the attachments for the rotation. The 2-34 

Infantry Battalion task force notably received only one 

platoon of engineers in direct support, although there was 

another platoon in general support. As a result, the infantry companies spent much time at home station, learning 

to breach obstacles and mark lanes without engineer support. Bolger also describes the all-too-familiar battles of 

the “draw yard” that every rotational unit encounters—

the chaos and navigational difficulties of the initial movement to a laager in the Central Corridor under the shadow 

of Tiefort Mountain and the struggle of the task force to 

find and fix the opposing forces in the initial movement to 

contact. Bolger organizes the book around each mission set, 

describing the tactical task in terms that an average reader 

can understand. There is an incredible amount of detail, 

including times, in the descriptions. A cynical reader might 

wonder how focused the author was on looking forward to 
56 Engineer September–December 2018

a publication date rather than concentrating on precombat 

inspections. 

The book contains many lessons for engineers. Although 

Bolger focuses on Company B, he takes time to reflect on 

the various enablers that were attached to the 2-34 Infantry Battalion. He is scathing in his evaluation of the directsupport engineer platoon, labeling it “a known horror story.” 

Nevertheless, to his credit, Bolger does more than throw 

stones. He explains that the engineers were a victim of a 

battalion logistics system that had grown lazy while supporting training at the local training areas of Fort Stewart, Georgia. In addition, there were not yet any doctrinal 

provisions for pushing logistical packages of essential 

Class I (food)/III (petroleum)/V (ammunition) materials that

enabled the task force to maintain momentum or execute a 

rapid change of mission. Bolger further describes the lack of 

comprehension that key leaders displayed in understanding 

the time required to haul the Class IV (fortification and barrier materials)/V (mines) packages 30 kilometers from the 

brigade trains forward to the far end of a task force movement to the contact lane while transitioning to a deliberate defense.

Dragons at War argues that it is the responsibility of the 

receiving unit to ensure that attachments are integrated 

into the unit and to inspect the specialty support tasks that 

it performs. The 2-34 Infantry Battalion task force struggled 

with attached units until the task force commander tasked 

the Headquarters and Headquarters Company commander 

with the responsibility for all of them, particularly during 

the vulnerable periods of movement and tactical emplacement. Of course, the task force then paid a price in the form 

of a less-efficient tactical operations center. 

Although perhaps a bit heavy-handed, Bolger’s criticism of engineer support is best captured in his description 

of Team Bravo and the command group moving forward to 

breach a minefield on the initial movement to contact and 

passing the direct-support engineer platoon idling near a 

tanker truck as it executed an ill-timed refuel on the move. 

“The engineer image at Irwin would be frozen forever in the 

colonel’s mind: a little row of vehicles at a diesel pumper 

while Bravo’s infantry picked through the big minefield,” 

he states.

The author is equally scathing in his assessment of his 

own performance. He describes that, after many days of nonstop operations, his entire company slept through the task 

force stand-to and relates that the task force commander 

berated him on the task force command net, imploring him 

to catch up. However, Bolger also includes several valuable lessons for engineer attachments beyond the truism 

that first impressions are lasting. For example: Engineers 

must know where their bill of materials is and how long it 

will take for the material to come forward and be emplaced; 

engineers must be actively involved in the task force orders 

process; engineers must site critical systems in the same 

way that infantry leaders site crew-served weapons; and 

engineer leaders must position themselves near obstacles 

to ensure that the task force commander’s intent, such as 

closing a lane in a minefield, is achieved when an action is 

joined. These engineer lessons are timeless. 

 Several recent Modern War Institute at West Point articles decry the lack of defensive-planning ability. One article 

indicates that terrain management and engagement area 

development are particularly difficult tasks to accomplish.1

Another article elaborates, “This has led to a generation of 

noncommissioned officers and officers who excel in counterinsurgency and stability operations but have very limited experience with digging individual fighting positions, 

emplacing wire obstacles, felling trees into an abatis, and 

[performing] many other tasks associated with conducting 

engagement area development against a determined and 

capable adversary.”2

In today’s operating environment, NTC is fully engaged 

in a shift back to major combat operations and decisive 

action. Gone are the situational training exercise lanes and 

preparations for deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan, and 

back are the pre-11 September 2001 force-on-force scenarios. No longer is the focus on defeating improvised explosive 

devise networks and securing the populace, but rather on 

destroying a modern near-peer enemy maneuver force. For 

engineer leaders, Dragons at War contains several truths—

some of which are unpleasant. Hard, realistic training is a 

requirement for combat forces preparing to confront a nearpeer. Bolger cautions that it is “so easy to be lazy, especially 

in training.” Bolger’s work is much more compelling to read 

than the abundant lessons learned publications on NTC 

rotations. Accordingly, it is well worth the time of any military professional to rediscover Dragons at War, especially 

for Soldiers who are preparing for an NTC rotation. 

Endnotes:

1

Jared Hirschkorn, “Getting Defensive: Observations from the 

National Training Center”, Modern War Institute at West Point, 

2018, <https://mwi.usma.edu/getting-defensive-observations

-national-training-center/>, accessed on 1 August 2018.

2Brandon Morgan, “Make Defensive Operations Great 

Again”, Modern War Institute at West Point, 10 July 2018, 

<https://mwi.usma.edu/make-defensive-operations-great/>, 

accessed on 1 August 2018.

Mr. Mc Carthy is a retired infantry officer and avid history 

buff. He presently serves as the U.S. Army Forces Command 

engineer analyst at the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.
September–December 2018 Engineer 57

The Army Geospatial Center (AGC), U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE), sent survey team members to 

the U.S. Army Engineer School (USAES), Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, the week of 4–8 June 2018. Their mission was to establish coordinates on several new survey monuments installed by Military Occupational Specialty 12T, 

Technical Engineer Instructors, at Brown Hall for inclusion 

into the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS).

USAES, AGC, and Combat Terrain Information Systems 

(CTIS), which is chartered under the Program Executive 

Office, Intelligence Electronic Warfare & Sensors, formed a 

survey team and spent several days surveying six new control points as well as observing two existing NSRS control 

points with North American Vertical Datum of 1988 elevations. CTIS provides modern combat engineer and survey 

capabilities that streamline terrain management, reconnaissance, and surveying. AGC submitted the coordinates 

for the new monuments, which consist of USACE brass survey disks mounted in concrete (Figure 1).

All surveying was performed using Trimble R8® surveying equipment owned by USAES and new equipment 

that CTIS is in the process of fielding. CTIS has commercial off-the-shelf-capable systems coupled with embedded Selective Availability Antispoofing Modules-capable 

Global Positioning System (GPS) survey receivers, shown in 

Figure 2. The Army’s modern GPS system allows the capability to survey in electronically degraded environments that 

could influence the accuracy of GPS signals. In 3 days, the 

team collected GPS observations, which it then submitted to 

the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) Online Positioning User 

By Mr. Mark W. Huber and Mr. George H. Ohanian

Figure 1. Standard control monument—a USACE 

brass survey disk mounted in concrete

Figure 2. A Soldier sets up a GPS receiver point.
58 Engineer September–December 2018

Service–Projects (OPUS-Projects) application (Figure 3). The

OPUS-Projects application used the GPS observations to 

produce baselines between the surveyed points and other 

NGS points from continuously operating reference stations. 

These baselines were put through a series of network adjustments to improve the accuracy of the surveyed points. 

Final coordinates for these new points, which provide 

the instructors at Brown Hall more accurate (within a few 

millimeters) survey control, will be included in the NSRS 

network. The increased accuracy will help the 

students at Brown Hall achieve consistent 

results with any type of surveying equipment 

and surveying techniques used in training 

and practical exercises. Furthermore, these 

points will support future techniques in which 

positioning will play a critical role in autonomous unmanned operations, sensor placement, 

and optimization of all types of excavation 

and construction.

As part of this effort, AGC provided OPUSProjects manager training to USAES instructors. This authorizes the instructors to utilize 

the Web-based GPS processing tool produced 

by NGS. After completing the training, USAES 

instructors immediately began to demonstrate 

the OPUS-Projects tool to their students. The 

OPUS-Projects application provides the user 

with an online tool to process GPS observations from multiple GPS receivers and produce 

accurate adjusted coordinates relative to each 

other and the NSRS network. One of the big 

advantages of the tool is that it does not require 

the installation of software on local machines. 

It also allows users to work from any computer 

with a connection to the Internet.

Instructor Staff Sergeant Erik Stenslien stated, “These 

new control points on Fort Leonard Wood are the first to be 

established and submitted into the NSRS since 1946. This 

new link to the NSRS will be incorporated in the new survey 

course that is being updated for 2019. Without these points, 

we would still be surveying on outdated, poorly constructed 

benchmarks [Figure 4]. These marks have been sorely 

needed since I came through Advanced Individual Training 

here in 2009. In addition, these new markers will help to 

Figure 3. Screen shot of OPUS-Projects

Figure 4. Preexisting outdated and poorly constructed survey control 

markers
September–December 2018 Engineer 59

standardize our instruction with modern methods and show 

our future surveyors what a proper survey control point is.”

Staff Sergeant Stenslien is also eager to begin showing 

his students the USACE Survey Monument Archival and 

Retrieval Tool (U-SMART), shown in Figure 5. U-SMART 

manages the USACE project control. Staff Sergeant Stenslien 

describes the addition of U-SMART to the curriculum, stating, “Working through USACE using the U-SMART system 

for recovery and description of control points will also be 

added to the new course. This will replace [Department of 

the Army] Form 1959,1

 which was last updated in 2001 and 

is no longer an active publication.”

The partnership between USAES, AGC, and CTIS demonstrates how an important and difficult mission can be 

accomplished with teamwork and cooperation. Collaboration between civilian and military surveying communities 

modernizes processes at no additional cost to the Army. 

The team is currently preparing to perform similar tasks 

at the 164th Regiment Regional Training Institute of North 

Dakota, located in Bismarck, in August 2018. 

Having precise survey control at Fort Leonard Wood and 

the 164th Regiment Regional Training Institute will also 

posture those facilities for autonomous construction equipment that leverages GPS and works hand in hand with GPSenabled survey equipment as we improve the overall training the Army provides to its surveyors. 

Endnote:

1

Department of the Army Form 1959, Description or Recovery of Horizontal Control Station, July 2001 (now obsolete). 

Mr. Huber is a cartographic technician in the Systems Acquisition Branch, AGC, USACE. He has 30 years of experience with 

GPS and has conducted geodetic surveying campaigns around 

the world. He also serves as a subject matter expert for the Survey Engineering and Mapping Technical Center of Expertise 

and as an instructor in several USACE surveying and mappingrelated courses.

Mr. Ohanian is the product director at CTIS and serves as 

the chief of the Systems Acquisition Branch, AGC, USACE. He 

holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of Maryland and a 

graduate degree from George Washington University, Washington, D.C. He is Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act 

Level IV-certified in project management.

Figure 5. Screen shot of U-SMART

“A man’s feet should be planted in his country, but his eyes should survey the world.”

—George Santayana
60 Engineer September–December 2018

Engineer is a Department of the Army-authenticated publication that contains instructions, guidance, and other 

materials to continuously improve the professional 

development of Army engineers. It also provides a forum for 

exchanging information and ideas within the Army engineer 

community. Engineer includes articles by and about commissioned officers, warrant officers, enlisted Soldiers, Department 

of the Army civilians, and others. Writers may discuss training, current operations and exercises, doctrine, equipment, 

history, personal viewpoints, or other areas of general interest to engineers. Articles may share good ideas and lessons 

learned or explore better ways of doing things. Shorter, after 

action type articles and reviews of books on engineer topics are 

also welcome.

Articles should be concise, straightforward, and in the 

active voice. Avoid using acronyms when possible. When used, 

acronyms must be spelled out and identified at the first use. 

Avoid the use of bureaucratic jargon and military buzzwords. 

Text length should not exceed 2,000 words (about eight doublespaced pages). 

Articles submitted to Engineer must be accompanied by a 

written release from the author’s unit or activity security manager before editing can begin. All information contained in an 

article must be unclassified, nonsensitive, and releasable to the 

public. It is the author’s responsibility to ensure that security is 

not compromised; information appearing in open sources does 

not constitute declassification. Engineer is distributed to military units worldwide and is also available for sale by the Government Publishing Office. As such, it is readily accessible to 

nongovernmental or foreign individuals and organizations. 

Authors are responsible for article accuracy and source 

documentation. Use endnotes (not footnotes) and references to 

document sources of quotations, information, and ideas. Limit 

the number of endnotes to the minimum required for honest 

acknowledgment. Endnotes and references must contain a complete citation of publication data; for Internet citations, include 

the date accessed. 

Include photographs and/or graphics that illustrate information in the article. Graphics must be accompanied by captions 

or descriptions; photographs should also be identified with the 

date, location, unit/personnel, and activity, as applicable. Do not 

embed photographs in Microsoft® PowerPoint or Word or include 

photographs or illustrations in the text; instead, send each of 

them as a separate file. If illustrations are created in PowerPoint, 

avoid the excessive use of color and shading. Save digital images 

at a resolution no lower than 200 dpi. 

Copyright concerns and the proliferation of methods used to 

disseminate art, illustrations, and photographs require that the 

origin of any graphics be identified. If a graphic is copyrighted, 

the author must obtain copyright approval and submit it to 

Engineer with the proposed manuscript. As a general policy, 

Engineer will not use artwork that cannot be attributed. 

Provide a short paragraph that summarizes the content 

of the article. Also include a short biography, including full 

name, rank, current unit, job title, and education; U.S. Postal 

Service mailing address; and a commercial daytime telephone number.

When an article has multiple authors, the primary point of 

contact should be clearly designated with the initial submission. The designated author will receive all correspondence 

from Engineer editors and will be responsible for conferring 

with coauthors concerning revisions before responding to 

the editors.

Engineer will notify each author to acknowledge receipt 

of a manuscript. However, we make no final commitment to 

publish an article until it has been thoroughly reviewed and, 

if required, revised to satisfy concerns and conform to publication conventions. We make no guarantee to publish all submitted articles, photographs, or illustrations. If we plan to publish 

an article, we will notify the author. Therefore, it is important 

to keep us informed of changes in e-mail addresses and telephone numbers. 

Manuscripts submitted to Engineer become government 

property upon receipt. All articles accepted for publication are 

subject to grammatical and structural changes as well as editing for length, clarity, and conformity to Engineer style. We will 

send substantive changes to the author for approval. Authors 

will receive a courtesy copy of the edited version for review 

before publication; however, if the author does not respond to 

Engineer with questions or concerns by a specified suspense 

date (typically five to seven working days), it will be assumed 

that the author concurs with all edits and the article will 

run as is.

Engineer is published three times a year: April (article deadline is 1 December), August (article deadline is 1 April), and 

December (article deadline is 1 August). Send submissions

by e-mail to <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.engineer@mail

.mil> or on a CD in Microsoft Word, along with a double-spaced 

copy of the manuscript, to Managing Editor, Engineer Professional Bulletin, 14010 MSCoE Loop, Building 3201, Suite 2661, 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8702.

As an official U.S. Army publication, Engineer is not copyrighted. Material published in Engineer can be freely reproduced, distributed, displayed, or reprinted; however, appropriate credit should be given to Engineer and its authors.

Note: Please indicate if a manuscript is being considered for 

publication elsewhere. Due to regulatory requirements and the 

limited space per issue, we usually do not print articles that 

have been accepted for publication at other Army venues.

Engineer Writer’s Guide
ENGINEERS’ CREED