I... 

nqine'er - 

Vision 2010 
BJ Mujor Generul Robert B. Flowers 

Commandant, U.S. Amzy Engineer Sclzool 

"C	erving Today ...Building for Tomorrow" is the 

theme for the ENFORCE XXI-98 conference, 

uwhich is only a few weeks away. Fort Leonard 

Wood personnel are completing final plans as our engineer 

family once again prepares to gather. One of the highlights this 

year will be the Engineer Tvviligl~t Tattoo, where we will trace 

the military heritage of our regiment through a series of live 

vignettes. Based on the planning and work I've seen, 

attendance at this year's conference will be time well spent. In 

spite of your busy schedules, I hope to see many of you in 

April. Now I will discuss our home and our Engineer Corps. 

Our Home. One of the best-kept secrets in the Army and 

the Department of Defense is Fort Leonard Wood and the 

many assets it has to offer. From its beginnings in 194 1, the 

post has been transformed from rows of wooden barracks 

into a modern installation with first-class facilities. Coupled 

with a dedicated, professional civilian and military staff, the 

post is quickly evolving into one of our nation's premier 

places to be stationed. Visitors to our post are quick to 

compliment both the facilities and the professional 

workforce. Departing visitors now include Fort Leonard 

Wood on their list of great Army installations and wonder 

why they did not know about it earlier. My goal is for our 

post to be the first that comes to mind when people think of 

premier Department of Defense installations. 

As we grow we are adding new missions. When the 

Military Police and Chemical Schools complete their move 

from Alabama, we will stand up the Maneuver Support 

Center [MANSCEN]. Everything is proceeding smoothly, 

with local conununities working hard to make the transition 

as easy as possible. Besides adding a new wing to Lincoln 

Hall for these two schools, we are constructing an MP 

training village, a simulated decontamination training 

complex, and a chemical defense training facility. Along 

with MANSCEN, we are investigating other new missions, 

including Department of Defense training for humanitarian 

demining and testing state-of-the-art countermine technology. These and other missions will increase the value and 

prestige of our home. 

The bottom line is that the more people know about Fort 

Leonard Wood, the more they like it. I want all leaders of 

engineers to know that, if they have time, my Protocol Office 

will schedule a visit for them to visit our post. I appreciate 

any opportunity to showcase our home and demonstrate how 

it supports the total Army. 

Our Engineer Corps. Few professions in our society 

offer such diversity of assignments for both military and 

civilian personnel. Our country is accustomed to seeing 

soldiers deploy to defend democracy and Corps of Engineer 

civilians working long hours to overcome the devastating 

effects of floods and other natural disasters. Corps of 

Engineer civilians have deployed as part of Corps Real Estate 

Teams to imminent combat zones, while many combat units 

helped the Miami area recover from Hurricane Andrew. 

Civilian and military members of our Corps frequently are 

called to perform a wide variety of missions. 

The phrase "One Corps, One Reginzent, One Fight" is 

familiar to all of us, but we must avoid narrowly defining it 

for any one segment of our Corps. Every artilleryman can 

tell you how important the Crusader is, and every tanker 

knows that the next upgrade to the MI tank is mission 

essential. Engineers, too, must speak with one voice. If we 

are to field new equipment and maintain vital force 

structure, every engineer must be knowledgeable about our 

entire Corps. To key government decision makers, there are 

no specialties such as active, reserve, or civilian; or light, 

topographic, mechanized, or combat heavy; nor do they 

recognize differences between our Departments of Public 

Works and Districts. We are all part of the Corps of 

Engineers. Each of us must know our profession as well as 

the artilleryman and the tanker know theirs. If asked, all of 

you should be able to clearly defend the Grizzly, the Deuce, 

the Digital Topographic Support System, and the latest 

upgrade to the Computer-Aided Drafting and Design 

System. 

To strengthen ties across the entire Corps of Engineers, 

LTG Joe Ballard recently met with several of your senior 

leaders as a first step in writing an all-inclusive, allencompassing "Regimental Vision." The purpose of this 

vision is to clearly and simply state our priorities so that we 

all do speak with one voice. A draft copy will be distributed 

plior to ENFORCE, and we will hold a breakout session 

during the conference to thoroughly vet the vision. We must 

ensure that the concerns of the entire Corps of Engineers are 

properly addressed. More information will follow. 

The Army Chief of Staff, General Reirner, recently began 

a program to highlight the seven Army core values. The 

Engineer Center is fully committed to embedding those 

values in our training. We have developed historical 

examples illustrating them, and one is on the back cover 

of this magazine. These examples can be prominently 

displayed throughout your unit and serve as subjects for 

professional development. Other examples will accompany 

future issues of Engineer. 
April 1998 	 Headquarters, Department of the Army Volume 28 PB 5-98-2 

UNITED STATES ARMY 

ENGINEER CENTER AND 

FORT LEONARD WOOD 

COMMANDERICOMMANDANT 

Major General Robert 9. Flowers 

MANAGING EDITOR 

Catherine Eubanks 

FEATURES EDITOR 

Shirley Bridges 

GRAPHIC DESIGNER 

Jennifer Morgan 

By Order of the Secretary of the Army: 

DENNIS J. REIMER 

General, United States Army 

Chief of Staff 

Official: 

~OELB. HUDSON 

Administrative Assistant to the 

Secretary of the Army 

04444 

Front Covec illustration by Joan Ozment. An 

engineer soldier views a Force XXI 

battlespace. 

Back Cover: A historical example of how one 

engineer soldier displayed the Army value 

"Loyalty." 

FEATURES 

2 	The 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review 

By Major General Bruce K. Scott and Lieutenant Colonel 

Duane Gapinski 

7 	 Engineer Vision 2010 

By Major General Robert 13.Flowers and Mlchael L. Fowler 

11 	The Maneuver Support Center Operational Concept 

By Colonel Philip Federle 

12 	 Building the Maneuver Support Center 

By Lou Holtz 

16 	 Force XXI Engineers: 1997 Advanced Warfighting Experiments 

By Vern Lowrey and Major Douglas Victor 

19 	Engineers in the 21st Century 

By Captain Mario Perez, Lieutenant Colonel C. Kevin 

Williams, and Colonel E. W. Chamberlain 111 

22 	British Army 2000: The Future Army 

By Colonel Phil Lilleyman MBE 

27 	 Antipersonnel Landmine Policy and Implications 

By Dr. Gregory L. Bier 

28 	Training Technology for the Technology Impaired 

By A1 Waltman 

31 	 Terrain Analysis As a Combat Multiplier Just Got Better 

By Major Joseph J. Piek and Captain Dirk E. Plante 

38 	 Training Support Brigades: Providing Engineer Support to 

Reserve Components 

By Major Shawn Howley, Captain Paul Baker, and Captain 

Joseph E. Staton 

43 	 Improving Command and Control Procedures on 

Multinational Base Camps 

By Major Karlus L. Cozart 

46 	 Drilling Wells in the Tuzla Valley of Bosnia-Herzegovina 

By Major Frank Akins 

DEPARTMENTS 

Inside front cover: Clear the Way 

34 Letter to the Editor 48 Engineer Update 

35 Past in Review 49 Lead the Way 

47 PERSCOM Notes 

ENGINEER (ISSN 0046-19890) is prepared quarterly by the U.S. Army Engineer within their areas of expertise for the purpose of enhancing their professional 

School, 320 Engineer Loop, Suite 370, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473-8929. Second development. Views expressed are those of the author and not those of the 

Class postage is paid at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, and additional mailing offices. 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. 

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to ENGINEER Magazine, 320 Engineer Army publications. Use of news items constitutes neither affirmation of their accuracy Loop. Suite 370, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473-8929. nor product endorsement. ENGINEER reserves the right to ed~t material. 

CORRESPONDENCE, letters to the editor, manuscripts, photographs, offictal CONTENT is not copyrighted. Material may be reprinted if credit is given to 

unit requests to receive copies, and unit address changes should be sent to ENGINEER and the author. 

ENGINEER at the preceding address. Telephone: (573) 563-4104. DSN 676-4104. 

ENGINEER s e-mail address is: eubankscQwood.army.mil. Our Internet home page OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION is targeted to all engineer and engineer-related units. 

is located at: http:llwww.wood.army.mil/ENGRMAG/emag~hp.htm. PERSONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS are available by contacting the Superintendent of 

DISCLAIMER: ENGINEER presents professional information designed to keep Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh. PA 15250-7950. Address changes for personal 

U.S. military and civilian engineers informed of current and emerging developments subscriptions should also be sent to the Superintendent of Documents. 

April 1998 	 Engineer 1 
By Major General Bruce K. Scott and Lieutenant Colonel Duane Gapinski 

he 1997 Defense Authorization 

Act required the Secretary of 

Defense to conduct the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), 

which examined defense requirements 

from now to 2015. Components of this 

examination included strategy, force 

structure, readiness, modernization, 

and infrastructure. The resulting report 

provides a roadmap for a defense program based on a well-defined strategy 

and fiscal realities. It describes how the 

Department of Defense (DoD) and the 

services will look in the future. While 

specific ramifications have yet to be 

determined, the end result to the Army 

and Army engineers can be deduced in 

general terms. 

The DoD and the services conducted the QDR as shown in Figure 1. 

Each panel or task force reviewed its 

particular subject area using a variety 

of analytical tools, including the Joint 

Strategic Review's assessment of the 

world in 2005-the Joint Staffs 

"Dynamic Commitment" war-game 

series. The task forces then provided 

recommendations as to what the Army 

should look like in 2005 and how best 

to get there. At the integration level, 

senior leaders reviewed panel results 

and organized them into coherent 

options. Leaders at the highest levels 

(deputy or undersecretary and vice 

chairmanlchief) supervised the entire 

process and made recommendations to 

the service secretary or secretary of 

defense as appropriate. The secretary 

of defense was the ultimate arbiter and 

approved DoD's report to Congress. 

During the QDR, the Army argued 

that the military force must be based on 

Senior Advisory Group 

USANCSA 

Secretariat and ARSTAF Principals 

0 AVCSA

Strategic Synchronization Cell 

(SSC) I 

DAMO-FD DAPE DAMO-FD 

IOllntel TF lnfrastucture Resource TF 

DACs-DP I Readiness TF I DAMO-OD I 

Figure 1. Army QDR Organization 

the National Security Strategy and the 

resulting National Military Strategy. 

The Army intended to demonstrate that 

the world, the National Security and 

Military Strategies, and resulting operational requirements had changed and 

that the Army had evolved in response 

to those changes and was malung an 

enormous contribution in hlfilling these 

new requirements. The success of this 

argument warrants further discussion. 

The Army Story 

he U.S. National Military Strategy has changed to reflect 

requirements of the new national 

security environment. Military strategy is not created in a vacuum; it is 

derived from strategic precepts of the 

president's National Security Strategy 

of engagement. The Cold War strategy 

of containment led to forward deployment of a sizable portion of America's 

conventional forces to deter expansion 

of Soviet influence, primarily in 

Europe. Today's military strategy relies 

on the concepts of strategic agility, 

overseas presence, power projection, 

and decisive force to protect U.S. interests in a world that is much less predictable than its Cold War predecessor. 

Today's military strategy has three 

critical components: shaping the international environment, responding to the 

full spectrum of crises, and preparing 

now for an uncertain future. Each component has important consequences for 

how military services carry out their 

responsibilities and how they help 

2 Engineer April 1998 
Mark Shores, of Charleston District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, oversees tree removal in Cary, after 

Hurricane Fran hit the North Carolina coast in September 1996. 

activities that promote peace and stability. Military-to-military contacts, 

particularly in emerging democracies 

of nations in the former Soviet Union, 

provide opportunities for U.S. soldiers to teach their counterparts everything from squad tactics to the role of 

the military services in a democracy. 

Contacts take place abroad as well 

as in the United States. Currently, the 

Army is training soldiers from 134 

countries at installations throughout 

the United States, including Fort 

Leonard Wood. 

Despite their reduction in numbers, 

soldiers permanently stationed abroad 

are the most visible symbol of America's commitment to its alliance partners. Forward-stationed soldiers 

enhance regional stability, thereby providing an opportunity for growth of 

democracy and economic prosperity in 

important regions of the world. Security 

assistance programs provide vital training to forces of regional security partners, thereby enhancing stability and 

providing a cost-effective alternative to 

maintaining larger contingents of U.S. 

forces abroad. Humanitarian operations 

contribute directly to stability and the 

reduction of human suffering. In August 

1994, for example, more than 2,500 soldiers were airlifted to Rwanda to aid survivors of violent tribal conflict. 

accomplish requirements of the Na- slipped from 10 to eight. Active Army 

April 1998 Engineer 3 

tional Military Strategy. 

On any given day of 1997, the U.S. 

personnel strength has been reduced 

from 781,000 to 495,000, making the 

Army had an average of more than U.S. Army only the eighth largest in 

30,000 soldiers operating in 60 to 100 the world, behind Vietnam and Pakicountries. That figure does not include 

65,000 soldiers permanently stationed 

stan. In 1989, there were 235,000 soldiers stationed permanently in Europe; 

in Europe or more than 35,000 perma- today there are 65,000. All nuclear 

nently stationed in Korea and else- weapons have been removed from the 

where overseas. Eight years after the Army's inventory. Budget resources 

end of the Cold War, what are these have gone down 39 percent. While its 

soldiers doing in all these places, and 

how does what they do contribute to 

the construction of an international 

environment amenable to the strategic 

interests of the United States? 

physical size and structure were being 

altered so dramatically, the Army 

reconfigured itself conceptually and 

doctrinally to be relevant to the requirements of the new environment and the 

The past eight years have been ones 

of enormous change for the U.S. Army. I new strategy. How does today's Army contribute 

It has transformed itself from a to accomplishment of the nation's straforward-stationed Cold War force tegic objectives? Specifically, how 

designed primarily to conduct large- does it support the three tenets of the 

scale operations on the plains of National Mllitary Strategy? 

Europe to being a power-projection 

force capable of rapidly delivering 

decisive military force anywhere in the 

Shaping the International 

Environment 

world. The transformation came about , U.S. armed forces help shape the 

during a period in which the Army Par- international environment through a 

ticipated in 27 operational deployments broad range of noncombat activities 

and downsized by almost 40 percent. 

Perhaps the most obvious aspect of 

that demonstrate commitment, improve collective military capabilities, 

change has been the Army's reduction promote democratic ideals, relieve sufin size. Active Army divisions have 1 fering, and enhance regional stability. 

been ~duced from 18 to 10, and Toward these ends, thousands of U.S. 

Reserve Component divisions have Army soldiers are engaged daily in 
Responding to Crisis ! positioned afloat or ashore in critical in the Persian Gulf provide ample eviThe Army ultimately will have eight results of Operation Just Cause in can strategy has the 

brigade sets of heavy equipment pre- Panama and Operation Desert Storm requirements that must be met imp1e4 Engineer April 1998 

dence of the Army's ability to deliver 

decisive victories. 

This ability did not just happen. It is 

sustained by the training experiences 

that soldiers receive at the Army's combat training centers. These world-class 

facilities provide an instrumented battlefield that teaches commanders at 

, every level how to operate in the most 

strenuous battlefield conditions and 

how to orchestrate the varied components of a modern military force. The 

- 

The U.S. military will be called on 

to respond to crises across the full 

range of military operations, including 

deterrence, fighting and winning major 

theater wars, and conducting concurrent small-scale contingencies. While 

U.S. strategic nuclear forces remain the 

ultimate deterrent force, today's security environment requires a complete 

range of capabilities to deter potential 

adversaries against whom the threat of 

locations around the world. The continuing purchase of C-17 strategic 

transport aircraft and fast, modern seaI lift ships configured to cany heavy 

Army equipment ensures that potential 

adversaries will have to reckon with 

our ability to quickly project decisive 

ground combat capability anywhere in 

the world. This unmatched crisisresponse capability will reassure our 

alliance partners and give pause to 

those who contemplate threatening nuclear destruction may not be credible. Forward-stationed forces, particularly in Europe and Korea, contribute 

directly to deterrence in those vital 

regions, as do forces participating in 

peacetime engagement activities. But it 

is the Army's full-spectrum, powerimportant U.S. national interests. 1 National Training Center in California 

The presence of Army soldiers also and the Combat Maneuver Training 

contributes directly to conflict prevention. The Army has provided a 600- 

soldier contingent to the multinational 

peacekeeping force in the Sinai for 

more than 14 years. In September 

Center in Germany are the world's premier training facilities for mechanized 

forces. Light forces train at the Joint 

' Readiness Training Center in Louisiana, where the Army also conducts 

peacekeeping training exercises. During those exercises, Army units interact 

projection capability that provides a 1 1994, more than 18,000 U.S. soldiers credible deterrent against potential deployed to Haiti to restore the duly aggressors anywhere in the world. 

This power-projection is 

perhaps the greatest of the 

extent which the Army has changed 

meet demands of the post-co1d War 

era. The Army has invested in 

elected government and to prevent violence. For the past five years, more 

than 500 U.S. soldiers have been 

deployed to Macedonia to prevent the 

spread of conflict in the Balkans. More 

than 20,000 soldiers were deployed to 

with representatives of multinational 

and nongovernmental organizations 

they will operate with in actual peacekeeping missions. 

Preparing for the Future 

The Army is not resting on its laurels. It is preparing for an uncertain 

future by designing and testing tomorrow's Army today. This past spring the 

Army conducted a major warfighting 

making its forces more strategically , Bosnia at the peak of implementation 

mobile and has improved its "fort-to- , the Dayton Peace Accords. Today port" infrastructure significantly. The 

nation's strategic mobility assets, 

both fast sealift ships and transport aircraft, have been upgraded, and Preis a 60-soldier contingent deplayed along the border between Ecuador and Peru to prevent that dispute 

from into violence. 

positioned sets of equipment reduce the 

time needed to put capable forces on 

the ground. 

A vivid demonstration of our 

nation's enhanced ability to quickly 

project credible power over extended 

distances occurred in September 1996, 

when Saddam Hussein again made 

threatening gestures toward Kuwait. 

Less than 120 hours after the president 

approved deployment of an armored 

brigade from Fort Hood, Texas, the 

5,000-soldier brigade was in position in 

Kuwait equipped with a complete set of 

combat vehicles drawn from prepositioned stocks. The unit was 

The fundamental purpose of the experiment at the National Training 

A,y is to fight and win our nation,s Center. In this experiment, new organiwars as part of the joint team. The 

National Military Strategy requires 

the armed forces to be able to fight 

to conduct combat operations its will on an adversary with minizational structures and the effect that 

modern communications and information-~rocessing capabilities will have 

years has been one of almost constant 

necessary. mum casualties on both sides. ~h~ change. The world has changed, Ameritwo nearly simultaneous major theater On future military operations were 

wars. T~ meet that requirement, the 

Army maintains a mix of heavy, light, 

and specia~-operations forces, which 

allows it to apply decisive force , 

across the entire range of military 

operations. The of quaiity soldiers, innovative doctrine, realistic training, and modern equipment , 

produces a land force without equala strategic force capable of imposing 

tested. Lessons learned from this experiment will provide the basis for do&- 

innovation, organizational restructuling, and insertion of new informationdominance capabilities in alreadyexisting weapons platforms. The 

Amy's goal is to retain its operational overmatch capabilities against 

any potential opponent. 

The environment of the Past eight 
Personnel reductions: 

Active 

Reserve Components 

Civilian 

Major units remaining 

Army 

Force structure 

changes 

Major procurement 

buys 

1 Navy' 

15,000 

45,000 

33,700 

Combat Divisions: 

10 Active 

8 Reserve 

Marines 1'. Atr Force 

Accelerate CSICSS 

conversions and Force 

XXI modernization 

Slow Theater High 

Altitude Air Defense 

System by 2 years 

18,000 

4,100 

8,400 

Carrier Battle groups: 

11 Active 

1 Reserve 

Reduce surface combatants 

13- 116 

Reduce attack submarines 

52- 50 

Accelerate Joint Strike 

Fighter (JSF) 

Reduce FIA 18 EIF 

l,OOO-+ 548 

Increase JSF 

30- 480 

1,800 

4,200 

400 

Marine Expeditionary 

Forces: 

2 Active 

1 Reserve 

Accelerate V-22 

Reduce JSF 

642- 609 

26,900 

700 

18,300 

'Fighter Wing 

equivalents: 

12+ Active 

8 Reserve 

Reduce F-22 

438- 339 

Reduce JSF 

2,036, 1,736 

Figure 2. How the services fared in the QDR. 

April 1998 

ment the strategy have changed, and 

the Army has changed. 

What has not changed is the need 

for America's armed forces to be ready 

to carry out the range of missions 

assigned to them. In the past eight 

years, the Army has conducted operations ranging from theater-level war in 

the Persian Gulf to humanitarian relief 

operations in Rwanda. Army soldiers 

Engineer 5 

QDR Results I So how does this affect engineers? 

I Well, it is not entirely clear how it 

A lthough conventional wisdom 

going into the QDR dictated that 

the Army would suffer draconian force-structure reductions coming 

out of the QDR (anywhere from two to 

four combat divisions), such cuts never 

materialized. The potent argument, 

backed by eight years of post-Cold War 

have carried out the nation's bidding in data, resonated favorably in the Penta- MACOMs will mete reductions intercountries such as Panama, Somalia, gon, on Capitol Hill, and within the I nally. However, based on the proporaffects anyone yet. The QDR cuts are 

still being apportioned among the major 

Army commands (MACOMS), and the 

distribution of Reserve Component cuts 

between the U.S. Army Reserve and 

the Army National Guard have not 

been completely resolved. Once this 

apportionment is completed, the 

Haiti, Bosnia, and Macedonia, while 

the 2d Infantry Division in Korea continues the vigil begun in 1950 to bring 

peace to that divided land. Soldiers of 

Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, 

Hungary, Slovenia, Ukraine, and dozens of other countries have learned 

about democracy from their American 

counterparts. People around the world 

recognize the American soldier as a 

symbol of freedom and respect for 

human rights. 

In the end, the commitment of 

American soldiers is the ultimate 

expression of national resolve. Today 

that resolve manifests itself in many 

national security community. As a tion of engineers in the Reserve 

result, the Army was able to retain its 

full spectrum combat capability of 10 

fully resourced divisions. And, while 

the Army took the largest aggregate 

force-structure cuts (15,000 Active and 

45,000 Reserve Component forces and 

dimensions as our nation attempts to 1 maintain the momentum of its readiness As the United States increases its 

shape the environment of the 21st cen- posture and initiatives. Contrast this commitment to humanitarian demining, 

Components and the significant number 

of personnel cuts there, it seems that the 

Army Reserve and National Guard 

engineers will suffer their share of 

reductions. 

What is clear is that engineers will 

tury. Whatever the task, the essential 

instrument of influence remains that 

with the significant reductions in we can expect Army engineers to prosurface combatant ships, F/A18E/Fs, vide both expertise and manpower to 

34,000 civilians), the Active Compo- continue to play a significant role in the 

nent cuts matched force structure with engagement misslon-the "shape" 

most modem of capabilities-boots on F-22s, and Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) this mission. Fort Leonard Wood may 

the ground. 1 shown in Figure 2. well form partnerships with the nonend strength, and the Reserve Component reductions eliminated force structure excess to commander-in-chief war 

plans. Most significantly, the QDR rectenet of our National Military Strategy. 

Missions like clearing mines during 

Operations Joint Endeavor and Joint 

Guard, road building in Central Amerognized the importance of the Army's ica, and engineer training with our 

Force XXI initiatives and moderniza- allies on the Pacific Rim will continue 

tion plan and allowed the Army to at least at their current pace. 
-- -- 

Crossing the Sava River in Bosnia. Engineers will continue to provide mobility support to the U.S. Army into the 21st 

century. 

governmental organizations active in 

the anti-landmine crusade. 

Given the recent initiative to form 

two Active Component/National Guard 

integrated divisions, it is possible that 

Army engineers will also form composite ActiveReserve Component 

units. Furthermore, as many tout the 

efficiencies and increased effectiveness 

of permanent joint units, joint ArmyNavy-Marine-Air Force engineer units 

may be on the horizon. 

Finally, as the U.S. government 

constructs its plans to combat domestic 

terrorism and weapons of mass destniction, opportunities for engineersespecially in the Reserve Componentslikely will increase. 

The U.S. Congress will have a large 

say in what QDR recommendations are 

implemented and how they are accomplished. Congress legislates the Army's 

end strength and, therefore, ultimately 

controls personnel reductions. Additionally, subsequent to the QDR, the 

National Defense Panel (an independent, congressionally appointed body 

of civilian and retired militan, defense 

experts) reported its assessment of the 

QDR to Congress. Largely supportive 

of the QDR report and the importance 

of maintaining a robust land power 

capability (Army and Marines), the 

report also stresses the importance of 

the Reserve Components in nuclear, 

biological, and chemical defense and 

domestic terrorism. How this report 

alters Congress' view of the QDR and 

affects proposed actions, especially 

Reserve Component reductions, remains to be seen. 

Conclusion 

he impact of the Quadrennial 

Defense Review is still not fully 

evident. Other factors, to include 

National Defense Panel recommendations and internal Army initiatives such 

as Force XXI and Army After Next, 

will also affect the "look" of the 2 1 st 

century Army. The U.S. Congress will 

use the power of the purse (appropriations) and its constitutional mandate to 

"make rules for the government and 

regulation of land and naval forces" 

(authorizations) to influence this process of change. 

Our challenge is to analyze this 

future environment and propose how 

engineers will contribute to the 21st 

century Army. We must open vigorous 

dialogue and debate on how engineers 

can best "shape" the geostrategic environment; our role in demining operations; the organization, roles, and missions of composite and joint engineer 

tactical units; and our role in the 

defense against domestic terrorism and 

weapons of mass destruction. We look 

forward to seeing this discussion unfold 

in future issues of Engineer Professional 

Major General Scott is the Chief of 

Legislative Liaison, HQDA. He previously served as Deputy Director of 

Strategy, Plans and Policy, ODCSOPS, 

HQDA, where he directed the Army's 

QDR eforts. MG Scott commanded the 

South Pacific Division, USACE, and 

both the Engineer Brigade and the 16th 

Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division. He is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy. 

Lieutenant Colonel Gapinski is the 

Assistarit Executive Oficer, Ofice of 

the Chief ofLegislative Liaison, HQDA. 

He has served in the 9th Infantry Division and the 1st Armored Division and 

will assume command of the 82d Engineer Battalion in July 1998. 

6 Engineer April 1998 
By Major General Robert B. Flowers and Michael L. Fowler 

ngineer Vision 2010 is the 

blueprint for the engineers' 

contributions to the operational 

concepts identified in Army Vision 2010. 

It is the conceptual template to show 

how Army engineers will channel their 

vitality and innovations and leverage 

technological opportunities to achieve 

new levels of effectiveness as an integral 

part of the combined arms team. Army 

Vision 2010 provides a coherent view of 

the future and the implications for land 

operations expressed in terms of 

emerging operational concepts. Engineer Vision 2010 focuses on the impliFORCE XXI PATTERN OF OPERATION 

ENGINEER ENABLERS 

ENGINEERING 

cations of that environment for the 

fundamental capabilities and contri- visualization tools and decision aids that offer commanders 

butions of engineers toward the ~u~cessful conduct of land real-time, three-dimensional capabilities to walk, drive, or fly operations-the ability to provide prompt and sustained through terrain prior to and during deployment. To facilitate engineer support to operations on land throughout the dominant maneuver, the engineer force will modify terrain 

entire spectrum of crisis- Engineer Vision 2010 identifies and employ state-of-the-an obstacle systems to inn,,ence the 

the operational imperatives and enabling technologies of enemy operations, facilitate the ability to 

needed for the engineer force to the rest of the Army concentrate friendly forces by securing selected avenues of 

as it fulfills its role in achieving full-spectrum dominance. approach, and reduce or clear natural and emplaced obstacles 

to ensure freedom of movement for U.S. and allied forces. 

The Vision Force-support engineering will be performed throughout the 

United States Army Engine battlespace to provide essential contributions for sustainment 

Trained and ready and protection missions and to promote efficient, rapid, and 

A res~onsive and v seamless operational transitions. 

Engineer primary functions are described as terrain Exploiting information technologies with effective phys- visualization, maneuver engineering, and force-support ical and technical capabilities to master terrain 

the nation. and achieve decisive victorv engineering. The figure above shows how these functions I integrate with the Army's pattern of operational construct. 

In the 2 1 st century, through maneuver engineering, 

engineers will employ obstacles and modify terrain to 

support maneuver operations and shape the battlespace. As 

members of the combined arms team, engineers will combine 

their skills with technologically advanced, information-based 

systems to give maneuver commanders the knowledge of the 

physical battlespace, lethality, and force protection they need 

for decisive victory. Engineers will provide terrain 

Mission: Mastering Terrain 

I n the 21st century, engineers will employ enhanced 

battle command, rapidly disseminated digital 

information, and advanced equipment technologies to 

achieve much higher levels of productivity than are possible 

today. The high operating tempo (OPTEMPO) of mounted 

and dismounted operations conducted by widely dispersed 

combined-arms elements will require that engineers be as 

April 1998 Engineer 7 
mobile, survivable, and sustainable as the forces they 

support. Situational awareness will enable engineers to 

quickly emplace obstacles in response to frequent changes 

in the threat or battlefield conditions. Engineers will control 

dynamic obstacle systems composed of intelligent 

munitions to allow free passage by friendly forces while 

depriving freedom of movement to potential enemies. 

Unmanned ground vehicles and teleoperated or robotics 

systems will enable engineers to accomplish hazardous 

missions without exposing soldiers to unnecessary risk, 

while providing tremendous increases in productivity. 

Engineers will predict requirements and base mission 

planning on simulations and analyses that employ state-ofthe-art technologies. Robotics construction equipment, 

cruise-controlled operating aids, global positioning systems, 

and range-of-sensor controls will bring precision, speed, and 

nonstop operations to construction. Engineer headquarters 

will mass efforts precisely, monitor mission execution, and 

make changes "on the fly." These operations are key to the 

success of full-spectrum dominance. The expanded use of 

tele-engineering from CONUS support activities will 

provide a significant new capability. 

A vital component of the future engineer force is the 

ability to gain and maintain information dominance. 

Information dominance will allow the engineer commander 

to rapidly and accurately assess situations and tailor 

engineer unit capabilities to suit the mission. Tailored units 

will be part of a mission-organized force that is designed to 

meet the maneuver commander's intent. 

The principal engineer mission-mastery of terrain-is 

conducted at all levels of operations and in support of 

widely dispersed combined-arms forces that operate 

throughout an extended battlefield. Mastering terrain 

involves three primary functions: terrain visualization, 

maneuver engineering, and force-support engineering. 

These functions support the entire force three ways. TheyProvide commanders an understanding - of the terrain. 

Enable engineers to execute operations that control the 

enemy-s ability to move and fight freely while facilitating the ability of friendly forces to do so. 

Provide engineering support to friendly forces to maintain the tempo of our operations. 

These functions enable the commander to portray the 

terrain; fight where he wills; move where he wills; use the 

terrain as a weapon; and mount, sustain, and recover from 

operations by creating and maintaining an array of lines of 

communication (LOC). The LOC include combat trails, 

main supply routes, strategic entry locations, facilities, 

airfields, logistics bases, etc. The primary functions also 

encompass engineer support in defensive and combat 

8 Engineer 

service support areas. The requirement remains for engineers 

to fight as infantry whenever and wherever necessary. 

Terrain I'isrmlizrrtiur~. Engineer analyses of integrated 

joint, allied, and commercial data allow the commander to 

understand and "see" all dimensions of the battlespace before 

and during operations. By converting terrain images and other 

information to digital terrain data, engineers provide terrain 

information that relates information and data generated by 

every other Army battle command system to the operational 

environment. Engineers provide the allied forces' battle 

command staff with detailed knowledge of the battlespace and 

the precise terrain data needed to make informed battlecommand decisions. By providing a terrain picture, detailed 

analyses of the terrain, and updating video-mapped images in 

real time, engineers give our forces the information they need 

to operate. By forecasting terrain changes over time, the 

commander can adjust and preplan engineer support for 

changes in the battlespace due to time, weather, degrading 

resources, etc. Digital terrain data and analysis tools underpin 

all information technologies friendly forces use to depict the 

battlefield. 

iV(inerr11er Engineerirtg. The engineer force modifies, 

overcomes, and uses terrain so the commander can set the 

conditions for battle and achieve decisive victory while 

minimizing friendly casualties. This engineer support allows 

the maneuver commander to focus on tactical operations with 

advice on the best use of terrain, which allows him to set the 

stage for precise maneuver. Force XXI units will rely on their 

mobility and firepower to quickly overcome the enemy. 

Mobility is a key concern for the maneuver commander, and 

his ability to decide where and when to move must be 

unrestricted. The engineer force ensures this capability by 

building and maintaining lodgments in any environment; 

by finding, fixing, and building routes through any terrain; by 

eliminating obstacles that may impede maneuverability; and 

by breaching entryways into defensive structures in a MOUT 

(military operations in urban terrain) environment. 

By using terrain as a weapon, the commander can precisely 

locate target sets for direct and indirect fires. By employing 

obstacles before and during battle and leveraging the natural, 

restrictive effects of terrain, engineers cause anxiety, fear, and 

confusion for the enemy. Obstacles affect the enemy's ability 

to operate and disrupt his operations and momentum, thus 

providing opportunities for friendly forces. 

Force-Support Engineerirtg. Throughout all phases of 

operations, engineers construct and augment initial defenses 

with fortifications and protective structures; hide the force 

through wide-area camouflage; and decoy enemy fires, harden 

critical facilities, and install sensor systems for facility 

protection. This support provides full-dimensional protection 

from enemy fire, weather, the environment, and physical 

April 1998 
limitations. Managing terrain, upgrading terrain, and 

construction yield friendly forces the capability to reinforce, 

support, maintain, supply, and reconstitute the force. 

Modern combat systems and new technologies (such as 

information-based construction techniques and lightweight, 

high-strength construction materials) enable engineers to 

provide more responsive and complete force protection. 

Throughout combat operations, forces require protective 

positions. These positions are for soldiers, armor/ 

mechanized vehicles, artillery, aircraft, and other equipment. 

Engineer soldiers provide the expertise and equipment 

needed to adequately protect the force in areas where they 

may be subject to enemy fire. In addition to building 

protective positions, engineers use camouflage and 

concealment to increase force survivability. 

As operations continue, the force requires areas to 

conduct reconstitution operations. Engineers provide the 

technical expertise to plan, construct, manage, and contract, 

as required, adequate areas to lodge and care for soldiers. 

will develop the operational concepts for Engineer 2010. The 

five ICTs are: Heavy Force Engineer Operations; Light Force 

Engineer Operations; Theater Support Engineer Operations; 

Terrain Visualization; and Engineer Command, Control, 

Communication, Computers, and Intelligence (C41). The 

ICTs are described on page 10. The Engineer School will 

distribute the information and plans developed by these ICTs 

via the school's homepage on the Internet. We request that 

you take time to review this information and provide us your 

comments and suggestions. With your help, the engineer 

force will continue to be a responsive and versatile member 

of our nation's strategic military team. L1 

Major General Flowers has sewed as Commandant of' 

the U.S. Army Engineer School and Fort Leonard Wood 

since July 1997. 

Michael Fowler is a military engineering development 

analyst in the Directorate of Combat Developments. U.S. 

Army Engineer School. 

Engineer support to the force contributes to focused 

logistics by creating and maintaining supply links. For the The Road to a Regimental Vision 

maneuver force to maintain mobility, their supply lifeline ~ 

must remain open. Without adequate supply links, combat 

service support units are unable to deliver assets needed to 

keep the force moving and fighting. Engineers design, 

create, and maintain LOC in all areas so that traffic can 

move throughout the battlespace. 

Engineer Leaders 

I n the 21st century, engineer leaders will continue to be 

critical advisers and planners for the maneuver 

commander. Engineer leaders will control teleoperated 

or scmi-autonomous units over an expanded battlespace. 

They will use tools such as the Centurion (a dynamic 

obstacle-control system), the Maneuver Control SystemEngineer, and the Route Planning and Assessment System. 

The Engineer Regiment's vision will be d , 

capstone document to show the value our diverse 

regiment adds to the total Army as we enter the 

21 st century. The mission to develop a Regimental 

Vision was initiated by LTG Joe Ballard and MG 

Robert Flowers on 27 February 1998. Over the I next few months, a support team will develop a 

first draft of the vision. A list of the milestones the 

support team will meet during the development 

process follows: 

' Date Task 

(1 998) 

March Support team develops draft 

Regimental Vision. 

Engineer commanders will link with world-class experts and April Workshop conducted at 

remote databascs to enhance their ability to solve problems ENFORCE XXI-98. 

in the battlespace. With a solid base in engineering, June Support team updates draft. 

combined-arms operations, information operations, and joint 

doctrine, engineer leaders will combine leadership skills, a July General officers review draft and 

deep understanding of the terrain, sccond-nature computer develop an implementation 

literacy, and ovcrall versatility to provide situationally strategy. 

responsive support. October Regimental Vision published. 

The Future (1 999) 

he road leading to Engineer 2010 will be one with February General officers assess progress 

many curves caused by limited resources, increased and revalidate vision. 

OPTEMPO, and added responsibilities. To assist in April Regimental Vision and progress I 

mapping our future, the U.S. Army Engineer School has report briefed at ENFORCE XXI-99. 

chartered five new integrated concept teams (ICTs), which 

April 1998 Engineer 9 
F 


Integrated Concept Teams 


Engineers will formulate future requirements through the efforts of five integrated concept teams (ICTs). The ICTs 

will develop engineer operational requirements for the Army beginning in the year 2010. 

Heavy Force Engineer Operations 

Senior Sponsor: Colonel Don Riley 

Executive Secretary: Major Cl~arles Radke 

The Heavy Force Engineer Operations ICT will develop an operational concept for heavy maneuver engineering, 

validate existing capabilities or develop new operational capabilities for the future engineer force to support groundbased mounted maneuver in the 21st century, and evaluate modernization requirements based on required future 

capabilities. The concept will be based on results of the Division Advanced Warfighting Experiment and the resulting 

force structure redesign (see article, p. 16). The concept also will outline the capabilities required for engineers beyond 

2010. 

Light Force Engineer Operations 

Senior Sponsor: Colonel Edwin Janasb 

Executive Secretary: Michael Fowler 

The Light Force Engineer Operations ICT will develop an operational concept, validate existing capabilities or 

develop new operational capabilities the future light engineer force will need to support light operations in the 21st 

century, and evaluate modernization requirements based on required future capabilities. This operational concept will 

address tasks required by light engineers and outline the changes required to accomplish this role. 

Theater Support Engineer Operations 

Senior Sponsor: Colonel Tim Daniel 

Executive Secretury: Michael Fowler 

Echelons above division (EAD) engineers play a vital role in augmenting the mobility, countermobility, 

survivability, and general engineering required by all divisional engineers. This ICT will define the missions required 

for EAD engineers, determine an adequate engineer structure, and develop an optimal mix of engineer units (combat 

heavy battalions, wheeled battalions, mechanized battalions, combat support engineer companies, and multirole bridge 

companies). 

Terrain Visualization 

Senior Sponsor: Colonel Robert Kirsch 

Executive Secretary: Jeb Stewart 

The Terrain Visualization Concept was approved by TRADOC in July 1996. Even though this concept is relatively 

new, the accelerated pace of technological improvements in digitization, information dominance, and terrain 

visualization capabilities requires that it be updated. This ICT will update the Terrain Visualization Concept to define the 

fiiture role of terrain visualization and the future capabilities that the engineer force will require to accomplish this role. 

Engineer Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) 

Senior Sponsor: Colonel C. M. Ferpson Jr. 

Executive Secretary: Major Charles Radke 

Every mission that engineers are called to accomplish includes C4I. Engineer C41 must be part of the overall Army 

C41 architecture. The engineer C41 ICT will validate engineer C41 requirements, ensure their compatibility with the 

Army's C41 plan, and develop a total, integrated modernization strategy for engineer C41 that includes requirements 

for topographic digital terrain data. 
By Colonel Philip Federle 

he Secretary of Defense announced his recommendations to 

the Base Realignment and Closure 

Commission on 3 March 1995. Among 

those recommendations was one to move 

the Military Police and Chemical Schools 

from Fort McClellan, Alabama, to Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri. In a video teleconference involving Fort Leonard Wood 

and Fort McClellan personnel on 27 

March 1995, the TRADOC commander 

gave his early guidance toward developing 

the Maneuver Support Center (MANSCEN). In subsequent briefings, his guidance was expanded as shown in Figure 1. 

CG TRADOC Guidance 

.Leverage the synergistic impact of the three schools. 

Early Consolidationis right approach. 

In the midterm(1997-2000), 

we willreorganize TRADOC 

into Clusters--Centersand 

Satellites, organizedaround 

enduring battlefield 

functions 

Must be driven by common sense; quality of training, 

writing, developing,and safety. 

FLW will have a Battle Lab and basic training 

Help make MANSCENa showcase of consolidation 

~~~~~t .I am inclined toward SMEs, instructors,andequipment, 

all the execution folks, down in the training brigades. 

I .Each branch have a proponency office and a 

small group of doctrinaires. 

I FLW is a manifestationof what TRADOC should be 

A primary concern while developing I I 

the MANSCEN operational concept was Figure 1 

to maintain a strong proponency for each 

branch across the doctrine, training, 

leader development, organization, materiel, and soldiers (DTLOMS) program. 

Figure 2 depicts the relationship between 

proponency and the amount of integration 

to be achieved in building the concept. 

During the briefing to the TRADOC 

commander, the consensus among the 

three school commandants was that with 

consolidated Directorates of Training 

Development (DOTD) and Combat Developments (DCD), we had achieved a 

mark about one-third of the way between 

"collocation" and "full integration." 

Since that time, the three schools have 

worked to consolidate common portions Figure 2 

of the officer training courses. The commandants now agree that we have passed our three branches. The result is an orga- developing operating procedures. The 

the midpoint along the continuum. nizational structure that will use our lim- , following article highlights how the 

Theoperationalconceptwas firstpub- ited resources most efficiently. The Engineer School will fit and operate 

lished by the Garrison Command in June operational concept guides facility within the context of the Maneuver Sup1995. The Engineer School Directorate design, development of organization port Center. 

of Training revised it in November 1996 mission and functions, and the tables of 1IY 

and again in Novelnber 1997. The revi- , distribution and allowances needed to Colonel Federle is the Director of 

sions were the result of many discussions support the organizational structures 1 Training ut tlze U.S. Arn7.y Eligitzeer 

by key civilian and military leaders in the agreed on by the conlmandants. School. He was previously commarzder of 

three schools, guided by a MANSCEN The road to MANSCEN is entering fire Division Engineer Brigade, 4th 

Council of Colonels. The council pro- its final phases. Facilities are under con- Iqfarztry Divisior? (Mecl~)),Fort Carson, 

vided thc focus to build a team among struction and new organizations are Colorado. 

Continuum of Re-Engineering 

I I I Full 

Collocation 4 

I I Integration I I 

C I I I 

I I I C 

NO-GO I I I NO-GO 

HQTRADOC I I 

I ! Branches Lose I I v I + Identity

Branch Based ; Battle Focused Based 

Collocatedtraining by branch . Partially integrated training 

Collocated developmental I Fully integrated developmental 

functions : functions 

Skill in el Based 

Consolidatedtraining by skill level 

Partially integrated developmental 

functions 

April I 998 Erzgineer I I 
BJJ Lo11 Holtz 

T he 7th of June 1997 was a great day at Fort Leonard 

Wood. The TRADOC commander-along with 

federal, state, and local civilian dignitaries and the 

military leadership from Forts McClellan and Leonard 

Wood-gathered together to turn a piece of soil and 

commemorate the beginning of construction for the 

Maneuver Support Center (MANSCEN). 

Beginning in 1999, the MANSCEN commander will 

provide command and control for the three schools and Fort 

Leonard Wood. The school commandants will continue to 

have direct responsibility and control over their branchspecific DTLOMS fiinctions. However, MANSCEN will 

MANSCEN & Fort Leonard Wood 

1 Academy / 1 School I I ; School 1 School / 

1 1'"" 1 I Lab Lrg ; Development ~evelo~me~ 

L 

Command 

consolidate most nonteaching functions of the three schools, I 

provide consolidated officer and noncommissioned officer Figure 1 

(NCO) education systems, and horizontally integrate other I 

school activities. The schools will conduct branch-specific 

and one-station unit training (OSUT) within their branch 

brigades. Activities of the Maneuver Support Battle Lab and 

the three consolidated directorates will be guided by a Board 

of Directors chaired by the MANSCEN commander, with the 

Engineer School 

Commandant 

Asst Cmdt TPIO Terraln 

I 

Wood. The December 1996 issue included an article on 

construction that would take place during the next two years. 

The new MANSCEN Battle Lab was described in an article 

published in April 1997. 

This article explains how the Engineer School will fit into 

and operate within thc MANSCEN stnicture (Figure I). 

three commandants as voting members. 

Several articles in recent issues of Engineer described 

dcvelopment of the MANSCEN. An article in the April 1996 

issue introduced the MANSCEN concept and movement of 

the Military Police and Chemical Schools to Fort Leonard 

Engineer School Structure 

Proponency . :., 

.Counterrnine Tng Supt Center .Training Depts 

wuseum .Environmental Exec Agency .Engr OSUT t 

Branchcells Mistory 

.Branch Officer Training .Engr AlT 

.Personnel Proponency 

he Engineer School's organizational structure within 

Tthe MANSCEN is shown in Figure 2 and described 

below. 

The DTLOMS Integration Office is the one new 

organization developed during MANSCEN planning. It will 

'Evaluation 

.Dochine 

Figure 2 

provide commandants a direct link with the three 

consolidated, school-related directorates. 

The Brunch Stgfwill support the commandant. Although 

the museum staff is listed on the chart, their workplace will 

be in the museum complex with museum staff from the other 

two schools. 

Two Deputies Assistant Commar7dant (U.S. Army 

Reserve and Army National Guard)for Reserve Cotnponents 

(DAC-RC) will be in the Engineer School to oversee total 

force integration. They will ensure that Reserve and National 

12 Engineer April 1998 
Guard needs are addressed by the schools and the Directorate of Training MANSCEN. 

The Director of Training (DOT) will plan training 

strategy, guide the school in Army Training XXI initiatives, 

lead the doctrine development effort, and serve as course 

director (Figure 3). The DOT also will be responsible for 

branch-specific functional and officer training not assigned 

to the school training brigade. The DOT will serve as the '""1
 I 

ronni Proponency-1 1~rai"inJ Evaluation Executive 

Support Agency 

focal point to ensure that the commandant's intent for 

engineer training is carried out by the Directorates of' 

Training Developmer~t and Common Leader Training Doctrine 

(DCLT). 

The Cozlntermine Training Support Center will continue Figure3 

its present mission to train military, governmental, 

international, and nongovernmental agencies on coun- Engineer Brigade termine and demining subjects. It will also produce mine- I I 

1 1st Engineer Erlgad recognition products to be used as training aids both for -

deploying units and for "train the trainer" programs aimcd at 

helping other countries in demining efforts. 

The Doctrine Stuff will plan and execute the En,' ty~neer 

School's doctrine-writing program. They will coordinate the 

review of proponent and nonproponent doctrine with subject 

matter experts (SMEs) in the school and in the field. The 

staff will serve as liaison to the Combat Training Centers, 

Combined Anns Center, and the joint doctrine community 

throughout TRADOC. 

The Engineer Personnel Proponerlqv Office (EPPO) will 

advise and assist the Engineer School commandant to 

establish military personnel management policies that 

produce technical and tactical soldiers for the total force. 

The director will coordinate with Department of Army and 

TRADOC staff to ensure that engineer officer, warrant 

officer, and enlisted personnel needs are met. The director 

also will develop and review qualification standards for 

soldiers at all levels. 

The Tiairzing Evaluatiorz OJfice will be a partial return of 

the disbanded "Directorate of Evaluation and 

Standardization" function. Training Evaluation personnel 

will conduct selected internal and external evaluations of 

training, training products, doctrine, materiel, and training 

development processes. They will focus on both Active and 

Reserve Component training and will conduct the 

certification program for Total Army School System 

battalions. 

Thc engineer portion of the officer basic and advanced 

courses and the warrant officer courses will be managed 

within the Ofleer Training Depcy~rvtn~erlt. This department 

will also provide SMEs to support doctrine writing and 

review as well as external taskings. 

The Engineer School will scrve as thc Army's 

E~lviro/~ment Executive Agency to develop and integrate 

+ ..........._.._... 


1 HHC 3 OSUT Cos 3 OSUT Cos 1 OACiWO Co - [ E D


3 Spl Cos 2 AIT Cos 2 AIT Cos 2 OBC Cos 


Org Main1 1 S&F co 
 .(TI 

Sapper Ldr Del 1 AIT Co (DMS) 


Cars! EN Tnq Dept 


Cbt EN Tng Depl 


I 

Figure 4 

environmental doctrine and training products applicable to 

soldiers and units. The office will conduct that mission under 

the guidance of the DOT. It also will support the production of 

courseware and other training products for use in the Total 

Army School System. 

Each school will have a branch-specific training brigade as 

shown in Figurc 4. The 1st Engineei Brigade will be similar 

in structure to what we have today except that the 58th 

Transportation Battalion will move to the Chemical Brigade. 

The mission of the engineer brigade will be to train soldiers, 

sailors, airmen, marines, leaders, and units; support training; 

and be prepared to support contingencies and emergency 

response operations. 

The 577th Eizginrer Truirziilg and S~lpport Battalio~~ will 

train service members and leaders and support assigned 

MANSCEN training. This battalion will contain both the 

De~~.~.'~irtit~etit.~ of Comhat Engirieering and Coiistrltctioi~

Engineerkg where students will learn engineer Advanced 

Individual Training (AIT) skills. 

Both the 169th and the 35th Engineer Btzttalio~~.~ will

conduct Combat Engineer and Bridge Crewman OSUT for 

initial entry soldiers, preparing them for assignments to the 

total Army force. They will also provide premobiiization 

training for Reserve Component cadre. 

The 554th Engineer St~tdent Battalioil will train en&' rineer

officers and international military students attending Engineer 

April 1998 Erzgineer 13 

4 
Directorate of 

Training Development 

Dlrector 

I PI I 

Support 

.."I .TD Mulbmedia Support .(Unit Training -(lndlwdual Tra~n~ng -(New Equipment 

.Program Management Produ~ts) Products) Systems 8. TADSS 

.Publtcabons Products) 

-Professorial Bullebns 

Figure 5 

Directorate of 

Combat Developments 

I 

Dlrector I 

1 Technlcal Dlrector ) 

.Organ~zat~on -0rganlzatlon .Orgevzat~on . MANSCEN Test Bed 

.Concepts .Concepts .Concepts Model Improvement 

-Matenel .Matenel .Matenel . Analys~s Support 

CD Scenarios 

CD Analys~s 

Figure 6 

Battle Lab Board or 

arectws 

Commandant 

+ Chamloal Schml 

Co-ndant 

- Engoneer SchoDl Co-ndant 

Experiment 

this capacity, each commandant will monitor the 

organization's activities and report to the board of directors. 

Directorate of Training Development 

The Directorate of Training Development (Figure 5) will 

be responsible for the horizontal integration of training 

development activities for the three schools. Four 

departments will address the full spectrum of training 

development and the Army Doctrine and Training Literature 

Program (ADTLP) production. 

The Development Support Department will provide 

general training development support. It will manage the 

command's participation in the ADTLP and publish all 

training and doctrinal materials developed by the command. 

It also will publish three separate branch bulletins. 

The other three departments will have branch-specific cells 

that are responsible for fulfilling branch functions in their 

respective areas. The chief of each branch-specific cell will be 

senior rated as designated by their school commandant. 

The Warfgizter Department will perform collective 

analysis, develop Army Training and Evaluation Program 

Mission Training Plans and Battle Drills, and write 

warfighter Training Support Packages. 

The Warrior Department will perform individual, frontend analysis; design and develop soldier training products; 

and develop programs of instruction, to include resident and 

distributed training products and Total Army Training 

System courseware. 

The Warfghter Modernization (WarMod) Department 

will design and develop training for new equipment systems. 

It also will develop and integrate requirements for training 

aids, devices, simulations, and simulators (TADSS). 

Directorate of Combat Developments 

The Directorate of Combat Developments (Figure 6) will 

provide horizontal integration of combat development 

activities for the three schools. Three branch-specific 

divisions will be responsible for branch-specific functions. 

The chief of each branch-specific division will be senior 

Figure 7 rated as designated by their school commandant. 

School courses to provide warrior leadership to the total The Management O!ce will be responsible for 

Army force. overall administration and resource support. 

The Analysis and Sinzulations Division will provide staff 

MANSCEN Directorates supervision of modeling, analysis, and simulations in support 

of chemical, engineer, and military police developmental he school-related MANSCEN directorates provide processes. It will provide branch-specific input to the 

missions and functions for all three schools (see modeling and analysis community. Figure 1). The DTLOMS Integration Ofice in each of 

the schools maintains coordination with these organizations to Maneuver Support Battle Lab 

supplement guidance provided by the board of directors. Each The Battle Lab (Figure 7) will plan and conduct 

school commandant also will serve as a deputy commanding warfighting experiments related to maneuver support. It will 

general with an assigned responsibility to either common provide an institutional process for gaining insights from 

training, training development, or combat development. In progressive and iterative high-fidelity constructive, virtual, 

14 Engineer April I998 
and live experiments using soldiers and units in relevant, 

tactically competitive scenarios. It also will examine 

emerging DTLOMS programs. 

The MANSCEN commander will serves as director of 

the Battle Lab. The board of directors will provide overall 

guidance, but the deputy director (a colonel) will provide 

daily supervision. The staff will include engineer, military 

police, and chemical officers, NCOs, and civilians, as well 

as combat arms personnel. 

Directorate of Common Leader Training 

The Directorate of Common Leader Training (Figure 8) 

will be unique within the TRADOC community because it 

will conduct all officer core training. (Each school will 

provide branch-unique officer training.) Much effort and 

teamwork among the three schools were required to take the 

officer training courses apart, pull out common portions, and 

then reassemble them. Course start dates were aligned so 

that one department can teach all common portions. This 

structure provides the best opportunity for us to share 

training among the three branches and with NCO students. It 

also allows us the opportunity to explore synergism among 

the three branches through training exercises. The 

MANSCEN DOTD will maintain the program of 

instruction. 

Within the structure, the Combined Arms and the Combat 

Support/Comhut Service Support Divisions will provide 

instructors for the various course subjects. 

The Instrltctional Support Division will operate and 

maintain special training support facilities. A single 

academic library will be operated for all three branches. 

This division also will be responsible for all-service resident 

instructor training and certification. 

NCO Academy 

The NCO Academy will be the largest in TRADOC to 

teach solely at the Basic NCO CourseIAdvanced NCO 

Course (BNCOCIANCOC) levels (Figure 9). It will be led 

by a commandant who is a command sergeant major. 

Administration, Supply, and Operations Ofices will provide 

support to the MANSCEN directorates. All training will be 

conducted using small-group-leader methodology, as 

required by the Sergeants Major Academy. The MANSCEN 

DOTD will develop branch-specific portions of these 

courses according to the training strategy and policy 

guidance of each branch commandant. 

Conclusion 

he concept of operation for the MANSCEN was 

developed by Military Police, Chemical, and 

Engineer School personnel-working under the 

Directorate of 

Common Leader Training 

Dlrector 

Combat Support lnstructlonal 

Combat Servlce Support Support 

.Tactia .CommunicaCcns Community Ubrary 

Force protecbon Academic Ubrary 

Maintenance +Tactical Ops Cb 

Movements .Cornputw Labs 

Operations Staff 8 Faculty

.Logistics .JANUS I BBS 

Tactical Tng Cb 

Figure 8 

Noncommissioned Officer Academy 

T r n a n d n t I 

SGM Asst Crndt and SGM Chlef, Tng 1 

Ernq lSupplyl [opnsl 

JMPBNCOCj LMP ANCOC? 

-1=-~CMAKOC~ 

Figure 9 

guidance of the MANSCEN Council of Colonels-with 

frequent azimuth checks from the school commandants. We 

used the concept to develop a draft mission and functions 

manual and an FYOO table of distribution and allowances for 

the three schools and the Fort Leonard Wood installation. 

Although the concept is not finalized, the commandants have 

agreed that it is time to stop working on this phase and move 

on to the detailed planning required to bring the three schools 

together. We'll know that implementation has begun when 

military police and chemical trainers and combat developers 

begin to arrive at the Maneuver Support Center about this time 

next year. 1+1 

Mr. Holtz is the technical director for the Directorate of 

Training. He has served as deputy director of the 

Directorate of Training and Doctrine Development and 

helped plan and execute the move of the Engineer School 

.fi.om Fort Belvoir in 1987-88. Mr. Holtz holds a master's 

degree in education and has completedpostgraduate work in 

administrution. 

April 1998 Engineer 15 
Force: II Engineers: 

1 997 Advanced Warfightisas Experiiments 

By Vern Lowrev crnd Major Douglas Victor 

ince 1994, the U.S. Army Engineer School has been 

developing engineer contributions for Force XXI, a 

process that will lead to Army XXI by the year 2010. 

Army XXI, a term similar to Army of Excellence, is the 

Army's effort to advance into the 2 1 st century with the most 

capable land combat force in the world. Undoubtedly there 

will be changes in the way Force XXI forces conduct combat 

operations because offl Information-age capabilities 

n Increased integration of service components into an 

effective combat team. 

0 More lethal, survivable, and agile systems. 

0 More capable soldiers and leaders. 

Force XXI Operations 

operations empower subordinates to operate independently 

within the commander's intent, leading to synergistic effects 

that exceed the effects of a centralized headquarters. 

Simultaneous. Simultaneous operations seize the 

initiative and present enemy leaders with multiple crises and 

no effective responses. Lethal and nonlethal attacks are 

executed as simultaneously as possible. 

Integrated. Integration enables the Army to leverage the 

full suite of capabilities that joint, multinational, and 

nongovernmental partners bring to the fight. 

Force XXI operations will be executed through deliberate 

patterns that incorporate all elements of operations from 

initial receipt of mission through return to home station. The 

patterns are not phases, nor are they sequential. They focus 

the many tasks armies have always performed in war and 

other military operations. Made possible by technology, these 

patternsorce XXI operations will have six characteristics: 

o Project the force. 

Multidimensional. Force XXI forces will operate in protect the force. 

an expanded battlespace that goes beyond traditional fl Gain information dominance. physical dimensions for width, depth, and height. Through 

communications and digital connectivity, Army, joint, and 0 Shape the battlespace. 

coalition elements will operate beyond traditional boundaries Conduct decisive operations, 

and reach back to the continental United States. 

n Sustain and transition the force. Precise. Precision is fostered by three emerging 

capabilities: digitization, sensors, and simulations. Digitization provides soldiers and leaders at each echelon the 

information required for making sound decisions. A full suite 

of sensors linked to analytical teams will fuse combat 

information into situational awareness. Simulations will 

enable commanders to tailor and rehearse Army elements, 

which will yield precision in execution. 

Nonlinear. Nonlinear operations are fluid. They change 

as mission, enemy, troops, terrain, time available, and 

civilian considerations (METT-TC) change through the 

duration of mission preparation and execution. Force XXI 

forces must have greater situational awareness because of 

this dynamic environment. 

Distributed. Operations are distributed and dispersed 

where and when required to achieve decisive effects versus 

being concentrated at a possibly decisive point. Distributive 

Advanced Warfighting Experiments 

wo Force XXI Advanced Warfighting Experiments 

(AWEs) conducted in 1997 provided numerous 

insights and decisions toward fielding the first digital 

division by the year 2000. The Task Force XXI AWE at the 

National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California. in March 

1997, was followed by the Division XXI AWE at Fort Hood, 

Texas, in November 1997. An article on page 19 describes 

the Fort Hood AWE. 

TRADOC Insights 

he following TRADOC insights were gleaned from 

the 1997 AWEs: 

16 Engineer April I998 
Doctrine 

Due to Force XXI experimentation, doctrine must now 

support the analog, digital, and composite forces of the total 

Army. The following doctrinal changes are driving other 

DTLOMS (doctrine, training, leader development, 

organization, materiel, and soldiers) areas: 

o 	 Information operations are becoming a combat 

multiplier. 

o 	Deep fires using aviation and rocket artillery are becoming more precise and lethal. Aviation and field artillery 

now routinely conduct decisive operations. 

fl Force protection and security challenges are increased 

because of nonlinear and distributed operations. 

3 The deliberate planning process is changing. It is no 

longer a plan-execute-plan process but a distributive and 

collaborative planning process. 

0 Combat service support organizations must be flexible 

and modular. Consequently, Force XXI must still work 

many of the details for the centralized logistics concept. 

Training 

Simulations will be invaluable to the Force XXI training 

strategy. By combining training management tools in our 

Combined Arms Training Strategy with training systems 

like Battle Command Staff Trainer, the Army can develop 

and train baseline warfighting skills for tactically competent 

leaders, soldiers, and combat teams. These systems will be 

the cornerstone for the digitized Army training strategy as 

we transition from a combined analogldigital to a digital 

cortx. 

current digital command and control (C2) systems 

require extensive trainup and sustainment training to retain 

proficiency. 

Distance learning is an essential ingredient to the Force 

XXI training strategy. Consequently, the Army must 

continue to provide task-based training from institutions 

when and where it is needed to support the total Amy, 

including the digital force. Our capability to support 

distance learning is limited today, but the Army Distance 

Learning Program's vision and milestones will ensure 

success (see article on page 28) 

The underlying, sequential piece for the Force XXI 

training strategy is the Army's continued commitment to 

develop competent warriors and trained units. Analog 

warfighting skills are prerequisites for Force XXI forces. 

Leader Developnt ent 

The TRADOC commander and other senior leaders agree 

that our biggest challenges are leader developma~t and 

training. Staff functions and relations are changing and will 

continue to change as Force XXI matures. Leaders must be 

able to maintain the tempo of fast-paced operations. 

We need a streamlined planning process that increases 

the importance of the commander's intent. Consequently, 

April 1998 

leaders must be able to operate from a sketch and a few words 

instead of formally written operation orders with many 

annexes. The ability of our leaders to develop a balance of 

digital and tactical maturity will be critical to the effectiveness 

of Force XXI. 

Orgatrizations 

The TRADOC commander approved the design of the 

conservative heavy division (CHD). Its ability to leverage 

corps-allocated assets will enable it to achieve success. For 

Reserve Component engineers, this ability is relevant because 

of the division's increased dependency on echelon above 

division (EAD) forces. The CHD can be used as digital 

support for either an operational or strategic force. 

Units, to include ground maneuver forces, can be smaller 

and more lethal when equipped with digital technology and 

linked with modern sensors (such as unmanned aerial 

vehicles, joint surveillance and target-attack radar systems, 

and Raptor). However, logistics support organizations cannot 

be significantly reduced since they remain critical for mission 

success. 

Materiel 

Force XXI is a proven success, which indicates that 

experimentation is clearly the right process. Force XXI 

required reconceptualization and redesign of the force at all 

echelons, including reserves, civilians, and the industrial 

base. 

Video teleconferencing using interactive whiteboard 

technology is changing the nature of command and control. 

Now all commanders can provide guidance and direction 

remotely over the extended battlespace without having to link 

face face. 

Soldiers 

No matter how impressive digitization is, it is only a tool 

soldiers and leaders use to increase their capabilities. 

Engineer Insights 

he following engineer insights were gleaned from the 

1997 AWES: 

Doctrine and Traininp ., 

Heavy divisional engineers (primarily active duty) focus 

mainly on mobility tasks during decisive operations and place 

less emphasis on countermobility and survivability tasks. 

Other countermobility, survivability, and general 

engineering support needed to shape the battlespace and to 

protect and sustain the force must now come from EAD 

engineer units (primarily Reserve Component). Augmentation 

of EAD engineers to the digital division will require a total 

Army training strategy to hone the skills of the entire division 

combat team. 

Heavy engineer forces now operate almost exclusively 

from mounted platforms with limited dismounted sappers. 

Engineer 17 
This transition from a sapper- to an equipment-based force must continue to master basic warfighting skills, which are 

increases our dependency on scatterable mine systems for prerequisites for gaining digital engineer soldier proficiency. 

tactical obstacles and on future mounted-obstacle and lanemarking systems. Future Experimentation 

Combat service support for the heavy division engineer 

battalion is now centralized at the brigade forward support 

battalion. 

Topographic engineering is evolving from the development of digital terrain products and tactical decision 

aids (primarily paper) to terrain data management. 

Leader Development 

Engineer leaders require additional skills in terrain 

visualization and digital engineer planning and execution. 

Digital engineer leaders must continue to master basic 

combined arms warfighting skills, which are prerequisites 

for all digital engineer leader proficiency. 

Organizatiott 

An engineer C2 headquarters is needed at the brigade 

combat team and division levels to orchestrate the myriad of 

engineer tasks required in each pattern of Force XXI 

operations. Integration of digitized and nondigitized 

engineers (primarily Reserve Component) to conduct 

decisive operations is difficult and requires more liaison 

capability and digital C2 support packages. Heavy brigade 

combat teams now require terrain analysis teams equipped 

with the Digital Topographic Support System (DTSS) 

because of the increasing digital terrain data management 

requirements. 

Materiel 

To maintain situational awareness and a common 

operating picture, engineers require the same digital C2 

equipment as the force they support. Engineers also need a 

digital planning and execution capability resident in the 

Army Battle Command System (ABCS). All commanders 

require a full suite of high-resolution terrain data to gain 

information dominance and visualize the battlespace. DTSS 

provides the most current digital terrain picture to ABCS 

components. 

The Grizzly will enhance Force XXI complex obstaclebreaching capabilities. However, engineers still require 

improved mine-detection and standardized lane-marking 

systems for breached minefields. 

Hornet wide-area munitions have the potential to provide 

greatly increased lethality on the battlefield. The Raptor 

Intelligent Combat Outpost has tremendous potential to shape 

the battlespace in conjunction with other intelligence sensors 

and artillery and aviation deep-strike weapon systems. 

Soldiers 

Engineer soldiers require increased skills in the use of 

digital C2 equipment. As terrain analysts, engineers need a 

fill1 suite of skills from terrain product development to 

digital terrain data management. Digital engineer soldiers 

hrough Force XXI efforts, the Army has shown the 

value of large-scale experimentation. TRADOC is 

developing an Army Experimentation Campaign Plan 

to build on results from Force XXI experiments. The Maneuver 

Support Battle Lab is working engineer, chemical, and military 

police issues into four experimentation axes, which the Army 

Chief of Staff will consider for approval in FY98: 

An EAD/Corps/Echelon Above Corps axis to continue 

experimentation toward fielding the first digital heavy 

corps by 2004. 

n A Joint Contingency Force axis to provide a lighter, 

more lethal digital contingency force capability by 2002. 

o A Strike Force axis that seeks to develop highly lethal 

and quickly deployable force capability by 2010. 

o An Army After Next axis to address capabilities needed 

by the Army in 2025. 

For further information on AWE and engineer issues, 

contact the Maneuver Support Battle Lab at (573) 563-4082 or 

fax4083. The e-mail address is: dbl@wood.army.mil. The 

Internet address is: www.wood.army.rnil/MSBL/msbl.htm. 

u 

Mr. Lowrey is the technical director for the Maneuver 

Support Battle Lab at Fort Leonard Wood. He served as the 

engineer proponent analyst during the Division XXI A WE at 

Fort Hood. Mr. Lowrey is a lieutenant colonel in the Missouri 

National Guard and commands the 1138th Engineer 

Battalion (First Missouri) at Jefferson Barracks, Missouri. 

Major Victor is the Force XXI Project Oficer ,for the 

Directorate of Training, U.S. Army Engineer School, Fort 

Leonard Wood. He served as an engineer subject matter 

expert during the Division XXI AWE at Fort Hood. MAJ 

Victor previously served as an engineer observer/controller 

at the Joint Readiness Training Center and was a tactics 

instructor at the Engineer School. 

18 Engineer April 1998 
Captain Mario Perez, Lieutenant Colonel C. Kevin Williams, 

and Colonel E. W. Chamberlain I11 

1 0 The Raptor was employed forward 

in the brigade's sector to provide 

reconnaissance, intelligence, surveillance, and target information in 1 targeted areas of interest (TAI). 

1 The Raptor confirmed avenues of 

j approach used by the enemy durI ing his attack, and we used that 

information to trigger artillery tires 

I or close air support. 

hen the smoke cleared and enemy. The Raptor is best described as 

the electrons stopped flow- a hunter-killer system. It consists of 

ing at the Division Advanced three advanced acoustic sensors, two 

Warfighting Experiment (DAWE) at gateways, a control station, and sixteen 

Fort Hood, Texas, 26 October - 15 munitions--currently it employs 

November 1997, the free world was improved Hornet munitions. Sensors 

once again safe as the 4th Infantry and comn~unication networks linked 

Division (Mechanized) reigned victori- into the control station at the maneuver 

ous over the BISDON Alliance. The brigade tactical operations center 

experiment highlighted several learn- (TOC) extend the eyes and ears of the 

ing points affecting how combat engi- commander to areas he cannot see or 

neers will be employed in the future where he cannot assign combat forces 

battlespace. to cover. 

The purpose of this experiment was The Raptors' sensors hunt the 

to test the division's command and enemy and Pass combat and targeting 

control structure and the effectiveness information through a governing gateof several new high-technology sys- way to the control station in the same 

terns. Although Force XXI places new way that a manned observation Post or 

systems in engineers' hands, forward observer passes information to 

the concept represents more than incor- the TOC. The acquired information enporating new technology into current : hances the commander's situational 

doctrine. For success in the future bat- , awareness and provides targeting inforo The Raptor provided flank protection for the brigade. The system 

can be employed quickly on an 

avenue of approach into the brigade's flank-a platoon can 

cmplace one kilometer of coverage 

in about one hour. The Raptor 

delayed enemy movement, and the 

early warning it provided allowed 

1 us to reposition combat power. 

tlespace, engineers must shift the way 

they operate. Major countermobility 

and mobility issues identified during 

7 We also employed a technique 

called the "Raptor Raid," which is 

an air-assault mission where engineers emplace Raptors deep in 

enemy flanks. We conducted Raptor 

Raids simultaneously with ground 

movements into the sector. After 

ground forces arrived in the sector, 

we switched the Raptor to the 

"scnse" mode so the ground forces 

could immediately counterattack. 

mation for indirect fires, attack helicopters, or close-air-support missions. 

The Raptors' Hornets can also cornThe Iron Brigade had its greatest 

success using the Raptor as part of a 

deep fight engagement area. We built 1 the engagement area using air Volcanos ' at a natural TAI where several avenues 

1 of approach converged. Artillery, attack 

helicopters, and close air support covered the engagement area with fires. 

Raptors in the sensing mode triggered 1 deep attacks as the enemy entered the 

engagement area. After the enemy 

began breaching the Volcano obstacles, 

the Raptors were switched to the armed 

mode. The combined effect of the deep 

April 1998 Engineer 19 

the DAWE will affect how combat municate with a controlling gateway 

engineers will support mid- to high- and provide an on-site killer capability 

intensity environments. This article , for the ~~mmander. Hecan employ the 

describes how the 3rd Brigade Combat Raptor as a stand-alone system or in 

Team (BCT)-the Iron Brigade-and conjunction with other lethal systems. 

the 4th Engineer Battalion, 4th Infantry The control station can place the HerDivision, employed future engineer i nets in either a "sense" or an "armed" 

systems to aid in defeating the enemy. I mode. A Raptor in the sense mode 

: tracks and reports activity and passes 

Countermobility Operations , targeting information back to the TOC. 

An "armed" Raptor not only tracks and 

a he Raptor Intelligent Gmbat reports, it also attacks targets with its 

Outpost is the most dramatic example of a new high-technology 

Hornet munitions. Because Raptor has 

the ability to ovenvatch itself, report its 

system combat engineers will use to location and status, and provide targetshape the future battlespace. The pur- ing infomation, the need for continuPose of the Raptor is to improve the ously manned over-watching forces is 

commander's ability to dominate battle- , reduced or eliminated, 

space. This is achieved by employing The Iron Brigade employed the 

an tmmanned and unobserved OutPost Raptor in three basic ways during the 

that can detect, report, and engage the DAWE: 
< 13rd Brigade Combat Team Combined Arms Ambush I 

090745NOV97 

-3rd Battalion, 29th Field Artillery 

21 T-80 tanks 

11 Command veh~cles 

8 120mm mortars 

20 Engineer 

attacks and placing obstacle systems Gator, and ADAM/ 1 on the capabilities and employment of 

forward of the brigade's location broke RAAM munitions. Because these sys- the Volcano system. Engineer leaders 

up enemy formations and added to his tems are relatively easy to employ, the must follow unit standing operating 

confusion of our intent and where our , Iron Brigade emplaced approximately 1 procedures (SOPS) and incorporate 

combat elements were located. I 90 kilometers of obstacles in 30 hours. ' rehearsal requirements into the briApril 1998 

The Raptor is an excellent system, Engineers may need to re-evaluate the 

but we noted some limitations during way both air and ground Volcanos are 

the DAWE. The simulated capabilities used and how best to control them. We 

portrayed were based on a Raptor sys- currently use Volcanos mainly as situatem that technically could be available i tional obstacles to supplement the comgade's defensive plan. 

If conventional rninefields are eliminated, engineers will depend more 

heavily on 48-hour duration volcano and 

ADAM/RAAM minefields. ~h~ ability to 

to the division by 2003. For example, mander's obstacle plan. In the Force rapidly affecr over a wide frontthe Raptor's communication link was XXI environment, Volcanos may be age the battlespace and the lasting limited to 30 kilometers from its control , the primary countermobility system effects of 48-hour obstacles will force 

station, and the components must be available to engineers. engineers to adhere strictly to obstaclehand emplaced. The Maneuver Support Engineer platoon leaders tradition- control measures. Although adherence to Battle Lab at Fort Leonard Wood is ally supervise the siting and emplace- , obstacle-control measures has always 

experimenting with a long-distance ; ment of Volcano minefields. Assuming been important, it will be paramount in communication link and an unmanned, that the dramatic increase in Volcano the high-tempo and fluid Force XXI envi- deep-delivery system to fix that short- use experienced the 199,7 ' mnrnent. Brigade boundaries changed fall. Additionally, the Raptor was diffi- DAWE is accurate, it will be impossi- dramatically and often throughout the cult to control across the division area ble for a platoon leader to directly DAWE, and the brigade's area of interest because of the fluidity of the battlespace supervise all Volcano emplacements. , was much larger than is typical today. and rapidly changing brigade sectors. : This is especially true when Volcanos Rapid boundary changes require engi- An engineer brigade headquarters is I are used to support a maneuver element 

needed to assume overall control of the on the move by emplacing Volcano I neers to maintain a greater situational 

Raptors and to arbitrate which BCT will obstacles on the flanks. With the pla- awareness and may require tailoriig Volcontrol specific Raptors. This headquar- toon leader providing mobility support, can0 munitions to better fit our needs. For 

ters could also control the resupply of the team tasked to emplace Volcanos ! example, we may need an 18-hour life 

Raptors throughout the division. ,nust travel to an obstacle site with an , Span and an Off-On-Off for ValThe potential elimination of conven- obstacle intent, adjust the obstacle In any case, engineers must 'Ontional mines by law will significantly based on the terrain, emplace an effec- tinually coordinate with the engineer 

impact 2 1 st century engineers and their i tive obstacle, and link up with the pla- brigade, cross-ta1k t~~~~~~~ engineer batability to accomplish countermobility toon on the move. To accomplish that taliOns~ and 

missions. During the DAWE, the divi- 1 significant feat, Volcano section and to maintain 

sion depended heavily on Hornet, Rap- squad leaders require intensive training aW~reness in the area of interest. 
April 1998 Engineer 21 

take full advantage of the new technologies, engineers must change their mindset. Force XXI represents more than the 

integration of new systems into old doctrine, but several constants will not 

change. When emplaced on the ground, 

obstacles will kill friendly as well as 

Mobility Operations 

M ability operations 

change as as 

countermobilit3' in 

the near future* but we 

important improvements during the 

gade level is a great engineer initiative. 

The brigade terrain team consists of two 

noncommissioned officers, two enlisted 

soldiers, and the Digital Topographic 

Support System (DTSS). During the 

DAWE, the DTSS enabled the brigade 

engineer to generate specialized terrain 

DAWE. The Wolverine provides an 

incremental improvement over the current armored vehicle-launched bridge 

(AVLB) because it has better 

and survivability and Wans a wider 

gap. The Grizzly provides engineers 

with an enhanced mechanical breaching and flexibility 

when allocating assets 

products within a matter of hours. As , enemy forces. Obstacle-control meaother battlefield operating systems' rep- l sures, obstacle tracking, and situational 

resentatives became aware of this new 

capability, mission requirements for the 

awareness remain vital to brigade engineers. Technology has not eliminated 

battlespace if we can retain critical lessons learned in the past and adapt current doctrine to fully exploit the 

technologies and ideas of the hture. 

LJ 

Captain Perez is the assistant hrigade engineer for the 4th Engineer Bat- 

, talion. Fort Carson, Colorado, where 

he participated in the Advanced Warfighting Experiment. He previously 

served as platoon leader, assistant S3. 

and company executive ouicer, 10th 

Engineer Battalion, Schwinfurt, Germany. CPT Perez has completed the 

the brigade. During the 

DAWE, the engineer Provided mobility support to an artillery 

brigade the maneuver 

brigade sector. The engineer battalion 

accomplished this mission by attaching 

a Grizzly team (instead of an engineer 

line platoon) to the artillery brigade. 

The DAWE also reinforced the 

requirement to place engineer assets 

forward in amaneuver formation. Convided various specialty maps. There was 

a sharp learning curve associated with 

integrating the team into the brigade 

planning process. It was compounded by 

the fact that a chief warrant officer is no 

longer the link between and 

technical experts. Engineer units must 

increase the training officers and NCOS 

receive to take full advantage of this new 

terrain team is most useful 

terrain team increased rapidly. The team the requirement to locate engineers forgenerated cross-country mobility over- 1 ward in the maneuver formation. A thorcompany (MRBC) is another good I 

mobility initiative. The MRBC consists of a traditional float bridge company PIUS fo~lr 40-meter spans of the 

new dry bridge (HDSB). 

The HDSB eventually will the 

medium girder bridge. Each is 

assigned three MRBCs. In the DAWE 

all three were 

lays, identified tentative river-crossing 

sites, developed three-dimensional perspectives, masked area plots, and protrary to some current thinking, technol- when it is integrated early into the planogy has not diminished this I ning process. For example, as soon as 

ough evaluation of the terrain is critical. 

Engineers will continue to be a valuable 

combat multiplier in the 21st century 

requirement at all. 

Formation of the multirole bridge 

products as cross-country mobility Combined Arms and Services Staff 

overlays or river analyses. ~f a terrain School and is a graduate of Texas Techteam is added as a slice element during 

a deployment, it cannot provide this ( ~i~~t~~~

colorlel Williams serves 

kind of support in advance of the opera- as 4tlz EIlgineer Battalion, 

an area of interest is identified, the terrain team should start preparing general 

tion. It would help to make the team 

organic to the engineer battalion, 

controlled by the 41D The exercise 1 training. Additional work is needed to C/588th ~~~i~~~~ ~~tl~li~~, and assis3,d ~~i~~d

combat T~~~, 4th Infantry 

~i~i~i~~, rOrt carson, colorado. prebecause this would foster a habitual vjo,s assignments include ~3, 4th ~~~

relationship and allow for home-station neer ~~~t~~i~

companY 

runt resident engineer, L,~~ Angeles ~i~

trict, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He 

is a graduate ofthe united states ~ilitary ~~~d~~~ and holds a 

degreefrom ~~j~~~~ state universi@, 

Colonel Chamberlain serves as commander, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th 

Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colorado. 

was fought in a European scenario, develop an SOP and a standard "push 

which reinforced the requirement for of terrain products for suborbridging assets. The 41D had about the 

right amount of bridging assets to 

maintain flexibility within the 

but it had the entire I11 Corps allocation 

of MRBCs. The division often attacked 

IT 

dinate task forces. Use of the brigade 

terrain team was a learning experience 

for the Iron Brigade, and its full potential has yet to be realized, 

ransition to the 21st century 

neers may require additional bridging brings many exciting changes to 

to meet anticipated needs. the way engineers conduct counwith two brigades abreast, and each Looking Ahead required a minimum of two spans to 1 

support an assault river crossing. Engi- Previous nssignments include commander, 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Division. 

, He holds mnrter's degrees jiom Duke 

Inclusion of a terrain team at the bri- termobility and mobility operations. To Universit), and the ~aval War College. 
British Arm 0: 

The Future Arm 

By Colonel Phil Lilleyman MBE 

n the scope of history, the perceived and welldocumented threat posed by the Soviet Bloc was an 

aberration, as was the "layer-cake" defensive posture of 

NATO. The end of the Cold War returns us to military 

structures based on a desired capability and a desired style of 

fighting. This article describes the British Army's approach 

to the same reassessment process that is sweeping through 

the U.S. Army and the armies of our other major allies. 

Structural Reappraisal 

The Director of General Development and Doctrine was 

tasked to recommend adjustments to Army force structures in 

light of these two views, which he did in two phases. Phase 

one identified initial steps necessary to transform the current 

Army structure toward the identified requirements of future 

warfare. Phase two took a long-term view and outlined key 

principles underpinning the "future Army" operating in the 

full spectrum of conflict from 20 10 onward. This latter work 

was presented to the Army Board in September 1997 and is 

the focus for this article. 

W ork began in 1994 on "British Army 2000 (BA 

2000)." This was an internal process of Constraints 

fundamental structural reappraisal brought about w estern democratic armies are complex organizations 

by the changing strategic environment, the pace of subject to political constraints as well as financial 

technological change, and the formal adoption of a limits. The United Kingdom is no exception, and 

maneuverist approach to operations. Wide consultation 

through working groups produced a Foundation Paper in 

1995 that examined factors affecting hture Army structures 

and set an agenda for subsequent work. 

In 1996, another paper assessed the nature of armed 

conflict in the first part of the next century. This paper 

accepted that warfare did not lend itself to tidy classifications 

and did not attempt to define conflict absolutely. Instead, it 

developed two speculative views of conflict as a premise for 

hture force-development planning must remain within the 

agreed funding of the Long-Term Costings Plan, which covers 

a 10-year period forward. Therefore, program adjustments 

within this I0-year period have a hding ceiling. An equal if 

not longer-term constraint is the influence of legacy equipment 

systems. Many of the key systems delivering our maneuver and 

firepower will be in service after 2020. Although our thinking 

may be "out of the box," the scope for action in the short- to 

midterm is restricted. 

View Two 

This view was asymmetric. It portrayed an Army opposed 

by irregular forces-having few moral constraints and 

applying terror and coercion as a central strategy--directed 

by miscellaneous social entities. They would be armed with a 

wide variety of weapons, including limited access to 

weapons of mass destruction. 

further study. 

"...(I lotzg-tert11 ~,OII.T~IYI~I!I is 1/10 it!f1~~~/1ce o/' lc~,yc~c:v 

equipment sysferns.. . " 

View One 

The first view was symmetric. It showed an extrapolation 

of current trends in regional conflict. The United Kingdom 

was an alliance or coalition partner, prosecuting a joint 

expeditionary campaign of high tempo and deep maneuver. 

This would be followed by a post-conflict period of regional 

support and stabilization. 

22 Engineer April 1998 

. . . . ~.F 

- - -- {r:% c.- . . - .-. ,. ~ -. p i:"::. , 

, ,:.. .,. ,' . .-... , . :-~ ,--.- :- - .-. .'; -tyr -. 

,,.. - . .- ,kL , +zL$' . .. . . . .. .. - -- . 

. . ,... . . .. 

.,. 

~ -.' ' .'. eve% 1:. p, c / ,d"'?. 

-.-. -, v .=a[-- ,j -7 ,. . '.,. -;=-. . 

. - .. 

. .. _ . - - &'$ - ,. :-, , - -. 

C=:'L, - 2~; 

-- . - .- - -. -- ... . . V 

-.. - - - ~ --'--'- ' 
. --- 

bevel~~ vision' ---. 

_ I I- - 

,- Compare With Today 

' /.,- --.- - .,P. . I 

't 

Determine Steps 

The work described thus far is Army-generated. The new with what we have, weigh the various influencing factors, 

United Kingdom government of May 1997 came to Power establish priorities, and hopefully gain a glimpse of how the 

with the promise of a far-reaching Strategic Defence future Army will be stnlctured (see Figure 1). 

Review. This ongoing review has taken full account of the 

future Army work, and we realistically hope that its findings Influencing Factors 

in April 1998 will endorse the precepts. However, it is too T he following factors will help determine the structure 

early to begin "hardwiring" our future structures, so the of our future Army: 

details must be addressed later. 

VISION 201 0(+) 

A Very Useable Army 

The British Army will be: 

w World class for its size. 

w [Play a] leading role throughout the future security 

environment-making a difference. 

w Core structure based on warfighting in alliance1 

coalition operations-generating full-spectrum utility. 

w Capability based, doctrinally coherent, modular, 

and robust. 

w Top rate people, modern, innovative, outward looking. 

Strategic Dimension 

The Fundamental Vision Strategic guidance will flow from the Strategic Defence 

ilitary concepts will always be constrained by Review. Informed assessment suggests that our primary 

legacy systems and funding limitations, so we geographic interest for View One types of conflict will remain 

must accept evolutionary development rather than in Europe, the Mediterranean and its littoral, and the Persian 

a step change. However, that evolutionary development will Gulf. the wider cannot be 'gnored? 

be guided by an ultimate vision stated as follows: particularly for View Two types of situations. The United 

Kingdom exports a higher proportion of its gross domestic 

product than the United States, Japan, France, or Germany. 

Overseas investments form a higher proportion of United 

Kingdom wealth than in any other country in the Organization 

for Economic Cooperation and Development. In addition, a 

far greater proportion of our 60 million citizens live and work 

abroad than that of any other developed nation. Therefore, the 

international rule of law and stability throughout the world is 

of fundamental importance to the United Kingdom. A recent 

influential study set the British Army's endorsed mission types 

in the following order of importance: 

w Security of the United Kingdom and its citizens in peacetime. 

w Security of the dependent territories. 

Each word of this vision is carefully chosen to guide the w Defence support to wider British interests. 

progressive development of the Army, Note that it will be "a w Support of international order and humanitarian principles. 

very useable Army," outward looking, doctrinally coherent, w Regional conflict outside the - NATO area. 

modular, and deployable throughout the spectrum of future NATO (Article V) regional crisis. 

conflict. Further work is being done to compare the vision 

w General war. 

April 1998 Engineer 23 
Clearly multinationaVmultiagency operations will become 

increasingly the norm. Also increasing international 

interdependence will give the United Kingdom little real 

choice about its involvement in the full spectrum of hre 

crisis and conflict. It is critical, therefore, that the future Army 

is postured for warfighting in a multinational context and that 

it has the modularity to tailor force packages and military 

contributions to specific theatres or tasks. In addition, it must 

maintain doctrinal coherence with its principal allies and 

potential partners, at least at the operational level. 

Future Conflict 

Warfighting, with all its complex challenges, will remain 

the ultimate requirement. However, the future Army will be 

required to operate across the spectrum of conflict from 

prevention and preconflict to post-conflict activities. The 

two views of warfare may characterize conspicuous facets of 

symmetric and asymmetric conflicts, but actual deployments 

will meet a confusing kaleidoscope of these two views. 

Often there will be no clear enemy, and victory will be 

unattainable in traditional terms, with success being 

measured by the achievement of a desired endstate. 

Therefore, our small Army (currently 112,000 soldiers) 

cannot be structured, equipped, and trained for only a limited 

range of capabilities. The entire Army must have maximum 

utility throughout the complete spectrum of its possible use. 

Doctrinal Principles and Operational Trends 

The maneuverist approach to warfare will remain a valid 

cornerstone of British doctrine-the central theme being to 

strike at the enemy's will and cohesion rather than match 

force directly. Therefore, the future Army must maintain 

superior tempo, agility, and lethality, and it must cultivate 

the command principles that allow prompt and simultaneous 

action. Improved technology will be critical in achieving 

this, but there is concern about overreliance on technology 

and the possibility of centralized control. Improved 

technologies should be used to empower the commander's 

decision-making process and thus support and not supplant 

the decentralized command philosophy of the British Army. 

The identification of an opponent's center of gravity and 

the decisive points that lead to it will remain critical. Often 

these vulnerabilities will be in the depth of an opponent's 

battle space, requiring deep surveillance, maneuver, and 

firepower. This may require a shift of command emphasis 

from close to deep operations. Nevertheless, forces must 

retain the capability for aggressive close combat in order to 

continue the fight, not only in asymmetric conflict but also 

in situations where the impact of technology is blunted by 

urban or close terrain. 

24 Engineer 

"...greater tempo, agility and lethality ...and deep maneuver. .. " 

Challenges of Command 

With increased maneuverability and the potency of 

modem weapon systems, small, self-contained force 

groupings are likely to exert a much greater influence over 

wider battlespace areas. Therefore, operational-level thinking 

and action will be drawn down to lower levels of command. 

This must be encouraged and not stifled by formulaic 

approaches that deny open-minded creativity. Similarly, 

commanders must be trained to develop an appreciation of 

the operational art in preference to tactical science. This will 

be extremely important as the following trends develop: 

Battlespace. Future battlespace will be multidimensional, 

including the complex interplay of various national forces 

and nongovemment agencies. There will be yet greater 

ground-air integration and a heavy reliance at all command 

levels on space-delivered information. Commanders will be 

bombarded with information, and their training and support 

systems must ensure that a balance is kept between the flow 

of information and the capability to exploit it. 

Balance. The desired balance of acceptability between 

ends, ways, and means will exercise the minds of 

commanders at all levels, particularly as the moral dimension 

cannot--or will not-be defined by political authorities in a 

timely fashion. Commanders at higher levels must be 

prepared to take an active and responsible role in shaping 

public perceptions and opinions at home. Equally, there will 

be increasing pressure to achieve success for the minimum 

cost in "blood and treasure." Commanders must weigh the 

balance between the operational paralysis that results from 

excessive avoidance of casualties and the consequences of 

imprudent risk taking. 

Changing Society 

The profession of arms will remain highly competitive, 

requiring a fighting spirit and a will to win. However, the 

Army will need to take account of liberal social attitudes and 

April 1998 
legislative trends that run counter to this ethos. It will be 

necessary to articulate a vision of a disciplined, professional, 

educated, and meritocratic military society, in impartial 

harmony with the nation it serves and trained to work at the 

edge of advancing technology. 

It may be necessary to develop a contract that recognizes 

the unique nature of military service and sets out required 

individual standards. Military technology and sociological 

trends may make it necessary to review the recruiting, 

selection, and career paths of officers and soldiers as their 

relative responsibilities evolve. 

Technology 

Technology offers exciting possibilities, which are well 

known in the United States. However, the United Kingdom 

sees no panacea in pure technology, particularly in an 

asymmetric conflict. Also, the British government could not 

support the high cost of pursuing the most advanced technology 

on a broad front. It would be disproportionate to the military 

requirement. However, weapons proliferation demands that the 

United Kingdom retain a qualitative advantage in key 

capabilities, and it is essential to have continued interoperability 

with our principal allies in Europe and the United States. With 

these thoughts, our priorities will beDigitization. 

1 Robust, improved surveillance target attack radar 

systems (ISTARS). 

Long-range precision attack. 

Command and control warfare. 

Improved lethality. 

1 Nonlethal weapon systems. 

Increasingly agile and versatile platforms. 

1 Logistic improvements. 

Protective systems, including protection against 

weapons of mass destruction. 

Future Army Structures 

arly work in the BA 2000 process demonstrated the 

need for a truly modular Army that can assemble 

timely force packages tailored for specific 

operations. Whereas these packages need not be selfcontained, they must be capable of generating the tempo, 

agility, and lethality necessary to dominate future 

battlespace. Coordination of these force packages in a 

particular theatre is perceived to be at three levels: 

Force (either multinational or national). The force is 

the level of command needed to synchronize the 

simultaneous execution of deep, close, and rear operations. 

Its capabilities and responsibilities will place it at the 

operational level, and it will be organized functionally with 

subordinate tactical operations centers to coordinate deep, 

close, and rear operations separately. 

Formation (national). Formations will provide the 

primary focus for tactical warfighting. They will be the 

minimum size of coherent, all-arms, national contributions 

that can be deployed within a multinational joint force. They 

will be largely self-contained and formulated according to 

functional purpose. 

Unit (national). The unit represents the lowest level at 

which the tactical maneuver battle can be effectively directed 

and combined arms fully integrated. 

In addition to this highly useable, modular Army, a 

framework will be needed for force regeneration in times of 

severe crisis or general war. However, regeneration is 

increasingly difficult as we become more dependent on small 

professional forces that operate limited stocks of complex and 

sophisticated equipment. 

Combat service support will be particularly difficult. Its 

structure must be sufficiently flexible and modular to meet the 

demands of an Army operating throughout the spectrum of 

conflict in a variety of force packages. A balanced logistic 

posture must be achieved in peacetime as a springboard for 

unforeseen operational requirements. Equally, a pragmatic 

convergence of national and joint logistic systems, as well as a 

sure asset-tracking capability to deliver the required 

equipment in a timely fashion, should be pursued wherever 

possible. Increased opportunities will be explored for using 

civilian contractors if their contributions release military 

resources. Despite their limited personal liability, such 

contractors bring heightened expertise in logistic planning, 

complex equipment maintenance, and infrastructure support. 

Their early involvement may facilitate military withdrawal 

and a more seamless transition to post-conflict activities. 

Engineering Function 

E ven though it is too early to hardwire force structures, 

let alone take a definitive view of engineer 

involvement, the broad function of maneuver support 

will continue with undiminished importance. How much of 

that will remain within the Engineer Branch may be 

questioned. Indeed, it is unclear how the boundaries between 

established Army branches should be perceived, and it is more 

logical to take an altruistic view of battlespace functions. 

There is historical precedent for engineers to develop ideas 

that are then taken forward in other branches, so some 

infrastructure support functions might lie elsewhere in the 

long run. However, a strong engineer belief is that the 

April 1998 Engineer 25 
Evolution of the Future Army 

Continual Referral 

Current 

1997 2002 2007 2017 2022 

Figure 2 

ingenuity of engineering must not be easily subordinated drive it. Equally, the rate of change will be carefully managed 

when Army functional responsibilities are rationalized and to take full account of necessary interoperability with our 

command structures designed. principal allies and the preservation of public and political 

The two views of future conflict lead to a polarization of support at home. 

engineer support that runs contrary to the Army policy of Change will be managed through a coherent campaign 

maximum utility. On one hand, sophisticated combat plan, but not all questions have answers today. There will be 

engineer skills are required to support tactical maneuver. On a process of continual referrals as implementation exposes 

the other hand, more general-but equally sophisticated- new opportunities (see Figure 2). The following design 

engineer skills are required to support operational factors will remain central in determining the balance, shape, 

deployment and force sustainment. The broad utility of and size of the future British Army: 

engineer units may have to accept individual specialties that , Maximum utility throughout the spectrum of conflict. 

are more restricting, and the balance of combat and general Superior tempo overall. skills in units will need careful management. Also the 

demands of supporting theatre entry, in-theatre infra- and mental 

structure, and post-conflict activities (such as battlefield Structural adaptability and adaptable soldiers. 

clearance and reconstruction) reinforce the continuing need 

for specialized engineer units and advice at the force level. 

Equally, tactical agility and operational tempo will 

demand more integral engineer support to formations and 

units than before, including the fusing of command and 

planning functions into all-arms groupings. Again, the 

policy of maximum utility will require a careful balance 

between integration and broader utility. This may lead to a 

continuing need for modularity and force packaging of 

engineer assets at much lower command levels than occurs 

in other arms. 

The Way Forward 

a he British Army recognizes the need for change in 

order to match the evolving nature of conflict. 

However, change must be balanced, progressive, and 

coherent, being aware of short-term risks as well as the longterm vision. Technology will support this change but not 

Increased lethality through precision, range, and timeliness. 

Protection against the full spectrum of attacks. 

Robustness in all situations and in the articulation of our 

values and views. 

Much of the detail of the change will hinge on how well 

the Strategic Defence Review supports BA 2000. Whatever 

the detail, however, change is inescapable. w 

Colonel Lilleyman is the British Liaison Officer to the 

U.S. Army Corps of Eizgineers, based at Fort Leonard Wood. 

Previous assigrzrnents include United Kingdorn engineer, 

doctrine arzd cornhat developments, and chief instructor, 

Cornmand Wing, at the Royal School of Military 

Engineering. He has sewed in Northern Ireland, the 

Falkland island.^, and Bosnia with the United Nations. 

Colonel Lil1ej)nzan was a~urded the MBE (Member of the 

Order of the British Enlpire) in 1987. 

26 Engineer April 1998 
An tipersonnel Landmine Policy 

By Dr. Gregory L. Bier 

A ntipersonnel landmine (APL) policy has been the topic 

of heated and controversial debate on the international 

front as well as within the U.S. military. Many question 

the military soundness of the current APL policy. Many are 

unsure of the ramifications imposed by the policy to doctrine 

and training. Others question the intent and future of the policy. 

This article clarifies the development of the APL policy, its 

military applications, and its implications for Army units. 

Ottawa Process. In September 1997, the United States 

withdrew from the Ottawa Process. Those negotiations, led by 

Canada, were aimed at drafting a treaty between "like-minded" 

nations prepared to ban the use, export, stockpiling, and 

production of APLs. The United States withdrew from this 

process after determining that the treaty would not meet its unique 

national security concerns. The United States had two 

fundamental concerns. First, without proven and fielded 

alternatives to APLs, U.S. soldiers in Korea would be faced with a 

critical capability gap, which would adversely impact our ability 

to meet unique defense requirements where only 37,000 U.S. 

soldiers are deployed to defend an enormous border. Second, the 

treaty would eliminate our ability to use current scatterable mine 

systems because they include APLs, even though they are selfdestructing APLs. Today, the majority of our scatterable mine 

systems are "mixed," which means they include both selfdestructing antipersonnel and self-destructing antitank mines. 

U.S. Policy and The level of public awareness 

concerning APLs has increased dramatically within the last few 

years. Some significant laws and policy announcements are 

summarized below: 

In 1996, a law sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy (DVermont) was passed that requires a l-year moratorium on APL 

use to take effect beginning 12 February 1999. This law (Public 

Law 104-295) still authorizes the use of APLs in perimeter 

marked and monitored areas on international borders or 

demilitarized zones (DMZ). It does not distinguish between 

nonself-destructing and self-destructing APLs. Therefore, this 

law effectively prohibits the use of mixed, scatterable systems 

because they contain antipersonnel submunitions. 

In May 1996, President Clinton directed that the United 

States unilaterally cease using all nonself-destructing APLs not 

needed for either demining, countermine training, or for the 

defense of the United States and its allies from armed aggression 

that crosses the Korean DMZ. The president also stated that 

the United States reserves the option to use self-destructing/ 

self-deactivating APLs in military hostilities to safeguard 

American lives and hasten the end of fighting. 

Facts and Figures. With all of the controversy surrounding 

APLs, it is important that engineers be able to articulate the 

significance of our national policy. Furthermore, engineers must 

be able to relate relevant facts and figures pertinent to their 

combined arms team regarding APLs. 

- When used responsibly, landmines are a combat multiplier. 

Employed correctly, they enhance the use of other weapon 

systems. 

- The Army strongly supports the fundamental objective to 

eliminate or minimize the maiming of innocent civilians by 

APLs. To this end, the military has proposed ending reliance on 

nonself-destructing APLs since February 1952. 

- The Army does not support the objective of eliminating 

reliance on nonself-destructing APLs without first minimizing 

the risks American soldiers must endure without them. 

- Without proven and fielded alternatives in place prior to 

eliminating APLs, a capability gap would be created, especially 

in Korea. 

- Scatterable mine systems can be employed as directed, 

situational, or reserve tactical obstacles. Commanders place 

required limitations on their location, duration, and release as 

they develop a scheme of employment for each mission. The 

mines remain on the surface and self-destruct at preset durations. 

These mine systems have a combined reliability rate of 99.9994 

percent and typically have a high metallic content. 

- Field Manual 20-32, Mine/Counterrnine Operations, will be 

updated in May 1 

policy. The fix: 

unchanged. 

998 to incorporate mandated changes in APL 

, disrupt, turn, and block effects remain 

- Our mixed systems include antitank mines that are protected 

by antipersonnel submunitions to inhibit the rapid dismounted 

breaching of antitank mines by the enemy. 

- The Defense Advance Research Projects Agency continues 

to investigate innovative maneuver denial approaches that are 

based on advanced technology. However, these efforts will take 

time and money to develop, test, and field. 

Summary. Landmine policy is a dynamic subject. 

Warfighters must understand and support the policy changes that 

affect the way we shape the battlefield. Engineers must be 

intimately familiar with the characteristics, specifications, and 

employment parameters of the available scatterable mine 

systems. M 

Dr. Bier is technical director of the DOD Humanitarian 

Dernining TI-ainirtg Center and Co ~rnterrrrine Training Support 

Center, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. 

April 1998 Engineer 27 
CAlTS! Classroom XXI! 

Technology Impaired 


By A1 Waltman 

LANS. CANS, ATM, WANS, CATS, 

CATTS, Classroom XXI, CBT, CAI, 

CD-ROM, Internet, Distance Learning, 

Intranet, ISDN, Digital Doctrine, TNE?; 

VTT, VTCAHHHGGG!!!!! 

-~ 


I

f YOU are in data overload because of 

all the wirehead kinds of things 

above, join the crowd. Digital technology is outpacing most of our abilities 

to understand the acronyms, much less 

what they mean and how they will impact 

our jobs, ow units, and us. By the time 

you read this article, some of the infomation in it will no longer he current. 

Muore's Law states that computer microprocessor speed doubles every 18 months 

and the price remains constant. That rule 

has remained valid through eight or nine 

generations of microprocessors, and based 

on current press releases, it will continue 

to hold truc. I~nprovements and changes in 

other computer hardware and sotiware 

occur at about the same pace. So how 

does one keep up? That's our challenge, 

It is not possible in a short article such 

as this to explain all the activities you can 

expect to sce in the next few years in 

training technology development. We 

hope to forecast the most significant 

changes we expcct and describe some of 

1 the technologies we will use to improve 

soldier and civilian training across the 

Engineer Regiment. Distance learning, 

! multimedia training, and training mod- 

, emization activities will he the focus. 

1 

1 

i 

I 

' 

i 


I 

, 

, 

1 

; 


ing to the TASS student while he or she 

continues to hold a full-time job. 

The challenge is not new. For years 

large corporations have spent millions of 

dollars on employee education and inhouse "corporate universities." Xerox, 

IBM, and even McDonalds have worldrenowned corporate training facilities. 

Opportunities for normal academic studies are big business. The University of 

Maryland, Webster University, and Central Tcxas College are on many military 

installations worldwide, offering degree 

Progra1ns UP to the master's level and 

vu~dtional training in ueas such as auto 

mechanics and small-engine repair. 

So long-distance learning isn't a new 

idea. It has just gone high tech. Until 

~"entfy, the correspondence course was 

the popular, nonresident training model 

for the Amy, and many soldiers hefited from that prograln. The Army correspondence course program is still viable ~ ~ ~ , j as a paper-based system. But corrcspondewe has become a slightly dirty word in 

theeducation and training arena, and distance learning with new technologies is ~ ~ l i ~ ~ . gaining credibility. 

Distance Learning 

Distance learning can be defined as 

deliveringthe required training to 

the right student, where and when 

,t needed. sounds easy, it'? 

e s take is see 

involved. 

currentguidance from TRADOC 

directs that every soldier be using 

a standardizedprograln ofinstruction that 

teaches tl,e same tasks to the same stan. 

dard, no matter ,+,here the training is 

given. soldiers graduate from a res,. 

dent course at F~~ ~ ~wood will ~ be 

trained on !he same aspects of their job 

as soldiers who to the same 

, 

i 

attend an equivalent course at a ~~~~l 

school system (TASS) ~ ~ ~ 

The challenge is to provide quality train- i 

, 

28 Engineer April 1998 
The challenge that we face is to identify courses that should bc trained using 

distance learning. The amount and kind of 

training appropriate for this method are 

determined by the specific tasks to be 

trained. Distance learning represents a 

powerhl capability when applied with the 

proper balance of course content and 

delivery technologies. The Army is spending large amounts of money to convert 

correspondence course training support 

material to digital multimedia. This conversion will help ensure that the training is 

compatible with the needs of our more 

mobile and technologically aware forces. 

As training materials change to digital 

formats, the delivery medium must change 

as well. The technology infrastructure the 

Army is putting in place is reaching a 

point where many soldiers and civilians 

can learn wherever they can plug in their 

technology classrooms in place that can 

integrate these networks and provide students with an excellent learning environment. Called Classrooms XXI, they are 

designed to create a training environment 

that supports individual soldier learning 

throughout the total Army. The idea is to 

move instruction away from the traditional instructor-focused method to one 

that is student-focused. By involving students in their own training, their understanding of the subject matter is more indepth and is retained longer. 

Classrooms XXI are being built to 

leverage information-age technologies to 

gain training efficiencies while maximizing training effectiveness. Between now 

and 2005, about 30 high-technology 

Classrooms XXI will be built on Fort 

Leonard Wood, and several hundred will 

be built Armywide. Planning and construction have started, and we expect to 

have more than 15 of these classrooms on 

Fort Leonard Wood by mid-1999. 

computer. Currently 108 military-owned 

or-operated video-teletraining facilities are 

located across the United States and 

Europe. These facilities, linked together in 

the training network (TNET), provide 

two-way video and audio capability in 

either single-location-to-location cornmuI 

nication or multiple-location modes. 

Based on a combination of terrestrial communication lines and satellites, live training can be delivered virtually anywhere a i 

soldier or civilian is located. 

The use of electronic networks will 

become a kcy element in the delivery of 

training. Connecting individual students 

to others gathered in high-technology 

classrooms, networks will be the means 

for sharing ideas among students under 

the tutelage of an instructor located anywhere on the network. Without an elecand logical events, as well as relationships and parts of a system, equipment, or 

I problem. Computer-based training (CBT) 

and computer-aided instruction (CAI) can 

be used to enhance or replace instruction 

with equal effectiveness when proper 

1 design considerations are included in 

the training-development process. 

Limited multimedia development 

1 capability is in place in the Engineer ( School, and several products have been 

developed. A11 of the Engineer School's 

programs of instruction are being I reviewed for potential conversion to a 

multimedia format. While contractors 

will accomplish much of the conversion, 

the school will maintain the capability to 

develop lessons or multimedia products 

to support contingency operations or 

other rapid-development needs. These 

I products can be designed for delivery via 1 CD-ROM or the Internet. 

, 

works (CAN) provide electronic connections bctween buildings on schools or , Multimedia Training 

installations. The wide area network 

(WAN) provides worldwide connectiv- I T he evolving technologies of comity. puters, communications, and digiIn cach of these networks, a new tech- tal hypermedia have provided 

nology in data communications called vistas for the design learn- 

( Training Modernization 

tronic backbone, accessing and sharing : 

information will not be possible. Local 1 

area networks (LAN) provide conncctiv- i 

ity among computers within classrooms 

and within buildings. Campus area netasynchronoLc,s t rcrrl sfer mode (A~~) 

my training is on the edge of its 

most significant change since 

,World War 11. The digital age is 

providing trainers at all levels with tools 

never imagined a few years ago. Fullmotion simulators of ground combat vehicles are a reality. These high-fidelity simulators are interconnected with other 

simulators so that soldiers and commanders can fight in a virtual environm'ent. 

ing environments. Multimedia presentaApril I998 

allows high-speed, high-vo]urne, two-way tions can be llsed with highdata, audio, and colnmun~cat~on resolution graphics, and animation to 

connectivity, ~h~ goal is to have high- allow students to better visualize physical 

Engineer 29 
Lil 

Mr. Waltman is chief of'the histructional Support Division, Department of 

Training and Doctrine Development. 

He has 25 years ofcombined service as 

an officer and a civiliatz emplqyee of the 

U.S. Army Engineer School. Mr. Waltman's areas of expertise are truirzirzg, 

operations research, and instructional 

techilology. 

Sharing instructors between service 

schools results in a virtual schoolhouse in 

TRADOC. Multimedia CBT is replacing 

paper-based correspondence courses. 

Automation tools such as the Automated 

Standard Army Training (ASAT) System 

and Computer-Assisted Training System 

(CATS) will provide the commander and 

trainer with detailed training strategies 

that are event-based and sequentially 

scheduled to build mission success. These 

and many other modernization actions 

will occur in the next few years. 

The Engineer School's Director of 

Training has developed a Regimental 

Training Modernization Strategy that 

identifies the most significant needs of the 

Regiment in individual, unit, and institutional training modernization. The strategy will provide the vehicle for long-term 

improvements in training both at Fort 

Leonard Wood and in field units. 

One of the first actions was to form an 

lntegrated Concept Team (ICT) with the 

mission to identify the top training aids, 

devices, simulations, and simulators 

(TADSS) needed to train the regiment in 

maneuver support, force support, and 

topographic engineering. The team is 

responsible for developing a prioritized 

list of training system needs and developing the requirements documents. 

Only through this type of action can training be truly modernized and brought into 

the 2 1 st century. 

None of 11s can predict what type of 

training will be used in the future, but all 

indicators point toward more training at 

home stations and using digitized products. Individual training such as the Basic 

and Advanced Noncommissioned Officer 

Courses (BNCOC and ANCOC) will continue to have a resident component, but 

more of the training will be through selfstudy or video teletraining. Unit and crew 

training will also be supported by digiGlossary of Technospeak 

ATM - Asynchronous transfer mode. A system of long-distance communication that features high speeds and the ability to simultaneously handle multiple 

data streams. 

Bandwidth -The range of frequencies a circuit will carry. Often used informally to mean the amount of information a network will carry at any time. 

CBT - Computer-based training. Computer applications that cause learning 

through the use of graphics, audio, video, and text-based material. 

FDDl - Fiber-distributed data interface. A standard for a 100-Mbps (mega 

bites per second) optical fiber ring local area network. 

HTML - Hypertext markup language. A programming language used by specialized software applications called browsers to create a graphical interface 

between the user and the World Wide Web. 

ISDN - lntegrated services digital network. A system for combining voice and 

data transmissions over long-distance lines. 

lnternet - A worldwide internetwork that interconnects thousands of public 

and private networks and millions of users. 

lntranet - A corporate internetwork that provides the key lnternet applications, especially the World Wide Web. An intranet operates within the organization for internal purposes. It can exist as an isolated, self-contained internetwork 

or may have links to the Internet. 

LAN - Local area network. A small network, usually of personal computers, 

that serves a single department or workgroup. 

Optical Fiber - A thin filament of glass or other transparent material through 

which a signal-encoded light beam may be transmitted by means of total internal reflection. 

SONET - Synchronous optical network. A network transmission system 

devised for fiber optics. 

Teleconference - A conference between persons remote from one another 

but linked by a telecommunications system. This system may be video, audio, 

data, or a combination of the three. 

TCPAP - Transmission-control protocol/lnternet protocol. A widely used pair 

of protocols used to link networks. 

TNET - Training network. A two-way audio, two-way video teleconferencing 

system used by the Army to conduct distance learning. 

Twisted Pair - A type of network wiring that uses pairs of twisted wire, similar 

to telephone wire. 

WAN - Wide area nefwork. A network that uses long-distance communications methods to operate over large areas, usually connecting parts of a single 

organization or interest group. 

WWW - World Wide Web. A networked, graphically oriented hypermedia system. Information is stored on servers, exchanged between servers and browsers, and displayed on browsers in the form of pages of text and images. 

The f2uh1re in training is exciting. At ~ 

30 Engineer April I998 

tized training products. Large-scale, networked, simulation/simulator products 

the current rate of growth and technology ~ 

im~rovelnents, can the holodeck be far 

will aid in home-station training, TADSS , behind? On the other hand, the leadership ~ 

will provide the oppom1ni~ for enhanced I role of the chain of command will never 1 

training through the use of new digital be supplanted by a machine. In every case, I 

training technology-ither as a part of a a human must Judge when performance is 

Combined Arms Tactical Trainer (CATT) 

or something as extreme as a virtualconstnlction mission with networked construction equipment. 

good enough and when remedial training 

is appropriate. Only through the judicious 

use of technology as an aid to training can 

unit readiness be sustained and improved. 
Terrain Analysis As a Combat Multiplier 

Just Got Better 

By Major Joseph J. Piek and Captain Dirk E. Plclnte 

for many years a training arm of the A student prepares a digital product on the Sun SPARC 20 workstation. 

Defense Mapping Agency. On 1 

he field is looking to you ' October 1996, the National Imagery 1 Defense, including Army and Marine 

April 1998 Engineer 31 

with great expectations," 

said MG Robert Flowers, 

Commanding General of the U.S. ping and imagery agencies under one , units; and NIMA cartographic producArmy Engineer Center, at the Defense Combat Support Agency. Today, DMS tion divisions. 

Mapping School (DMS) at Fort Bel- is the largest of four schools in NIMA7s 

voir, Virginia, on 21 November 1997. National Imagery and Mapping Col- 1 What Is an 81T? 

The occasion was the graduation of the lege. It trains members of the Army, ~ 

Army's first Advanced Individual Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps- he Topographic Analyst MOS 

Training class of military occupational as well as Department of Defense civil- was first proposed in the early 

specialty (MOS) 81T Topographic ians and international students-in 1990s. SGM Ted Poulson, the 

Analysts. mapping, charting, geodesy; printing DMS Sergeant Major, recalls, "The 

The newest MOS in the Corps of techno log^; and geoph~siral survey- 8lC soldier was no longer responsible 

Engineers, 81T is a consolidation of two ing Instructors assigned to DMS come for making maps, only ,nap revisions, 

previous MOSS: 8 1C Cartographer and from throughout the Department of while the 81Q soldier saw an ever8 1Q Terrain Analyst. The new 8 IT 

Basic Topographic Analyst Course 

(BTAC) couples the most critical 

elements of cartography and terrain 

analysis with robust imagery and 

computer capabilities to bridge the 

gap from the tnanual topopaphic 

methods of the past to the digital terrain visualization and information 

management capabilities of today's 

Anny. The responsibility to produce 

highly trained, fully qualified 81T 

soldiers rests with the Defense Mapping School. 

Defense Mapping School 

E stablished in 1972, DMS is 

the Department of Defense 

joint service school that was 

and Mapping Agency (NIMA) was topographic units; Army, ~avy, ~ir 

formed, combining the nation's map- Force, and Marine Corps intelligence 
accelerating mission for creating terrain analysis products that came about 

with advances in technology." In reality, Army topographic units already 

had 81C and 81Q soldiers perform 

closely related tasks. Evolution in thc 

to master the capabilities of the Army's 

premier terrain analysis computer system, ATAC students also learn to manage the improved capabilities of the new 

8 1 T Topographic Analyst. 

computer training portion of the 8 1T 

course, many of these lessons needed 

to be developed. Several computertraining lesson plans were available but 

had to be revised and lengthened to 

meet task list requirements. Instructors 

missions of the two MOSS offered an also built many practical exercises for 

onnortunitv for chance: to produce sol- 

' Course , each computer application so 81T stu32 Engineer 

. & - 

diers who could provide critical prod- T 

I dents can strengthen skills in each soft- he DMS Topography Division ucts derived from imagery and other includes Army, Marine, Air ware application. 

intelligence during the mission analysis Force, and civilian instructors. More than 3,000 instructor hours were 

process, yet retain the skills to create a ' ~h~~ had the not-so-simple mission to needed to modify existing computermap from scratch if required. Consoli- combine 13 weeks oftraining for MOS based instruction and develop new lesson 

dation of the two Moss was approved I 8 I C with 16 weeks of training for MOS materials. Lesson plans ranging from one 

by the U.S. Ann~ Engineer School in 8lQ and create a course to train the hour to scvcral days were created using 

1995. I new MOS 8 1 T in just 18 weeks. 1 Microsoft Ofice software. This software 

The consolidation effort began in Late in 1996, instructors from DMS allows instructors to present lessons as 

April 1997, as 81C and 81Q soldiers met with members of the Engineer Powerpoint slide shows using an LCD 

converted MoS 81T. ) School's Directorate of Training to projector and instantly change or update 

Soldiers and noncommissioned officers determine what tasks 8 1~ soldiers course materials. 

(NCos) trained DMS needed to be trained at all skill levels. The new 81T course includes more 

using the new 81T are This Task Site Selection Board selected than eight weeks of manual cartography 

immediately awarded the MOS. Addi- ! the essential skills 81T soldiers would and terrain analysis and more than nine 

tionally. RIG and 810 sergeants first need to be successful in topographic weeks of instruction on computers and 

class and above were automatically analysis detachments at the division software used by 8lT students. The 

April 1998 

awarded the MoS. However, former ! level and topographic companies and 

81C and 81Q staff sergeants and below battalions that support the corps and 

who are already in the ficld and will not ' echelons above corps commanders. 

time devoted to computer training tripled from that previously provided to 

, 8 1 Q students. 

have the o~~ortunit~ receive formal The end result was an approved 81T Thc Marine basic terrain analysis 

training at DMS are required to be cer- task list-the central element in the 1 curriculum is called the Basic Topography (BTOPO) Course. Even though tified by the first lieutenant colonel in ,,tire curriculum-development prothe Army BTAC and Marine BTOPO thcir chain of command before being cess. with the push toward digitization 

awarded MoS 81T. are curricula are similar, the Anny and of the battlespace under the Force XXI, ' 

certified, they will carry the Y2 identi- 2010, and ~ft~~ ~~~ initifier, signifying transition to a new atives, the focus of the new course is on 

Marine Corps basic students are not 

trained side-by-side because of several 

MOS which requires supervised on- ' computer skills-rather than cartogra- differences in the required training for 

the-job training. ! phy and manual terrain analysis each service. The Marine course is 20 

The DMS Topography Division skills-needed to manipulate digital 1 academic weeks, while the Army 

began instructing the 8 1 T Advanced data and imagery. course is 18 weeks. 

Topographic Analyst Course (ATAC) in After the 81T task list was 

August 1997 and graduated its first class , approved, warrant officers and NCO~ I Implementation of 10 students on 18 December 1997. of the topography division took , 

The ATAC is the technical track of the ' 

outlined by the ~~~k site , he 14 soldiers in the first 8 1 TI 0 

Engineer School's Basic NCO Collrse 

(BNCoC). NCos attend ATAC after 

completing the core track of BNCOC at 

Selection Board and grouped related ~ course began training in July 

tasks into 85 separate lessons. Instruc- ; 1997. The figure on page 33 

tors the new 8 1 T task list I illustrates how the 18 academic weeks 

Fort Leonard Wood. The 18-week , with the curriculum of the old 81C and are broken into nine blocks of training. 

ATAC is unique in that it trains 8 lQ courses and found that many of , Blocks A through D are the manual 

Marine, and international students side- the old lessons remained applicable for portion of BTAC, and E through I are 

by-side in the same classroom, offering manual portions of the new course. the computer blocks of training. 

joint training experience for Junior However, 1 For the manual portion of the the lessons needed to be 

NCOs. ATAC students train for 14 of , refined, drastically shortened, or course, soldiers work on light tables 

their 18 weeks on the Digital Topo- ' updated. with classic cartographer and terrain 

graphic Support System Multispectral Since the trainers were treading on analyst tools, such as invar bar scales, 

Image Processor. Beyond learning how relatively new ground regarding the compasses, pocket stereoscopes, 
81 T Course Framework 

Basic Topographic Analyst Course 

vc Cartography Course - 13 weeks 1 

CTlS 

Software 

Manual Terrain Analysis I RSllGlSICTlSlCPX 

Former Basic Terrain Analysis Course - 16 weeks 

straightedges, and scribers. They construct map grids, scribe map features, 

create factor overlays, and determine 

intervisibility. 

In the automated or computer portion of the course, soldiers train on 

state-of-the-art UNIX-based Sun Microsystems workstations, including the 

SPARC 20 and ULTRA 1 computers. 

They work at individual workstations, 

whereas during previous 8 1 Q computer 

training lessons, two or three soldiers 

trained together on each computer system. The topography division has 

adopted a one-student-per-workstation 

policy to maximize hands-on time. This 

approach results in each soldier receiving more than 300 hours of individual 

computer instruction during the 8 1 T 

class-a 600 percent increase over the 

previous 8 1 Q course. Soldiers receive 

training in Remotely Sensed Imagery, 

Geographic Information Systems, and 

Combat Terrain Information Systems 

software. They learn to produce critical 

products used during the mission analysis process, specifically during the intelligence preparation of the battlefield 

(IPB). Block I, the Command Post 

Exercise, is a 10-day final exam requiring that soldiers produce nine IPB products, including a combined obstacles 

overlay, cover and concealment overlay, elevation layer tint, line-of-sight 

overlay, and minefield overprint. 

To ensure that soldiers received the 

training specified and enough time 

was allotted for individual lessons, the 

topography division staff evaluated 

the lesson plans for content and length 

after each block of instruction during 

the first 8IT class. These evaluations 

served as an internal after-action 

review. They were combined with 

comments from soldiers in the class to 

improve the course content for BTAC 

students in 1998. The topography 

division is working with several field 

units to provide copies of the BTAC 

lessons for their SIT supervised onthe-job training, as well as other unit 

training. 

Topographic Analyst 

Graduation 

he 14 graduates of BTAC Class 

1-97 were inspired by General 

Flowers' stories of the key roles 

their forerunners played in successful 

operations from World War I1 through 

Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He 

reminded the new graduates, "The first 

soldiers stood up for deployment (for 

these operations) were topographic 

soldiers flown to Bahrain to begin the 

intelligence preparation necessary for 

operations in the Persian Gulf area." 

Colonel Robert Kirby, Commander 

and Deputy Director of the U.S. Army 

Topographic Engineering Center in 

Alexandria, Virginia, described how 

the mapping community has 

evolved-since he was a student 

studying celestial navigation to today 

where "We live in a world of Global 

Positioning Systems, multispectral 

analysis, and new technology that 

helps us do our job better." He 

April 1998 Engineer 33 
concluded by saying, "The tools of our 

trade may change, but our fundamentals and purpose have not." 

Strength Through Knowledge 

opographic analyst support to 

the combined-arms team is critical. Alongside the combat, general, and construction engineer MOSS, 

the timely and accurate terrain information provided by 8lT soldiers is a 

combat multiplier that gives the commander a decisive edge over the 

enemy. When the commander can 

visualize the terrain and understand its 

impact on both friendly and enemy 

operations, the topographic analyst has 

done his job. 

In 1998, the Defense Mapping 

School Topography Division will conduct five BTAC and two ATAC classes 

and train nearly 100 of the Army's 

newest soldiers, the 8 1T Topographic 

Analysts. MG Flowers said it best at the 

first 8 1T graduation, "Our Army must 

be able to dominate terrain to be successful, and you're the ones who will 

make that happen." 1+1 

Major Piek is the Chiex Topography 

Division, Defense Mapping School, Fort 

Belvoir, Virginia. Previous assigntnents 

include the Ofice of the Chief of Pziblic 

Afairs at the Pentagon; Commander, 

70th Engineer Company, 29th Engineer 

Battalion, Fort Shajter, Hawaii; and Survey Company Executive Officer, Battalion S4, and Platooi~ Lender, 30th 

Engineer Battalion. MAJ Piek holds a 

master's degree injournalism from Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia. 

Captain Plaizte is the Deputy ChieJ; 

Topograplzy Division, Defense Mapping 

School. Previous assignments include 

Commander, Company B, 37th Engineer 

Battalion, Fort Bragg, North Carolina; 

and Executive Officer, Company D, and 

Platoon Leader, Company A, 237th 

Engineer Battalion, Heilbronn, Germany. CPT Plante holds a bachelor :s 

degree in physics from Texas Christian 

University, Fort Worth, Texas. 

Letter To ' 

An article in the November 1997 issue of Engineer by Lieutenant Corr 

(Engineer Qualification Tables:A New'TrainingIVlethodolo{jy) caughl my atten. 

tion. While the aul'hor correcstly creditled the Engineer Br,igade witti develop 

ment of the EQT, thre grayed side bar oIn page 3(1 and the (sndnote on page 31I __-A A_ *L_ ,-%_A __ -__It. - 1- _A_. attributed developnrerrr ru rrre 10th Englrreer oartalion. Here are rrle {acts: 

Colonel Carl Strock (now BG Strock), Captain Matt 0 Brian analSergeant 

First Class Mike Bergeron developed those tables while in the En{~ineerBri. 

gade for the 3rd Infantry Division (formerly the 24th ID) at Fort Stewart. We 

began wc,rk in Aug,US^ 1995 isnd testecj the table ;, the 11tkI 

Engineer Battalion in July 15j96 and tkle 317th 1 n Octobe,r 

1996. TL_ I__

I rre ~ey10 success was uesrgrr~rlgrrrenr to niarcn exrsring raoles rnar mrantry and armor units already used and understood. The EQT had an immediate 

impact at Fort Stewart and Fort Benning (home of the 317th Engineer Battalion and the 3rd Briqade) - by getting us range and ammunition resources previously denied to us. We intentionally designed the? tables to match thc resource? 

limitation5;in DA PI1M 350-38. As for comments by active duty engineers that 

the table:;are red^~ndant,that was the whole ploint. The tables arc9 groupec1 -.- .-....-. .. -,:,,- ..- ,--. - ., -,.:,,- (like the maneuver tables) into individualAeader SKI~S, secnon/squau SKIIIS, 

and platoon training. Within those groups are tables that allow the leader of 

that unit to first train (practice) on his own, then be certified as ready by his 

next hiqher headquarters, and finally qualify to standards usinq evaluators 

from the t7eadquarters two levels up. 

The hisrdest palrt of our j (ear-long developmlent and testing prcIcess wa2? 

getting aslreement (3n what s~kills we shrould inclurde to maEce enginet?rsquads/ -,-A- - .- - -8.Z.- 8 ,. - - -- - - - - - A - - .,--. --8 - -8 -,- - .-,- -,,-

piaroons quallriea. II came oown ro rnose raws rnar LVL srroc~aec~aea(as 

the comrrlander) should be included. We sent the whole p ) the Engi, 

neer Schc301 back in June 1996 (POC Mr. Raybu Irn Toy).

Major Boo ~vrcbarry 

Operations Group Bravo 

Battle Command Training Program 

Fort Leavenworth 

Engin~ 01 sreply: 

You are r~yr~r ur~ target. The EQTs were deve~upeuuy you and slall Iri rrle 

Engineer Brigade, 3rd ID, at Fort Stewart. We a1.e thankfuI for your concerteci 

effort.Your tables stand as the basis for the final product wIe will distlribute dur. 

ing the third quarter of FY98 in a new publicatio~n TC.5-15 . 0, Engine!er . .Qualifi, 

cation Tables. The staffing actlons of your tables and the many varlatlons we 

received from units throughout the force enablec1 the Engilneer Schc~olto pub- 1 

lish a common standard for combat engineers. 

The measurement of relevant training, as appl~earu rrle raoles, lnsrrlls rrlariy 

trainina ciaptains to unintentic~nallyapply words cz~f ownership or authorship tc) u 


successfu11 events. figain, tharik you for your effort: and continued sup130rf. 

. .y~urn~oy 

Training Specialist 

Collective Analysis Branch 

Department of Training and Doctrine Development 

-

34 Engineer April 194 
Past In Review 

ifty years ago, in June 1948, one 

of the most dramatic episodes in , 

the history of the Cold War began 

in central Europe. The Soviet Union cut 

off ground access to the western sectors 

of Berlin, isolating western military 

forces and more than two million civilians deep within the Soviet zone of 1 

occupation. Anxious to avoid war but ~ 

determined to stand up to the Soviet 

By William C. Baldwin 

At the end of World War 11, 

the victorious powers divided 

Germany into four zones of occupation, but the capital of Germany, also divided into four 

sectors, was deep within the 

Soviet zone. Although the western allies- Britain, France, and 

the United States-received formal rights of air access to their 

sectors in Berlin through three air 

corridors, the Soviets never guaranteed access by land. As tensions between the former allies 

intensified in the years after 1945, 

Germany and Berlin became the 

stage on which the Cold War 

opened. Extension of the American recovery plan for Europe, the 

Marshall Plan, to the western 

zones of Germany and western 

intentions to establish a new German government in their zones, 

led the Soviets to counter with 

increasing pressure on the western sectors of Berlin. After interfering with rail and highway 

access in the spring of 1948, the 

Soviets began an almost total 

ground blockade on 24 June. 

Some western leaders, such as 

General Lucius Clay, the American commander in Germany, 

wanted to break the blockade 

with armed force if necessary. 

President Harry Truman and the 

joint chiefs of staff wanted to 

avoid military confrontation but 

stay in Berlin. 

The only alternative was an 

airlift. During the war, an airlift 

had been used to send supplies 

over the hump of the Himalaya 

Mountains from India to China, 

April 1998 Engineer 35 

threat, the western powers resorted to an 

airlift of unprecedented scope to keep 

the city supplied. For more than a year 

American and British planes shuttled 

food and coal to the city, confounding 

the Soviets who were convinced it could 

not be done. Engineers played an important role in the airlift by building and 

maintaining airfields in West Berlin 

but never on the scale necessary to feed 

and Power a city of more than two million people. Convinced by the Cierman 

failure to S~PP~Y their troops trapped in 

Stalingrad by air during World War 11, 

the Soviets anticipated victory, and not 

all western leaders were confident that 

the airlift would s~cceed. 

"Operation Vittles," as the airlift 

under difficult circumstances. / was officially dubbed, faced formidable 
found a suitable site on a former German army installation at Tegel, in the 

French sector of Berlin. The Tegel site 

was more open than either Tempelhof 

or Gatow, which were closely surrounded by buildings. When en&' 'Itleers

reported to General Clay that the new 

airfield could be completed by February 1949, he replied that their estimate 

for construction time was "much too 

long." The new target date was December 1948. 

Completion of an entirely new airfield in such short order placed additional strain on the already heavily 

burdened engineers. The post en&' meer

assigned 15 officers, 150 soldiers, and 

some heavy equipment to Tegel, but 

these resources were not adequate. 

These women in West Berlin work in shifts around the clock to help build the Construction equipment and materials, 

Tegel airfield using brick rubble taken from destroyed city blocks. such as asphalt and cement, were heavy 

and competed with food and coal for 

obstacles. General Clay estimated that / quickly deteriorated during the airlift ' airlift priority. Construction at Tegel 

it would take at least 4,500 tons of sup- under the steady pounding of landings began in August using readily available 

plies a day to provide a minimum of i and takeoffs by heavily laden planes. To resources-the hand labor of thousands 

food and heat for the city. The Ameri- keep the airfield open, engineers placed of Berliners and rubble from destroyed 

can transport planes that carried most crews along the runway to fill holes with sections of the city. 

of the cargo, C-47s and C-54s, could * sand arid bitumen and to straighten and Recruited with the promise of 1.20 

carry only 3 and 10 tons, respectively, weld bent and twisted pieces of PSP. marks per day and a hot meal, about 

per aircraft. The Air Force put Major Crews raced onto the runway between 17,000 Berliners, half of them women, 

General William H. Tunner, the archi- flights and completed repairs while one worked in shifts around the clock buildtect of the Himalayan hump airlift, in crew member watched for the next ing the airfield. The base course of the 

charge of the Berlin operation. Nick- approaching plane. As the volume of runway was brick rubble compacted to 

named "Willie the Whip," Tunner airlift traffic grew, the single runway at a depth of two feet. Ten square city 

demanded that the airlift operate like Tempelhof proved inadequate. ' blocks of rubble were consumed to 

clockwork with no delays or lost time. On 8 July 1948, U.S. Army engi- build the base course. 

Even though the western allies could neers in Berlin received ordcr5 to build Material for the next course of the 

use three air corridors to reach Berlin, , another PSP runway at Tempelhof. runway came from ballast from unused 

the city had only two airfields that Colonel Reginald Whitaker, the engi- railroad tracks. Major General Nonnan 

could receive flights. Airfield mainte- neer of the Berlin Military Post (the Delbridge, a retired engineer officer, 

nance and constriction, therefore, were equivalent of today's Director of Public was a lieutenant in Berlin during the 

key to the airlift's success. Works) and his relatively small crew of airlift. He described the activities of 

Two airfields were available in the Army engineers were responsible for one of his crews composed of "about 

sununcr of 1948: Gatow, in the British the construction. The new runway, 60 little old ladies." The women had 

sector, and Tempelhof, in the American 5,500 feet long and 140 feet wide, was difficulty bending over, so the engisector. Tcmpelhof had been an impox- completed on 12 September, and a neers put longer handles on the harntant civilian air tenninal in prewar Ger- third runway, paved with asphalt, was rners they were issued. Delbridge lined 

many but had suffered heavy damage begun in late August and completed in the crew up "all the way across the runfrom bombing during the war. After the November. But Gatow and the way, elbow to elbow, and they would 

war, thc 852d Engineer Aviation Battal- expanded Tempelhof airfields could walk forward slowly" examining the 

ion rebuilt the prewar sod field with a not accomlnodate the rapidly growing compacted ballast. Some of the ballast 

base of cn~shed rubble covered with volume of supplies that the airlift had not compacted properly, "so their 

concrete and pierced steel plank (PSP), brought to Berlin. job was to come up to that little piece of 

a wartime material used for expedient In late July, engineers began search- ballast and go 'tink' with the ball peen 

airfield constn~ction. This airfield ing for a location for a new airfield and hammer and crack that piece of ballast 

36 Etzgirzecr April 1998 
April 1998 Engineer 37 

city. In spite of severe winter weather, 

the airlift continued to surpass its own 

records, reaching its peak on Easter 

Sunday, 16 April 1949. In that "Easter 

Parade," General Tunner's crews delivered almost 13,000 tons of supplies in a 

record 1,398 flights. Almost one plane 

per minute landed at Berlin's airfields 

during this remarkable 24-hour period, 

demonstrating that the airlift could furnish more than the needs of West Berlin's isolated citizens. 

Acknowledging that their strategy of 

starving Berlin citizens had failed, the 

Soviets announced in early May that 

they would lift the blockade on 12 May. 

Apprehensive that the Soviets might 

reinstate the blockade, General Clay Crew works on a pierced-steel plank runway as an airplane lands at Tempel- ordered the airlift to continue until the hof airfield. city had built up a reserve. The pace of 

so that when you came through with 1 scrapers, asphalt distributors, and rock the airlift slackened throughout the 

the asphalt, it would penetrate." crushers, were flown to the city. By late 

The asphalt came from 55-gallon November, ahead of Clay's expedited 

drums flown into the city and heated in schedule, Tegel began to receive planes, 

summer and finally, on 30 September 

1949, the last airlift C-54 landed in Berlin. From June 1948 through September 

kettles over open fires-a dangerous and the airfield was formally dedicated , 1949, American and British planes caroperation. To obtain material for the in December. : ried 2,325,000 tons of cargo to West 

runway's surface, engineers tore up , Dedication of the first runway at Berlin in almost 300,000 flights. Their 

miles of cobblestone streets and Tegel, with its associate aprons and taxi- achievements convinced the Soviets of 

crushed the cobblestone in small, por- ways, did not complete the engineers' both the resolve and the capabilities of 

table crushers they called "peanut airfield mission. In March 1949 con- the western allies. U.S. Amy engineers 

crushers." Russian protests against , struction began on a second, 6,500-foot made an important contribution to this 

using ballast were ignored as were their runway at Tegel, which engineers con- , early American victory in the Cold 

protests when the French unceremoniously blew up a radio tower that 

obstructed the runway at Tegel. The 

structed largely with equipment airlifted i War. 

into the city. No longer did engineers 

need to rely so heavily on the labor of 

tower belonged to Radio Berlin and West Berliners. In May engineers began ' Suggestions for Further Reading: 

was manned by the Soviets. "The ; rebuilding the original runway at Tem- Robert P, Grathwol and Donita M. French came out there with their engi- I pelhof. In the western zones of Ger- Moorhus, American Forces in Berlin: 

neers," Delbridge recalled, "marched many, engineers built barracks and 

the Russians out at bayonet point, went support facilities for the air crews flying 

in, and blew down that tower." to Berlin and improved facilities at airAlthough the unskilled labor of thou- I fields where planes were loaded and 

Cold War Ouipost, lWS-1994, Washington, D.C,, 1994, 200 pages. 

James F. Holly, "Airlift of Heavy 

sands of Berliners was critical to the headed for Berlin. Without these air- , to Berlin," The 

construction at Tegel, the engineers still , fields and support facilities, the airlift VOl. (March-April 1949)7 

needed heavy equipment. Post engineers ' would not have been a spectacular suc- pages 79-83. 

in the American zone of Germany and cess. Roger D. Launius, "The Berlin Airthe Hanau Engineer Depot had large After a hesitant start, the Berlin airquantities of heavy equipment left at the lift rapidly gained mon~entum. On 7 

end of World War 11, but getting the July 1948, the airlift exceeded 1,000 

equipment to Berlin was not easy. Much tons delivered in one day. By the end of 

of it would not fit in the transport planes, the month it had reached almost 2,000 

so engineers disassembled the large tons. Finally, on 12 August, American 

lift: Constructive Air Power," Air 

Power History, VO~. 36 (Spring 1989), 

pages 9-22. Lil 

Dr. Baldwin is a historian in the Ofice 

Histoy, Headquariers, US Atmy 

equipment in Hanau and reassembled it and British planes delivercd more than I Corps ofEngineers, Alexandria, Virsnia. 

in Berlin. Some 40 pieces of equipment, 

including tractors, graders. rollers, 

4,500 tons, the figure that General Clay H. holds a Pll.D. from the Universi~ of 

thought was necessary to sustain the Michigan, AnnArbol Michigan. 
Training Suaaort Brigades: 

By Major Shawn Howley, Captain Paul Baker, and Captain Joseph E. Staton 

n October 1997, the Army's two Continental U.S. 

Armies (CONUSAstFirst and Fifth-restructured 

many of their subordinate commands to enhance support 

to Reserve Component (RC) training-U.S. Army Reserve 

(USAR) and Army National Guard (ARNG). The resulting 

force structure and mission change eliminated overlapping 

efforts of the Regional Training Brigades and Readiness 

Groups. The Regional Training Brigades formerly focused 

on annual training (AT) and inactive duty training (IDT), 

including lanes training and evaluation. The Readiness 

Groups supported the RC units with training assistance and 

Training Assessment Models (TAMs). The new organizations, called Training Support Brigades (TSBs), provide 

RC units with a "one-stop shop" for branch and functional 

training assistance, TAMs, AT, and IDT lanes training and 

evaluation. 

FORSCOM is the major Army command responsible for 

ensuring that both active and reserve forces are capable of 

responding rapidly to any crisis worldwide. For RC forces, 

this responsibility is executed within the United States by the 

two CONUSAs, which train, mobilize, and deploy RC units 

within FORSCOM. Each CONUSA executes FORSCOM 

missions within its geographic area of responsibility. The 

figure below shows the Army areas of responsibility within 

the respective headquarters. 

This article describes the engineer support structure of two 

TSBs: First Army's 174th Infantry Brigade at Fort Drum, 

New York; and Fifth Army's 479th Field Artillery Brigade at 

Fort Sill. Oklahoma. 

First U.S. Army 

F irst Army organized the TSBs as infantry, armor, 

cavalry, or support brigades. A typical TSB consists 

of about 250 personnel with military occupational 

specialties (MOSS) tailored to best support the client units 

within each organization's area of responsibility. 

Fifth U.S. Army First U.S. Army 

DCG East 

I For( Lewis. WA 

L '-.' 

., '. 

DCG Wpst 

' .. 1.' i ,- I -- I 

DCG East 

38 Engineer April 1998 
174th Infantry Brigade 

The 174th Infantry Brigade has five battalions located in 

New York and New Jersey. 

Fort Drum, New York-1st Battalion (Infantry), 3rd 

Battalion (Field Artillery), and 4th Battalion (Forward 

Support). 

Syracuse, New York-2d Battalion (Infantry) (offers 

direct support to the 27th Separate Infantry Brigade, an 

Enhanced Brigade). 

Fort Dix, New Jersey-5th Battalion (Combat Suppod 

Combat Service Support [CSICSS]). 

Mission 

Each battalion focuses on teaching and coaching the 

reserve unit's leadership to enhance individual and unit 

mission training, which equates to unit readiness. Special 

emphasis is placed on training assistance, training 

management, leader development, lanes development, and 

evaluations to priority and nonpriority RC units in New 

York and New Jersey. 

During the AT period, which is between May and 

September, the brigade's primary mission is lanes training 

and training support to RC units. Observer-controller teams 

within each battalion synchronize and evaluate priority RC 

units on collective, leader, and individual tasks. 

Coordination for the AT begins 24 months before it is 

performed and includes synchronizing actions between the 

engineer observer-controllers, the CSS observer-controllcrs, 

the TAM evaluator, the client unit, and the opposing forces. 

Additionally, each TSB provides a staff and operations 

structure for Annual Training Evaluation Headquarters and/ 

or Active Component Control Headquarters at selected 

training sites and Mobilization Assistance Teams (MATS) to 

selected sites. The TSB also provides military support to 

civil authorities (MSCA) as part of the Department of 

Defense's (DoD's) response to national or regional 

emergencies. 

Engineer Structure 

The brigade engineer establishes and manages the 

engineer support structure for the TSB. Managing this 

structure requires a working knowledge of combat support 

and combat service support operations and a broad 

understanding of RC engineer support to the Corps of 

Engineers structure. The brigade engineer helps units plan, 

coordinate, and evaluate training for engineer units ranging 

from engineer teams to engineer brigades. Examples of the 

types of supported units areLight-827th Engineer Company 

Mechanized Combat--479th and 152d Engineer 

Battalions 

Combat Heavy-306th Engineer Company and 204th 

Engineer Battalion 

Asphalt-770th Combat Support Equipment Company 

Real Estate Team-305th Engineer Team 

In the 174th Infantry, engineer support focuses on 

designated RC priority units (force support package, 

roundout/roundup units, enhanced brigades, and units with a 

latest arrival date less than 30 days [LAD 301) and nonpriority 

units. The brigade's two engineer companies provide training 

assistance and evaluations for RC engineer units within its 

area of responsibility. If additional assets are required, the 

brigade engineer coordinates for external resources. For 

example, the 2d Battalion (Engineer), 15th Support Brigade, 

provides general combat engineering training assistance and 

lanes support to select force support package combat engineer 

and bridge units in an 18-state area, which includes the 

174th'~ area of responsibility. 

Training Support 

Training support focuses on improving the proficiency of 

RC units in individual, leader, and collective tasks during 

home-station training. Proficiency varies based on the type of 

unit: combat arms units train to platoon-level standards; CS 

and CSS units train to company-level standards. The brigade 

engineer orchestrates assistance visits from the two engineer 

companies, provides additional support from the 2d Engineer 

Battalion when required, and ensures that training objectives, 

a mission, and an end state are developed for each visit. 

Assistance may range from "training the trainer" to evaluation 

of a collective task. The brigade engineer analyzes the mission 

based on mission, enemy, terrain, troops, and time available 

(METT-T). This tool allows him to manage resources 

(unlimited requests versus limited dollars and personnel) and 

focus the assistance visit on the units' mission essential task 

list crosswalk. External lanes evaluations of collective unit 

skills are performed during both a weekend drill and the 

summer annual training period. Lanes evaluations are 

planned, constructed, and executed by observer-controllers 

from the 2d Engineer Battalion. 

Mobilization Assistance Teams 

During a federal call-up of RC units, the 174th establishes 

a mobilization assistance team to assess the training status of 

the unit, help the RC commander refine his "post-mobilization 

plan," and support mobilization training. Engineer units 

leaving the mobilization center must be operationally ready 

and able to provide adequate engineer support. 

Military Support to Civil Authorities 

During MSCA operations, the 174th Infantry Brigade 

assists the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

in New York and New Jersey. The brigade engineer provides 

April 1998 Engineer 39 
40 Engineer 

h 

1 

i 

April I998 

Engineer Points of Contact 

First U.S. Army 

Training Support Briaade Telephone Addressle-mail 

3rd Support Brigade Commercial (978) 796-301 3 Fort Devens, Massachusetts 

DSN 256-301 3 e-mail: maddendadevens-emh3.army.mil 

174th Infantry Brigade Commercial (31 5) 772-781 5 Fort Drum, New York 

DSN 341 -781 5 e-mail: howleysQdrum-rgrtb.army.mil 

15th Support Brigade Commercial (71 7) 770-5989 Fort Meade, Maryland 

DSN 923-5989 e-mail: westfalr@tsbncpa-ex1 .army.mil 

4th Cavalry Brigade Commercial (502) 626-220412235 Fort Knox, Kentucky 

DSN 536-2204 e-mail: IeatherlQftknox-emh9.army.mil 

157th Infantry Brigade Commercial (803) 751 -4372 Fort Jackson, South Carolina 

DSN 734-4372 e-mail: tsbjen-s3@rgj.army.mil 

205th Infantry Brigade Commercial (317) 532-4064 Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana 

No DSN e-mail: wrayr@ harrison -emhl .army.mil 

12th Support Brigade Commercial (608) 388-369613555 Fort McCoy, Wisconsin 

DSN 280-3696 e-mail: rielandb8serverl -tsb.mccoy.army.mil 

158th Infantry Brigade Commercial (407) 494-3145 Patrick AFB, Florida 

DSN 854-31 45 e-mail: perryb@rgpat.pafb.af.mil 

177th Armor Brigade Commercial (601) 558-4337 Camp Shelby, Mississippi 

DSN 921 -4337 e-mail: bickellQrgred.redstone.army,mil 

189th Infantry Brigade Commercial (91 0) 396-5284 Fort Bragg, North Carolina 

DSN 236- 5284 e-mail: sullivanp@rgbragg.bragg.army.mil 

Fifth U.S. Army 

Training Support Brigade Telephone Addressle-mail 

5th Armor Brigade Commercial (71 9) 526-9339101 88 Fort Carson, Colorado 

DSN 691 -9339101 88 e-mail: barnettmatsb-carson.army.mil 

21 st Support Brigade Commercial (510) 466-444214267 Oakland Army Base, California 

DSN 859-466-444214267 e-mail: guren 8 lewis-5Awest.army.mil 

120th Infantry Brigade Commercial (21 0) 221 -901 912699 Fort Sam Houston, Texas 

DSN 421 -901 9,471 -2699 e-mail: hyattj@samhou-usafive.army.mil 

166th Aviation Brigade Commercial (785) 239-351018672 Fort Riley, Kansas 

DSN 856-351 018672 e-mail: drucem8 riley-emhl .army.mil 

191 st Infantry Brigade Commercial (206) 967-635713279 Fort Lewis, Washington 

DSN 357-635713279 e-mail: berryQ5army-lewis.army.mil 

479th Field Artillery Brigade Commercial (580) 442-241913503 Fort Sill, Oklahoma 

DSN 639-241 913503 e-mail: alconeQdoimex1 .sill.army.mil 

1 

I 

I 
Sappers of B Company, 479th Engineer Battalion, conduct breaching drills during engineer annual 

lanes training. 

engineer information, communication linkages, and DoD w Fort Sill, Oklahoma-1st Battalion (Field Artillery1 

resource support to FEMA. He provides information on the Multiple-Launch Rocket System [MLRS]) 

DOD engineer capabilities and resources and must be w Fort Riley, K~~~~~-2d Battalion (Field Aflillery/MLRS) 

familiar with activities described in Field Manual 100-19, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma-3rd Battalion (CSICSS) Domestic Support Operations. Dallas, Texas-4th Battalion (CS/CSS) 

Fifth U.S. Army w Houston, Texas-5th Battalion (CS/CSS) 

ifth Army assists, evaluates, and synchronizes all 

training support activities of RC units west of the 

Mississippi, excluding Minnesota. It also directs 

mobilization and deployment planning and, on order, 

executes mobilization operations. Since 8 December 1995, 

Fifth Army has helped train and mobilize 3,130 RC soldiers 

to support peacekeeping operations in Bosnia. In addition, 

the command has mobilized 219 individual soldiers to fill 

vacant U.S. Army Europe positions. 

The TSBs are vital to Fifth Army's ability to execute 

such diverse and critical responsibilities. Of the six brigades 

within Fifth Army, three are combat servicelcombat service 

support, one is aviation, and two are combat arms. 

479th Field Artillery Brigade 

The 479th Field Artillery Brigade-which consists of 

about 200 officers, noncommissioned officers (NCOs), and 

civilians-has five battalions on military installations and 

USAR Centers in Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas. 

Mission 

The 479th Field Artillery Brigade's mission includes 

training assistance and evaluation, pre- and post-mobilization 

assistance, and MSCA during federal disasters. The brigade 

assists units throughout the region to improve readiness and 

apply doctrinal theory to real situations. The brigade assists 

engineer units and also mobilizes RC soldiers from other 

branches for various types of contingencies. 

Engineer Structure 

The rank, branch, and MOS structure within the 479th 

Field Artillery Brigade is diverse. A field artillery colonel 

currently commands the brigade, and a variety of branches 

and MOSS fill the brigade staff sections. Most officer 

positions are coded as branch immaterial. Each brigade has a 

different MOS mix depending on its client base. Numerous 

positions are available to engineers within the brigade. Almost 

any position in the S3 is open to engineer officers and NCOs. 

While the table of distribution and allowances for the CSICSS 

April 1998 Engineer 41 
battalions is not finalized, each battalion will have at least 

one engineer officer and possibly as many as three. One 

company (sometimes two) of each battalion is engineerbased, with two engineer officers and four NCOs from 

career management field 5 1. 

Training Support 

The 479th is responsible for lanes training for all Army 

National Guard MLRS units in the Fifth Army area. The CSI 

CSS battalions assist the 75th Division (Exercise) Training 

Brigades (USAR), executing lanes training exercises for 

high-priority CSICSS units in Oklahoma, New Mexico, 

Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Engineers assigned to the 

CSICSS battalions have a direct impact on unit readiness, 

lanes execution, and branch assistance. Engineers make up 

25 percent of the high-priority units in the 479th'~ client 

base, with each unit conducting lanes training and receiving 

a Training Assessment Model every year. The CSICSS 

battalions not only coach, mentor, and assist units, they also 

provide Combat Training Center quality evaluations 

(observer-controllerltrainer). Beginning in FY99, they will 

provide TAM evaluations to all high-priority client units. 

Mobilization Assistance Teams 

TSBs are responsible for mobilization assistance to both 

the unit being mobilized and the installation conlrnander. All 

Bosnia mobilizations currently occur at Fort Benning. 

Deployment does not begin until the installation commander 

verifies the unit's readiness, based on feedback from the 

Mobilization Assistance Team and the installation staff. 

The S3 section is the doctrinal proponent within the 

brigade for mobilization training. This section trains brigade 

personnel to provide courtesy file reviews and trains unit 

leaders on mobilization responsibilities. The S3 section also 

helps develop the unit's mobilization plan. The purpose is to 

improve the quality and completeness of the unit's 

mobilization files and determine if the unit's plan is both 

workable and executable. During an actual mobilization, 

teams deploy to thc unit's home station to provide assistance 

before moving to the mobilization station. The team officer 

in charge nonnally deploys to the mobilization station and 

remains with the unit until it deploys to the assigned theater. 

Military Support to Civil Authorities 

The 479th provides MSCA by keeping soldiers trained to 

deploy as part of a Defense Coordinating Element anywhere 

in FEMA Region VI (Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, 

Arkansas, and Louisiana). A presidential declaration is 

required to activate the element, which provides a 

supporting operational staff for the Defense Coordinating 

Officer (DCO). As the focal point of the DoD response to a 

presidentially declared disaster, the DCO coordinates the 

MSCA effort with the Federal Coordinating Officer (FEMA 

official) and the federal response community. The DCO 

ensures that military support requirements are mission 

essential and supplied as efficiently as possible. The Defense 

Coordinating Element validates, coordinates, tracks, and 

reports the progress of all DoD assets tasked to conduct 

MSCA operations. 

One Army, One Standard 

Within the Training Support Brigades, numerous 

challenging opportunities offer engineers professional development and allow them to directly 

impact RC readiness. The new TSB concept was established 

to provide effective assistance and evaluations to Reserve 

Component units. Active Component soldiers assigned to the 

TSBs have the opportunity to teach and coach while learning 

how the Reserve and National Guard soldiers train to one 

Army standard. By understanding the linkages between 

Reserve Component units and how they work hand-in-hand 

with the Active units, we will build a more cohesive Army. 

We have one Army and one standard. We stand together as 

the world's best army, a full-spectrum force trained and ready 

for victory. A total force of quality soldiers and civilians. 

Major Howley is the executive oflcer of the 4th Forward 

Support Battalion, and brigade engineer, 174th Infantry 

Brigade, Fort Drum, New York. Previous assignments include: 

chief of Doctrine Division, U.S. Army Engineer School; brigade 

observer-controller, Hohenfels, Germany; commander, A 

Company, 10th Engineer Battalion, Schujeinfurt Germany; 

executive oflcer and platoon leader, 4lst Engineer Battalion, 

Fort Drum, New York. He holak a bachelor's degree it1 

mathematics from West Virginia State College. 

Captain Baker is the operations officer, 2d Training 

Support Battalion (Engineer), 15th Support Brigade, Fort 

Meade, Maryland. Previous assignments include: 

comnzander, Ell-28 Infantry, Fort Jackson, South Carolina; 

commander, Al3-13 Fort Jackson, South Carolina; e-vecutive 

officer and platoon leader, 54th Engineer Battallon, 

Wildflecken Germany. He holds a bachelor's degree in civil 

engineering from the U.S. Military Academy. 

Captain Staton is the Assistant S3, Plans Section, 479th 

Field Artillery Brigade, Fort Sill, Oklahoma. He was 

previously the engineer advisor, U.S. Army Readiness Group, 

Fort Sill. Other assigtzments include commancter, 47th 

Engineer Cornpany (C)(H), Special Troops Battalion, Fort 

Wainwright, Alaska; and AlS3 Construction, 555th Combat 

Engineer Group, Fort Lewis, Washington. CPT Staton holds 

a bachelor'.^ degree in chemical and petroleum refining 

engineeringfrorn the Colorado School of Mines. 

42 Engineer April 1998 
Ansl~amimg Gemmrard and Contra! 

By Major Kurlus L. Cozurt 

w hen unexploded ordnance (UXO) were discovered 

within the confines of the base camp occupied by 

the Multinational Division (North) (MND(N)) of 

the Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia, commanders and 

staffs realized they needed to revise existing annexes to the 

base emergency-reaction plan. In some cases, they had to 

develop new annexes. This article describes significant 

command and control (C2) lessons that commanders and 

staffs assigned to the MND(N) learned as a result of this 

force-protection-related incident. 

Organization 

ne unique aspect of MND(N) is its task organization. 

It is a division-level, multinational "combinedforces" task force (TF) made up of military and 

civilian personnel from both NATO and non-NATO 

countries. TF Eagle's command stnicture is a skeleton 

division headquarters staff. The forward division staff 

consists of a U.S. brigade combat team (BCT), three organic 

maneuver battalions, elements from the 

U.S. division's support command, and 

liaison officers from sister services and a 

dozen other nations. The BCT and two of 

the three battalion task forces 

simultaneously execute split-based C2 

operations. For example, BCT staff sections 

execute dual functions as the division-and 

brigade-level staffs, while battalion task 

forces execute duties associated with 

operating two separate base camps. 

Command and Control 

ommanders of units deployed to 

Bosnia and Herzegovina to support 

Operations Joint Endeavor and Joint 

Guard exercise authority and direction, 

referred to as C2, over multinational and 

U.S. forces. Commanders perform C2 

activities through an arrangement of 

personnel, equipment, facilities, and 

communication processes. A thorough understanding of 

established C2 procedures is essential for military units to 

accomplish missions successfully, especially during major 

campaigns and operations, such as Joint Endeavor and Joint 

Guard. 

Army doctrine refers to the C2 function as "battle 

command," which is the art and science of battlefield 

decision making, troop leading, and motivating soldiers and 

organizations to accomplish missions at the least cost. 

According to Field Manual 100-5, Operations (the Army's 

doctrine on battle-command hnctions), "To command is to 

direct, and this process contains two vital componentsdecision making and leadership; control is inherent in battle 

command." Control monitors the status of organizational 

effectiveness, identifies deviations from set standards, and 

corrects them. Control serves its purpose if it allows 

commanders freedom to operate, delegate authority, lead 

from any critical point on the battlefield, and synchronize 

actions across the entire area of operations. 

A soldier from the EOD Detachment prepares to destroy the UXO with 

blocks of C4 explosives. 

April 1998 Engineer 43 
easures to save lives 

UXO Procedures 

Identify UXO 

Hazard 

YES , Mark It, Report It, Continue the Mission 

[%& Protective 7 

Measures 

UXO that threaten pur mission will 

require engineer or EOD assistance to 

eliminate. 

UXO spot reports are used to request 

assistance and set the priority of 

response 

--.__ - ~ 

UXO Spot Report 

Llne 1 Date.:'t~me grc)iip tf~sco\~ered 

Line 2. Reporting actlv~ty (U IC) and 

location (grid) 

Line 3. Contact method: radio frequency 

or call-sign and telephone number 

Line 4. Typed munitions: (dropped, 

projected, placed, or thrown) 

Line 5. NBC contamination 

Line 6. Resources threatened 

Line 7. Impact on mission 

Line 8. Protective measures taken 

Line 9. Recommended priority (immediate, 

indirect, minor, or no threat) 

The MND(N) commander, referred to as COMEAGLE, 

was responsible for more than 42,000 DoD military and 

civilian personnel and their family members in the Central 

and Southern European Regions. COMEAGLE used several 

methods to determine where to strategically locate 

commanders throughout the battlespace. He moved them to 

specific areas when necessary but also employed modern 

technology, such as video teleconferences, when a 

commander's presence was required at several locations 

simultaneously. COMEAGLE's leadership in these situations placed commanders where they had the greatest C2 

impact over the 13,000 deployed U.S. military personnel. 

During Operation Joint Guard, TF Eagle's force structure 

was smaller than its Operation Joint Endeavor predecessor. 

Nevertheless, TF Eagle commanders clearly exceeded the 

doctrinal definition of what a U.S. division is expected to 

successfully command and control. 

UXO Alert 

arly one afternoon, personnel throughout the task 

force base camp were notified that UXO had been 

found within the confines of the base camp and that 

Air Force Explosives Ordnance Detachment (EOD) 

personnel would soon destroy them. 

Alert notification personnel instructed that facilities 

located near the suspected UXO be evacuated. They also 

advised that office doors and windows throughout the base 

camp be opened to reduce possible injuries from flying glass 

when the UXO were detonated. Task force personnel 

implemented instructions provided as part of the alert 

notification process but suspected that the following 

information would have improved their situational awareness: 

What C2 structure is in place to respond to the incident? 

0 Where are the UXO located? 

0 When and where will the UXO be destroyed? 

Some of the personnel conducting the notification were 

unable to answer these questions. Other C2-related questions 

asked before the UXO were destroyed revealed that 

individuals participating in the notification process also had 

different perceptions concerning the type of UXO found. For 

example, some military police advised that three 500-pound 

antitank bombs were found near one of the tent cities. Several 

other personnel tasked to direct or assist with evacuation of 

the tent cities had very little situational awareness. After being 

evacuated, some personnel within the safe-blast radius of the 

UXO stated that they did not know where the UXO were 

located. The location of UXO would have been critical had 

large munitions or scatterable mines been nearby. 

44 Engineer April 1998 
New Annexes 

lthough the UXO were destroyed safely, the task 

force's command element discovered that the 

current execution checklist, standing operating 

procedure (SOP), and base emergency-reaction plans did not 

establish actions, responsibilities, or authorities needed for 

this situation. We concluded that revised annexes should 

address actions, authorities, and responsibilities during the 

following types of cmergency situations: 

o 	 Reaction to UXO that present an immediate threat to 

base camp personnel. 

0 Base camp security when reacting to interior or exterior 

perimeter threats. 

n Employment of quick reactionary forces in case of terrorist actions, hostage situations, and civil disturbances. 

0 Reactions to potential threats from natural disasters; 

bombs threats; and ground, air, and sniper attacks. 

0 Maintenance of base camp law and order through establishment of access control points, detainee processing 

measures, pedestrian and vehicle traffic-control routes, 

and facility security and emergency-evacuation plans. 

n Siren notification drills. 

Lessons Learned 

iscovery of UXO on the MND(N) base camp taught 

commanders and staff that units must7 	Develop, consolidate, or update base emergencyreaction plans, SOPS, or execution checklists when 

occupying new base camps or areas of operation. 

Rehearse and update procedures for various forceprotection situations. 

Establish and distribute policy regarding penalties for 

unauthorized personnel found in restricted areas or 

vehicles or caught tampering with sensitive equipment. 

When developing emergency-reaction plans or during a 

UXO alert notification, commanders mustRehearse established tactics, techniques, and procedures 

(TTPs) during hours of darkness and adverse weather 

conditions. 

o 	 Determine the UXO safe-blast radius and the location of 

rally points for personnel evacuated from facilities. 

0 	 Determine where evacuated personnel (military, civilians, and noncombatants) are to assemble (in predesignated bunkers or basements or remain in current 

facilities). 

o 	Determine the appropriate uniform (modified battle 

dress, physical training uniforms, or the first thing each 

person can grab) for personnel who must evacuate various types of facilities (offices, aid stations, sleep tents, 

motor pools, dining facilities, recreation fields, etc). 

Prepare a list of personnel authorized to enter certain 

C2 facilities (the White House, Provost Marshal Office, 

or battle-update briefing tent) before completing emergency-reaction missions. 

Ensure that all personnel (military, civilian, and allies) 

and sensitive items are accounted for before and after 

UXO are destroyed. 

Determine who has release authority and who decides 

when it is safe to set off a high-order detonation. 

Know how many detonations are scheduled as part of the 

actual destruction process to ensure that personnel are 

not prematurely released into previously evacuated or 

restricted areas. 

Develop and rehearse joint service and combined forces 

battle drills, TTPs, or emergency-response plans (Army, 

Air Force, Navy, Marines, and multinational). 

Distribute compatible joint service and multilingual 

communications equipment (flags, radios, bull horns) 

that all partieslpersonnel can use. 

Update and distribute essential personnel notification 

rosters (for example, C2 structure, mayor's cell, EOD, 

military police, security police, engineers, fire department, medics, tactical operations center, quick reaction 

force, VIPs, liaison officers, etc). 

Develop clearing instructions for quarantinelroad blocks 

and facilities (entry control points, engineer tape, or 

brightly colored area tape to close restricted areas). 

DTLOMS Implications 

These lessons learned have a training implication. 

Deployed units must have processes in place to ensure 

that all personnel, especially newly arriving 

personnel, are familiar with actions to be taken during 

various emergency situations. IY 

Major Cozart is an operational level movement and 

maneuver observer/trairzer and engineer SME with the Battle 

Command Training Program, Operations Group-Delta, af 

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. In 16 years of service, he has 

completed Jive overseas assignments in various command, 

st48 and USACE positions (in Korea, Germany, Turkey, and 

Honduras). MAJ Cozart was brigade executive oflcer for 

the 1st Engineer Brigade, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. 

During Operation Joint Guard, he was attached to HQ-1st 

Infantry Division (Fwd) in Tuzla, Bosnia, as a command and 

control observer and team chief for the Center for Army 

Lessons Learned CAAT-IX 

April 1998 	 Engineer 45 
Drilling Wells in the Tuzla VaRAey 

of Bosnia-Herzegovina 

By Major Frank Akin.s 

iverse missions make peacekeeping operations challenging and 

interesting. During the summer 

of 1997, the primary well for Task Force 

Eagle's headquarters could not produce 

enough water for the population. The 

Base Camp Coordinating Agency 

(BCCA) initiated procedures to locate a 

water-well-drilling company. Geotehnica, a local company in the Balkans, 

was selected for the job. The BCCA 

engineers expected the well to be drilled 

at the speed of many American welldrilling outfits, but this was not the case. 

These well drillers were also working on 

other jobs, plus their older equipment 

required frequent maintenance. As a 

result, the job took 2 112 months instead 

of the expected seven days. 

Progress, however, was made in due 

time.. . Geotehnica had technical expertise and knew where to find acquifers 

within Tuzla Valley and at what depth. 

The company drilled a test well and 

found viable quantities of water in a 

gravel acquifer about 87 meters (285 

feet) below the surface.To find it, they 

drilled through about 80 meters (262 

feet) of "tight" clay (Figures 1 and 2). 

The first well drilled at that location 

caved in. A second well was successfully 

drilled near the first one by using high 

proportions of bentonite drilling mud in 

the drilling fluid to keep the hole open. 

Figure 1. This Soviet-designed water truck transports water used in 

drilling mud for boring the test well and the main well. 

Figure 2. This truck-mounted drill rig of Soviet design is used to bore the 

test well. 

46 Engineer April 1998 
Figure 3. The primary drill rig at Task Force Eagle uses two Detroit Diesel V-8 

engines. The mast is about 35 feet tall. 

The bentonite cakcd on gravel in the 

acquifer and plugged the flow of water. 

After the drill crew spent about 30 

days purging thc well with clean water, 

the sustained rate of flow was 5.8 liters 

per second (Ips) (91.9 gallons per 

minute [gpm]) with a temporary "peak 

flow" capability of 10 Ips (158.5 gpm) 

production for 6 hours. At that point, 

the amount of water withdrawn 

resumed at 5.8 Ips. When operated in 

this manner, the well exceeded the 

additional required water flow per day 

for Task Force Eagle headquarters. 

Task Force Eagle engineers were 

concerned that the locally contracted 

company took so long to drill the well. 

However, the work was satisfactory and 

a viable well was safely dug without 

mishap. CPT Derrick Wasson, an industrial engineer assigned to the BCCA, 

was the military engineer on site for liaison purposes and quality control. Using 

an old copy of The Missouri Water Well 

Handbook, he ensured that thc well was 

installed correctly. Well-drilling procedures in the Balkans are similar to those 

used in the United States, including the 

rigs and operator tasks. The rig was produced in the United States, and the drill 

stem (pipe) was the same dimensions as 

those used in the United States (see 

Figure 3). 

The well's acquifer is protected by 

fine, tight clay, and the well was 

installed to standard. It should provide 

adequate water for personnel at the Task 

Force Eagle base camp for many vears. 

Major Akins is a writer for the Center jbr Army Lessons Learned at Fort 

Leavenworth, Kansas. Previous ussignments include Weupons Elfects 

Research Geologist for the Corps of 

Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi; 

Demolitions Clzief: Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri; and company commander, 62d Engineer Battalion (Cht 

Hvy) Fort Hood, Texas. 

April 1998 Engineer 47 

P 

I PERSCOM Notes joint responsibility. If the soldier is not properly stabilized in the 

position, helshe will not remain in this critical career position 

long enough to ensure proper career progression. By Sergeant Major Jay Florance The Engineer Branch must use its limited resources to best 

Hello from PERSCOM! As the sergeant major for the advantage. Open and frank communication between units and 

Engineer Branch, I am responsible for the assignment of all PERSCOM is necessary to make this happen. The following 

engineer soldiers in career management fields (CMFs) 12, 51, actions will protect your unit's investment in first sergeants: 

and 81 in the grades of first sergeant and below. During the 

year that I have been in PERSCOM, I have seen many 0 Ensure the S1 calls PERSCOM at (703) 325-4825 or DSN 

changes and reductions in force structure that directly impact 221-4825 when the commander decides to place a masthe availability of assignments in the engineer community. The ter sergeant in a first sergeant position. We will then agree 

following information is provided to assist soldiers in their on the best course of action for the soldier. 

career development. Ensure your first sergeants are stabilized. Your Personnel 

Much turbulence has occurred in the first sergeantfmaster Action Center can check the Assignment Eligibility and 

sergeant arena. When battalions assign a master sergeant to a Availability (AEA) code listed in the Standard Installation1 

first sergeant position, they frequently fail to submit the request Division Personnel System (SIDPERS). If stabilization is 

required to "stabilize" the soldier (retain himlher in the current finalized, the AEA code will be a "G" followed by the 

duty position). The proper tool to stabilize soldiers is DA Form month and year stabilization ends. If this code is missing, 4187 (Personnel Action). When PERSCOM does not receive your first sergeants are not protected! this form, we assume the soldier is available for assignment and 

may prepare permanent change of station (PCS) orders to fill a Some installations lack available master sergeants to fill 

required position. This situation occurs frequently and causes first sergeant positions and may fill them with sergeants first 

much confusion that impacts other soldiers. Many of the class. If that situation occurs, call us before placing a 

positions PERSCOM fills at the master sergeant level require noncommissioned officer in the first sergeant position. We will 

that the soldier arrive at the duty station by a specific date. When do what we can to protect the soldier and your assets. 

we cannot move a soldier who is stabilized in a position, the The Engineer Branch Chief, LTC Tillotson, has sent an ereplacement soldier receives very short PCS notice. mail message to most battalion commanders requesting help 

Assignment of a master sergeant to a first sergeant position in this crucial area. We stand committed to take care of the 

is an investment in which the Army and the individual share engineer force. 

rl 

1 

, 
1ENGINEER UPDATE 


Cornrnerc~al numbers are (573) 563-xxxx and Defense System 

Network (DSN) numbers are 676-xxxx unless otherwise noted. 

Department of Training and Army Values. Beginning with this issue of Engineer, we will feature the 

Doctrine Development (DOTD) 	 seven Army values on the back cover. The April issue defines and 

displays "Loyalty." Future magazines will illustrate Duty, Respect, Selfless 

Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. Together these words 

spell the acronym "LDRSHIP." Soldiers and civilians are encouraged to 

read and reflect on these ideas. POC is Larry Roberts, -6109. 

Field Manual Update. FM 5-1 16, Engineer Operations: Echelons 

Above Corps, provides doctrine to commanders and staffs concerning the 

employment of engineer units at echelons above corps (EAC). These 

units construct, maintain, and rehabilitate the logistical infrastructure 

needed for operational sustainment of combat forces. The revised manual 

is tentatively scheduled for completion in July 1998. POC is Sandra 

Gibson, -41 15. 

Staffing of Draft Publications. Draft copies of FM 20-400, Military 

Environmental Protection, and TC 20-401, The Soldier and the 

Environment, are currently posted to the Engineer School's Publications 

Page (http://www.wood.army.mil/PUBS/pubs.htm) with a suspense date 

for changes of 17 April 1998. When published, FM 20-400 will supersede 

TC 5-400. POC is Bob Layman, -41 31. 

Engineer Unit Directory. The 1998 Engineer Unit Directory may be 

viewed on the Internet at http://www.wood.army.mil/DDD/ddd.htm. Access 

requires Adobe Acrobat Reader. The directory is updated periodically, and units may submit changes at any time via e-mail to: 

bakern.wood.army.mil. POC is Nancy Baker, -4100. 

Engineer Personnel 	 DA Pam 600-3, Commissioned Officer Development and Career 

Proponency Office (EPPO) Management. The Engineer Branch's input to the revised DA Pam 600-3 

was submitted in February.The revised chapter describes engineer officer 

development and career management under Officer Personnel 

Management System XXI. It may be viewed on the Fort Leonard Wood 

homepage (www.wood.army.mil/EPPO/eppo-hp.htm). Distribution of the 

revised DA Pam is scheduled for November 1998. POC is MAJ Dave 

Hartley, -4087. 

Accession Board for Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 2150, 

Terrain Analysis Technician. There is a shortage of personnel applying 

for MOS 215D. The Recruiting Command will conduct a warrant officer 

accession board in late May 1998 to access noncommissioned officers 

and soldiers in the rank of sergeant (P) or higher. Prerequisites are: 

a minimum of four years' experience as a terrain analyst in MOS 

81T (old 81Q), one year's experience at the division level, and two 

years' experience in a position supervising terrain analysis activities. 

The e-mail address for additional information and application procedures 

is: tresslef @wood.army.mil POC is CW4 Fred Tressler, -4088. 

April 1998 
By Command Sergeant Major Robert M. Dils 

U.S.Army Engineer School 

Enlisted Engineer Personnel Issues 

n visits to engineer units, I find that enlisted personnel 

issues are a major concern for first sergeants and 

command sergeants major. This probably is because 

most of us don't understand the total picture when it Icomes 

to enlisted personnel issues. 

The Engineer Corps is addressing this problc :m in 

severaI ways. First, we are doing everything we ( 

keep senior engineer noncommissioned officers (P 

informed about enlisted personnel issues. beg inn^,,, ,,, -

this issue of Engineer, the PERSCOM Engineer Elranch 

Sergeant Major, SGM Florance, will include inforn nation 

in the "PERSCOM Notes" (page 47). In it he will d iscuss 

enlisted engineer personnel issues and pr ovide ma lnning 

guidance and insight into current pelrsonnel trends 

affecting soldiers. 

The staff at PERSCOM works very hard to honor 

requests for assignments when they can and still me :et the 

Army's needs. They cannot meet every soldier's pe rsonal 

request for assignment. Prior planning, proper coordination, 

and properly completed paperwork will help ensure that a 

soldier's request for a particular assignment is granted. 

Soldiers should be aware that, when they decide to 

purchase a house near a particular installation or when their 

spouse makes an employment decision at a particular 

installation, their decision may conflict with the Army's 

needs. There are no guarantees that any soldier will ever 

return to a particular installation. Engineer leaders must 

keep soldiers and their families properly informed and be 

candid with them before major decisions are made to 

purchase a home or have their spouse commit to long-terra 

employment opportunities. 

Second, the Libby Noncommissioned Officers 

Academy, the Engineer Personnel Proponency Office at 

Fort Leor lard Woo d, and the Y~KSCUMbnllsted bngineer .. Branch are working to prepare a video tape that will explain 

enlisted I: issues. Designed for young soldiers and 

NCOs, th e video ta ~pewill be available to all en its. I . , . Last, bur cemalnl~ not least, we will discuss enll! ;ted 

engineer personnel issues dl ~lring the Council (~f Comm and 

Sergeants, Major/:Sergeants Major, which v{ill be 1-~eld 

during th e ENFOI ICE XXI[-98 in A,pril. The : U.S. Army 

Director of Enlisted Perslonnel, BG McWilliams, 1 will

address c:ouncil rn~embers,.and we 1 ill conduct a vid leoteleconfe~rence to cliscuss ch anges in personnelI strength;sin .. . ... . . all engineer milltary occupational spe cialties. 

TO-prc~perly mi anage the : engineer force t akes a team 

effort. Yc)ur sugge stions on ways to iImprove ()ur corps are ...-1 --...- welcome. 

Safety 

Army recently i~ dentitied two maj or problt21115 

ncerning off-duty safety: accidenlis involvring 

ivately owned vel nicles antd suicide,s. We nlust ... Keep our solaiers informed ana ensure they have pro )per 

safety ha1 >its and ac :t respone ;ibly. Our NCOs at the first-' line 

supervisor level ar ,e key to making ihis happe :n. As sel lior l--A-..- --7- -..- & ---.---.- r--l- r'..-:-:-- a- IC~UGIS, WG IIIUSL ~IVGUUI NCOS th~ LUULS. I A 

support tl. ley need t:o do their jobs pro] perly. 

Our sc ~ldiers ar ld their families a re our m ous -- 7 .. . resource. We must do everything possible to keep th 1 LWLLX om

safe and 1to help th em learn about-~if'ety issue s. Every I nit 

needs a 8;afety coi ~ncil to I )lan and resolve s afety iss~ les. 

Engineer units . should _--.. ~-.. hold sa-.i~eiy oriefings ; P_L_ I___: and 

inspections regularly. Risk management and riiskassessment procedures must be ingrained in every lea .der 

and part of every mission. Nothing - is more important t: han

-3,- safety. It helps us 1xeserve ()ur most 1 

soldiers aind their 1'amilies. 

1 The Army Engineer Association is our Army Engineer Association. It deserves your support. I 

Apri U.S. GOVERNMEN- OFFICE 19s Engineer 49 
ARMY VALUES 

Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, 

the Army, your unit, and other soldiers 

"My first wish would be that my militay family, and the whok &q 

tbmeIves as a band of brothers, willing and m&v 50 rlicjsr'd:~..~:.<'~ . . General George Washinpa lE% - . ..- 

i L 

-.*, Sergeant George D. Libby 7; "Xx4-. - . --.<-A , 

. ( GI .~ .- .> Company C, 3rd Engineer Combat ~attalio&i.1;.: .. .- 1-. I._,. Medal of Honor -.U\- , 

'. . (.. - *ax-. 

In the face of the massive North Korean assault in the summer of 1956,hima 

forces began withdrawing to southern South Korea. In one instance an AmIricm % 

vehicle encountered intense fire at an enemy roadblock. Sergeant %by returned 

the fire and rendered aid to those wounded in the encounter. After Idg the ' 

wounded onto another vehicle, Sergeant Libby shielded the driver of that dcla .. with his own body while returning fire. Although wounded several times, Sergeats ' 

Libby helped load orher wounded soldiers aboard the vehide during the withdrawal. He continued to shield the driver until he lost consciousness. Sergeant Libb? 

subsequently died of his wounds. 

n~s~ory Office, U.b. nrmy triy~r~uar Schw~ 

PIN: 0761454