THE PROFESSIONAL BULLEllN FOR ARMY ENGINEERS 
By Major General CIair F: Gill 

Corn rn andan t, U. S. Army Engineer School 

hese are exciting times for our Army and our 

Engineer Regiment. I recently was privileged to 

spend a few days in the Mojave Desert at the 

National Training Center (NTC) with our engineers of 

the Experimental Force {EXFOR). They were helprng to 

create history through their participation in the Army's 

digital experiment. 

Let me tell you how rnagn~ficent those soldiers of the 

299th Engineer Battalion, 4th Infantry Division, are. 

They have spent almost a year in reorgan~zing 

themselves; equipping their vehicles; and training, 

training, training 20 get ready to prove or disprove the 

functionality of addrng digital technologies to our 

systems and tactics, techniques, and procedures. We 

provided as much support as we could from the 

schoolhouse (often vta TNET-satellite-based training), 

and there was enormous support at Fort Hood from 

waves of contractors and a powerful EXFQR 

Coordination Cell. Many others contributed from across 

the Engineer Regiment. Our Corps laboratories 

provided functionality and equipment; and the 29th 

Engineer Battalion '"loaned" a detachment of four 

topographic soldiers to operate our most modern Dig~tal 

Topographic Support System (DTSS) and demonstrate 

its potential utility to the brigade combat team. But the 

real work was done by the soldiers and their leaders on 

the ground. 

What I witnessed on the ground at the NTC was a 

true revolution in situation awareness. Leaders know 

where their soldiers are on the batttefield without hav~ng 

to fight through often broken communications links, 

Small units and equipment teams can be directed and 

moved efficiently and semi-lndependently across the 

battlefield to new work sites, with high assurance that 

they will get to the right spot-under battlefield 

conditions. Work progress reports can be made timely 

and posted automatically to higher headquarters. 

Obstacles can be located and confirmed, and therr 

locations and conditions posted in moments to all units 

with a need to know. (This capability does not work as 

well as we want it to yet, but the potential 1s clearly 

there.) DTSS offers great promise: Engineers can 

provide extremely valuable terrain-visualization tools to 

the maneuver commander and his planners to vastly 

increase their ability to "see'yhe battlefield and reduce 

risks to the force. Future battles fought over terrain not 

as well mapped or digitized as Fort Irwin may have to 

rely heavily on the terrain team's capability to customize 

and download terrain data from the National Imagery 

and Mapping Agency and many other sources. 

As grand as this Army experiment was, I left with 

another major concluston-that we engineers must still 

master our basic tactical skills to a high degree of 

efficiency and rehearse them with our maneuver 

brethren at every level. Continuous operations, such as 

those envisioned in the future, allow little room for error. 

We must do our important work correctly the first time. 

We continue to have difficulty siting obstacles properly 

so they fit with the commander's intent. Much of this 

problem is due to a lack of engineer training oflwith the 

maneuver leaders. 

To address this and similar problems, it is critical that 

the maneuver commander and his engineer develop 

and maintain a powerful command rslat~onship. The 

engineer must be on the maneuver team, building 

bends of trust and able to sense where the combined 

arms team will fight its next battle. I am utterly 

convinced that our present ERI (engineer restructure 

initiative) al~gnment is critical to success. In this 

alignment, the engineer battalion commander and staff 

support the maneuver brigade, and the engineer 

company commander is part of the maneuver task 

force. Digitization adds to our efficiency, but it cannot 

resolve the relationship imperative. 

I'm sold on what I saw in the desert-digitization is 

the wave of the future, and we will embrace ~t across 

the Corps of Engineers. Many engineer units will not be 

as well equipped as our ERI combat engineers were in 

this experiment for years to come, but we all must start 

thinking "out of the box" to find better ways of adapting 

the wonders of modern technology. The physics of this 

earth are not likely to change soon, and we continue to 

struggle with overcoming natural forces. But, we can 

learn how to do things smarter and more efficiently by 

embracing change and adapting to it. Our motto is right 

on target-Essayons. 
April 1997 Headquarters, Department of the Army - Volume 27 PB 5-9 7-2 - . - - - - - - 

UNITED STATES ARMY 1 I F.FA. TL? P ES 

ENGINEER CENTER AND I 

2 The Fulcrum for the Full-Spectrum Force: The Engineer 

FORT LEONARD WOOD Regiment 

1 By Colonel Philip F Federle and Lieutenant Colonel Robert 

COMMANDEWCOMMANDANT S. Kirsch 

Major General Clair F: Gill 

DENNIS J. REIMER I liE Thriving on Base Camps 

, 

MANAGING EDITOR 

Jennifer Morgan I 

- 

By Order of the Secretary of the Army: 

General, United Slates Army 

Chief of Staff 

6 The Unified Regiment-A Progress Report 

By Brigadier General Phillip R. Anderson and Brigadier 

General Anders B. Aadland 

? Manuever Support Battle Lab: Integrating Maneuver 

Support into Force XXI 

By Vem Lowrey and Captain Bryan Green 

Official: 

Catherine Eubanks / 1 One Team-Focused! 

FEATURES EDITOR I By Major General Sam Kern (Refired) 

Shirley Bridges tr\ Is SHE an Engineer? 

GRAPHIC DESIGNER ( By Major Genersl Clair E Gill 

JOEL B. HUDSON 

Administrative Assistant to the 

Secretary of the Army 

03317 

1 By Lieutenant Colonel John R. Jones 

?2 Readiness: DPW Supports Power Projection 

By Colonel R. 0. Buck 

I 

devices i;sfalled lo ha#-invading tanks at rhe ,? persona, Viewpo,nt Siegfried Line. American troops moved Ihrough I'-O Englneer Update 

abreak~nthevaunteddefenseline~nd~assed ''LettertotheEditor 41 Bridge the Gap 

37 Change 1 to FM 5-71 -213 

By Cap fain Joe Birchmeier 

?P From Sandbags to Computers: What's New in Fleld 

Fortifications and Protective Structures 

By Colonel Bruce K. Howard 

3 EOBC Gets a New Look 

By Lieutenant Colonel Ted A. Thomas 

I 3 Unified Endeavor 97-1 Joint Task Force Staff Engineers 

info Germany in September 1944. 1 75 CTC Notes 

Front Cover: Drawing of Forl Leonard Wood's 

ENGINEER [ISSN 0046-19890) Is prepared quarterly by the W.S. Army Engineer wthin their sreas of egertise for the purpose of enhanung their pmksional 

School. ATTN. ATSE-TD-0-EB. Forl Leonard Wood. MO 654734650, Second Class dawbpmenl Views erprassed are lhose af the author and not Ihose of the 

~oslaas 1snskd at Forl Leonard Wood. MO. and additlonap rnall~na otfices. Deoanment of Delenee or rts elemenls The confenls do not necessarilv refled 

By Captain Calvin Hegeman 

offikal U S. Army poslhons and do not change or supersede inlormanon ~n otiher U S. 

addre= lo Magru1ne. Amy publ~cat~ons. Use of news ~hns mnstlfutes ne~tfrer affirmahon of theiraccuraq ATSE-TD-D-EB, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 654756650, nor pmducl endorserneni, ENGINEER resews Ihe nght to edlt material 

CORRESPONDENCE. Ieflers 10 the ed~ior, manuscripts, photographs. official CONTENT IS not wpyrighted. Matenal may be reprinted it credit is glven to 

unit requests to ramlve CO~IWS, and unrt sddresr changes should be sent to ENGINEER ,+,saumor, ENGINEER al Iha precedlng address, Telephone: (573) 563,4104, USN 676-4104 

ENGINEER'S e-mail address is subankc@wood-v~nes.amy.mll. Our Inlwrnel home OFFlCtAL OlSTRlBUTlON is largeled to all engineer and snglneer-refatd unib. 

page 1s locatsd al: hllp /lwwwwood amy.m11~00/ENGRMAGlmag-hp htrn. PERSONAL SUBSCRIPnONS are amfable by mWng the Supdntenden! of 

DISCLAIMER: ENGINEER presents pmfes4onal ~nformat~on designed to keep Doamerrls, PO. bx 37T954, Pinsburgh, PA 15250.7350. Address changes lor 

U.S. rn~l~tary and dvil~an engneers ~nlormed of current and emerging developrnenb p9r~CmWl slbmplionsshwid also be serrl toihe Scrpennlendent Of Doclanswis. 

schoo!house and engineer assets, by Jeanni 

Wdson. 

Back Cover: Two American soldiers lw k down 

on a lono row of 'Wraaon's teeth" concrete 

March 1997 Engineer 1 

CFPP FTFJEhlTS 

Inside Front Covet: Clear the Way 
- ---- 

By Colonel Philip F: Federle and Lieutenant Colonel Robert S. Kirsch 

T his article briefly traces the past two ENFORCE The Road Traveled 

conferences, where we defined the regimental vision 

and a unified regimental theme. It also highlights the 1 n 1995, Major General Joe Ballard, the Engineer School 

release of the Army and Joint Vision 2010 blueprints, which commandant, focused the purpose of the Senior 

describe the future roles and views of the Army and Engineer Leader Training Conference (SELTC) toward 

respective services. To date, the Engineer Regiment's role preparing the regiment to meet 21st century Army 

and contributions have not been articulated in many of the requirements. he renamed the 

key documents that define the future force (e.g., TRADOC This conference focused On the initial 

pamphlet 525-5, A~~~, wsion 2010, and ~~i~~ ~~i~~ 2010). concepts, composition, characteristics, and roles of the 

These documents do not address the roles of engineers, per Engineer Regiment as a key enabler, Or fulcrum, of the 

se, instead, they infer that engineers are part of logistics Army's vision for Force XXI. A cornerstone was set with the 

operations, hi^ inference is unacceptable, To secure our publication of the pamphlet Engineer 2010, which started the 

place as a relevant member of the land component of the joint regiment down the of change and It 

warfighting team, we engineer leaders must forge a strategy provided a new construct to describe engineer missions: 

that will harness the collective and collaborative strengths of . Portray Terrain to the Force. Provide the terrain picture 

our regiment to shape the battlespace of engineer (terrain visualization) for battle command and mission 

opportunities. We must build and sustain a campaign to planning and rehearsal, tie video-mapped images to 

ensure that engineer capabilities are considered in the future actual ground, and update the terrain picture in real time. 

development of force structures, doctrine, materiel . Allow the Force to Go Where It Wills. Build an entry 

requirements, research and development, and training. In this base in any environment, find or build routes through any 

way, we will preserve the traditions of the regiment that terrain, eliminate obstacles to free maneuver, break into 

effectively enable the Army to execute its role in our nation's defensive structures, and fight through defended terrain. 

strategy and achieve full-spectrum dominance in the 21st 

century. Allow the Force to Fight Where It Wills. Build fighting 

To many people, the word fulcrum conjures up the mental and support positions, hide and protect the force, convert 

image of a playground teeter-totter and the physical relationship existing structures for support and defense, and occupy 

of a point of support on which a lever turns in raising or moving and fight defensive positions. 

something. In this article, the word~ilcrum is used to mean an . Wield Terrain as a Weapon Against the Enemy. Employ 

entity that supplies the capability for action. Ideally, our obstacles before and during battle to attack and frustrate 

Engineer Regiment will be modernized and knowledge-based- the enemy, fight lethal ground, and disguise terrain reala conventional and digitized force with the ability to conduct the ity-confuse the enemy and unhinge his plan. 

full range of engineer operations promptly and to enhance the ENFORCE XXI energized the process of change and 

Army's ability to execute land warfare and serve our nation initiated how engineers must view their roles and missions 

throughout the entire spectrum of crises. within Force XXI. 

2 Engineer April 1997 
. - B. . . ;. . :. 

.- . . . - I-, ... 

I C.> .. , , ; .-! ; .... . 

4*;;.:. .. - . il'!lll !J~III?IJ;~!)IJ;I~ ?J.O .-. 

t PI.IJ!z-:! 'J'il: 

; r!jrcf 4 i'~t~,i<?t I ii: JII 

i,t~rcc;.1i11 Illl~~rlll~l~i!ill 

' !)OI~I~II;IIIC< .;~J*JJI;; \/j:;j~jl 20 ! 

; , .. 

.,~..!.IIII 'I iic , 1 

i ri .. 

1' !I I'<.'': 

..,IIJ~ lily 1 ;~*,,~~l ,;,K! 

.iJl*?(:i~;if~ll L,,:;~,~,7, . - I - - --- i 

,, - .<" ,' .. - .... .. *. ... -.-- , * ._ . .r_ll 

,. .. . '. * . ,. . . -. , .\ ., - : . . ., __ . I-.: .. . . . -' 

. I-, I. ,. ...- . , . . : 

. . , 

Figure 1 

In early 1996, a newly revised FM 5-100 was published. 

It significantly expanded the doctrinal focus of the engineer 

force and described the full capabilities of every component 

and segment of the Engineer Regiment. 

During ENFORCE XXI-96, the senior engineer leadership 

reflected on the question of relevancy of the Corps of 

Engineers and whether our regiment can remain relevant to 

the Army as it transitions to Force XXI. Major General Clair 

Gill, the current Engineer School commandant, challenged 

the senior leadership to get involved. Regimental leaders must 

contribute to the modernization process and maintain the 

engineer vision. More importantly, each leader must become a 

high-impact regimental team player. We must demonstrate 

confidence and competence, aggressively portray the Corps' 

capabilities to supported commanders and customers, and be 

there to deliver on our promises. 

The term "unified regiment" was coined during the 1996 

conference. Generals Genetti and Anderson noted that, as 

the force continues to draw down, it is absolutely critical to 

get every element of the engineer family into the fight to win 

tomorrow's victories. Each member of the regiment brings 

unique capabilities that can be applied throughout the 

spectrum of crises. The Engineer Regiment must unify into a 

cohesive team that includes USACE divisions, districts, 

laboratories, and the Directors of Public Works; troops and 

following terms of emerging operational concepts: 

Dominant Maneuver. Multidimensional application of 

information, engagement, and mobility capabilities to 

position and employ widely dispersed joint air, land, sea, 

and space forces to accomplish assigned operational 

tasks. 

Precision Engagement. System of systems that enables 

joint forces to locate the objective or target, provide 

responsive command and control, generate the desired 

effect, assess the level of success, and retain the flexibility 

to re-engage with precision when required. 

Focrcsed Logistics. The fusion of information, logistics, 

and transportation technologies to provide rapid crisis 

response; track and shift assets, even while en route; and 

deliver tailored logistics packages and sustainment 

directly to the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of 

operations. 

Full Dimensional Protection. The control of the battlespace to ensure that our forces can maintain freedom of 

action while providing multilayered defenses for our 

forces and facilities. All components of the joint force 

must evolve concepts and technologies that can be easily 

coordinated and synchronized. 

units of the Active and k~erve Components; and In October 1996, the Army Chief of Staff, General Dennis 

Department of the Army civilians and civilian Contractors. ~~i~~~, released vision 2010 (AV 2010). This 

document is the blueprint for the Army's contributions to JV 

Joint and Army Visions 2010 2010, and it reinforces the relevancy of the Army in the 21st 

J oint Vision 2010 (JV 2010) set the baseline and century. Army elements will execute their responsibilities as 

provides a coherent view of the future (Figure 1). the land-force component of the joint force through a 

Implications for joint operations are expressed in the deliberate set of patterns of operations. These patterns of 

April 1997 Engineer 3 
operations are neither phases nor sequential. They serve to full spectrum of Army (and engineer) capabilities will be 

focus the many tasks armies perform in war or other military required to support each of these general mission areas. 

operations. The patterns of operations follow, with their Engineers will have a key enabling role in the successful 

engineer-enabling technologies shown in parentheses: accomplishment of each mission. 

4 Project the Force. (Automated laser sensors and the In answering his own question-"Why an Arnmy?"- 

global positioning system for precise construction; General Reimer stated that conflict and instability are now 

information-based construction techniques; light- land- centered (there are no competitors for the skies or seas). 

weight, high-strength construction materials; and auto- Land-centered conflict is people-focused. The ability to 

mated construction management.) decisively control the land, populations, and valuable 

resources is essential to the resolution of conflict and depends Protect the Force. (Construct defenses with fortifications, boots on the Army engineers must be relevant, 

protective structures, obstacles, and dams and levies.) critical, and full participants in achieving Army objectives to 

Shape the Battlespace. (Terrain visualization, split- resolve land-centered conflicts and instability. 

based operations, stand-off minefield detection systems, 

robotics, digitized assault bridging and breaching, teleengineering, and environmental stewardship.) Implications for the Engineer Regiment 

Decisive Operations. (Artificial intelligence and sensors J ust as JV 2010 provided the benchmark for AV 2010, AV 

for mine avoidance and detection, intelligent munitions, 2010 provides a definitive azimuth for senior engineer 

and natural disaster relief.) leaders to set our course to 2010 and beyond. AV 2010 

. srtstain the F~~~~. (A~~~~~~~ infrastructure mainte- orients the Engineer Regiment to address, in an Engineer Force 

nance predictions and robotics applied to precision con- X)(J the leader 

struction tasks.) organization, and materiel required to successfully accomplish 

land-force operations in the 21st century. This action is critical! 

Gain Information Dominance. (Split-based terrain and cormnitment by our senior en,. o1neer 

visualization operations, tele-engineering, and cyber- leadership are required to apply the time, patience, and 

engineering.) discipline needed to develop, fund, and manage this strategy 

Gencral Reimer's goal in executing AV 2010 is to create 

evolutionary changes that will achieve revolutionary results. His 

aim is to create an Amiy that possesses the capabilities to 

operate across the full spectrum of conflict-an Army that can 

accomplish the range of missions predicted to be most prevalent 

during the early decades of the 21st century. The range of 

missions in AV 2010 are organized in seven general areas: 

4 Defending or Liberating Territory. Major regional contingencies and lesser regional contingencies. 

. Prinitive Intrusion. Counterdrug and counterterrorism. 

4 Corzflict Containment. Military operations other than 

war. 

. Leveraging Technology. Space applications; command, 

control, communications, computers, and intelligence; 

systems integration; and battlefield awareness. 

(Figure 2, page 5). 

We have built a good foundation during the past two 

ENFORCE conferences. We developed an inspiring vision that 

identifies where we, as a regiment, want to go. We began the task 

of building our team and unifying the regiment. The Engineer 

Regiment represents a rich repository of capabilities that are the 

essential enablers for the decisive success of the force across the 

spectrum of conflict. Our regiment is integrated across the heavy, 

light, special operations, and technical segments of the Army, 

and it is comfortable with joint, multinational, and 

nongovernment partnering. The engineer force is versatile and 

can respond on short notice to support the full spectrum of 

military operations. We demonstrate every day that we are 

relevant, although we have yet to be fully recognized in the 

Army's key documents or funding stream for change and 

modernization with Force XXI strategies. 

Reassurance. Forward presence. 

4 Core Security. Counterdrug, illegal immigration, and The Way Ahead 

crime in the streets. 

I t is time to develop an Engineer Force XXI strategy that 

4 Humanitarian Operations. Disaster relief, population will encapsulate and articulate the engineer requirements 

evacuation, and refugee protection. necessary to enhance, enable, and contribute to AV 2010 

The U.S. military will be tasked to respond to numerous and JV 2010 goals. Senior engineer leaders must develop an 

crises in the years ahead. Although the magnitude and overarching strategy that will be proactive, relevant, and 

frequency of crises are unpredictable, it is certain that the prescriptive in meeting the needs of the future. 

4 Engineer April 1997 
Figure 2. The lack of a comprehensive engineer strategy has resulted in a meandering and reactive response to Force 

XXI requirements. A collaborative effort is required to develop a relevant and proactive strategy for the Engineer 

Regiment that complements and parallels the Army's lead. 

Concept for Development of Engineer Force XXI 

A Force XXI 

Just as TRADOC is the architect for the Army's future, the 

Engineer School, as the engineer proponent, will lead the 

effort to develop the "Engineer Force XXI Strategic Plan." 

Guided by the commandant, the "Fearless Foursome" (the 

Directors of Combat Developments, Training, and Maneuver 

Support Battle Lab, and the TRADOC Systems Manager) will 

be the central core of the team. Other mechanisms exist to 

support this effort. They include the Council of Colonels, the 

Regimental General Officer Steering Committee (GOSC), 

and the requirements determination process (see "A New Way 

of Doing Business," page 24, Engineel; March 1997). A key 

piece of the strategy is to develop a construct to cross-walk 

engineer requirement solution sets to the Army's patterns of 

operations. Engineer solutions to concepts, enablers, andlor 

technologies that support patterns of operations further 

enhance the regiment's relevance and assist in securing the 

requisite resources to modernize our regiment. 

At ENFORCE XXI-97 we will continue to build our 

team and frame the outline of the Engineer Force XXI 

strategic plan. The Engineer Regiment is as relevant today as 

at any time in our 200-year history. We will remain relevant, 

Framework 

of 

Force XXI 

and 

Engineer 

contribute as a key combat multiplier, and be responsive to our 

nation's needs. Engineers are the fulcrum to effect the 

guidance and aims in JV 2010 and AV 2010. We have the 

expertise, organization, and equipment to fulfill General 

Ballard's and General Gill's visions for an Engineer Force 

XXI strategy. We've been told how wide, how deep, and in 

what direction - now we have to start digging! 

Colonel Philip E Federle serves as Director of Training, 

U.S. Army Engineer School. He previously served as 

Commandel; Engineer Brigade, 4th Infantry Division (Mech) 

Fort Carson, Colorado. COL Federle holds a master 5 degree 

from Arizona State University. 

Lieutenant Colonel Robert S. Kirsch serves as Directol; 

Department of Training and Doctrine Development, U.S. 

Army Engineer School. He previously served as Commander; 

554th Engineer Battalion and executive officel; Offie of the 

Chief of Stafi U.S. Army Engineer Center; Fort Leonard 

Wood. LTC Kirsch holds a masterk degree from The Ohio 

State University. 

Force XXI I 

Construct I 

I 

, 

"Fearless 

Foursome"\ - 

*ategy initiated) Regimental Council of Colonels 

GOSC 

ENFORCE: XXI-96 

(Unified regiment) 

I 

Future Operational Capabilities ENFORCE XXI-95 

(Regimenta vision) \ ,' 

b 

- Time Army glidepath to attain Force XXI (past) "Fearless Foursome": 

I I I Any glidepath to attain Force XXI (planned) - Of Training 

- Engineer path (present) -Director of Combat Developments 

--- - TRADOC Systems Manager Engineer path (with strategy) - Director of Maneuver Support Battle Lab 

April 1997 f Engineer Force XXI 

April 1997 Engineer 5 

Joint Venture 

Division 

AWE 

Objective r 4 I 

corps ,* 0 I 

4 0 1 Joint Vision 2010 

Objective ,* ,0 I 

Division,. N I 

4 0 

0 I 

Interim 4 t 

I 

1 Army Vision2010 

Division ,* 4 I 

4 , 0 I 

XXI ,* / I 

/ 

/ +* , I / I 8 1 Army Training XXI 

r 1 I 

I 1 
The Unified WegimentA ProgressReport 

By Brigadier General Phillip R. Anderson and Brigadier General Anders B. Aadfand 

The One Corps, One Regiment, One Fight concept is . Develop a self-sustaining mechanism to keep our trainabout one year old. Introduced at ENFORCE XXI- ing relevant and effective. 

96, the concept of a unified regiment electrified the . Inspire the regiment by promoting common values and 

Army engineer community. As participants listened, the light understandings. 

dawned that we have a great to touch the . Demonstrate to the Army and the nation that the Corps future. The concept described the vision of our regiment as a of Engineers can speak, work, and develop as a single 

cohesive force, part of a shrinking Army in transition, and team. 

compelled to change some "old ways" that are no longer Working on the future is tough when you are fully relevant. However, the implied issue, the one that hit the committed with problems in the present. Wc realized that we 

center of our collective souls, was commitment arnong the had to maintain a high level of progress toward meeting the 

components of the Engineer Regiment to mend the schisms expectations created at ENFORCE XXI-96. It's now obvious 

that have crept into our relationships and to work as a team, that achieving full closure will take more than a year. So, it's 

transcending the "warrior" and "civil" associations that have time for an in-progress review! 

so branded each camp' We rearticulated O'lr bonds The first step of our action plan was to establish a senior 

and pledged to set our house in order collectively. It was a oversight committee-a Unified Engineer Regiment General 

great week! Officer Steering Committee (GOSC). Figure 1 shows the 

The enormity of coming to resolution with the concept GOSC charter and members. The committee first met a1 Fort 

became apparent quickly. There was far too much at stake to Belvoir in July 1996, then again in November 1996 and in 

let the expectations wither and die. One manifestation of March 1997. The GOSC decided to appoint Process Action 

lhoSe expectations was that the lerm One One Teams (PATS) with appropriate subject matter experts to 

Regiment, One Fight was cropping up everywhere address specific issues and develop solution sets. Major (sometimes cited as One Corps, One Regiment, One Team). General Albert J. Genetti Jr. noted that the Engineer Words are nothing without actions and the concept was a call Regiment has the perfect tool in this GOSC process to resolve 

to action. We engineers quickly identified the key axes: several key responsibilities in preparation for the Quadrennial

. Delineate "ownership" of functional responsibilities. Defense Review (QDR). Both a QDR process briefing and a 

H Expand participation in the doctrine-development unified regiment update briefing will be presented during 

process. ENFORCE XXI-97. 

Figure 1 

General Officer Steering Committee 

Charter: to take optimum advantage of the synergistic and complementary relationships among all parts 

of the unified Engineer Regiment 

Members 

6 Engineer 

Director of Mil~taryPrograms, USACE 

Assistant Commandant, USAES 

Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Combat 

Developments, TRADOC 

Assistant Chief of Engineers, Reserve Affairs 

April 1997 

Deputy Ch~efof Staff for Engineers, USAREUR 

Chief, Research and Development, USACE

. Chief, Public Works, USACE 

Honorary Colonel of the Regiment 
Figure 2 

Functional Responsibilities Process Action Team 

Charter: to make significant improvements in the manner in which the unif~ed Engineer Regiment develops 

organizations and doctrine 

Members 

By the third meeting of the GOSC (on 24 March 1997), the . Recommend actions to the Unified Engineer Regiment 

requirements for background information had been GOSC. 

. Deputy Commander, 412th Engineer Command 

¤ Director of Combat Developments, USAES 

w Director of Training, USAES 

FORSCOM Engineer 

established, and the members moved directly into substantive Specific tasks of the Functional Responsibilities PAT were debate on major issues. Much of the discussion concerned 

to- preparation for the update presentation during ENFORCE-97. 

The GOSC made major changes to the draft script. It wanted . Set UP Common frames of reference for those engineering 

more emphasis on future initiatives to strengthen cooperation functional responsibilities that are subtasks for military 

among constituent parts of the regiment. The title contingency and stability and support operations. Determine which elements have the lead and which have sup- "Topographer of the Army" was among the "bump-up" issues port responsibilities for specific functional areas. that received livelv debate. The GOSC was concerned about 

. Commander, Waterways Experiment Station 

D~rector, Office of the Chief of Engineers (Pentagon) 

Director, Engineer Strategic Studies Center 

w Chief of Staff, USAES 

the "looseness" of the boundaries of duties associated with the 

title as well as the somewhat anachronistic-sounding name 

itself. The GOSC also wanted more specifics concerning 

potential DOD-level disagreements over Engineer School 

humanitarian demining initiatives. 

Communicating the One Corps, One Regiment, One 

Fight story is critical to achieving our goal of a truly unified 

regiment. Toward that end, action officers at the U.S. Army 

Engineer School's Directorate of Combat Developments and 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Engineer Strategic 

Studies Center created a Unified Regiment home page on 

w Identify specific responsibilities for the functional areas 

in order to coordinate subject matter expertise from various elements within the regiment. 

w Recommend, as appropriate, shifts of responsibilities for 

specific functions and/or force structures across the 

regiment. 

Develop a draft Unified Regimental Strategy for the Total 

Army Analysis process. 

The Functional Responsibilities PAT used the Internet and 

a September 1996 meeting at Fort Leonard Wood to 

accomplish its mission. It described the various functions of 

the Internet. This home page includes a summary of the Army engineers and determined which component of the 

original One Corps, One Regiment, One Fight briefing. regiment is the responsible advocate for each function. Figure 

About 300 "guests" view the page monthly. You can locate it 3 is a condensed version of the matrix developed by the PAT. 

on the Fort Leonard Wood home page at http:// The full version with 59 tasks is shown on the Unified 

www.wood.army.mil/DCD/Regiment/regiment.htm. Regiment home page. The matrix and a suggested 

Figure 2 shows the first and most challenging PAT implementation plan will be presented at the ENFORCE XXIchartered by the GOSC. The Functional Responsibilities PAT 97 Conference. 

recognized that no other branch of the Army has such a dual The GOSC reviewed the results of the Functional 

mission as does the Engineer Regiment. The regiment keeps Responsibilities PAT at its November meeting and 

itself trained and equipped to respond to worldwide military acknowledged this work as the "dynamic baseline to portray 

challenges during Army, joint, and combined operations. functions within the regiment." The Functional ResponEngineers are also responsible to the president and Congress sibilities PAT also identified several additional issues and 

for many civil engineering functions that directly contribute recommended that the GOSC form PATs to examine them. 

to our national well-being and that of our friends. These issues and the steering committee's decisions on which 

The actual work of the PAT was t* PATS to form are summarized below. 

¤ Collect, rate, and synthesize positions and policies on Tele-Engineering 

functions and issues across the Engineer Regiment. 

T o meet future demands for engineer support, we must 

. Develop an action plan for assigning or migrating func- find innovative ways to leverage the regiment's 

tional responsibilities. capabilities. Tele-engineering will provide some of 

April 1997 Engineer 7 
Figure 3 

- Engineer Functions Matrix-One Corps, One Regiment, One Fight - 

{predominant responsibilities) - - - 

that leverage. Advanced communications provide 

unprecedented opportunities to link members of the 

Engineer Regiment. Operation Joint Endeavor gave us a 

real-world taste of what is coming. For example, soldiers 

and airmen in Bosnia measure snow depth, record weather 

conditions, and take river gage readings every 2 hours. 

Engineers relay these readings electronically to military and 

civilian experts at the USACE Cold Regions Research and 

Engineering Laboratory and the Waterways Experiment 

Station. These experts combine the data with imagery and 

hydrologic models to produce daily forecasts on the Sava 

River level and river basin snow maps. Then they send the 

unclassified results directly to the field via the Internet. This 

sort of "split-based operation," where technical products and 

advice are transmitted from the continental United States to 

deployed forces, greatly enhances our ability to support 

contingency operations. However, engineers must continue 

to provide on-site support to ensure that the expertise of the 

Function1 

Number of tasks 

Proje~t the Force (15) 

Protect the Force (9) 

Gain Information Dominance (6) 

Shape the Battlespace (4) 

Decisive Operations (7) 

Sustain the Force (1 0) 

Civil Support to the Nation (8) - 

Army Topography1 Terrain Visualization 

he GOSC discussed the concept, implications, and 

identity of the "Topographer of the Army." They 

noted that topography was a prime candidate for reengineering. We must articulate the penalties associated with 

the status quo-which is a confusing dichotomy of 

responsibilities caught between two elements of the Engineer 

Regiment and the intelligence contingent under the Deputy 

Chief of Staff for Intelligence. The GOSC recommended, as a 

first step, that a PAT composed of Engineer School and 

USACE representatives develop a matrix of topographic 

functions and responsibilities. The next step will be a memo 

to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence inviting the 

intelligence community to join the PAT. This expanded 

regimental effort would help design the future of Army 

topography. The PAT will report the status of their effort at 

ENFORCE XXI-97. 

Legend: 

PI = primary responsibility for function execution S1 = direct support responsibility 

P2 = increased responsibility for execution as theater matures S2 = supplemental support responsibility 

Element 

entire Engineer Regiment is effectively applied during Demining and Unexploded Ordnance-Engineers contingency operations. Tele-engineering includes enhancing the deployability of USACE and Directorate of and Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) 

Active 

PIIS2 

P 1 

pi 

P 1 

PI - 

P2 

- 

Public Works (DPW) soldiers and civilians and developing T he GOSC discussed how to design a synergistic 

timely operational plans that effectively use rapid response vision of battlefield cooperation between combat 

teams such as the USACE Contingency Real Estate Teams engineers and EOD units to deal with explosive 

operating in Bosnia. The GOSC quickly marked this devices (such as mines, booby traps, unexploded ordnance, 

initiative as a "winner" for our future effectiveness and and cluster munitions). Engineers clearly have the lead for 

chartered a Tele-Engineering PAT. This PAT will give a breaching operations. Ordnance EOD units clearly have the 

status report at ENFORCE XXI-97. lead for all "render-safe" procedures. The gray area is in 

8 Engineer April 1997 

USAR 

P2tS2 

P2 

P2 

P2 

P2 . 

P 1 

- 

USACE 

Sl - 

S 1 

st.. 

S 1 

S1 

S1 

PI - 

ARNG 

P21S2 

P2 

P2 

P2 

-P2' 

P 1 

- - 

DPW 

. Pl 

- - 

- 

HNS 

HNS - 

- - 

Other 

ACSlM 

- USAFIUSN 

- NIMA 

(DM4 

FEMAIEPA 

DOEtDOI 
1 1 clearing -. operations and support . . to civilian deminina I 7 One Team-Focused. ) operations. To resolve this issue, we must clearly delineate the 1 roles and missions based on the type and scope of operations. 

I By Major General Sam Kem (Retired) 

et's stay grounded and focused. That is tough to 

do these days, with bursting technology, exponentially expanding demands for information, and 

missions that seemingly change daily. New enthusiasms 

"dictate" new priorities that press against already strained 

resources. There are many distractions-aggressively 

worked by energetic people-that vie to dissipate the 

Engineer Regiment's focus and the focus of those who care 

' so deeply for our regiment's future. I 

4 

The value of One Corps, One Regiment, One Fight is 

' that it must be a clarion call for all: To be one team, focused 

: lo- 

. Ensure that we best serve our nation and our Army. 

. Provide the engineer soldier and civilian the tools he/ 

she must have to do the job. 

. Grow and nurture our leadership to contribute effectively in our changing Army. 

. Develop our soldiers and civilians to be all they can be. 

The GOSC recommended that Colonel Steve Hawkins, 

Commander of the 1st Armored Division Engineer Brigade, 

examine the issue from his Bosnian perspective. As part of 

this issue, the GOSC was briefed on the Engineer School's 

initiative to establish a resourced national Humanitarian 

Demining Operations Training Center. They discussed the 

problems USACE faced in cleaning up formerly used defense 

sites and the likelihood of some technology and procedural 

exchanges. The GOSC requested additional information on 

this initiative. 

Engineer Doctrine Improvement 

T he GOSC concluded that our Engineer Regiment does 

as well as other proponents in creating doctrine. The 

problem is the current slow "industrial-age" process of 

writing, reviewing, editing, and publishing doctrine. They 

noted that engineers habitually use U.S. Army captains, allied 

officers, and Department of Army civilians to write doctrine. 

We now can electronically enlist the help of the broader 

engineer community, including many outside the En,' olneer 

School with a depth of appropriate experience. The En,' weer 

School has noted that conventional doctrine development 

April 1997 

suffers from a whip-saw effect from changing priorities and In short, that means we must ensure that our Army // resource levels. The GOSC recommended that the Engineer engineer organization (One Corps, One Regiment) remains I, 

to the Army,s mission; responsive to both / School develop a strategy to use our "distinguished alumni" to 

battlefield and national needs; and organized, equipped, and the 

trained for the fight. i~ 

Success sometimes is measured by battlefield victory, a ~1 Inspire the Regiment 

project constructed, or a major economic/physical disaster 11 A n observation from many who have served on the 

avoided or mitigated. Unseen and unnoticed in such Army Staff is that engineers typically do not promote dramatic times are those who fight the other battlesEngineer 9 

budgets, force structure, doctrine, national priorities, 

reorganization, material fielding, and personnel training and 

development-that allowed the big victory to happen. 

The joint effort initiated by USACE and the Engineer 

SchooJ under the One Corps, One Regiment, One Fight 

banner can be an exercise in words-or it can provide (he 

focus on what is important. Determining is 

important-what is vital-is an essential task in today's 

rapidly changing environment. That and marshaling the 

resources to bring a solution is the task of our leaders. 

It is right that we be One Corps, One Regiment, One 

Team. There is work to be done. Let's do it! 

Major General Sam Kem (R) is the Honorary Colonel of 

the Engineer Regiment. He served as commandant of the Engineer School from 1984 to 1987. 

their interests or "stand together" within the key 

decision nodes in the national capital area. There is also a i 

I perceived sense of "distance from the proponent" expressed 

I by our students at senior service colleges. The school's I / magazine is a get guidance 

; out and discourse started. The Engineer Regiment has about 

1 200 retired general officers; we must ensure that they receive 

i Engineer magazine. The same holds true for our retired Senior 

I Executive Service retirees. Other means of distributing i information include: 

1 . U.S. Total Army Personnel Command's Engineer Oficer 

, Bulletin I 

. Army Engineer Association's The Army Engineer magazine 1 . Engineer School ..Staff Notes lo (he Field.. 

. USACE Program Analysis and Evaluation "Questions 

1 and Answers" sheets 
The GOSC approved a PAT to examine this issue and I 1 

Training is the glue that holds the Army together. Not an 

original observation on our part by any account, but it's just 

as important for our civilian components as for our soldiers. 

To be able to respond to our nation's needs, from warfighting 

to coping with natural disasters, the Engineer Regiment must 

develop a relevant and flexible training strategy. As our 

doctrine evolves, so must our training strategy change to 

produce meaningful individual and collective training. It 

does no good-indeed, it does great harm-for us to devote 

time and other resources to train on irrelevant processes. 

Only through a cooperative and collective effort across the 

regiment can we determine our essential training needs. 

The U.S. Army Engineer Regiment has many constituent 

parts: TOE units in Active Army, Army Reserve (USAR), 

and Army National Guard (ARNG); and TDA elements, 

which include the engineer training base (Engineer School), 

the Directorate of Public Works, and USACE. These 

elements employ Department of the Army civilians and 

contractors, who are part of our team. USACE operates 

divisions, districts, and laboratories throughout the world. 

Army engineers are assigned to the Department of Defense 

and commands such as the National Imagery and Mapping 

Agency (NIMA). Finally, an important part of our team is 

our alumni-our retired community. It is all too easy to 

polarize the components of such a diverse organization, 

especially during a budget war in which each component 

tries to protect its own turf. We must not let that happen! One 

Corps, One Regiment, One Fight! 

The first step toward organizational health is 

acknowledging the problem. We have taken this step. Now, 

we must go beyond that and energize the processes that will 

eventually become self-sustaining. Prior to ENFORCE XXI96, we created a vision for the Engineer Regiment: "Trained 

and ready, a rapidly deployable and versatile member of the 

strategic force ... combining eficiencies of information with 

physical and technical capabilities, to master terrain in 

support of decisive victory. " We must press on to achieve this 

vision. The spirit of One Corps, One Regiment, One Fight will 

ensure success for the engineers, the Army, and our nation! 

. . 

directed it to develop a comprehensive platform for 

discussing sensitive issues among the regiment. 

Brigadier General Anderson is the Assistant Chief of 

Engineers for Military Programs, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. He previous1)i sewed as the assistant 

commandant of the Engineer School. 

The Commander-'S I 

Brigadier General Aadland is the assistant commandant 

of the Engineer School. He previously served as the chief of 

staff of the Engineer School and Commandei; 2nd Armored 

Division, Erzgineer Brigade, Fort Hood, Texas. 

Thought 

I Is SHE an Engineer? 

T he -engineer branch expanded the 

opporkunities for its-female officers back in 

October 1994. Today, all engineer officer 

positions, . except - combat line company 

commanders and platoon leaders, are open to 

women. However, many maneuver officers, as 

well as officers within our own corps, are still 

unaware that the Corps of Engineers fully 

supports placing women in units that directly 

support the front-Rne commander. The title 

question-Is SHE an Engineer?-is still 

- sometimes asked when maneuver commanders 

receive support from bridging, construction, and 

even their own habitually associated com bat 

engineer units. 

The versatility ofthe engineer officer is one of 

our branch's greatest strengths. AH engineer 

officers receive. the same training. The 

responsibility for providing these trained officers 

opportunities to develop their diverse skills rests 

squmely on the shoulders of our field 

commanders. Female engineer officers have 

served successfully in- all of the major 

deployments in the last several years-and they 

will continue to do so. Today's engineer 

commanders must invest in their junior female 

officers and expose them to the full range of corps 

capabilities. This investment wiH ensure that all of 

the corps' future leaders have the full range of 

skills required to meet our branch's diverse 

mission. 

The face of the engineer. officer may have 

changed, but the quality of support provided to the 

commander has not. How do the maneuver 

officers that you work with react when a female 

engineer officer shows up at the tactical 

operations center ready to meet the challenge of 

ESSAYONS? 

I0 Engineer April 1997 
Personal Viewpoint 

By Lieutet7nnt Colonel Brl(ce Porter. 

he Army is experimenting with 

options for a new heavy 

(armored and mechanized) division design, called Divisiot~ XXI, as 

part of the Force XXI program. One 

significant option, promulgated by 

Training and Doctrine Command 

(TRADOC), involves reducing the 

number of mechanized engineer battalions in each heavy division from three 

to two. This "new" design is not hased 

on innovative concepts or breakthrough 

technologies. It is a retreat to Cold-War 

thinking in a myopic attempt to save 

nianpower spaces. The new design replicates a structure that failed in both 

World War I1 and the Cold War and 

was fixed only with tremendous effort 

during the Persian Gulf War. More 

importantly, when the principles of 

Arnzy Visior~ 2010 and Joint Visiotl 

2010 arc used as a basis for analysis, 

the new engineer design proves to be a 

poor, perhaps catastrophic, choice for 

the combined arms team of the future. 

Background 

rmy force structures in World 

War I1 and the Cold War authorized one engineer battalion to 

be organic to each division. The resulting task organization of just one engineer company to each ground 

maneuver brigade (or its equivalent) 

was absolutely insufficient in close 

combat operations. The corresponding 

"fix" in both World War I1 and the Cold 

War was doctrinal-to task organize a 

corps combat engineer battalion to the 

division. The technique worked well in 

World War I1 when the mission 

involved construction. It did not work 

for missions requiring synchronized 

1 infantry-tank-engi~~eer combined anns 

! operations. To remedy this weakness, 

the official after-action report for 

World War I1 called for a full engineer 

regiment in each armored division. 

That recon~mendation was not acted 1 upon in the rush to demobilize after the 

war. 

The various types of divisions established during the Cold War experienced 

1 similar problems with insufficient divi- 1 sion engineers. Again, they relied on a 

corps engineer battzlion for augmentation Task organization of two engineer 

battalions across three ground maneu- ' ver brigades (a matchup of eight engineer companies against 10 ground 

maneuver battalions), plus a cavalry 

squadron, was highly problematic. 

I There was no way to coherently orgaI nize a division-level staff and three battalion staffs out of two standard 

I battalion staffs. 

( Evolutionary Progress 

he revolution in training inspired 

by the National Training Center 

(NTC) resulted in an unintended 

evolution of the maneuverlengineer 

task organization throughout the 1980s. 

Over time, maneuver units established 

that the "natural" pattern of operation 

was one engineer company per maneuver battalion task force (to include cavalry squadrons). When the NTC first 

opened, one engineer platoon usually 

was task organized to each deployed 

battalion task force. After a few years, 

a full three-platoon engineer company 

became the norm for each rotation to 

the NTC. After another few years, each 

battalion task force arrived at the NTC 

with a full engineer company (a total of 

two engineer companies). By 1988. 

1 each brigade deployment included 

, major pieces of the engineer battalion 

headquarters. In the NTC's close-tocombat environment, even when not a 

main division effort, the natural evolutionary process resulted in one engineer 

company per battalion task force and 

one engineer battalion headquarters per 

maneuver brigade headquarters. 

This relationship was fully recog1 nized by commanders at all levels at the 

start of Operation Desert Shield. Each 

heavy division deployed with its 

organic engineer battalion, plus two 

I corps engineer battalions and some type 

of colonel-level headquarters. (The ! exception was the 1st Cavalry Division, 

which was placed in theater reserve.) 

For example, the 24th Infantry Division 

1 deployed to Operation Desert Shield 

I with its organic 3rd Engineer Battalion, 1 the 5th Engineer Battalion from Fort 

Leonard Wood, the 299th Engineer Battalion from Fort Sill, and the 36th Engineer Group headquarters from Pon 

Benning. 

The practical process of force modernization leads to equipment fielding 

at uneven rates across the Army. Corps 

units are almost always out of step with 

any specific division with regard to 

modernization. For most co~ps units, 

the problem is one of inconvenience 

rather than actual danger, because corps 

units reinforcing a division typically 

don't engage in direct combat. The 

problem is more critical for combat 

engineers. For the 24th Infantry Division, the result was almost catastrophic: 

Corps engineer battalions had older 

rifles (with incompatible ammunition) 

but newer (and also incompatible) cornmurlications equipment than the diviApril 1997 Engineer I I 
sion. Perhaps worst of all, neither of the 

corps engineer battalions had started 

the mechanization process-the specta- i cle of engineers in dump trucks fighting alongside Bmdleys and tanks was 1 

heroic but institutionally shameful. t 

Maneuver units receive artillery 1 

support via small fire-support cells ' 

using remote colnmunications (the , 

artillery is out of sight and well to the 

rear). Combat engineer units, however, I 

execute missions from within the ; 

maneuver formation. Engineers, infan- . 

trymen, Bradleys, and tanks operate , 

side by side in virtually every task from 1 

squad through battalion levels. Sapper ; 

teams are integrated into dismounted 

infantty squads. Tanks with mine plows 

operate as part of breaching engineer 1 

platoons, which in turn are task organized to Com~re-i 

hensive tactics, techniques, and I 

procedures must be developed at every 1 

, echelon to coordinate and blend the tal- 1 

ents and capabilities of specific commanders and their units. 1 

Synchronizing a combined arms 

breach is arguably the most complex, ' 1 difficult operation a commander can 

undertake. Engineers, infantrymen, and 

tankers must have absolute trust and I 

confidence in one another, trust and 

confidence born of repetitive training I 

and habitual relationships. Those capabilities cannot be assumed when some 

unknown unit from outside the organization arrives on the battlefield. Mutual 1 

trust and confidence certainly were not 

present when corps engineer battalions 

joined the 24th Infantry Division dur 

ing the initial deployment for operation Desert Shield. They were built 1 

over a 4-month period qfrer the units 

deployed and intensively trained 

together in Saudi Arabia. Given that 

extended training period, strong motivation based on the certainty of imminent combat, and lack of distracterr. the 

corps engineer units effectively became / 

"divisional" units. I 

Almost immediately after American ground forces departed from Iraq, 1 

the Chief of Staff of the Army 

approved a new heavy division engi- 1 

neer structure that included a brigade ; 

headquarters and three lean engineer 1 

battalions. That approval was based on 

years of analytic study and niodeling , 

by the Army. Additionally, the 

approval affirmed what had evolved i 

over years of training at the NTC and 1 

acknowledged what had been proven to 

work in combat during Operation 

Desert Storm. The resulting force 

structure used no more manpower 

spaces than the previous two-battalion I 

ad l~oc design. It [nay be called the 

Amly's first Force XXI organization. ; 

Future Challenges ;

/ 

contrast, the Division XXI engi- : 

1 

neer design now promulgated by I 

1

TRADOC is just a rehash of 1 

already discounted disproven theories, and flawed Cold War 

designs. In fact, problems will be worse 

than those experienced in the Cold War. 

While engineer mobility assets de- 1 crease in the Division XXI designOrganic mobility capabilities 

the maneuver unit remain constant. 

4 Requirements for maneuver unit 1 

mobility increase drastically. 1 Enemy counternobility capabili- I ties increase significantly. I 

The command and problem 

of engineer 

three ground maneuver bri- 1 

gades grows worse in XX1. ) 

The XX1 engineer 

are and less lhan cur- , rent battalions. Tlie ability of corps 

engineer units to reinforce contingency 

for Vnchronized has evaPOrated due the Active 

force. (*Imost loo Percent corps mechanized engineer 

now are in the Reserve 

ponents.) 

The new division, to be fielded by ! 

2010* will only "product 

"pmvements" in the 

with no 

in the maneuver unit's 

Improved electr0nics will give , 

manders better intelligence about the 

enemy and terrain-but they will be 

unable to use it, because they will lack 

the engineer mobility assets to maneuver across the battlespace and overcome complex, dynamic enerny 

obstacles. Yet. the theme of "Dominant 

Maneuver" in Joint Vision 2010 is 

Through a cornbination nf'a.syrnrne~- 

ric leverage, crchievedbjr ourpositional 

advcrntages, as ~vell as decisive speed 

and tempo, dominant maneuver a1lon.s 

L~Sto apply decisive force to rzttclck 

enerny centers of gmvit). at all levels 

and cornpels art advcrsclv to either 

react from a position of disadvantage 

or. quit ... Dominant maneuver will 

require forces that are adept at conducting sustained and synchronized 

operatiorzs from dispersed locations. 

They tnust be able to apply overwhelt?zing force ... These forces must I~ave the 

ability to outpace artd ozttmaneztver 

the enemy Current systenls, enhanced 

by information superioritj~, will provide 

a clearer picture of enemy and friendly 

locatiotis i,qonnatiotl siiperio,.ii). 

will allow joint commander.^ lo coordinate widely dispersed units, receivr 

accurate feedback, and execute nzore 

rlemanding, higher precision requirements. [Emphasis added.] 

Artny Vision 2010establishes "Decisive Operations" as the Army's equivalent of "Dominant Maneuver." The 

vision specifies the concept of "simultaneous, brief, violent attacks" enabled 

by "simultaneous application" and 

"mobility, speed, and agility." 

These visions provide a clear concept of tonlorrow's battlefield: battalions that must disperse and fight 

autonomously on an increasingly nonlinear battlefield. Commanders will be 

expected to act quickly based on nearreal-time intelligence. Implicit in this 

requirement is the need to preserve 

freedom of maneuver for the task force 

commander, to allow him to maneuver 

where he wills to best accomplish his 

mission, then to emplace dynamic 

(Continued on page 34) 

12 Engineer April 1997 
Maneuver Support Battle Lab: 

Integrating Maneuver Support Into Force XXI 

hr ycnr \m.ns 2005. A! ;lrr Srlrrtjorlnl Trniriitr,q Cs.~?fcr; tlrp 

.r~ur Mns j~rsr brenkilr~ !lie: horizor;. SFC Srrl~ri~r chr~iseri 

hix cuolrl fosr rcrtrorr ns !he incor~ting vor-irrhlc-rt~es.rnpfor ntnr rnp.v.Toqqe hln;~d rliittll grcrrt on I~ix heori-s-lrp rlz.rylny 

Tire ~~PIIIPIFC~~~~ war ~er~(jilr~ tre nzornin,q sfnfrts report. SFC 

Srradrr rl~rrrtgltr I~P I~.~II!PIIO~I~ IICI~ !.TI Plntomrr sprenr! rt lifrli- mt) 

rhi12. Enrlr rrrgirreer srlrtnd umns s~q~l?oserl fo domir~nte n IOsq~rctrp-kilortlefrr rtrco. O~tcirr. rton~tnt cirr-lm~s!nnc*es the Jve 

e)t~irlrcr.r+ irl rlreir 11 envy IE*IIPPIPCI r11gin~'er ~~rrtto~.etI VCII~L,IC 

(HEAVY) cnrrld I~nrlrlle ir. 

Arlc~~lwr rws.rmoKe srrollt(l crr+mss ~hr hrol/.v-~rp di.\.pplrr~: dric 

rinrr ir hlb~krd irr rhri?r?sorr. SFC Srrrrder IPC~ fife IIIPY.Y:?inRe rts hc 

/old I~P rlrrver to rfrrrt llle v~!lictr~ C~ttr! r~rrrlct !/IP trnr. o/~s~r~.nh/r 

.w*rceIr ~11~retlt 11r1d fcil.~~ IIPIC~QF gP,tcrrrmr: It Iookrtl~~s rhor~gh ilrc 

opposirrg forces (0 PI;CIR) rcvt-re lryirlg ro .force tlrenl oLf rlt~ 

crirhend T~P OPFOR ~vorrlrI r~rtrrrk rirr fink whew 11111\~ flrir 

Mnbile Srrik~ Fotrc. cnrrtparly /tic rtIRrwCr plnlnnrt, nrrd n sy~rrrrl 

nf milrfon' police in nrfi~ored srrrtrirv vehir-Ies tuerp hnlrliriy: nrl 

ecorlnnty-of$flrce nris,crar~. 

Tllc Iir~tr~~tanl sen! ench syrtrrrl the dfgi~iz~d nrt~xrer 011.ct~lcl~ 

nrld rherrrical conrnmitmriort overlny. The OPFOR were on tjzr 

lnnvc, h~r; fhpy were r~jll four Elr~rrrs ocrt. There \clri+c still ;inre ro 

rrilrforce the nrtrortomorcs conlhnt .recurirv nsrpn.rt r111d ofhrr 

d\lnnmir nhstacles they hod posted the dny bcfow. 

Strnder ordered SPC McKinrley to lalinch /who Nifhr Owl 

unrnarvzed neria! vehicles ro recon rhc rolrte ro their obsraclc 

rrlr~ct.sr pnirlr. As rlw Ni,qht Owls' stltrccr-like hnc!re.r liftrc n~rlre 

rup nr rhe HEAVY SPC McKir~~iev rccr~ivrd infr-urcd, ,ry~~~trirlpenerrrrrin~ rrrdur nr~d nrorrsric inm,qc.~ frnnl {heir scrlsnrs ns Ire 

gziired thrn; nlolrg rlre HEAVY i irrreirii~d potit to thr nhsrncJc 

r~leusr pnitl t. P VT RCI/IP~I.T dmv~ rile HEAVY our rfl iis Irirli~rirrg 

positinrt arrclfi~llo\t~c.~i ~ltp Nigh! OH%T dmvn fire cornbcr~ rmil. 

SPC IklL.Kirtney s voice cantp mVPr r11e inrerrorn, "Nrl: ;he 

OPFOR Irrirl sornc mines nt 11ir.rork." The Niglir OwI rrrrnsr~lirterl 

rltr,yerirt~ rIrttrr Jn the 0r1-hnnrd Inrrr-rrrrdnirrar~.r tr~~~rml~;er: 

Il'irhnrir slo~i)rr?~, the Irrsrr-mrrnirifln.~ IIE~II~~JE;I~~ frrfhfir.e h~rrstr 

po\~*c"J~! II'~O;IKII 10 rrrrve thc hr~rrpd rr~irr~s' rprrrpPm/rrr<,.~ to o 

poir~! rhal efl~~crii~~iv ~rer~;i-n!i:er! r11rin. E~P~VOI~P prepflre(1 for t/ 

ldrr FI, bct.nrr.rr rlr~ la.\w,r st~r~~erirt~ es ntics~d o ni ine. Sirrr rntrrtLyli, 

;JIP .kfo(lSR I; sitrtrrll~,io~i ~*rr~rretl' one tn cirrntznrp rr,qflf 11rlder rile 

HEAVY.. 

Tlds vignct1.e dcscr~hcs a cnnccivnhlc future virtiial and l~ve 

experimentntiun scenario wherc no one gets hurt hut wlicre 

soldiers and combat developers gain valuahle insights reyarding 

maneuver support DTLOMS (doctrine, trnining, leader 

development, organizations, rnatericl, and soldiers) progms. 

TRADOC'!: newest battle: lab, the Maneuver St~ppor~ Battlefield 

Lnborntory (MSBL) provides direction. nversigh!, and 

horizontal integrnflon of experiments related to the maneuver 

support enduring battlefield ftlnction. Maneuver support 

encompasses those actions taken to protect the force from the 

April 1997 Errgir~t-er 13 
effects of enemyladversary action, provide the force freedom of Types of Simulations 

movement during military operations, and inhibit the enemy/ 

adversary's ability to move. 

The Maneuver Support Battlefield Laboratory was officially 

organized at Fort Leonard Wood on 1 October 1996. Major 

General Clair Gill, commander of Fort Leonard Wood and 

commandant of the Engineer School, serves as the director. 

Colonel Ed Arnold serves as the deputy director for day-to-day 

operations. The commandants of the Army's Chemical, 

Engineer, and Military Police Schools form the battle lab's 

board of directors. 

The MSBL coordinates the efforts of other TRADOC battle 

labs and schools in the maneuver support experimentation 

arena. It also exchanges information with industry, academia, 

major Army commands (such as the U.S. Army Intelligence 

and Security Command), Army components of the combatant 

warfighting commands (such as the U.S. Army Europe and 

Seventh U.S. Army component of U.S. European Command), 

various governmental laboratories and Department of Defense 

agencies, and other nations' battle labs (such as the German 

Army Battle Lab). 

Experiments 

he primary function of the MSBL is to conduct 

experiments on potential systems, techniques, and 

concepts and then input the most promising ones across 

Anny DTLOMS programs. Most experiments are based on 

direct soldier and leader interaction with emerging technologies 

and materiel initiatives. The experiments support future 

materiel acquisition and assist with the development of future 

operational capabilities. They may be discrete, single events or 

progressive, iterative simulations (constructive, virtual, or live) 

designed to assess the military use and potential for new or 

revised concepts. 

MSBL-led teams plan, conduct, and provide proponent 

evaluations to TRADOC. These teams focus on specific 

capabilities or technology opportunities. The experimentation 

process consists of design, planning and reviews, approval, 

execution, and the decision to invest or discard. The MSBL is 

the clearing house for all experiments within the maneuver 

support arena, including those related experiments that are to be 

conducted elsewhere. 

Maneuver support experimentation produces one of the 

following recommendations: 

Invest in the Warfighting Rapid Acquisition Process 

(WRAP). Performed to accelerate fielding when mature 

technology fulfills an urgent need and experiments demonstrate compelling success. 

Invest in non-WRAR Performed when the technology is 

successful and the normal requirements-determination process is satisfactory for fielding. 

Experiment further. Initiative appears to have merit, but 

further experimentation is needed to refine the DTLOMS 

requirements or develop the technology. 

Discard. Initiative does not meet the needs of the Anny 

and merits no further investigation. 

ost maneuver support experiments are conducted 

through iterative simulations that evaluate new ideas 

and technology. Modern simulations allow the Army 

to evaluate current and future force capabilities, determine 

requirements, and compare the contributions of alternative 

solutions. Simulations are divided into the following three 

categories, each with characteristic strengths and weaknesses: 

Constructive simulations replicate warfare through 

computer-modeled war games. In some constructive simulations, 

the computer presents the participants with a graphic showing the 

operational situation and allows them to make decisions that 

influence the situation. Most constructive simulations employ 

models that war-game against a competent and active opponent. 

Others run independently of human interaction once the initial 

parameters and data are established. Constructive simulations 

replicate live exercises; simulate prototype technologies not 

currently available; vary the mission, threat, terrain, and weather; 

and repeat events until participants gain confidence in the 

outcomes. 

Virtual simulations are conducted with electronic mock-ups 

of real weapons systems. The mock-ups use computers to 

replicate onboard systems and the external combat environment. 

Flight and tank-gunnery simulators are representative of this type 

of simulation. Virtual simulations allow man-in-the-loop assessments of new DTLOMS programs. Simulators at various 

locations can be linked to offer a common warfighting picture for 

multiple elements of the force. Insights are derived at both 

operational and systems levels. The advantage of virtual 

simulations is the ability to have soldiers make warfighting 

decisions while computers analyze the effects. 

Live simulations are exercises conducted by units in the field, 

preferably against a tactically competitive OPFOR. Live 

simulations are useful to experiment with new DTLOMS 

programs. They offer the advantage of using soldiers and 

equipment in an actual training environment. The advantage of 

realism in live simulations must be balanced against their expense 

and the inability to repeat training events. 

The optimal solution in experimental analysis probably is to 

use a combination of the three simulation types. Live simulations 

offer the most realistic environment for analysis, but the cost may 

be prohibitive. Ideally, experiments should maximize the use of 

live and virtual simulations and augment them with constructive 

simulations. The ability to link live, virtual, and constructive 

simulations through the use of distributed interactive simulation 

(DIS) links facilitates the best use of all three types. 

Fort Leonard Wood is working to establish a Core Distributed 

hteractive Simulations Facility by the year 2000. This facility 

will provide state-of-the-art simulation for experiments and 

exercises in a synthetic environment using distributed interactive 

technologies. The facility will be physically and electronically 

secure and have fully integrated, validated, and accredited 

simulators, models, and tools. State-of-the-art reconfigurable, 

virtual simulators will represent the full functionality and 

capability of a battalion task force. The facility will provide 

realistic command, control, communications, computers, and 

intelligence (C4I), including battlefield effects. Users will have 

14 Engineer April I997 
access to repositories of standard databases, representations, 

algorithms, symbols, scenarios, and other data. They can access 

realistic resolution terrain databases with a variety of terrain 

types, conditions, and climates. The facility will support 

concept evaluation; requirements determination; crew, unit, 

command, and battle staff training; technology development 

and evaluation; system development; test and evaluation; tactics 

and doctrine development; and force modernization. 

Current Experiments 

he MSBL currently is involved with Force XXI and 

Army After Next tests and experiments. (Force XXI is 

concerned with operations between the years 2000 and 

2010. Army After Next is concerned with operations after 

2020.) The battle lab focuses experiments and analysis efforts 

toW Analyze operational impacts of various Force XXI and 

Army After Next designs of maneuver support forces. 

Leverage emerging technology to improve digital terrain 

data acquisition, storage, updates, dissemination, and 

exploitation on the battlefield. 

Provide an integrated joint force-protection strategy 

against nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons 

and associated threats. This effort spans the spectrum of 

conflict from chemical and biological counterterrorism and 

industrial hazards during military operations to NBC 

defense during full-scale combat operations. 

Enhance counterproliferation initiatives for weapons of 

mass destruction. 

W Enhance NBC defense capabilities in operations other than 

war. 

Integrate NBC defense into the passive sensors of the theater missile defense system. 

W Provide an NBC defense battle management system that is 

integrated into Army command and control systems to 

leverage information technology in Force XXI and Army 

After Next operations. 

W Identify military technologies that can be applied in military and civilian counterdrug operations. 

Provide capabilities needed to conduct land countermine 

operations. 

Analyze physical security requirements and capabilities for 

Force XXI operations, including nonlethal technologies 

and land mines, robotics, and antiterrorist activities. 

The battle lab began limited experiments during 2nd quarter 

FY97, including several Concept Evaluation Program experiments. It is now the sponsor of the Autonomous Remote 

Chemical and Biological Agent Sensor-Advanced Concepts 

and Technology (ACT) I1 program and will receive sponsorship 

of the Biological Detection-Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) on 1 October 1997. The Dismounted 

Battlespace Battle Lab continues current proponent efforts 

involved with the Task Force XXI and Division XXI Advanced 

Warfighting Experiments (AWE) and Prairie Warrior 97. 

Insights gleaned from FY97 experimentation include: 

W The Hornet (wide-area munition) is a clear "winner." 

W The proposed Division XXI engineer group design is inadequate to support full-spectrum division operations. 

W Collecting, storing, updating, and disseminating highresolution digital terrain data are critical elements of the 

commander's battlefield visualization program. 

W Maneuver brigades require dedicated terrain analysis 

capability. 

W An automated NBC early warning system is required for 

force protection. 

Experimentation in FY97 resulted in the following 

recommendations: 

W Possible WRAP investment systems include: Assault 

Breach Marking System (ABMS), Downsized Digitized 

Topographic Support System @TSS), Digital Reconnaissance System (DRS), and Miniflail Mine-Clearing System. 

W Requirements to be documented include: Antipersonnel 

Obstacle-Breaching System (APOBS), intelligent minefield 

(IMF), and vehicle teleoperation capability (VTC). 

W Systems requiring further experimentation include: Ground 

and Hand-Held Standoff Mine-Detection Systems (GSTAMIDS and H-STAMIDS), biological detection systems, 

digital terrain data dissemination through long-range communications systems. 

W No experiments currently are scheduled to be discarded 

For further information, contact the M'meuver Support Battle 

Lab: Colonel Ed Arnold, Lieutenant Colonel Bill McCoy, or Mr. 

Vern Lowrey (573) 563-4082, DSN 676-4082, fax 4089. e-mail: 

arnolde@ wood-vines.army.mil,mccoyw @ wood-vines.- 

MI: Lowrey serves as technical director of the Maneuver 

Support Battle Lab at Fort Leonard Wood. He is commander of 

the 1138th Engineer Battalion (First Missouri), Missouri 

National Guard. 

Captain Green is the integration ofSicer in the Maneuver 

Support Battle Lab at Fort Leonard Wood. Previous assignments 

include commander of B Company, 3/10 Infantry Battalion, Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri. CPT Green holds a master 5 degree 

from the University of Missouri at Rolla. 

April 1997 Engineer 15 
on Base Camps I 

By Lieutenant Colonel John R. Jones 

t was a privilege as well as professionally rewarding to 

have supported the soldiers and civilians involved in 

Operation Joint Endeavor in the former Yugoslavia. This 

is the largest military operation in the history of the NATO 

alliance. The initial U.S. portion of this 60,000-troop 

contingent was about 20,000 soldiers, who formed Task 

Force Eagle. The 1st Armored Division formed the core of 

the task force. 

To support U.S. forces, base camps were quickly planned, 

constructed, and sustained. This was accomplished by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the 1 st Armored Division 

Engineer Brigade (DIVENG), the Logistics Civil 

Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contractor, and the Base 

Camp Coordinating Agency (BCCA). The BCCA served as the 

focal point for building, sustaining, and decommissioning all 

successful mission execution in the Balkans. My intent is that 

these insights and flashes of the obvious will help others in the 

years ahead. 

Command and Control 

ask Force Eagle formed the nondoctrinal BCCA early 

in the deployment (January 1996) to plan, coordinate, 

and execute the urgent base camp construction 

mission. The BCCA was at the confluence of various 

organizations, to include USACE, DIVENG, U.S. Army 

Europe (Forward), and the LOGCAP contractor. To ensure 

functional interdependence, the BCCA coordinated 

extensively with all of these organizations while 

simultaneously taking direction from the 1st Armored 

Division Assistant Division Commander-Support (ADC-S). 

U.S. base camps in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia. 

This article describes how the BCCA supported the base Organization 

camp mission from June through October 1996 during my T he BCCA, a hybrid of a Directorate of Public Works 

tenure as the BCCA chief. Included are some insights and and a USACE resident field office, was organized into 

"flashes of the obvious" that I believe are key ingredients to five branches. 

16 Engineer April 1997 
The Plans and Operations Branch focused on both current and future operations. BCCA planners ensured that 

camp perspectives were integrated into all future Task 

Force Eagle operations. This included task force reshaping, support for national elections, redeployment, and 

transition of mission responsibilities to the covering 

force (1st Infantry Division). 

The Environmental Brarzch administered USACE environmental contracts and facilitated the education and 

assessment of environmental programs at each base 

camp. 

The Base Camp Assistarice Team (BCAT), an "overthe-road" team, focused on training, assisting, and 

assessing all base camps. 

The Project Martagement Branch, formed late in the 

operation, was responsible for funding, customer interface, project monitoring, troubleshooting, and reporting. 

The Real Estate Branch acquired, managed, and disposed of land and facilities. To improve responsiveness, 

reduce over-the-road time, and provide continuity of 

care, the BCCA established two field offices and positioned them in the northern and southern halves of the 

U.S. sector. 

Special staff in the functional areas of preventive 

medicine, safety, ammunition storage, and fire safety 

augmented the BCCA. 

Staffing 

CCA staff~ng at its peak totaled 40 personnel. It 

Included USACE active duty offtcers and Individual 

mobilization augmentees, 412th Engineer Command 

personnel, U.S. Army Europe and 1st Armored Division 

augmentees, and Department of the Army (DA) civilians. The 

civilians provided expertise in real estate, safety, ammunition 

storage, and environmental engineering. Beginning in August 

1996, the Army Audit Agency assisted the BCCA in process 

development and validation. As U.S. force levels were 

reduced from October through December 1996, the BCCA 

evolved into a leaner organization. 

Base Camp Standards 

ask Force Eagle established standards up front that 

addressed living and support facilities as well as forceprotection measures. Both it~rerim standards ((less than 

30 days) and duration standards (more than 30 days) were 

established. The goal was to improve safety and provide 

consistent and prudent quality-of-life levels throughout the 

U.S. sector. 

Interim and duration living standards for the generalpurpose, medium, tents were 15 and 10 soldiers per tent, 

respectively. Other accommodations included fixed 

facilities and living containers. Additionally, a total of six 

Force Provider sets (each housing and supporting 550 

soldiers) were installed on three base camps. For hasty 

insertions, Force Provider sets are convenient; however, 

maintenance is high as are costs to decommission, clean, 

and repackage them for reuse. The duration standard for 

showers and latrines was one shower head and latrine per 25 

1AD DIVENG units construct tent frames at a U.S. base camp in support of Operation Joint Endeavor. 

April 1997 Engineer 
SL~~.:E'~:A .,.-.,'I ZP,i'.REB ': i?'~.;, .~¶~.ri I * ,-'. -. . , .' .* 

CROATIA Eac-fern - - - ', 

Slavonia , :, . s i.ln;:,;.- 

- -. ,2 .. ..: . --I '%,:, , - ,- 

,~.li , . . * ,' , -\ 

. :\ <\ ,/\ > .~:. 

Srpska 

.: 

. . 

<: cr:1;.4 

. . ., 

.- ' 

.. 

> . . - 5i\RAJEi/0 h_ 

v. . C '-. + ,. 

CROATIA k-. . , 

. . . - ?{ . . . . . , 'h> . ; 

--.' . ' i . . 

.. . ->T~:<!l .qc:g,c 

. , ~p~ ~-~ - . .. . ~ 

. . BCSFllA ANC HERZEGOV:NA 4 , 

> -- 1- 

,- rcde~S:..:r. 3, PCL~. a j . \ 

;,p : vp.z,?sc," :-,a -, .. 

+... .- , . 

. <':." r~i <.- F,c? ,:I $.p k? .. . . 

, E<,:L: t:,,v .?p,e',e,.t: 2 ,s 3.- ,758 ., -c:ca,.,., i ,4L'%c,,l~'lde 

1 kiLe4hib ~*sb.a acre u?q:rqt-g,o sssr-,;? "r '. - j'.:' : 

, 2 I,:,-, ~r:cleperce?, s',>r~ z.., \r 5 : .!.. -?$ -?' ).+, " 

1 '<,,rr*, 'j :ecc~,-,?+$ 3s 3 5!2'.2 >, IV.C - ;*2 :I..:+< 

Twenty-two U.S. base camps were scattered throughout the U.S. sector in BosniaHerzegovina. One U.S. base camp was located in Croatia, along the Sava River. 

soldiers. Lighting, heating, and hard floors were in all 

duration standard tents. There were facilities on each base 

camp for dining; a chapel; a laundry; and morale, welfare, 

and recreation (MWR) activities. Base carnp population 

determined the number of tents for support and administrative facilities. 

Task Force Eagle's force-protection standards ensurcd 

that every soldier had access to a bunker or fighting position. 

The task force also developed standards for perimeter 

lighting, fencing, guard towers, ammunition holding areas, 

and helipads. Base camp site selection criteria addressed 

items such as trafficability, living and motor park space, 

defendability, communications, water source, and main 

supply route accessibility. 

Base Camp Construction 

Transatlantic Program Center in Winchester, Virginia) 

administered the LOGCAP contract (Engitteer, March 1997, 

page 2). 

LOGCAP, an Army program, uses a civilian contractor to 

perform selected services to augment U.S. forces during a 

military operation. Tapping into this program allowed the 

best use of our engineer resources. For Operation Joint 

Endeavor, Brown & Root provided base camp consh-uction 

and sustainment services as well as some logistics support 

scrvices (i.e. transportation, maintenance, supply, laundry, 

and dining facilities). Each base camp had a Brown & Root 

manager and staff to fulfill construction, sustainment, and 

decommissioning contractual requirements. Herculean efforts by the entire engineer team ensured that construction 

was executed to standard with no compromise of the 

soldiers' safety or quality of life. 

.S. Army engineer battalions, a U.S. Navy Seabee 

battalion, a U.S. Air Force RED HORSE battalion, Base Camp Leadership 

and the LOGCAP contractor (Brown & Root Services S enior base camp leaders, the BCCA, and Brown & 

Corporation) shared responsibility for constructing 23 base Root shared responsibility for operations and 

camps in the U.S. sector. USACE (specifically the maintenance. There were 22 base camps in 

18 Engineer April 1997 
r 

Base Camp Coordinating Agency 

Organizational structure of the Base Camp Coordinating Agency (BCCA) 

Bosnia-Herzegovina and one in Croatia, each housing from 

200 to 2,500 soldiers. Each senior base camp tactical 

comrnandcr appointed a "mayor" to assume camp leadership 

responsibilities. The mayors worked closely with the Brown 

61 Root camp manager, the DIVENG direct support unit, and 

thc IICCA. Since lnayors required the knowledge to "run" a 

base camp, the BCCA developed and sponsored necessary 

training. One course focused on operations and maintenance 

and the other on decommissioning. Topics included real 

estate, environmental programs, operations and 

maintenance, local contracting practices, LOGCAP rules, 

DIVENG roles, civil-military affairs, safety, property 

accountability, force protection, preventive medicine, 

ammunition storage, and R4WR responsibilities. 

(the JARB president) and the Task Force Eagle resource 

manager, G4, G3, and a Staff Judge Adjutant advisor. All ncw 

base camp work required JARB review and ADC-S approval. 

Any soldier or unit could initiate a work order. Then it went to 

the base camp mayor for approval and 011 to DIVENG 

(usually the engineer battalion in direct support to that base 

camp) for review and action. DIVENG could recommend 

disapproval, execute the work order, or forward it to the 

JARB. Work orders costing more than $2,500 required JARB 

review and approval; those less than $2,500 were acted on by 

the BCCA chief. The task force review process saved rnoncy, 

standardized procedures, developed practical low-cost 

solutions to requests, and promoted safety and consistent 

quality of life on base camps. 

Town Hall Meetings Base Camp Assistance Visits 

he BCCA facilitated regional town hall meetings 

every two weeks at various base camps tl~roughouthe 

sector. These meetings provided a forum for 

discussion and problem sollring. Attendees included the 

ADC-S, the BCCA chief, base camp mayors, and senior 

tactical commander representatives (usually brigade and 

battalion executive officers), ttie Task Force Eagle G4 and 

Property Book Officer, Brown & Root camp managers, 

BCCA project managers and real estate specialists, forceprotection and safety experts, and representatives from 

DIVENG and MWR. These command-sponsored events 

encouraged dialogue, built trust, and allowed issues to be 

addressed quickly. 

Business Practices 

he Base Camp Assistance Team (BCAT) visited 

sustainment camps every four weeks and decommissioning camps every two to three weeks. On 

these visits, the team concentrated on education, training, and 

assistance, although it also conducted a base camp assessment 

and reported to the Task Force Eagle command group after 

every visit. Bascd on published standards and approved 

definitions, the BCAT assessed four major areas: 

Force protectiotz-local national screening, perimeter 

integrity, risk assessment, ammunition storage, and 

weapons security. 

Envirot~mer~talprogram-spill prevention, spill response, 

hazardous-waste and hazardous-material disposal, and 

petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL) transfer operations. 

Preverttive medicitie-dining facility operations, water supask Force Eagle established a Joint Acquisition ply, and vector and rodent control and repellent systems. 

Review Board (JARB). This common-sense, better- Safety-fire safety, living area safety, motor pool safety, 

business-practices group included the BCCA chief and accident prevention program. 

April 1997 Engineer 19 
An example of a U.S. base camp facilities site plan, exclusive of site perimeter and force 

protection measures. 

Coupling outstanding hase camp leadership wilh BCAT process develnped by DIVENG and BCCA. Force protection 

visits ensured that all hase carnps complied w~th estahlished and stewardship of government propeny were critical. The 

T~sk Forcc Eagle srandards. senior base camp tactical commanders responsible for 

decommissioning their camps applied lessnns that wcre 

Environmental Program learncd carly in the operation. Base camp compIexity, 

T location, and size determined the decommissioning ti~nc and hc Task Force EagIe environmental program was 

effort, hut the phased pmccss usuaEly took ahout six weeks. proactive and highly effective. BCAT ream visits 

The decommissioning ream consisted of tennnl units. always included a BCCA cnvirnnmental represen- DWENG assets. and the LOFCAP contructor. Base camp latlve who promoted, {rained. and cnforced the estahlished leaders, with thc advice and assistance of BCCA and envirnnnlental standards (En~in~er. March 1997, page 1 2). DIVENG, orchcstsared the work. Every BCAT vi.;i~ and town I~al I meeting stresserl items such 

;a spill prevention. h37nrdnus-wa~te and hazardous-m:~terin I 

rnanqernent, safe POL transfer point operations. and spill 

tespclnw capah~Iit~es. Before 3 haye c:inrp was occup~ed, nn 

environmentnl basoline survcy was done to acquire a 

benchmark. A find survey was, conducted when [he camp was 

decnrnmissioned. Task Force Eaele thcn tonk nppmprintc 

aclions to mitipate differences between the two surveys. 

Proof of this effective cnv~ronmental program was 

reflected in rhe minimal corrective environolenrnl actions 

rcquircd when hasc camps were decommissioned. 

Base Camp Decommissioning 

A s tho U.S. reduced its presence in BosniaHerzegovina, ir decommissioned base camps in a 

dcliherate, safe, and disciplined manner, using a 

Thc phased decornrnissionin~ proocss collapsed tllc camp 

in on itself. Soldier wpport facilities (the shopette. chapel, 

1ibr:iry. and MWR Ihcilit~es) were removed first. fnlluwcd by 

IiTc-supporl fiicilitics (dining facilities. teiits, showers, and 

latrines). Bare essential life-support facilit its and forceprotection infrastructure (concert~na wire, guard towers, and 

fightin? positions) were removed last. &CAT ctosure team 

visits ttl base camps anticipated and solved problems as they 

arose and assessed and monitored progress. On the final 

visit, a clearance checklist (similar to a range control 

checklist) served as the clearance document. Harvesting 

material from decommissioning hase camps was deliberate 

and saved money. EssentinlIy, all 'base camp expansions and 

improvemenu after June I996 were compIeted w little cost 

using harves tcd materials (gravel, lumber, tents, shower and 

20 Engineer April 1997 
Inuinc FaciIi ties, force-protect ion maferinl, and eleu trical and nssistancc vis~ts :~nd town hall meetings encourage diaplumbing equipnient) from clecornmissioning base camps. 

RCCA scrvcd as the clearing housc for all hnrve~ted 

rnatcrials. Once item5 were identifieci base camp excess, 

Ihcy wen1 on thc hnn~cq~ listfor transfer to a base camp with 

a vaIid nccd. 

Base Camp Transition 

T hc outgoing 1st Armorcd Division ant1 the Incoming 

1st InFantsy Division dctclopcd a memorandurn of 

acrccmenr that addressed which hiise camns would hc 

kept. thcir rcspctivc capatitic.; and uapnhrlitics, transfer 

dntc.;, ant1 wllicll unit wnultl accept respon%ihility for each 

ciimp. The BCCA played an important role during the 

transition pnlccss to cnsurc lhat incoming I ID lcndcrs 

undcrstnod rhe hnsc camp rniscion. 

Thc units developed [ransition plnns l'or tach base camp 

to he retained. Outgoiny and incorninp leaders executed 

rIiese plans to standard, which inotitded training (~ponmrcd 

by BCCA), a 100-perccn~ propcrty inventory hctween 

mayors, transitioning thc basc camp smart hook. and 

cnnducting a joint walk-through. 

Flashes of the Obvious 

Whcnyourhos~asksyout~rg0d0~ci11thingsinaTaraway land. go for zt. 

1 Nothing is mote imponnnt than applying corntnon sense 

and keeping thin~s simple-so tired and conlused people can undcrstnnd ant! quickly pi on with the task at 

lranrl. 

1 Racl news seldom irnproves with aye. IF you have n 

prnhlem you cannrlt resolve, surface it. Trsk Force 

E:igle r;lrely shot the messenger and quickly addressed 

ISSUCF. 

View ohstncles as a tmnsiunl state-~ornething to he 

solved along the pathway tn cxccllence. Prcss [lie fight. 

Establish base camp standards carry, and cnforcc them 

ronsistcntly. The desire to improve basc ramps above 

e~tathished standards was immense. hut established and 

understood standards helped squelch that desire. 

Underwrite honest mistakes. Perfectionists in the Balkans did not do wcll. Planning, preparing, and rchcnrsing paid dividends and eliminated most mistakes. 

Don? demand exactness. Don't chisel decisions in 

smne, Re willing to change as time unfolds and circtlmstances change. 

U Gather information and critical itcms of interest by talking ro people and visiting base camps. Don't hidc behind 

your cornpuler or tclephonc. Get near the action to listen 

and Learn, but don'^ micromanage the actinn. Base camp 

Foguc and build Irus!. 

M Make liecisions quickly. Orten there isn't tin~c to sleep on 

an issue. Working in this environment brings n new 

mc;lning to decision making. 

Plan ahcitd. Focus your atccntion on thc ncxt fcw days, not 

the ncxt few minutes. This atfvicc is not always possible. 

hill kcus on the iri~p~stant things. 

Military operatinns cosi a lot ot money, lnlplcrncnl costsnvinp measurer such as ,joint acquisition hoards, better 

business processe?, and m:ltcrial-harvesting programs. 

Three equals one ia lhe Balkans. It usually took thrrc 

times as much efSnr~, persistence. and time to cxeorltc 

missions in Bosnia-Merzc~flvin,?.conn as in o~ller placcs 1 hsvr 

senlcrt. Plnn accordinyly and _ret over all the obt;iclesl 

Remetnhcr, a Znsk is not finichcd until the soldier IS I~v~ng 

in il or using it. 

I Teamwork is crucial-it's an attitude. 

Estimates arc only cstima2t.s to the person nlaki ng them; 

every one elsc hcars a rixcd pricc or absolute cc hcdt~te. 

Thc listener hears only thc low end. 

Stay proactive. The champion-to-chump cyclc can bc 

short in this type of environment. Keep your head in ihc 

game. 

II Activated reservists, DA civilians. and the 1,QGCAP 

contracttor did a supcrb job. 

Summary 

aqe camp accnrnpl~shments were rnnny. Efrnflrls by Tisk 

Forcc Eagle, USACE, DIVENG. and Bmwn Rr Root 

were extraordinary a5 they construc[ed, sustained, find 

decnmmissinncd bnse camp<-safely, qu~ckly, and to standard. 

The safety and quality nf life in these camps receivcd high 

markr. En~inccr efforts havc plnycd a large part in the success 

thus far of Operation Joint Endeavor, hut another factor 

deserves n significant portion of the crcdit: the professionalism 

and selncss service of Task Forcc Eagle soldiers, DA civilians, 

activated rcsctvfs~~. and uonmctars. The men and women who 

are serving proudly and tirelessly are true patrivtr who have 

made a lasting difference to this war-tom region. w 

Lietlter~rrnt Cutorre1 Junrs iis rhe Depr~ty Conrmuttdul; Sf. 

Coilis District, U.S. Army Corps qf EngEnet-rs. In irdditiotr to 

servin~ as chf~f of the RA.TP Catrlp Coosditlcrtin~ Agrtzq itr 

srrppon of Bpernrinn Joinr Endeavor; he hcr.~ compl~ted tol4r.T 

wifh //IP 3rd Arnroretl Division, Gen11nn.y; N~nv York Di~rrict, 

IJSACE; the 130th Engineer Brigullr.; nnd Oprmtiorl Desert 

Ski~ld/D~scrr Srorn?. LTC Jortrs hnlis n master:^ d~grce in 

civil engirreeringfmm Penrr.wlvmriu Strife hriversip nnrf i.7 n 

rrgistcred professinrlol engkeer in Missouri. 
BPW Supports +I I Rower Projection 

By Colonel K. 0. Buck 

F ort Benning, Georgia, is one of 

the Army's 1 5 power-projection 

platforms. It is home to thrcc 

combat units that have very short 

deployment "strings": the 3rd Brigade 

of the 3rd Infantry Division (heatfquartered at Fort Stewart, Georgia); the 

75th Ranger Regiment hcadqui~sters 

and its 3rd Ranger Battalion; and the 

36th Engineer Gmup. .l'hc rapid 

deployment of any of these units 

requires teamwork between the deploying unit and a host of post staff clcments, as well as such off-post cntitics 

as the Corps of Engineers Savannah 

District. Fort Benning's Directorate of 

Public Works (DPW), with an in-house 

staff of 700 individuals, is a key member of the team. The following summary of DPW activities shows how 

critical the organization is to the 

smooth and rapid deployment of 

power-projection forces. 

: Master Plnttning. The DPW's 

I invol\lement in power projection 

begins with master planning. Well 

before any deployment operation, the 

DPW Inaster planning staff ensures that 

a rnyriad of up-to-date replacerilent 

! facilities are properly documented and ' sited. Fort Benning currently is reaping 

the benefits of the Anny's drive to 

I place all permanent party soldiers in 

1+1 basracks. (That is the desired new 

standard for enlisted unaccompanied 

personnel in permanent party bari racks.) Sc\leral battalion barracks sets, I valued at $69 million, are under constnlction. The directorate's master planners also orchestrate the development 

of other supporting power-projection 

projects under the Army Strategic 

Mobility Program (ASMP). Included in 

this program is a $4.6 million deployment warehouse (scheduled to be completed in May 1997) and a new $9.4 

million railhead facility (construction to 

start in the fall of 1997). 

Facililies. Maintenance of existing 

facilities is vital to the ability of Fort 

Benning's power-pro-jeclion units to 

deploy on a moment's notice. As on 

1 most Army installations. our operation 

and maintenance (ORrM) funds are at a 

premium. Their expenditure reflects the 

priorities of h4ajor General Carl Ernst, 

commandant of the Infantry Scllool and 

commanding general of Fort Benning: 

safety, training, power prc?jection, and 

quality of life. 

Barracks. Many of Fort Benning's 

O&h4 dollars are programmed to repair 

existing barracks, \vhich have an average age of 40 years. Virtually all of 

their major components (roofs; electrical, plumbing, and heatinglcooling systems; and latrines) gradually are being 

repaired or replaced. Augmenting this 

I effort is a robust U-Do-It progr'm, 

The new dining facility 

for the 3rd Infantry Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, is currently ahead 

of schedule. 

22 Engineer April 1997 
A renovated barracks complex soon to be occupied by soldiers in the 36th Engineer Group. 

April 1997 Engineer 23 

which allows soldiers to perforn~ for tracked vehicle movement. A stock- I architectural drawings of the palace for 

projects ranging from painting and wall , pile of 4 x 4 material is used as shoring use by the 75th Ranger Regiment. 

papering to installing cciling fans and ' under pallet loads. 1 Seaport. The DPW's power-projection 

tile floors. Time-Phased Actiorzs. The exten- responsibilities extend beyond post 

Airjield. Sometimes, all the repair sive preparations and constant effort boundaries. If a large deployment operefforts in the world will not keep a sys- expended by units and many staff ele- I ation requires additional seaport capatem up and running. A case in point is I ments across the post prove their worth bilities, the DPW is part of a 25@ 

I the Lawson Army Airl'ield's electrical when a deployment operation kicks off. person contingent from Fort Benning 

system. This airfield can support the i The choreography is remarkable and that proceeds to Jacksonville, Florida, 

largest military and commercial planes teamwork exceptional as all involved, , to operate the military seaport. DPW 

in existence. Keeping the electrical sys- I including the DPW, focus on the mis- missions include on-site contracting for 

tem (which powers all the navigational sion at hand. The DPW has its own housing and subsistence (to support the 

aids) in operating condition became a time-phased sequence of events, which port support activity contingent) and ! 

problematic undertaking, despite the includes activating established con- 1 acquiring and installing fencing needed 

best efforts of the airfield staff and 

DPW craftsmen. The solution? Another ASMP project that we put 

together in relatively short order. 

Srcpplies and Materials. Another 

facet of the DPW's power-projection 

mission is acquisition and maintenance 

of material to support deployment 

operations. The DPW maintains a large 

tracts for generators and portable toi- i to secure marshaling and holding areas 

lets, hooking up light sets at the 

ammunition supply point and staging 

area, and issuing tie-down material, 

, ply wood, and timbers. 

Short-Fused Tuskers. Like all staff 

chock blocks for use in rail move- ing hanger heaters that suddenly fail, 

stockpile of tie-down equipment and 1 under control by, for example, repairat the port. 

Fort Benning's DPW staff is an integral part of the post's power-projection 

mission. Working hand-in-hand with 

deploying units, the installation's many 

combat power on a moment's notice. 

elements on post, the DPW responds staff agencies, and various off-post 

quickly to each deploying unit's needs. organizations, the DPW helps ensure 

We do our part to keep "Murphy" that Fort Benning is ready to project 

ments. (This remains a mission even 

though the use of modern rail cars is 

steadily diminishing the need for such 

material.) The DPW also keeps a large 

inventory of plywood on hand. It is 

used to precludemetal-to-metal contact ' example, during Operation Just Cause trict. COL Buck is a graduate of the 

on pallets and to lay on airfield ramps in Panama, the directorate enlarged Army War College. 

replacing blown light bulbs, and pro- ; 

u 

viding experienced forklift operators to 1 Colonel Buck is the Director for 

load CONEXes on flatbed trailers. The 

DPW workforce also stands ready to 

tackle unique, short-fused taskers. For 

Public Works at Fort Benning, Georgia. 

Prior to assuming this position, he 

commanded the Detroit Engineer Dis- 
National Training Center Notes: "Using Obstacle Group overcome deficiencies/shortfalIs and to accomplish the 

Designs," (Engineec December 1996, page 52). mission or meet the standard. Platoon leaders and 

sergeants must be ready and able to not only "talk the 

Major Buning contends that the only key to successful talk" but ''walk the walk." The challenge is there: 

countermobility support at the task force level is to go Determine the weaknesses of EOBC and ANCOC and 

back to individual obstacle planning-what I used to call ensure that the program of instruction and doctrinal 

the "green measles sheet." Before we take a step back to manuals address the problem. Then review home station 

the Cold War General Defense Plan approach, we need to training requirements. More than likely, the platoon 

understand the impact and reasons for the lack of leaders and sergeants were not held to standard by the 

synchronization at the task force level. Major Buning engineer battalion and company commanders. Does the 

states: "...it is a lesser training challenge to make task force engineer get on the ground with the platoon 

lieutenants and platoon sergeants understand that they leaders as they coordinate the obstacle group with the 

must site obstacles and adjust a given design to the maneuver team commanders? Is it an Engineer Officer 

terrain than to generate the design itself." He has Advanced Course (EOAC) problem? Does EOAC provide 

successfully identified the problem: training. The solution, the necessary instruction for potential company 

however, is not to centralize and remove responsibility for commanders so they can answer the questions (above) 

obstacle group execution from the platoon leaders' and about obstacle theory? The Corps of Engineers must have 

sergeants' hands. the engineer platoons plan and execute obstacle groups 

We have come a long way with the echelons of obstacle in order to have a synchronized maneuver plan. 

planning, obstacle intents, planning factors, and individual Much like the lessons learned by our maneuver 

obstacle designs tied to lethality (probability of kill). The counterparts, drawing a goose egg and some target 

platoon leader and platoon sergeant must understand, in reference points (TRPs) on an overlay will not ensure the 

detail, obstacle groups. They must be trained. Critical for proper positioning and synchronization of weapon 

the platoon leader's success in supporting the combined systems. The maneuver team commander uses the 

arms team with countermobility is- graphics and task force commander's intent to properly 

Taking the obstacle intent (target, effect, and relative place his weapons systems. He focuses on the TRPs with 

location) and tying that to the direct- and indirect-fire the task force ~~mmander and S3. Adjustments/ 

movement of the actual battle position are the norm. Until 

Understanding the minefield density (lethality) and the weapons systems are placed turn, fix 

obstacle effects. and block), individual minefield planning is a waste of 

Understanding the theory behind the obstacle paper. The intent of the obstacle group symbol is to 

provide the flexibility needed for general top-down 

guidance and bottom-up detailed planning/execution. 

Ask a recent graduate Of the Engineer Officer Basic Obstacle resource factors are the planner's (the task force 

Course (EoBC) Or the Advanced Noncommissioned engineer's) tool to determine the necessary Class IVN 

Officer Course (ANCOC) why a fix or disrupt minefield is obstacle material requirements. 250 meters wide and why a block or turn minefield is 500 Major Buning has fingers on the pulse for recurring meters wide. Ask them how the resource planning factors engineer tactics, techniques, and procedures, and 

are derived or why certain minefields have irregular outer planning deficiencies. My concern is that we overreact to a 

edges. You probably will see a "deer-in-the-headlights" training deficiency and create a paper drill for the task 

look. Many combat engineers answer those force engineer. The task force engineer who plans questions or do not understand the basis of the theory. individual obstacles wastes his time and hinders his time 

This is unacceptable. If the problem is training, attack the management in getting with his platoon leaders and task 

problem' We do throw away procedures force S3 to ensure that obstacls groups are constructed to 

or the military decision-making process because soldiers standard and synchronized with direct- and indirect-fire 

cannot meet the standard. We do not institute company/ systems. team planning and execution requirements for the task Major Robert E. Wray, Jr. 

force commander because subordinate unit commanders Special Troops Batfalion 

cannot execute their assigned missions. We train to 

24 Engineer April I997 
Joint Readiness Training 

I Author's Reply 

Center (JRTC) 

' 

! 

' 

' 

The Engineer Platoon Sergeant 

By Sergeant First Class Bernard Westover 

the wake-up call this idea represents. All combat 

engineers must assess their unit's ability to effectively and 

efficiently employ their combat engineer platoons. 

Solutions ultimately are generated by platoons that are 

proficient in battle drills and by company commanders 

who drill their staffs to produce executable plans. 

1 did not propose absolving any leaders from training to 

the highest standard of combined arms obstacle 

integration. I did state that the obstacle group design 

offers an effective planning tool that focuses on the 

weakest link in platoon execution-company planning 

products. Platoon leaders must receive an executable 

order that is rich in details, no matter what the form or how 

much time is available to produce it, if there is to be any 

hope of emplacing a synchronized obstacle system prior 

to the ordered defend7ime. 

The bottom line is that doctrine drives our force 

structure. Engineer platoons are equipped and manned to 

be executors; that is our doctrine. There are no internal 

planning or significant logistical capabilities within the 

platoon; they must be provided by the company 

headquarters. Any effort the platoon directs toward 

planning and outside coordination to site obstacles to the 

terrain and the defender competes with the platoon's time 

and capability to emplace obstacles. Combat engineer 

leaders must establish a bedrock understanding of this 

concept in their organization. The level of their 

contribution to the combined arms team in preparing to 

fight the defense is directly proportional to the productivity 

of the engineer platoons. Commanders and their staffs 

maximize the -efficiency and effectiveness of their 

engineer platoons by keeping their energy and focus on 

the doctrinal role of executing the plan. 

Major Tom Buning 

I appreciate Major Wray taking the time to write. His 

comments represent a healthy desire to fix a critical 

problem. They provide an opportunity for me to clarify 

nits rotating to the JRTC often do not use the 

engineer platoon sergeant to his fullest 

potential. Frequently, the platoon sergeant stays 

in the tactical operations center during the attack and 

in the mine dump during defensive preparation. This 

poor use of personnel reflects the "old days," when the 

platoon sergeant just provided the "beans and bullets" 

as his unit went on the attack or the defense. 

once again what was not only my last article from the NTC 

but probably the most important one to date. My intent 

was not to cause an overreaction to an observed trend in 

training deficiencies in the tasks of company planning and 

platoon execution. Nor did I call for a return to the days of 

overpromising engineer capabilities fictitiously delivered in 

training, using textbook platoon planning factors and red 

and white engineer tape. I hope that this discussion 

causes all combat engineer leaders to review these 

articles (Engineer, CTC Notes, August and December 

1996) in detail and to use them as part of their unit 

professional-devebpment discussions. 

My proposal that engineers use the obstacle group 

design as a planning tool is based on a well-founded 

appreciation of the problem and its causes, as well as 

suggestions from the NTC combat engineer training team. 

Whether units adopt this proposal is not as important as 

April I997 

, 

! ' 

i 

i 

: 

! ' 

. 

Engineer 25 
On today's battlefield, the demands on leaders to 

provide purpose, direction, and motivation are greater 

than ever. The platoon sergeant is the keystone of the 

platoon. The most knowledgeable and experienced 

soldier in the unit, he must lead by example and 

shoulder more than his share of the headquarters' 

responsibility every day. The platoon sergeant is the 

link between the squad leader and the platoon leader. 

In the absence of the platoon leader, the platoon 

sergeant serves as the task force engineer (a staff 

officer) to plan and execute mobility, countermobility, 

and survivability missions anywhere in the world. Unit 

leaders must not overlook the tactical value and 

experience of a platoon sergeant when planning a 

mission or to assist the platoon leader when executing 

a mission. 

Today, subordinate leaders are selected for 

promotion earlier and have less experience in key 

leadership-developing positions like squad leader and 

team leader. The platoon sergeant must be decisively 

engaged in training battle drills and unit standing 

operating procedures (SOP). He coaches and mentors 

in garrison and provides that much-needed warrior 

spirit to junior leaders on simulated battlefields like 

those conducted at the combat training centers. 

Aggressive, take-charge leadership styles are not 

taught in the Noncommissioned Officer Education 

System schools and can only be instilled by a great role 

model-the noncommissioned officer (NCO). 

In light, airborne, and air assault units, the platoon 

sergeant must be prepared to assume the duties and 

responsibilities of the task force engineer at any time. 

He must be ready to plan the next fight and lead the 

platoon into combat. The job of a sergeant at any level 

goes beyond teaching soldiers how to fight and survive. 

NCOs must forge the warrior spirit in soldiers and 

motivate them to do the hard right over the easy wrong. 

This motivation is a missing ingredient in some 

leadership styles observed at the JRTC. 

Specific areas needing improvement and leader 

emphasis areWriting squad orders with specific tasks and a clear 

purpose. 

Adhering to troop-leading procedures. 

B Performing precombat inspections. 

Performing combined arms rehearsals. 

Providing security on mounted and dismounted 

movements. 

Executing missions effectively and in a timely manner. 

The presence of an experienced platoon sergeant 

will solidify a platoon when soldiers are faced with fear, 

chaos, deprivation, hunger, or fatigue. Units that can 

overcome these physical factors and have platoon 

sergeants who lead by example and apply the skills 

and knowledge learned in training will overcome any 

opponent or obstacle in combat. 

The platoon sergeant must train the platoon leader 

to be a task force engineer and train squad leaders to 

become platoon sergeants. During every rotation, 

platoon sergeants ask, "If we went on the attack, 

wouldn't I just micromanage the squad leaders?" The 

answer is a resounding "No!" At the JRTC, the platoon 

sergeant can clearly assess how subordinates react 

under stress. He is a link between the infantry 

company commander and the engineer squad leaders 

at the breach point. There he can control the breach 

forces and elements of SOSR (suppress, obscure, 

secure and reduce) while squads conduct the breach. 

When soldiers' lives are threatened, his experience is 

the greatest asset on the battlefield. He can make that 

split-second decision that means the difference 

between success and failure. 

At the objective, the platoon sergeant supervises the 

reorganization and redistribution of ammunition and 

equipment. He tracks the status of personnel, 

evacuates the wounded and killed, and reports those 

missing in action to higher headquarters. If necessary, 

the platoon sergeant also prepares for the 

countermobility effort to defend the objective. He 

quickly reorganizes the platoon to clear routes into the 

objective for resupply, casualty evacuation, and 

reinforcements. 

The engineer platoon sergeant has a unique job 

because the engineer field is diverse and demanding. 

He provides leadership to squad leaders and trains the 

platoon leader to effectively accomplish his mission. 

The platoon sergeant does not accompany every 

squad leader on every mission. His presence, 

however, is critical when the task force conducts a 

mission where the platoon is task organized with the 

main effort. His tactical and technical experience 

cannot be transmitted over the radio. When the platoon 

is in the heat of battle, conducting a breach or route 

clearance mission, the platoon sergeant must be on 

the ground to provide the direction and leadership 

needed to accomplish the mission. 

Sergeant First Class Westover served as an 

engineer platoon obsen~er/controller at the Joint 

Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana, from 

1994 through 1996. 

26 Engineer April 1997 
Change 1 to FM 5-21-2/3 

mall-goup instrucfors al Fort 

Leonard Wootl and ohscrvcr/ 

conrrollers at zl~e Narional Training Ccnrer hrtve identified n problem 

w~th tl~e I'ornlnl of cngincer uni~ operations ordcrs (OPORDs) In Appendix B 

of FM 5-71-2, Arnrnred %sk Force 

EI~R~IIPCJI. Con~hrrt Oprmtiotrs, and 

Appcndix D of FM 5-71-3, Hrignde 

Err~itlrrr Cotnhnr Opera~int~.~ 

(Artrtnrd}. The prnblem is that the current cngineer unit OPORD format does 

not allow engineer commanders to fully 

cxp2nin how [heir unit will accomplish 

its mission, rspecially in offensive 

opcr~ticlns in which the enginccr com- 

~nat~der is thc hreac h force commnndtr. 

Chmges. Tn correct lhi~ problem, 

change I to FM 5-71-213 will soon hc 

puhliqhcd. Thc changes includc: 

Moving the "Scheme or Engineer 

Opcrnlions (SOEO)" horn pnragraph 3 ro parnyraph 1 in hoth the 

en~ineer battalion and company 

OPORDs. Thu SOEO rocuses on 

what [he ersential mohilitylsurvivability tn~ks are and hrlw they 

suppnrt the Scheme ol' Mnncuver. 

Adding a "Concept of Operations'' subparagraph to paragraph 

3 in both the enyineer hntt a I' on 

and company OPORDs. This 

change will allow commanders to 

fully detail how their unit will 

accomplish its mission. At a minimum, this paragraph will clarify 

[he purpose of the mission. 

expand on rhe cornmande~'~ 

Current 

1. S~luetion 

2. Mbsslon 

3, Executron 

lnlenl E~r Annex to OPORD~ 

b Fnendly Forces 

e of Maneuver 

a Concept of Operation 

(7) Maneuver 

(2) F~res 

Maneuver Unit's OPORD 

I. Situation I 

1 S~tuation 

a Enpmy Forces I 

Future 

2. Mission 

3. Execlillon 

inten1 Annex to OPORD a Concepl 01 Operation 

[I) Maneuver 1. SituaTion 

b. Fnendly Forces 

2. Mjssion a Enemy Forces 

3 Execut~on b Frlendlg Forces 

a SQEQ I) Supported Unrt's. 

... (a) M~ss~on 

(b) Intent 

(c) Concepl of Opsralrons 

- Scheme ol Maneuver 

Explains how the unglneer effort 

supporte tha marnuerr COA. 2 M~ss~on 

3. Executron 

Explains how the englnasr unlZ 

will ntcompltah &a rnlaslon. 

intent, and describe Ihc commander's plan to maneuver his 

unit during the operation. The lormat of this nararrnnh will be 

April 1997 Et?.~ineer 27 

paragraph 3.a. of [he Engineer units through normal puhlica~ions disAnnex to the unit's tribution hy the end of Lhe year. 

t L. 

OPORD. and paragraph I.b.(c) of 1y 

much less restrictive than the the cngineer unit's OPORD. Cnptuin Rirchrneier is n doc-rrinc 

SOEO, allowing commnnders to Timeline. Change 1 to FM 5-7 I -2J writer ill fht* Directorntc of' 'Tminirlg 

Ihe to their 3 should hc completed :~nd postcd on and Doctrine, U.S. Army Engineer 

1 Publishing the same SOEO in he Inbrncr (Engineer Schonl home 

three documents: paragraph 3.a. page) by the end of April 1997. Paper 

Scllonl. He previorl.~ls spr~ed on ~JIP 

Siciewitlder 12 Eczm, National Trainof the supported unrr's OPORD, , copies of the chanpes should arrive in ing Cent~r; Fort Irwitz, C(~lifornin. 
WRa19s Mew in Fiela Forfiiicafions and Prateciive Siruclures 

RJ* GoJonel! Bruce K. Holvard 

ortifications have hccn an in~e~ral 1 

clcmcnt of defcnse thmu~houl thc Er c histclry of wari'arc. In thc past, 

huye structures were erected to deter 

uncrnies and protect the homeland. 

Thc Grcnt WaII of China and a multitude of castles t hroughnu t Europe ;Ire 

lnsting rnonumcnts ot this doctrine. As 

mics becatnc morc rnohilc, rnassive 

static defcnsivc fortifications hecnmc 

dinosaurs when "nlndcrn" nmics 

dcsln)ycd them in place or simply 

bypassed them. The ill-ratcd Maginnt 

Lint. is a ylaring examplc (IT his 

arct1;tic strategy. Buih hefore World 

War I1 ~o protect the castern hordcr of 

France, this defens~ve fortification was 

easily nutflanked by German invaders. 

The art of fortification has been 

ignorcd recent1 y, because tacticians 

~hought mobility and modern weapons 

1 -- 

Soldiers shovel sand into the first layer of a sand-grid revetment. Collapsed 

sections of sand grid are shown on the ground to the right. 

with doctrine to provide commanders I materinls. engineer units. Though initially develthe necessary, expedient tools to protect Computer pmgrams to assist cam- oped to pmvide sail stab11 ization on 

their personnel, equipment, and sup- 1 bat engineering decisions. benches. roads. and shallow river beds, 

would make static fortifications pass@. plies. While the soldier-intensive sand- 1 E Retrofitting structures to with- This thinking was reinforced by force 1 hap was the auple for expedience for stand the increasin~ty violent structure reductions and promises that 

many years. new materials and meh- ~hreat nf tcmnrism . technotagy would reduce the need for 

28 Engineer April 1997 

soldiers and, thus, hthcir protection. ods provide vastIy better protection WES provides research support, 

with significantly lcss manpower. Rcnli~y. however, tells a different story. products. and answers to our rnilrtiiry 

Weapons and their threat have One or the leaders in this renais- forces and other povemnlenl fipncIe5. 

increased both in effect and form- ' is Ihc U-s- Amy Engineer I Using both sca!e-model blast evenfs 

Waterways Experiment Station massive computing power of from precision-guided munitions to a 

hod~epodge of ltcrrorist wcapons. 

' 1. For almm 50 years, WES has two on-site supercomputers, WEs has 

Thnuph the definition al' static may 

1 conducfed blasr and weapons-effccts 1 rhc underrrandine of I tests, from small amjs to snme of the have hlnsl on structures to new changed (to days or wecks instead world's largest nonnuclear hias1 events. of ycars). tevels, T~~ fofrowing informalion pro- the requirement to ercct 

structures to protect our soldiers and The files some recentfy developed produc~ 

equipment is greater now than ever. 

WES the lead research and I and evolving ~echno1ogie.r that wilI 

ment l:ihoratory for survivability and enhance protec,ion rot soldters and 

Amy's mobilily pmtcct~ve structures under the Defense their allows soldiers and units tn cover much Reliance Plan. Much of the informa- larger areas of terrain. The need to protect these dispersed assets continues, tion in FM 5-103, Siinlvnhiliiy, came 1 

directly from WES research. Sand Grid 

yet the materials and methods "to pro- I 

More recently, WES research efforts 

[ecr on the mnve" have lagged behind have into new areas: and grid was the first of a series of 

orher military technologies. Research quick, effective construction rnateand development are now catching up lightweight construction 1 rials develo~ed find fielded to 
1 

Two soldiers expand a section of Concertainer. A double-stacked section is in the 

I 

foreground. 

it was quickly adapted to provide pro- many protective applications and has high, 3.2 feet wide, and 33 feet long. 

tection for personnel and equipment. I already been used to construct- The sections can be stacked two high 

Sand grids are made from high- . Protective positions for artillery. and spliced together to form walls of 

density polyethylene plastic strips welded various lengths. When empty, each sec1 Load-bearing walls for colnmand tion weighs 300 pounds. Two soldiers together to form honeycomb sections. A , post bunkers. 3-foot bv 20-foot ex~anded section of I can erect and prepare the wall sections 

g-id weighs 45 and has collapsed 1 . Protective barriers for ammuni- for filling with on-site materials. me 

dimensions of 4 inches deep, 8 inches tion supply points. I Concertainer protective systcm prowide, and 55 inches long. Notched grids 

allow stacked layers of grid material to i 

lock together and provide fill confine- 1 

ment for revetment construction. 

Sand-grid construction is an efficient and cost-effective method of problast and fra,mentation effects of conviding expedient protection from the i 

ventional weapons. Sand-grid revetments with soil fill provide protection 

from small-arms fire up to 50-caliber 

and from the blast and fragmentation of 

artillery and mortar rounds detonating 

as close as 5 feet. Evaluations using 

light antitank weapons and rocketpropelled grenades show that sand-grid 

revetments with crushed-rock fill provide adequate protection for light 

armored vehicles and structures. 

The life expectancy of sand-grid 

protective positions far exceeds those 1 

built with traditional sandbags. Sand- / 

grid revetments have stood up to two 

years, showing no effects other than 

settling of the fill material. When protection is no longer required, sand grids 

can be picked up, collapsed, and reused 

at another site. Sand-grid material has 

. 

I vides better protection with far fewer Revetments for petroleum, oils, 1 

and lubricants (POL) storage. assets than sandbags or other materials 1 and can be used at fuel points. helipads. Sand grid is available through normal artillery/mortar positio~s, and vehicle 

procurement procedures. The national , barriers. ne H~~~~ ~~~~i~~ cancerApril 1997 Engineer 29 

stock number is 5680-01-363-8724 R~~~~~~~ system, which is less 

sand grid for revetments). Or expensive than other expedient protec- order from the General Services Admin- I tive measures, has been exceptionally istration by specifying Presto Products successful in ~~~~i~

Part Number NGW3208 (notched wall units may order concertainel 

grid, in black, green, or tan). I through normal procurement procedures. National stock numbers vary 

Hesco Bastion Concertainer depending on the length, width, height, 1 and color of Concertainer needed. A British product called the Hesco 

Bastion Concertainer Revetment Multipurp~~e Protective Shelter 

& System is another expedient protective system that was recently evalu- 1 ven though the Army's mobility 

ated and fielded. "Concertainer" is a 

geocomposite construction material 

that, when expanded from its shipping 

configuration, forms a wall section of 

linked, self-supporting cells. These 

cells can be filled with earth or rubble 

to provide ballistic and blast protection 

from a variety of direct- and indirectfire munitions. 

and armaments continue to 

improve, our need to "dig in" 

remains. Deployments take us to areas 

, where the weather, terrain, and/or available materials make soldier protection 

difficult, tune consuming, and often 

inadequate. Instead of using layers of 

sandbags for protection, soldiers can 

use Multipurpose Protective Shelters. 

After expansion, the typical Concer- , They will help alleviate shortages of 

tainer wall section is about 4.5 feet I construction materials, save time and 
I *a-. 

The corrugated aluminurn pieces of the shelter fit together quickly. 

Simplified Survivability 

Assessment 

any methods of fortification 

enhance the soldier's protection, but how and when to use 

each method is more difficult to 

recognize. WES is developing a 

Windows-based Simplified Survivability Assessment software program 

to help engineers predict and prioritize the resources required for various 

levels of survivability. The assessment 

procedure will help determine the type 

of protection, the materials, and the 

construction manpower required; the 

resultant level of survivability provided; and the time needed to achieve 

that level. The software will produce 

construction drawings for representalive protective structures and a materials price list. 

The software also allows engineers 

to design roof support structures and 

determine the depth of soil needed to 

cover the structure, based on the threat 

weapon. The assessment procedure 

determines the best structure design to 

protect soldiers and equipment and 

shows how to upgrade a structure to 

accommodate increased threat levels. 

XVIII Airborne Corps units are field 

testing this software. Initial tests were 

very successful, and a prototype should 

be available through the Engineer 

School in late 1997. 

30 Engineer April 1997 

I Damaged Buildings 

A completed Multipurpose Protective Shelter. The sand-grid overlay provides 

additional protection and soil stabilization. T he Army's increased mobility 

resources, and provide vastly better ported to a new site. The fighting posi- 1 and maneuver speed allow solprotection than sandbags. 1 tion is reusable, interchangeable, and ~ diers little time to build field forThe shelters consist of individual provides protection from a variety of ; tifications, so they occupy 

pieces of corrugated aluminum that fit direct and indirect munitions. existing structures. Many of these 

together quickly. Layered with soil, they The Multipurpose Protective Shelter has I buildings are in as 

are safer and less susceptible to weather i been successfully evaluated by the 326th 

than a shelter made with sandbags. The Engineer Battalion and the 555th Engineer 

shelter package weighs 550 pounds Group. Specifications were sent to the 

without end walls and can be erected in Engineer School in FY96, and the inforrnasingle or multiple units. A single unit is tion will be incorporated into Army field 

approximately 13.3 feet long. 9.1 feet and technical manuals when they are 

wide, and 7.4 feet tall. When no longer updated Shelter components may be purrequired, it can be dismantled and trans- 1 chased as standard construction materials. 

during Operation Joint 

Often* it is to determine which are safe Or provide adequate protection. 

The Handbook$ 

a user-friendly* step-by-step guide for 

makng Wid building-safety assessments~ was developed address this 
"Engineers often are faced with the challenge of 

providing expedient protective measures." 

April 1997 

need. Using figures in the guide, com- I AT Planner is a Windows-based soft- be incorporated into the 

bat engineers can analyze key compo- 1 ware program that operates on a note- Commanders will use the AT 

Engineer 31 

nents of a structure to determine a rat- book computer. It draws on completed the correct level of 

ing for the building. Completed and ongoing research related to pro- protection needed to counteract any 

analyses allow engineers to rate a 

building as "Apparently Safe," "Limited Entry," or "Unsafe." This guide 

tecting fixed facilities from terrorist 

attack as well as research on field fortifications. 

enables engineers to focus their atten- 

! Conclusion 

The AT Planner will provide engition on required repairs or construc- neers a computerized analytic capability lthough the size and shape of 

tion, allowing the troops to prepare to evaluate critical assets in terrorist field fortifications have changed 

for the next operation in safe accom- , threat scenarios based on aggressors, considerably through history, the 

rnodations. I tactics, and weapons systems. The threat for protection today has increased 

The guide was originally a "quick I conditions dictate several security mea- as the lethality of the threat continues to 

rix" that provided minimal criteria for 

soldiers to evaluate damaged strucsures from FM 5-1 14, Engineer Opera- escalate. Engineers often are faced with 

riorlr Short of War; that engineers must i the of providing expedient 

tures and develop rough repair esti- consider and possibly employ. These protective measures, New materials and 

methods being developed will help 

engineers protect ourforces. These new 

materials and design tools will provide 

lnates. A Windows-based software measures are cumulative from the lowest 

program is being developed to assist 

in selecting and retrofitting existing 

to the highest threat level and are presented in a concise and user-friendly forbuildings. The latest prototype is mat. Emphasis is placed on evaluating better, more cost effective, and quicker 

scheduled for distribution to selected ' 

field units in FY98. 

Antiterrorism Planner 

bough our forces are more 

structures that can be classified as habit- , protective measures for our soldiers and 

able or as warehouses. Structural COmponents are defined for frames, walls, 

mobile, Inany support facilities 1 Program, with the user providing the For additional information on these 

remain static and are vulnerable 1 distance of the explosive charge from WES research and developassets worldwide. We must field and 

train with these improved products so 

to terrorist or long-range threats. 

These facilities must be protected 

so our support structure remains viaand roofs. Damage is calculated using our soldiers do not fill the ubiquitous 

algorithms from the Facility and Corn- sandbag in a "Maginot Line" of the 

ponent Explosive Damage Assessment 

the building. 

The system will facilitate the analysi~ of mission requirements and conment projects, check the Worldwide 

Web at http://www.wes.arrny.1ni1 or 

write to Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 

3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, 

Mississippi 39180-6199. u 

I Colonel Howard is commander of 

the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways 

Experiment Station. He is a graduate of 

the Command and General Staff Colble and the soldiers and civilians I strain& including the level of 

who work there are safe. WES is , protection required and the time and 

developing an Antiterrorism (AT) 1 resources available. Protective maPlanner to help engineer officers j sures will include vehicle barriers, 

plan and implement optimum protec- blast protection, and protection from 

tive measures. ' and 

The demand for military engineering to support antiterrorism rose dramatically as the Army was drawn into 

small-arms fire. 

Initial troop evaluations of the AT 

; Planner will begin in May 1997. It will 

a succession of operations other than 

war. In these situations, our soldiers 

are subject to attack by unfriendly 

be provided to the Engineer School for [ege and the Army War College and has 

distribution at the end of FY98. 

As new materials (such as highcivilian or paramilitary groups. The 1 strength concretes) are developed, their 

a master's degree in environmental 

engineering from the university of 

Florida, 
EOBC Gets a Ne 

By Lieutenant Colonel Ted A. Thomas 

32 Engineer April 1997 

Manellver 'ay, engineer lieutenant! I need your help in 

plete the same program of instruction 

(POI). With this new training, all gradupgrading some and building uating lieutenants soon will be able to 

some shelters. " 

, 

respond positively to their maneuver 

Engineer lieutenant; "Sir, Ifm a commanders' requests for assistance. 

conzbat engineer, not a construction The 554th Engineer Battalion and 

engineer. 1% not trained to do those ! the Engineer School have eliminated 

tasks. " / the two-week split in training focus 

I between lieutenants going to combat 

B eginning in May 1997, the Engi- heavy assignments and those going to 

neer Officer Basic Course combat battalions. Until now, both the 

(EOBC) will have some fairly construction track and the combat track 

significant changes. In line with the 

current One Corps, One Regiment, One 

Fight concept, the Engineer School 

will train all engineer lieutenants to be 

were two-week classes. Rather than 

, require all students to complete both 

tracks, which would extend EOBC 

from its current 17 weeks to 19 weeks, 

engineers, not "combat" or "construe- redundant training was eliminated and 

tion" engineers, and they will all com- ! some classes were shortened. 
"The Engineer School's goal is to produce the 

best-trained lieutenant it can in 17 weeks." 

ership, and Engineering will assume the 

role of maneuver commander. 

Task Force Engineer Practical 

Exercise (PE). This exercise was added 

to the curriculum because of JRTC 

comments. In 1989, the EOBC shifted 

its primary focus to the engineer 

restructure initiative (ERI), leaving out 

the light community. The new PE 

teaches the planning and coordination 

skills needed across the full spectrum of 

engineer assignments. Under the ERI 

concept, company executive officers 

are heavily involved in the task force 

engineer mission. The task force engineer PE consists of orders process 

instruction-going through the deliberate decision-making process, developing and evaluating courses of action, 

and participating in wargalning and 

synchronizing the engineer effort in 

combined arms operations. This 

instruction will benefit all lieutenants, 

regardless of their assignment, but it 

will be especially valuable for those 

going to light divisions. 

Combat Engineering and Tactics 

Training. Module sequencing will 

allow a seamless transition from combat engineer training to tactics training. 

Currently, these subjects are taught as 

independent, stand-alone blocks of 

instruction. In the revised EOBC, they 

will be introduced in a logical 

sequence. For example, when instructors teach the fundamentals of land 

mines (such as the M21 antitank mine), 

they will describe how mines are armed 

and used in a minefield; then they will 

explain why and how minefields are 

used in tactical operations. 

Project Hammer. This exercise will 

focus on platoon leader responsibilities 

rather than performing carpentry, 

plumbing, and wiring projects. Lieutenants will learn about blueprints, bills of 

Major Changes 

omments and after-action 

reviews from the field and the 

combat training centers resulted 

April 1997 Engineer 33 

year. Currently, the course is taught in 

modules because there are normally 

two or three platoons in each class iteration but not enough instructors to 

teach all of the platoons the same subin many of the following changes to the ject concurrently. Since each platoon 

EOBC: has a different sequence of instruction, 

the modules are independent packages . Increased leadership training from and do not rely on previously tauqht 6 to 24 hours L 

material. To remedy this problem, there 

. Added a terrain visualization/ ' will be nine platoon-sired EOBC 

obstacle integration training exercise without troops (TEWT) (8 

hours) 

. Added a task force engineer practical exercise (8 hours) 

. Added offensive and defensive 

tactical reconnaissance classes (4 

hours) 

. Added force-protection construction training (2 hours) 

. Added military operations in urban 

terrain training (3 hours) 

w Integrated tactics and combat engineering training (5+ weeks) 

I classes per year, each consisting of 

about 60 soldiers. This schedule allows 

the course to follow a logical sequence 

and build on prior knowledge, facilitating better learning. 

The nine classes per year support 

the schedule projected for the Maneuver Support Center. The Military Police 

and Chemical Schools have seven 

classes per year in their basic courses. 

Seven of the EOBC classes will align 

with theirs, allowing the three schools 

to share training during inprocessing 

and soldierization, as well as the common core instruction. The EOBC field 

training exercise will move to the 12th 

. Converted the Project Hammer ! and 13th weeks of the course to coinexercise from a 3-day construc- : cide with the other schools' field traintion project to a 2-day project- : ing exercises. 

inspection exercise Terrain Visualization/Obstacle 

. Reduced geotechnical training integration TEWT The Joint Readifrom 26 to 18 hours 1 ness Training Center (JRTC) and the 

I National Training Center (NTC) noted 

exams* saving 1 that obstacles usually are not employed hours 

. Eliminated the medium girder 

bridge and ribbon raft construction 

project 

Changed the Army Physical Fitness Tests from weekdays to Saturdays 

Training Sequence. In the revised 

EOBC, each platoon will have the 

same training sequence throughout the 

or sited properly within the commander's intent. The new TEWT 

requires lieutenants to build an engagement area by envisioning it from the 

enemy side, noting its intervisibility 

lines, the types of obstacles to emplace and where to emplace 

them, and coordinating these activities 

with a maneuver commander. A 

maneuver officer from the Engineer 

School's Department of Tactics, Lead- 
material, material takeoff Sists. and 

quality assurance and inspection procedures. When engineers from light units 

deploy to undeveloped countncs such 

as Somalia and Haiti, thy are often 

among the first soldiers on the ground. 

They need engineer construction skills 

to build base camps, provide waste disposal, upgrade or build main supply 

routes, and perform many other 

engineer-related tasks. To fill that need, 

all cn~inecrs wilI receive !he mining 

required to perform their missions during operations other than war. 

he Enginecr School3 goal is to 

produce the best-trained lieutenant it can in I7 weeks. Although 

tIiese young officers cannot hecome 

experts in a11 the suhjects taught a! the 

school, they will receive a hroad range 

of training opportunities and expericncc. This will be a tremendous advantage when they arrive at a unit. 

Lieutenants leave the hasic course 

excited about being an Army officer 

and eagerly look forward to leading n 

plaroon and serving their couny. It 

thcn becomes the unit's respc~nsihility 

ro sharpen heir warfight~ng and leadership skills. These young nff'iccrs nrc 

rl~e future leaders nf the Engineer 

Corps. SolcI~ers are our crcdcntials, hut 

our junior lenders arc our legacy. 

Lil 

Lirrttet~tuzr ColorleI T~IOIIICIS is COMmarider; -5.74fh Engineer Botfrrlinti, Fort 

L~otiard Wood Missouri. Prrvinrts 

asrignment.~ i~tcturl~ Comn~nnd~r: W. S. 

Amy Renditless Gmrrp, Fort Leonard 

Wood, M~SSOII~~; and Ex~crrri~u OfJcer 

urtrl 53, 307fh Engine~r Bnrtnjion, 192d 

A irl~orrre Division, Fort B~QRR, Norrh 

Carolina. LTC Thotnns is o ~rncilwte of 

I~P lnfrrtrt~ OfJicer Adrpnnred Cours~: 

tlie Airborne, Rangel: and Jrrmpmn.rier 

ScRools: ancl the Command nnd Gcnera l Sfojf Coll~gt.. He ho/{ls n master 2 

tlegw~ in civil engineering from the 

U~;iver.~it~ of ?Ifinnis. 

,cr Rntfal 

r the Pers 

(Personal Viewpoint, continued fiom structure of an engineer brigade and 

page 12). three battalions remains sound, heavy 

obskicles that will allow him to disen- division engineer battalions still need 

gage when he chooses. Wide dispersion major internal changes to meet tfie rigwill negate the already difficult concept orous requirements of both tday's and 

of shifting engineer units across task tomorrow's bbattlefields. Clearly, we 

forces to support multiple operations. must resource key staff officers such as 

At the same time, maneuver units the 32, signal officer, and maintenance 

will bc faced with an increasingly officer; restructure the maintenance 

complex array of countennobillty section to provide company-oriented 

threats. Among these are thc use of contact teams; and prov~de a despermines and other obstacles in great ately needed organic medical evacuanumber, plus better use of the terrain's rion and treatment capability. 

natural counternobility effects. to 

asymmetrically combat American Focus on Success superiority in speed and firepower. 

Land mines are a cheap, deadly, and T he 259th Engineer Battalion in 

almost-insurmountnble threat to rhe the 4th Infantry Division's 

mobility of U.S. forces. The problem experimental force has worked 

will get worse as more countries diligently improve the bzltralionos 

acquire 3. dynamic ~bsta~l~-em~'~~bng capability by using recent lessons 

capability using systems equivalent learned and future wadi ghknz conto Our and and cepts. The differing approaches txken 

heticopter-delivered scatterable mines. by and [he 4th ~~f~~~ ~i~iThe lesson of Desert be sin, are extraordinary: One whittled 

very clear to our enemies: The Ameri- at an old stmclure to a,+ve at a 

can cannot be "lowed '0 ftee'~ predefemind manpower cap, while 

maneuver its armored forces. the other focused on warfighting and 

Even 'the nature of the threat will ~mprovedcapa~i~,ties, 

pose an increasingly difficult problem. Deletion of an en~neer battalion 

me I-IIountains of Bosnia and Iran, fie from division strucbure does indeed 

fi~efieldsofKorea,theJuneIesofAfrica savepyonnel spaces,butitcreatesn 

and American and poor warfightingdesign. I! repeats miseverywhere are more chal'eng- takes of he past. It fails 10 capitalize on 

ing Our he norh Gcr- lessons lemed, recent innovations, and 

man plain or the Iraqt southern desert. battle-proven stmctures. It fails to 

Despire 2u10's address the challenges of the future. It 

that the Army is the service of choice to force desisl For the 

ensure ful I-spectrum dominance, divi- division of he 2 st century. 

1 

sions become less capable of full- n, needs to =inforce, not 

s~ctmm 'pendons with the loss of an destroy, the successes of tdayts hemy engineer battalion. Combat engineer djvision brigade. 

battalions often are the unit of choice in 

oprarions other than war, They deploy Sierrtenanf Colonel Bruce J. Poner 

as mechanized infantq when Bradleys is a srurfent at the Army War Cnlle~e. 

are inappropriate, as firefighters, and as He is N grndrrate of the U.S. Military 

relief for all kinds of disasters. In all Academy and ho/& masfer of science 

operations (garrison, combat, and opes- degrees from Stanford Universiv in 

ations other than war) TRADOC's civiI engineering and computer sciDivision XXI design will result in a ence. He comrrrnnded rhe 20th Engihuge increase in operational tempo neer Battaliotl, 1st CavaIry Division, 

and personnel ternpa for the two engi- and sewed as operation$ oflcer for the 

oeer battalions. 'ion, 24th Infantry 

While the basic organizalic ian Gulfwar: 
hi'NI~Fl[ED ENDEAVOR 97-1 

JOINT TASK FORCE STAFF 

ENGINEERS 

BJ* Ctlptnit~ Coh~it~ HL~,~P~I~III 

T Ire leacler of n fi>~ei,y~l cuttrlrn. htrs cihr~~cprl~ IrJ 017i(.r, 

r IP<II~!I,~ i~~sfnl~il~~,~ ir1 IJIP rcfii~lt. Tlw U.S. q~11~i~rtitr1ctt~ i.~ 

iJcnm rr~iur~srrtl itr n~nirrr~rirliri~ pmr*c ir~ (~~.der ro prnrcr.~ 

I Y, pr~~.\*ottr~cl and pm1wr.rv. Irt rcsllntrsc. .Ir~it~t E~rk Force 

(JTI;) 780 iv ,[n~/rlr<~I S,lr "Operrrtio~~ Cr~frfierl Enrlcc;~.nr- Y7- S. " 

Tltr r~~i.vsi(~rt is m (It-rcr mt: ~f c1~1er.r~rrcc ,lrrils4 crrfc~rrrc~ pence In 

prniccr II. S. mtercsrs 

This scc~~nrio-drivcn computer simulaliun is pcrformcd at 

U.S. i2llnrltic Cnrn~nand's (1-JSACOM's) Joint Training, Annly51s. and Silr~~llation Cc11tc.r (JTASC) in SuCiulk, Virgirlia The 

JTASC oflcrr: n utiiq~le technical infrastructure hr cor~ducting 

realistic joil~t task Corce exercises. FL 1135 2 full array tol'litgh-tccll 

reqourccs, incluclinp slate-01-ll~c-art computers, laree rliuplay 

screens, secitre 1cIephones. and ;ludiov~~ual and ~n~eractive 

vdeo ~~IeconCcrcnc~ny sy stcnls for usc inlemnlly and cxtcrnally . 

The scrics of Unihcd Endcnvnr cxcrciscs was developed in 

10~>_5 ro train potential JTF commanders and their staff? tn 

respond rrr crises in n realistic joint environnlen~ using 

cotnp~~ter-drrven ~inrurntion. The cost per exercise is about 53 

million-suh.;tnntinlly less than the approximately 140 rnillicm it 

ct~t.; tn c~rnduct n large-scaIe. multisewice field exercise. 

XY Ill A~rhorne Corpq w;is the JTF headqunrters for Unihctl 

Endeavor 97-1. The exercise was conductt.d in three ceqlrentinl 

pllavts over 3 threc-munth vnod from September Decrmkr 

199h. 

Phase I involved nne week of clns~mom inslr~lction. Stilff 

and general ofiiccrs gained an ncndernic foundation in joint doczrine. ~acticr. tcchntque';. and proccdurcs. The seminar emptiitsizetl joint Icssnnq learned and current and emerying is~ues in 

joint operation<. 

Phase I1 was a 2-wcck crisis action planning session invc~luing more than 300 pesonncl from joint plannin~ sections. After 

April 1997 k;,~,qine~r 35 

4 

, 

1 

;n 

54 

: 

7 - 

C 

)I 

1 

- The Joint Tralnlng, 

Analysis, and Simulation 

Center (JTASC) located 

in Suffolk, Virginia, is 

LISACOM's automated 

JTF training center. 
receiving the scenario and the operations order from USACOM, 

the JTF staff began the deliberate decision-making process. The 

staff then presented the JTF Operations Order and a finalized 

Time-Phased Force Deployment Database (TPFDD) that shows 

the timing and movement of military forces into the area of 

operation. 

Phase In is Unified Endeavor's execution phase. The JTF 

implements the operations order in response to scenario events 

generated via advanced computer simulation models. Leaders 

and staff respond to changing circumstances that place the 

events in all ranges of the operational continuum-peacetime, 

conflict, and war. For this exercise, success meant toAvoid going "kinetic," the term used for full combat 

operations. 

W Develop "triggers," which are certain enemy actions or 

events that tell the commander a pre-emptive strike is 

necessary. 

The early focus on operations other than war and deterrence 

missions adds credibility and legitimacy to the exercise. A full 

range of political and diplomatic decisions influenced military 

decisions throughout the operation. Information warfare is a key 

focus during Unified Endeavor exercises, and participants take 

media and world opinion into account. For instance, frequent 

press conferences are held and televised throughout JTASC. 

Anyone caught walking in the hallway may be asked by simulated reporters for an interview. Later that evening, the interview 

is broadcast on the Unified Endeavor News Network, a simulated news program. 

Today's military actions are most likely to be contingency 

operations, whether they are combat operations or operations 

other than war. JTF doctrine is still evolving, and engineers must 

be part of this evolutionary process to ensure that they are postured to provide unity of effort and mission accomplishment for 

future contingencies. 

The XVIII Airborne Corps Staff Engineer Section and personnel from other services manned the joint engineer cell during the 

exercise. The following considerations, compiled by the cell and 

the USACOM engineer observer/trainer, should improve efficiency for future joint engineer cell operations. 

Joint Engineer Cell Component 

u nderstanding how other component engineers function 

and their mission and equipment is important for a 

smooth-functioning organization. The Navy, Marine 

Corps, Air Force, and Army engineer units have specific skills 

that-once understood by the JTF engineer and his staff--can 

be used to their fullest potential. This is especially critical during 

Phase 11, when the Joint Planning Group is developing courses 

of action. Each course-of-action planning group should include 

an engineer who is familiar with the capabilities of each 

service. 

NAVFOR. Navy engineer support consists of one naval 

mobile construction battalion (NMCB) with 726 personnel. The 

NMCB can quickly deploy to force-projection theater locations to 

construct and improve naval facilities. The NMCB's main mission 

is to provide responsive military construction support, conduct 

battle damage repair operations (including rapid runway repair), 

and construct base facilities. Other missions include constructing 

rotary-wing airfields; airfield support structures; petroleum, oil, 

and lubricant systems; ammunition supply points; and lines of 

communications. 

The NMCB can provide an air detachment that deploys by 

strategic airlift within 48 hours. The air detachment, a lead element of the NMCB, is composed of 91 personnel. The detachment repairs immediate war damage and constructs projects 

urgently required by major operational plans. For many construction missions, only an air detachment needs to deploy. 

MARFOR. Marine air ground task forces (MAGTF) are 

integrated combined arms forces structured to accomplish specific missions. The Marine expeditionary force (MEF) is the 

principal Marine Corps warfighting organization. It ranges in 

size from less than one to multiple divisions and aircraft wings, 

together with one or more force service support groups. An MEF 

is self-sustainable for up to 60 days but may be deployed longer 

with external support. 

The Marine engineer mission is based on the way the Marine 

Corps fights-as a task-organized MAGTF consisting of four 

elements. Each element has organic engineers, who provide 

mobility, countermobility, survivability, and general engineering 

support. 

Command element (CE) engineers serve as special staff 

officers to the MAGTF commander. They are responsible for 

coordination between the subordinate element engineer units 

and external elements. 

Ground combat elements (GCE) range in size from a battalion to one or more divisions. Marine engineers and their 

assets in the GCE are sourced from the combat engineer battalion (CEB) organic to the Marine division. Division engineers 

primarily exist to support the maneuver of the GCE. Their missions include engineer reconnaissance, assault breaching, bridging, and demolition. They also provide limited general 

engineering support to the division. 

Aviation combat elements (ACE) vary in size from one aircraft squadron to one or more wings. Engineer assets organic to 

the ACE are in the engineer operations divisions, which are 

located in four Marine wing support squadron (MWSS) units of 

the Marine wing support group (MWSG). Wing engineer missions include constructing, maintaining, and improving expeditionary roads, base camps, drainage systems, and vertical and 

short takeoff and landing sites. They also assess bomb damage 

and provide rapid runway repair. 

Combat service support elements (CSSE) draw engineers 

from the engineer support battalion (ESB) organic to the force 

service support groups. The ESB provides expeditionary general 

engineering support and engineer combat service support for the 

entire MAGTF. An ESB consists of a bulk fuel company, a headquarters and service company, an engineer support company, a 

bridge company, and three engineer line companies. 

AFFOR. Air Force engineers are organized into three basic 

types of units: 

RED HORSE (rapid engineer deloyable heavy operational 

repair squadron) squadrons are mobile, self-sufficient, and 

36 Engineer April 1997 
organized by regional responsibility. They can construct facilities for major force bed down, repair extensive damage, develop 

bases, and perform heavy engineering operations. RED HORSE 

squadrons are the lead joint engineer resource for force projection. Their missions are solely wartime related. RED HORSE 

squadrons form three types of deployment echelons. 

RH-I Echelon. This 16-person team deploys within 12 hours 

and prepares for the reception of follow-on RED HORSE elements. The team performs advance airfield surveys, including 

evaluations and assessments of airfield pavement, water supplies, utility systems, and existing facilities. It prepares a beddown plan for establishing a force-projection base and compiles 

a list of materials required to accomplish the plan. 

RH-2 Echelon. This 93-person element can deploy within 

48 hours with heavy equipment capable of clearing land, stabilizing sites, performing drainage earthwork, and erecting structures essential for force bed down. This element also can 

perform rapid runway repair and repair bomb-damaged facilities and systems. It provides initial civil-engineering support, 

including well drilling. 

RH-3 Echelon. This 295-person element can deploy within 

6 days. It can repair heavily bombed areas and construct facilities, including expanding essential utility systems, power generation systems, heavy earthwork, and concrete operations. 

Prime BEEF (base engineer emergency force) units are 

organized as combat support squadrons and teams. They are 

assigned to all major Air Force bases to provide peacetime 

civil-engineering and maintenance support. A large-scale 

Prime BEEF combat support squadron can be organized into 

eight types of combat support squadrons to support theater 

requirements. These squadrons can fully support AM-2 matting and concrete-slab rapid runway repair operations. Small 

specialty teams can be organized into nine teams of 3 to 48 

personnel, with varying compositions to fit the mission. Skills 

in a specialty team range from fire fighting to construction 

management or whatever staff augmentation is necessary to fill 

known requirements. 

Prime RIBS (readiness in base support) units provide combat morale, welfare, and recreation support. 

AKFOR. The Army engineer organization may consist of 

several different packages to support the JTF commander. 

Engineer combat battalions perform mobility, countermobility, 

'and survivability missions. Each battalion is structured to support a specific Army division and is organized as either light, air 

assault, airborne, or mechanized to support that division. Divisional engineers have limited construction ability. 

The following units are most likely to be used for contingency engineer operations: 

Engineer combat battalions, corps are organized as either 

airborne, light, wheeled, or mechanized units. The units perform horizontal, vertical, and combat engineering missions. 

They are designed to augment division assets and support 

corps rear operations. 

Engineer combat battalions, heavy construct and maintain 

facilities and lines of communication and assist in preparing 

protective positions. Tasks include constructing and repairing 

airfields, command posts, main supply routes, and critical 

facilities. 

Engineer battalions, prime power provide electrical power. 

They have two teams: power plant teams operate electrical 

generators, and power line teams construct and maintain up to 

60 miles of high-voltage electrical power lines. 

Engineer companies (combat support equipment) perform 

horizontal construction and sustainment engineering. They are 

self-supporting and include maintenance, mess, and administrative sections. 

Engineer companies (assault float bridge) (ribbon) construct floating bridges up to 210 meters long for crossing traffic up to military load class (MLC) 70. For gaps longer than 

210 meters, they conduct rafting operations to reduce the load 

capacity to MLC 60 traffic. 

Engineer port construction companies develop and maintain port facilities. They construct and maintain piers, wharves, 

ramps, and related structures required for loading and offloading cargo. 

Engineer companies (topographic) conduct topographic 

and geodetic surveys and terrain analysis and reproduce maps. 

In a JTF operation, one or more companies may support the 

JTF headquarters to provide terrain analysis products and tactical decision aids. 

ARFOR engineers may also provide salvage diving, welldrilling, surveying, and fire-fighting teams to the JTF. 

Organization 

joint task force engineer cell includes officers and noncommissioned officers from each of the services 

involved. The cell organized for Unified Endeavor 97-1 

was located under the 53 (Figure 1, page 38). The organization is 

tailored to fit the mission and meet the commander's intent. 

Traditionally, the engineer cell was located under the 54. 

This alignment may be effective in JTF operations requiring 

primarily civil engineering skills. When engineers are needed 

to conduct combat operations, it is more practical for the engineer staff element to fall under the 53. 

Ideally, the engineer cell should be established as a separate 

staff element. Joint engineer operations are intertwined 

throughout the joint operational area and range from repair of 

critical facilities to combat operations. Also, engineers are networked to several sections of the JTF staff. They are part of the 

J5 planning group, 53 operations, 52 terrain analysis (including 

battlefield visualization), and 54 infrastructure repair and 

development (Figure 2, page 38). 

The Joint Operations Cell (JOC) is the heart of the JTF 

staff. The JOC in JTASC is located in a movie-theater-sized 

room with three large screens in front and networked computers on every desk. All situational updates and operational decisions flow to the JOC, which includes operations and liaison 

officers from all sections and services of the staff and the components. The engineer operations officer, also located in the 

JOC, passes information to the engineer cell so timely decisions can be made. Having an engineer liaison officer in the 

JOC is not part of current doctrine; however, it benefits joint 

engineer cell operations. 

April 1997 Engineer 37 
. . UE 97-1 Organization 

JTF Commander 

I 

I 

Joint --------- Engineer 

Cell I 

- I I I I 

Figure 1 

- 

Joint Engineer Cell 

UE 97-1 

I I I 

Logisl tics C 

Figure 2 

Explosive ordnance disposal @OD) is not an engineer mission in the Army, although it is in the Air Force and the Marine 

Corps. During Unified Endeavor 97-1, the joint engineer cell 

was responsible for writing the EOD annex for the JTF operations order. No EOD section was created within the joint engineer cell, but EOD issues were handled throughout the 

engineer staff. In the future, EOD should have a staff section 

located in the 54 with representatives from each service. The 

alternative is to leave EOD as an engineer mission and add 

EOD personnel to the engineer manning roster. 

The engineer cell topographic section provides many products for the JTF staff. One topographic team cannot provide all 

the products requested, so a minimum of two teams should 

deploy-one located with 52 Intelligence and the other in the 

joint engineer cell. The Marine Corps terrain teams are experts 

in beach topography and are required if a beach assault is part 

of the plan. The team has additional terrain data that can 

be cross-referenced with Army data to augment the picture of 

the operational area. Due to budget reductions, the Marine terrain team did not participate in Unified Endeavor 97-1. 

Engineering Boards 

T he joint engineer cell is responsible for coordinating 

three boards: 

The Joint Civil-Military Engineering Board provides 

oversight by establishing policies, procedures, priorities, 

and overall direction for civil-military construction and 

engineer requirements. 

W The Joint Facilities Utilization Board manages facility 

requirements. It evaluates and reconciles use of facilities, real estate, intersemice support, and construction. 

The Joint Environmental Management Board establishes 

policies, procedures, priorities, and direction for environmental management. It includes personnel from joint 

staff, components, engineer units, host nation representatives (if applicable), other government agencies, and 

contractors. 

It is important to decide early who will attend these boards 

and the meeting time and place. For the Unified Endeavor 

exercise series, consider holding one or more of these boards 

during Phase 11. Phase I11 is very fast-paced, and it becomes 

increasingly difficult to gather the necessary personnel to 

attend. Consider holding more than one board simultaneously, because many of the attendees are on several engineer boards. 

38 Engineer April 1997 
Automation is a powerful program used to access this information. The 

he JTASC is a unique building, with outstanding automation and communication platforms. The primary 

means of communication within the JTASC is e-mail 

and newsgroups. For example, once a fragmentary order is 

approved, it is placed in a newsgroup file. Anyone in JTASC 

can access the file, read it, and then store the information on 

their computer's hard drive. This streamlined system almost 

eliminates paper copies for distribution, saving time and supplies. However, considerable time was spent learning how the 

information flows and how to capture and catalog it for future 

use. 

The software package used for Unified Endeavor 97-1 was 

Netscape Navigator for newsgroups and Eudora Pro for 

e-mail. Newsgroups became a cyberspace dumping ground of 

information, with hundreds of files. An operator worked fulltime to read newsgroups, decipher what was relevant to the 

engineer cell, then e-mail the information to the appropriate 

staff members. 

The preferred communications system used the "push-pull 

method." In theory, if someone created a document that was 

important for another cell, we "pushed" it to them via e-mail. 

That same document was also posted on newsgroups. If 

another cell wanted the document, they "pulled" it from the 

newsgroup engineer file. Not everyone used the push-pull 

method. Some important information was placed in newsgroups, and it was up to the cell to locate it. As a result, much 

information was not read. Everyone on the engineer staff 

should be experienced with computers and the software used 

during the exercise. 

Global Command and Control System 

he Global Command and Control System (GCCS) is a 

powerful new system that replaces the Worldwide 

Command and Control System. GCCS uses a secured 

Internet connection to provide a user-driven, widely distributed view of military operations. All government and military 

agencies can use this system to transfer and store secret data 

worldwide in a near real-time environment. The Secret Internet 

Protocol Router Network provides connectivity between 

GCCS sites. 

Seven GCCS terminals located in the JOC were used to 

access information onW Enemy weapons systems. 

w Enemy engineer equipment (with photographs). 

World weather satellite photographs. 

W Current positions of friendly military units. 

w Location of airports and landing strips worldwide. 

W Intelligence updates from national assets. 

GCCS includes a Netscape browser with limited interactivity to the Worldwide Web. Within the GCCS environment, 

each command center has its own home page with links to 

other command centers and other vital information. Netscape 

GCCS version of Netscape is similar to the civilian version, 

making this system relatively user friendly. 

The GCCS contains the Joint Engineer Planning and 

Execution System (JEPES). This planning tool helps the commander in chief and the service components determine the 

civil engineering support requirements and document their 

civil engineering support plan. The JEPES program extracts 

unit and personnel data from the TPFDD and factors in facility 

planning data. Then it subtracts existing facilities and computes the total facility requirements. JEPES also generates 

reports and graphics to illustrate requirements and provides 

data for Logistics Sustainability Analysis and the Logistics 

Sustainment Analysis and Feasibility Estimator System. 

USACOM conducted a one-week GCCS user's course 

prior to Phase I1 of Unified Endeavor. GCCS provides a unified and fused picture of the battlespace, bringing joint command and control support capability into the 21st century. 

The full value of GCCS will not be known until the system is 

distributed and its capabilities are incorporated into all stafflevel operations. 

Compatibility 

S ubordinate components and the JTF staff must use compatible software systems. Presently, I1 MEF uses Lotus, 

not Microsoft Office, which makes it difficult to send 

and receive charts and graphs across the JTF. 

Subordinate engineer elements among the components sent 

different types of situation reports (SITREPs). As a result, 

much time was spent translating information. A standard JTF 

engineer report should be developed early and distributed to 

each of the components. The joint staff 54 is developing a publication for engineers that addresses this issue. In the interim, 

USACOM engineers have written a standard SITREP, which 

will be added to the Joint Task Force Standing Operating Procedures. 

Conclusion 

nified Endeavor provides a unique training medium. It 

places engineers from all services into a JTF configuration and teaches them how to conduct joint operations 

using a real-world mission on real terrain. Engineers use this 

experience to organize, deploy, and employ Navy, Marine, Air 

Force, and Army engineer forces during overseas crises. Doctrine and technology continue to evolve, forcing engineers to 

rethink how to conduct joint operations. USACOM allowed us 

to test doctrine by providing the most advanced training facility 

available and then assisting engineers with supportive persomel. 

USACOM is striving to improve efficiency and productivity for 

future joint task force contingency operations. Unified Endeavor 

is an excellent vehicle to accomplish this mission. u 

Captain Hegeman is currently assigned to the XVIII Airborne Corps Staff Engineer Section, 20th Engineer Brigade, 

Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He was Chief of Engineer Operations during Unified Endeavor 97-1. 

April 1997 Engineer 39 
ENGINEER UPDATE 

Commercial numbers are (573) 563-xxxx 

and Defense System Network (DSN) numbers 

are 676-xmx unless otherwise noted. 

Department of 

Development ( 

Training 

:DOTD) 

and Doctrine Engineer Publication. We request your input supporting continued 

publication of Engineer. Due to budget reductions, Engineer may be 

forced to reduce the number of paper copies published and rely more 

on electronic distribution. Send comments to: Commandant, U.S. 

Army Engineer School, ATTN: ATSE-TD-D-EB, Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri 65473-6650. Our e-mail address is: eubanksc@woodvines.army.mil. POC is Cathy Eubanks, -41 04. 

Engineer Personnel Proponency 

Office (EPPO) 

Engineer Unit Directory. Paper copies of the Engineer Unit Directory 

will not be printed this year. Instead, the directory has been posted on 

the Worldwide Web at the following file location: www.wood.army.mill 

DDD/ddd.htm. Units not having access to the Internet may request a 

disc or e-mail copy of the directory. POC is Nancy Baker, -41 00. 

Changes in NCO Structure (CINCOS). The Vice Chief of Staff 

initiative to reduce NCO content Armywide from 50 percent to 47 

percent has been staffed through the Engineer School and the 

commandant. The engineer CINCOS proposal forwarded to TRADOC 

on 15 February 1997 focused on tables of distribution and allowances 

authorizations and has minor impact on the warfighters. Career 

Management Field (CMF) 12 has a current NCO strength of 44.1 

percent, and our proposal reduces that number to 43.6 percent. CMF 

51 may improve slightly from 43.2 to 43.5 percent. Our proposal for 

CMF 81 reduces the NCO content from 48 to 46.4 percent All 

proposed changes are in positions where redundancy exists. The 

proposal will not reduce advancement opportunities. POC is SGM 

John Murphy, -4087. 

Call for Divers. Are you tired of exploring only one-third of the earth's 

surface? Are you looking for a physical and mental challenge? If so, 

the Army needs highly motivated and fully qualified men and women to 

fill diver (MOS OOB) slots. Soldiers in any MOS may submit 

applications in accordance with Army Regulations 611-75 and 611- 

201. If accepted, they will train for three weeks at the prequalification 

course, Fort Eustis, Virginia, and for 20 weeks at the Second Class 

Dive School, Panama City, Florida. 

Dive training and subsequent duty as a diver present a unique 

opportunity for motivated soldiers to become members of an elite, 

mobile organization. Once accepted, candidates will learn underwater 

fundamentals and have an opportunity to advance as far as their skills 

and desire will take them. For more information, see your local 

PSNCO or Retention NCO, or call MSG Parrett, DSN 676-7311. The 

e-mail address is parrettkBwood-vines.Army.mil. POC is MSG Parrett, 

-4087. 

40 Engineer April 1997 
- L BRIDGE If=- THE GAP 'I . By Command Sergeant Major Julius B. Nutter 

U.S. Army Engineer School 

Keys to Retention Success 

s the Army works to sustain its 495,000 endstrength force, keeping quality people should be 

our number one priority. "Performance" was the 

magic word when selecting quality people for retention. 

Now we must keep our best professionals-those who 

are competent and physically and mentally fit and who 

have high moral and ethical values. 

The future may not resemble the past with regard to 

recruiting and retaining soldiers. Nowhere is it given 

that the Army will be able to attract and retain the 

quality, motivated, self-disciplined, and intelligent men 

and women that it needs. To be successful in a very 

complex and automated environment, our future Army 

needs quality soldiers. 

Let me share with you some ideas for retaining 

soldiers. These ideas show a caring leadership 

environment. Unit leaders can use them to turn 

ordinary soldiers into extraordinary soldiers and to 

retain a quality force. They are designed to help leaders 

keep quality people-those who make a positive 

difference in mission execution. Use them to help 

create and maintain an environment in your unit where 

people want to be, in contrast to a place where they are 

obliged to be. 

Sponsorship is the first step in making a new 

soldier part of the team. The initial treatment that a new 

soldier receives upon arrival leaves a lasting 

impression of the unit. A successful unit sponsorship 

program should include the following: 

w Unit history 

w Mission statement 

w Mission essential task list (METL) 

w Policies and procedures 

w Short- and long-term unit goals 

w Visit to installation support agencies 

Share the unit's goals and vision. It is important for 

soldiers to understand them. When the mission 

statement paints a positive picture, it's amazing how 

sharing the vision enhances commitment, retention, 

and quality performance. 

Bonus tip: At your next command information class, 

ask if anyone knows what the unit mission is. Some 

may guess. Some may know. Some may laugh and 

ask, "Do we really have one?" 

Conduct quarterly sensing sessions to get a "feel" 

for your subordinates' concerns. Ask members the 

following questions: 

w How is the unit doing? 

w In what areas can we improve? 

w How can we improve on weaknesses? 

w Do you see anything that may interfere with your 

ability to be a real contributor? 

Give people room to breathe, make decisions, and 

make mistakes from which they can learn. Most of all, 

instill the impression that you respect their judgment. 

Note: If you want to build capable people who will 

stay for more than the short term, let them run with the 

ball. Trust them enough so they will seek your input 

when it is needed. 

Encourage soldiers to be all they can be through 

military and civilian schooling. Most soldiers want to be 

part of a unit that cares about their professional 

development. 

Finally, leaders at all levels must talk to soldiers and 

their families about re-enlistment. Sometimes the best 

way to retain quality is to ask soldiers to stay on the 

team. Other times it may take command involvement to 

get a soldier an option or assignment he or she wants. 

This year the Army must recruit 90,000 men and 

women. Every quality soldier we retain brings us closer 

to this goal. To reach this goal requires a team effort. I 

solicit your support. 

April 1997 Engineer 41