Engineer (ISSN 0046-19890) is prepared quarterly by the U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center, 320

MANSCEN Loop, Suite 210, Fort Leonard Wood, MO

65473-8929. Second Class postage is paid at Fort

Leonard Wood, MO, and additional mailing offices.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to U.S.

Army Maneuver Support Center, ATTN: ATZT-DT-DS-B

(Engineer), 320 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 210, Fort

Leonard Wood, MO 65473-8929.

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

copies, and unit address changes should be sent to

Engineer at the preceding address. Telephone: (573)

563-4104, DSN 676-4104. Engineer’s e-mail address

is: bridgess@wood.army.mil. Our Internet home page

is located at: http://www.wood.army.mil/engrmag/

emag_hp.htm.

DISCLAIMER: Engineer presents professional information designed to keep U.S. military and civilian engineers informed of current and emerging developments within their areas of expertise for the purpose of enhancing their professional development.

Views expressed are those of the authors and not

those of the Department of Defense or its elements.

The contents do not necessarily reflect official U.S.

Army positions and do not change or supersede information in other U.S. Army publications. Use of

news items constitutes neither affirmation of their

accuracy nor product endorsement. Engineer reserves the right to edit material.

CONTENT is not copyrighted. Material may be reprinted if credit is given to Engineer and the author.

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

PERSONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS are available for

$19.00 per year by contacting the Superintendent of

Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-

7954. Address changes for personal subscriptions

should also be sent to the Superintendent of

Documents.

By Order of the Secretary of the Army:

ERIC K. SHINSEKI

General, United States Army

Chief of Staff

Official:

JOEL B. HUDSON

Administrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army

0231312

COMMANDANT

MG R.L. Van Antwerp

563-6158

vanantwerpr@wood.army.mil

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

BG Randal R. Castro

563-6192

castror@wood.army.mil

REGIMENTAL COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR

CSM William D. McDaniel, Jr.

563-8060

mcdanielw@wood.army.mil

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

COL John (Pat) Leake

563-8080

leakej@wood.army.mil

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT – ARNG

LTC Robert McCabe

563-8046

mccaber@wood.army.mil

CHIEF OF STAFF

LTC Thomas E. O’Donovan

563-7116

odonovant@wood.army.mil

TRADOC SYSTEMS MANAGER for ENGINEER COMBAT SYSTEMS

COL John Holler

563-4081

hollerj@wood.army.mil

TRADOC PROGRAM INTEGRATION OFFICE - TERRAIN DATA

COL David Kingston

563-4086

kingstond@wood.army.mil

COMMANDER, 1st ENGINEER BRIGADE

COL James Rowan

596-0224

rowanj@wood.army.mil

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING

COL Jeffrey P. LaMoe

563-4093

lamoej@wood.army.mil

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION

COL Robert S. Kirsch

563-4119

kirschr@wood.army.mil

DEPARTMENT OF INSTRUCTION

LTC Jeffrey A. Bedey

563-4129

bedeyj@wood.army.mil

CHIEF OF DOCTRINE

LTC Anthony Funkhouser

563-7537

funkhousera@wood.army.mil

HUMANITARIAN DEMINING TRAINING CENTER/COUNTERMINE

TRAINING SUPPORT CENTER

Mr. Paul Arcangeli

596-3869

arcangelip@wood.army.mil

U.S. Army Engineer School

573-563-8080 / DSN 676-8080
R

 Engineer 1

Front Cover: Engineers

perform a variety of

missions.

Back Cover: Soldiers

from the 60th Engineer

Battalion assist German

civilians in the town of

Sterkrade. 30 March

1945

COMMANDANT

Major General

R.L. Van Antwerp

January-March 2003

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

 By Major General R.L. Van Antwerp

03 Lead the Way

 By Command Sergeant Major William D. McDaniel, Jr.

27 Engineer Safety - “Hazards of the M9 Armored

Combat Earthmover (ACE)”

 By Ms. Vicki Hall

32 CTC Notes - “Opposing Force’s (OPFOR’s) MTK-2”

 By Captain Thomas F. Nelson and Sergeant First

Class Gary A. Smith (NTC)

33 CTC Notes - “Leader’s Training Program (LTP)”

 By Major Michael W. Rose and Captain Thomas B.

Hairgrove, Jr. (NTC)

33 CTC Notes - “Reception, Staging, Onward

Movement, and Integration (RSOI) MICLIC Range”

 By Captain James R. Koeppen and Major Michael W. Rose (NTC)

FEATURES

04 Planning Engineer Support for an Urban Attack

 By Captain John C. DeJarnette

10 Doctrinal Changes in Urban Operations

 By Lieutenant Colonel Anthony C. Funkhouser and Major Janet L. Kirkton

11 Light Engineer Lessons Learned in the Contemporary Operational Environment

 By Captain Philip J. Dacunto and Captain Laurence (Bo) Arnold

16 QA/QC Construction Supervision . . . or “Just Wing It”

 By Major Jeffrey J. Johnson

20 Out Front With the Divisional Cavalry

 By Captain Elliot J. Bird

22 Using the Royal Building System in Theater Construction

 By Captain Samuel Pickands

28 The French Engineer School and U.S. Army Engineer Training Opportunities

in France

 By Major Andamo E. Ford

39 First Lieutenants to Korea: My Experience With the Program

 By Captain Chad Suitonu

41 Assignment Opportunities in the Far East District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

 By Major Richard T. Byrd, Jr., and Sergeant FIrst Class Carl L. Lindsay II

44 Making Molehills Out of Mountains

 By Specialist Patrick Rodriguez

48 Live Fire . . . Heavy

 By Captain Alexander J. Buehler

Volume 32 PB 5-03-1

UNITED STATES ARMY

January-March 2003 Headquarters, Department of the Army

ENGI

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers

NEE

ENGINEER SCHOOL

34 CTC Notes - “Troop-Leading Procedures (TLPs)

for Task Force Engineers”

 By Captain Mark C. Quander (JRTC)

37 Enlisted PERSCOM Notes

 By Lieutenant Colonel Jack Smith

46 Book Review - “Ghosts of the ETO, American

Tactical Deception Units in the European Theatre

of Operations, 1944-1945”

 By Major General George A. Rebh (Retired)

51 Past in Review - “Washington—Engineer and

Engineer Advocate”

By Major John Richard Boulé II

56 Engineer Update

Shirley Bridges

Jennifer Morgan

MANAGING EDITOR

EDITOR

Lynne Sparks

GRAPHIC DESIGNER
2 Engineer January-March 2003

Clear The Way

By Major General R.L. Van Antwerp

Commandant, U.S. Army Engineer School

I

n the last issue, we started a discussion

on this page on one aspect of how we

intend to change the organization and

operations of the Regiment as we transform

the Army. From that, and from many other

venues, we have received lots of great feedback on those thoughts from the field, and I

really appreciate it. The strength of our

Regiment has always been—and will always

be—our people, and your thoughts reflect

that strength.

 The key concepts from the last issue are

perhaps best described as force pooling and

modularity. In this issue, I want to open a

discussion with you on the ideas of what information superiority can really do for us in the future. Let’s

look at it from today’s perspective first.

In the past, the Army wrote combined-arms warfighting

doctrine, knowing that we would not have real information

superiority. The reason we, the mobility and countermobility

BOS, fight the way we do is that, in many ways, we are reacting to the enemy’s efforts. Through very sophisticated efforts, we seek to put mobility assets in the right formations so

they can be at the right place and time on the battlefield with

the right tools and techniques to overcome enemy countermobility efforts. But what that means is that the enemy has

already conducted countermobility operations, and now

we must reactively task-organize to perform mobility operations for our maneuver forces. Thus, mobility operations were,

at best, described as predict/confirm, avoid if possible (bypass), and neutralize by breaching. Fundamentally, that’s a

reactive way of doing business. And many of us have experienced the tremendous frustration of having some part of that

approach break down.

With the information superiority that underlies the Objective Engineer Force, we are trying to achieve a much more

proactive approach. If we know what the enemy is capable of

doing and how he typically does it, and we see indicators of

what he is getting ready to do, then we can be proactive. With

this information superiority, we have the ability to predict his

efforts, search for and detect them, prevent them, avoid them

altogether or neutralize them, and protect our soldiers in this

effort. This simple description of predict, detect, prevent, avoid,

neutralize, and protect is part of the broader concept of assured mobility, but it represents how we can use information

superiority to operate. Using a tactical example, with advanced

C4ISR technology, we are able to predict and detect enemy

countermobility operations that will affect

us. When we do detect enemy sappers moving out to place minefields in a maneuver

corridor we must use, we prevent the operations by using systems to destroy those

sappers. Let’s say that for some reason we

don’t get them all, and some minefields are

emplaced. Then, using ASTAMIDS,

GSTAMIDS, HSTAMIDS, and C4ISR to

precisely locate the minefields allows us to

avoid them. If that avoidance cannot be

achieved, we will use that information to

neutralize the mines on our approach. We

might maneuver forward an unmanned mine

neutralization vehicle controlled remotely to

destroy the mines in our path. And finally, in addition to neutralizing the danger of the obstacle, we will develop vehicles

that can protect the lives of our soldiers by withstanding the

effects of a mine blast. This is but one example of the difference on a tactical level.

Today, I think we are seeing some aspects of that ability to

develop information, apply knowledge to it, and enable proactive operations. And I’m not just talking about informationprocessing systems. I think we are seeing it in such areas as

increased initiative and flexibility in real-world missions, tremendously improved situational awareness/understanding,

and so on. But that’s just an echo of what we could be. Essentially, information superiority will allow us to see first and understand and then be able to act first and finish decisively (the

proactive part). I believe it is easy to see that this is an important departure from the past, but one that is challenging on all

levels—strategic, operational, and tactical. With that challenge,

we need all engineer leaders to look toward the future.

We have to address this all the way from the physical act of

seeing (sensors of every type, from human to stationary to

robotic, from national to tactical) through the analysis and

distribution (and we all know that’s really tough business) to

the ability for a commander to see all that and decide what to

do (we call it battle command). That’s a serious set of ideas,

but the combat power in such an approach simply cannot be

denied. We want to be part of that combat power, so think

about it, talk about it, work on it, and tell us here at the school

about it. After all, people are the absolute key to information

as part of combat power.

Thanks, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Essayons!
Lead The Way

By Command Sergeant Major William D. McDaniel, Jr.

U.S. Army Engineer School

January-March 2003 Engineer 3

Let me begin by saying that I am

extremely proud and excited to

have the opportunity to serve the

U.S. Army Engineer School and our distinguished Regiment as your new Regimental

Command Sergeant Major (CSM). I look forward to the challenges that lie ahead and the

professional interaction with MG Van

Antwerp and BG Castro.

During my interview with MG Van

Antwerp and BG Castro, I told them that I

feel this position is larger than the soldier who

serves in it and that the Regimental CSM is a

reflection of all enlisted soldiers. He serves as

a senior enlisted adviser to our Commandant

and Assistant Commandant, while thoroughly

involved with all aspects of the Regiment. I informed them that I

am a soldier with lots of energy who wants to make a positive

difference for all the members of our great Regiment. I told them

that I don’t know all the answers but what I do know is that I love

being a soldier. And because of this passion, I will continue to

embrace every challenging position with absolute commitment and

selfless service.

I often say that throughout our careers we never know how it

will end up but that we will always strive to make a positive

impact in our ranks every day. Certain events in our lives shape us,

our leaders challenge us, our mentors guide us, our spiritual beliefs

ground us, and our families love and support us. All of these important elements make us who we are today, and I challenge all of you

to maintain that balance in your lives.

 I also challenge all of you to seek out a leader as a mentor,

particularly one that you have served with and respect. I have had

several mentors, and I have always looked to them for guidance and

feedback throughout my years. Many are retired now, but they all

played an important part in who I am as a leader.

As we all know, our branch is very diverse, and it also has the

largest number of Reserve Component organizations. I recently

attended the Sergeant Major of the Army (SMA) Nominative CSM

Conference at Fort Bliss, Texas. The SMA continually stated that

we are one Army, regardless of component. It is important to note

that we do not just give this lip service. I represent all engineer

soldiers—Active, Guard, and Reserve (past and present). I am a

leader who gets involved to effect the necessary change within our

Regiment in the best interest of all. In saying this, we all need to

understand that we must speak with one voice. Once our Commandant has made a decision, then we need to get onboard as a team.

This will allow us to tackle the complex issues that face us now and

in the future from all fronts.

Since moving into this position on 5 November 2002, I have

been engaged with leaders and soldiers while I traveled to the Corps

of Engineers Headquarters, PERSCOM, Fort

Bragg Special Forces Training Center, the 420th

Engineer Brigade Leader Conference, and the

Fort Bliss SMA Nominative CSM Conference.

I visited Germany to participate in the activation and assumption of command ceremony of

the 18th Engineer Brigade on 21 January. Then

I traveled throughout Germany and Kosovo

from 21-28 January to visit our soldiers and

talk to their leaders. Here at Fort Leonard

Wood, I participated in the Joint Countermine

Conference and in a session with the

Precommand Course for our inbound battalion

commanders.

I will continually get out and visit the soldiers of engineer organizations around the world

and report the key issues back to the Commandant and Assistant

Commandant. We will work the hard issues that impact our leaders and soldiers daily and leverage the directorates within the Engineer School to identify solutions to resolve these issues. In saying all of this, we do not make this happen by ourselves; it takes a

dedicated team of professionals within our School. They are the

heroes behind the lines, engaged in solving the many issues that

impact our soldiers.

It is important for us to say thank you to a couple of great

leaders—CSM Dils and CSM Robinson—who both recently retired with 30-plus years of service. Speaking for all soldiers in the

Regiment, we want to thank you for your faithful and honorable

service to our nation, the U.S. Army, the Corps of Engineers, and

the Engineer Regiment. You and your families have made many

sacrifices, and you all have made such a tremendous impact on

countless numbers of soldiers and families throughout your career.

You are professional soldiers, role models, mentors, and superb

leaders. We send our very best to you and your families during

your transition into retirement.

We also need to welcome our new Corps of Engineers Command Sergeant Major, CSM Michael Balch. I look forward to

working with him.

Today, as always, our Regiment is extremely busy with supporting our nation’s war on terrorism, while at the same time

transforming our Army and our Regiment. Our thoughts and

prayers go out to all the soldiers on point around the globe and to

all their families during their separation.

Remember to always think safety as we accomplish our required missions, regardless of where we find ourselves. Take care

of your soldiers, yourselves, and your families. I look forward to

our future together in the greatest Regiment in our Army!

Essayons!
4 Engineer January-March 2003

This article was originally published in Engineer, July 1998, PB

5-98-3, U.S. Army Engineer Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

A revised version appeared in CALL Newsletter No. 99-16: Urban

Combat Operations; Chapter 6: Mobility and Survivability. Since

this article was written, FM 90-13-1 has been superseded by FM 3-

34.2, Combined Arms Breaching Operations, and FM 90-10-1 has

been superseded by FM 3-06.11, Combined Arms Operatons in Urban

Terrain. Please read the article on page 10 to learn how doctrine has

changed concerning urban operations.

Today’s soldiers must be prepared to fight on oncreasingly diverse terrain, including terrain containing man-made features found in urban areas. These

elements are viewed as obstacles to maneuver. Military operations on urbanized terrain (MOUT) encompass all military

actions planned and conducted on a terrain complex where

man-made construction impacts on the tactical options

available to a commander.

This article provides considerations for engineer planners

and leaders to employ when battalions and brigades attack

built-up areas. It is intended to amplify current doctrine outlined

in FM 90-10-1, An Infantryman’s Guide to Combat in Built-Up

Areas (with Change 1). Lessons are drawn from observing

attacks on the Shugart-Gordon MOUT training facility at the

Joint Readiness Training Center.

Mission Analysis

Mission analysis sets the conditions for planning and

ultimate success of MOUT operations. All planners

must identify specified, implied, and essential tasks

as well as constraints and limitations. Well-prepared engineer

battlefield assessments (EBA) and terrain analysis products

are essential to successful MOUT planning. Answering the

following questions will help engineer planners, in conjunction

with the principal battle staff, develop an effective MOUT

offensive mission analysis:

 Where is the key/decisive terrain? Identify this terrain

for the approach march and for seizing buildings. Conduct

a line-of-sight analysis along the route and compare it to

the enemy template.

 Where are the best obstacle reduction sites and supportby-fire positions for securing a foothold? Consider the

terrain, the enemy force template, and massing fires.

Determine the minimum engineer force required to seize a

foothold, seize essential facilities, and provide mobility

support to mounted forces, such as how to sequence

engineer tasks and change the engineer task organization

to accomplish essential tasks. Identify the key leaders

required to facilitate command and control of critical events

and task organization changes. Decide how to best integrate

cannon-delivered smoke, hand-emplaced smoke, and

smoke generators to conduct breaching operations.

 How should subordinate units execute in-stride versus

deliberate breaching operations based on the enemy

template and results of reconnaissance and surveillance

(R&S) efforts? Decide where to use the mine-clearing line

charge (MICLIC), tank-mounted countermine equipment,

and manual breach techniques. Balance exposure of the

breach force to enemy fires with the probability that a

system may be killed before it can be employed.

 How will reconnaissance forces link up, guide, or mark

obstacles for bypass/breaching operations.

 What are the counterattack routes of the enemy force?

Consider the terrain and weather. Determine if enemy

counterattack routes can be used to move friendly combat

service support assets based on the enemy event template

Planning Engineer Support

for an Urban Attack

Planning Engineer Support

for an Urban Attack

By Captain John C. DeJarnette
January-March 2003 Engineer 5

and time phasing of the counterattack. Determine what

situational obstacles (rapid mining, scatterable mining) the

enemy counterattack force has available.

 What is the safety zone and trigger for using scatterable

mines? Ensure that this information is disseminated at all

rehearsals.

 What is the composition of the buildings to be attacked?

Determine the effects weapons will have on these

structures (this drives the selection of fuze/shell

combinations and aircraft attack munitions).

 What is the “layout” of the town both above and below

ground? Determine the protected areas, such as churches,

hospitals, and museums. Sources for this information are

imagery from the division, gun camera tapes from OH-58/

H-64 helicopters, Michelin road maps, and tour books.

Support Products

The engineer staff planner uses the following products

developed to support the military decision-making

process (MDMP). All of these products must be

developed in conjunction with the S2. These products are

updated based on the results of reconnaissance and

surveillance.

Engineer Battlefield Assessment

The EBA feeds many of the subsequent products. Clearly

articulate the enemy engineer capability based on the most likely

and most dangerous courses of action. Consider past experience

with this enemy, his current strength, anticipated barrier material

basic loads, expected resupply rates, and locally available materials

he can use to prepare his defense. This information will support

development of the situation template (SITEMP).

Identify friendly engineer capabilities for mobility,

countermobility, and survivability operations. Explicitly state

the number and types of breaches each engineer unit is capable

of executing based on its personnel, equipment, and logistical

status. Leader proficiency and audacity impact this estimate,

so plan two levels down based on the particular unit. Use this

information to develop the task organization later in the MDMP.

Estimate the impact of terrain and weather on both friendly

and enemy capabilities. Line-of-sight, hydrology, crosscountry movement, and line-of-communication overlays are

helpful and can be provided by the division terrain detachment

or quickly approximated from maps.

 SITEMP

Know the enemy capability based on an estimated unit

basic load of Classes IV and V materials and anticipated

resupply. The time available to prepare the defense is essential.

Reconnaissance assets should observe the delivery and

emplacement of barrier materials. The S2 and the engineer

template enemy obstacles and counterattack routes based on

terrain and weather conditions. Determine what resources are

available in the MOUT area (ammonium nitrate, acetylene,

propane, lumber yards, jersey barriers, vehicles, and construction equipment) that can contribute to enemy defensive

preparation.

Based on this analysis, the engineer and S2 jointly template

the enemy engineer countermobility/survivability capability

on the SITEMP. It should include minefields, tactical and

protective wire obstacles, and vehicles and other barriers in

roads. This overlay is used to plan the engineer task organization, because this and the friendly scheme of maneuver

determine the number of sapper squads needed and where

mobility assets are placed in the movement.

Time and materials will impact enemy defensive capability.

The force array in the security zone and main defensive belt

impacts the amount of defensive preparation. Indirect-fire

systems can only service one priority target and must shift to

cover other targets, which may help with refining the obstacle

template. Locations and movement of mounted weapons may

indicate usable lanes for friendly infiltration of vehicles.

Event Template

Determine what triggers the commitment of enemy counterattack forces. The engineer planner can assist the S2 in

determining what situational obstacle capabilities he has, where

and for what purpose the capabilities will be committed, and

what the triggers are. Determine the structures likely to be set

for destruction (such as petroleum and natural gas storage

facilities).

Friendly Forces Survivability Time Line

The engineer and the S4 plan to construct positions to

support the forward displacement of combat support and

combat service support assets and limited command and

control nodes. The survivability effort should be an essential

part of the maneuver deception plan.

Breach Execution Matrix

This matrix helps the task force allocate engineer assets

and determine when in-stride and deliberate breach techniques

are required. Specify where to use MICLIC, hand-emplaced

explosives, armored combat earthmover (ACE), armored

vehicle-launched bridge (AVLB), and tank-mounted countermine equipment to reduce enemy obstacles. It is important to

keep in mind that rubble can be a more significant obstacle

than conventional mines and wire obstacles.

Decision Support Template/Decision Support Matrix

Help the S3 identify and plan viable branches and sequels

to the plan. It is essential to know where engineers will

culminate and how rapidly engineer platoons can be consolidated, reorganized, and put back into the fight.

Execution Checklist/Operations Schedule

Develop with the S3 the operations schedule (OPSKED),

which is a combination of key events from the synchronization

matrix and associated code words. This product supports the

decision support template and helps the battle captain and
6 Engineer January-March 2003

maneuver commander track the battle and make decisions.

Prepare a rough execution checklist after receiving the warning

order and continue to refine it during mission analysis. Finalize

the checklist during wargaming and provide “bootleg” copies

to task force engineers and squad leaders (see page 7).

Troop-Leading Procedures Timeline

Ensure that adequate time is available for engineers to both

prepare the task force rehearsal site and conduct their own

internal rehearsals.

R&S Planning Considerations

I

ntegrate engineer reconnaissance teams into the brigade

R&S plan. Focus these teams on engineer targets such as

landing zone denial, obstacles in the reduction area, enemy

survivability on the objective, and obstacles on approach

routes. The named areas of interest (NAI) assigned to engineers should have priority intelligence requirements (PIR)

that determine the best reduction sites in the city and confirm

or deny enemy fortification of key sites.

Precombat Inspections (PCIs)

After conducting precombat checks (PCCs), inspect

materials used to mark obstacle bypass lanes. Conduct FM

radio communications exercises using the OPSKED and reports

specific to the current operation. Inspect all maps for operations security considerations. Sterile maps are not required,

but information provided on overlays should not compromise

the attack plan. Overlays should portray only NAIs. Targets,

pickup and landing zones, and link-up locations should not

be on overlays taken into the objective area. All soldiers must

clearly understand the NAI priority and associated PIR,

casualty evacuation (CASEVAC) plan, abort criteria, compromise plan, exfiltration and link-up plan, and communications

windows.

Mobility Planning Considerations

Providing mobility support to a maneuver force in a

MOUT environment normally will require engineers to

support multiple combined-arms breaching operations.

The reverse planning process discussed in FM 90-13-1,

Combined-Arms Breaching Operations, applies to all terrain

situations. The following considerations complement this

process:

Conduct Approach March

Plan a primary route and an alternate route to support the

movement of each maneuver battalion’s combat forces. Clear

these routes using standard tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP). Control of movement routes is critical,

particularly when ground evacuation is the primary method of

removing casualties. Coordinate one-way, two-way, and

alternating-direction traffic on routes with the brigade

executive and operations officers. Identify decision criteria

for switching to alternate routes. Maximize aerial reconnaissance of routes to identify possible obstacles, combat

outposts, and ambushes.

Precombat Inspections. Conduct standard route-clearance

PCCs and PCIs, which should be listed in the unit SOP. As a

minimum, check initiation systems, demolition charges,

reduction equipment, marking materials, and mine detectors.

Rehearsals. The engineer, with the S3, ensures that all of

the breach tenets and control measures are understood by

key leaders at the task force rehearsal.

Secure the Foothold

Create lanes through obstacles using one sapper squad

per lane, with a minimum of one lane per simultaneously

assaulting platoon. (This does not mean nine lanes per infantry

battalion. Analyze carefully.) Use adequate marking materials,

guides for assault and follow-on forces, and lane hand-over

procedures. It takes at least 30 minutes to “cycle” this squad

back into the fight.

A squad cannot support breaching operations continuously. A decision point or trigger must support any changes

in task organization and missions for engineers. Establish

decision points for changing approach routes and reduction

sites and initiating the breaching fundamentals—suppress,

obscure, secure, reduce (SOSR).

Precombat Inspections. Equip the unit with bolt cutters

(two per engineer squad), grapnels (three per engineer squad),

a lane-marking kit, hand-emplaced explosives (10 per squad

per lane), mine detectors, and probes. Ensure that handheld

smoke is available for each infantry soldier and that vehicles

or utility helicopters carry smoke pots. Mass this smoke with

the breach force at the objective rally point. Ballast load

marking system upgrade materials on gun trucks. Use expedient

reduction tools, such as Skidco litters, for wire reduction.

Rehearsals. No matter what rehearsal type or technique is

used, perform basic SOSR rehearsals. (See FM 101-5, Staff

Organization and Operations, Appendix 6, for more information on rehearsals.)

Suppress. Ensure that all personnel understand the location

of support-by-fire positions and the pyrotechnic and radio

signals to initiate obstacle reduction and indicate when the

lanes are open (proofed and marked). The rehearsal site should

have a full-scale lane-marking system visible to every soldier.

All key leaders should understand the commitment criteria for

the breach force.

Obscure. Rehearse triggers for artillery-delivered, handemplaced, and vehicle-generated smoke. Consider the position

of the moon relative to the support-by-fire position, the percent

of illumination, and the night-vision goggle window.

Secure. Hold a combined-arms rehearsal of the breach force

using the full-dress technique. This rehearsal includes

engineers and attached maneuver elements dedicated to

suppressing direct fires and destroying local counterattacks.

Reduce. The combined-arms rehearsal should include

handing over lanes from engineers to maneuver soldiers.

The rehearsal should be “NCO to NCO” and details of
January-March 2002 Engineer 7

Engineer Staff Planning Checklist

(Brigade and Below)

Plan

General

 Identify and resource all mobility/survivability essential

tasks.

 Address all the breach tenets during planning and

rehearsals.

 Request terrain products, MOUT layout diagrams, and

data on building composition from higher headquarters.

 Study available terrain products to determine which

subsurface routes to use and how to defend against

enemy use of these systems.

 Study available maps and photos to determine the best

routes to use when approaching the city and within the

city. Determine where to establish casualty collection

points, aid stations, and ammunition and water resupply

points.

 Use scatterable mines to support engagement areas

that block mounted counterattack routes. Disseminate

this plan to critical maneuver and combat service support

leaders.

 Establish essential engineer friendly forces’ information

requirements and no-later-than report times.

 Nominate engineer-specific PIR and associated NAIs to

support the reconnaissance plan. Ensure that the latest

time information of value (LTIOV) is clearly understood.

Decide what actions to take if the PIR are not answered

before LTIOV.

 Disseminate the enemy obstacle template to all engineer

leaders.

 Task-organize engineers to support essential mobility/

survivability reconnaissance missions.

 Determine how much and what types of obscuration

smoke are available. Determine the wind direction and

speed, which will impact the effects of smoke. Coordinate

with the fire support officer for recommended uses of

white phosphorus (both mortar and artillery-delivered)

and handheld smoke. Coordinate with the smoke platoon

leader for duration of smoke and level of obscuration.

 Designate and clear routes for mounted forces and reserve forces.

 Identify the “conditions” and a decision point for initiating

deliberate breaching operations during each critical event

of the operation.

Approach March

 Designate routes for ground convoys and allocate

engineers to clear them.

 Determine the clearance method and acceptable risk.

 Ensure that all vehicles have lane- and bypass-marking

materials on board.

 Designate ground CASEVAC routes.

 Determine the decision point for using alternate routes.

 Determine when to establish traffic control posts (TCPs)/

guides at critical obstacles on the route.

 Establish NAIs along the ground route to confirm or deny

the enemy obstacle template.

Secure the Foothold

 Designate the best reduction site and technique based

on enemy force array, terrain, and trafficability.

 Nominate NAIs for breaching operations.

 Designate one lane for each simultaneously assaulting

platoon and the engineers needed to reduce it.

 Explain the lane-marking system.

 Establish a traffic-control plan for dismounted and

mounted traffic.

 Establish a vehicle route and a dismounted route from

the foothold to the CASEVAC helicopter landing zone.

 Designate locations for blocking positions to keep

counterattacks from interfering with breaching operations.

Resource blocking positions with MOPMS, conventional

mines, and expedient barrier capability (such as abatis).

Depict the planned locations of scatterable mines

(include the safety zone) on maneuver and combat service

support graphics to reduce fratricide.

Seize Key Facilities

 Designate buildings to enter and a reduction site that will

support maneuver to the point of penetration.

 Designate where the support force will enter buildings.

 Resource battalions and their engineers with sufficient

explosives and hand-emplaced and artillery smoke.

 Explain the cleared-building and cleared-lane marking

systems.

Prepare/Execute

 Construct appropriate rehearsal sites to support maneuver and combat service support operations.

 Provide enough detail in the troop-leading procedure

timeline to encourage both engineer and combined-arms

rehearsals.

 Issue sketch maps and terrain products to engineers.

 Construct a lane-marking system and bypass-marking

system that all vehicle drivers must go through en route

to the objective area.

 Provide enough detail in the maneuver and engineer

execution checklists to effectively use the Decision

Support Matrix.

 Specify times for engineer-specific PCIs conducted by

platoon leaders, company commanders, and first

sergeants.
8 Engineer January-March 2003

linkup and handover should be discussed. Consider the need

to back-haul casualties when planning the number of lanes.

Seize Key Facilities

Plan procedures for dynamic entries into buildings and

vertical envelopment, which require prepared special demolition charges (see FM 90-10-1, Change 1), expedient assault

ladders, and climbing grapnels. Rehearse the TTP for getting

into windows on second and third floors. Have cutting tools

available to prepare climbing poles at the objective rally point.

Plan for subsurface entry. Consider the use of reducing wire in

stairwells and hallways.

Precombat Inspections. Inspect special breaching charges

(see FM 90-10-1, with Change 1). Ensure that charges are

properly constructed and that they will “stick” when placed.

Use double-sided foam tape when placing vertical breaching

charges during warm, dry conditions. Use spikes, braces, or

Ramset-type power-actuated fasteners during rain or when

temperatures are below freezing. Ensure that sufficient

handheld and hand-emplaced smoke is available. Maneuver

soldiers can carry smoke pots and additional explosives. Where

practical, use battering rams (picket pounders or equipment

found in MOUT areas) to enter doors. Conserve explosives

by bringing one or two 24-inch crowbars to lift manhole covers

and pry open entryways to buildings and sewers. Provide

night-vision goggles to soldiers who reduce obstacles,

because infantry leaders use infrared “tactical pointers”

extensively, and reduction element soldiers must be able to

see these signals. Use all available infrared lights. Mount and

zero all AN/PAQ-4s and AN/PVS-4s during the preparation

phase of the mission. Engineers must bring handheld infrared

light sources (such as Phantom lights or infrared filters on

Maglites) and visible light sources (D-cell Maglites or SureFire

TAC lights) to help move and reduce obstacles inside buildings

and subsurface structures. Ambient light inside hallways and

underground is virtually zero, so plan for additional light

sources. Mark cleared buildings so the marking is visible from

rotary-wing aircraft and armored vehicles and by dismounted

soldiers.

Rehearsals. Focus on the location and control of support

forces and signals for committing the breach force. Ensure

that soldiers understand the minimum safe distance and the

best reduction site based on the building structure. Clearly

identify routes between buildings and the marking method for

“safe routes.” Deconflict building clearance markings from

collection points for casualties, displaced civilians, and enemy

prisoners of war. Rehearse close quarters combat drills for

interior building clearing. Basic SOSR rehearsals from “secure

the foothold” apply to dynamic entry into buildings, but these

rehearsals usually focus on the infantry platoon and an

engineer squad.

Civilians on the Battlefield/Enemy Prisoners of War.

Establish “protected areas” for civilians on the battlefield, and

clearly mark routes for displaced civilians. Consider an

expedient countermobility effort to restrict access to these

civilians and enemy prisoners of war. Liaison officers from

psychological operations, civil affairs, and the military police

should address this topic in the brigade maneuver rehearsal.

Although there are no specific engineer requirements, be

prepared to provide technical assistance during planning and

execution phases.

Subsurface Fight. This is a variation on the theme of

clearing buildings. Salient points are entering the tunnel or

sewer complex using hand tools or explosives, identifying and

neutralizing mines and booby traps, and marking cleared areas.

Navigation inside sewers and radio communications from inside

the tunnel to aboveground soldiers is challenging. There is

no ambient light inside tunnels, so plan and rehearse using

infrared and visible light signals.

Move Within the City

Plan one vehicle lane per mounted platoon entering each

section of the city. The lane through tactical and perimeter

protective obstacles will become an “axis” for movement within

the MOUT area. These lanes initially will support one-way

traffic. Plan and rehearse traffic control as lanes become

alternating traffic lanes to allow for CASEVAC. Improve at

least one lane to two-way traffic and designate this as the

primary CASEVAC route. Designate, clear, and mark a route

from the casualty collection point to the CASEVAC primary

and alternate helicopter landing zones. Use combat routeclearance techniques to clear the ground CASEVAC route.

Reduce or bypass obstacles created by “junk vehicles,”

CONEXs, rubble, etc. If bypassing is part of the plan, make it

a branch to the plan and include decision points and conditions.

Precombat Inspections. Inspect MICLIC and tank-mounted

countermine equipment. Ensure that designated dismounted

sappers have at least 20 blocks of TNT or C4 and 500 feet of

detonating cord to reduce a 100-meter-deep “lane” for vehicles.

“Providing mobility support to a maneuver force in a

MOUT environment normally will require engineers to

support multiple combined-arms breaching operations.”
Inspect mine detectors carried by engineers designated to

execute this mission. Sandbag one vehicle to use for proofing

vehicle lanes, and dismount all passengers when proofing the

lane. Ballast load additional lane-marking material on vehicles.

To assist the maneuver force in locating the correct lane to

support their tactical plan, ensure that markings for multiple

lanes are easily distinguished by day and at night. CASEVAC

lanes must have a dedicated TCP. One technique is for this

post to be initially manned by repre-sentatives from the medical

platoon of the lead task force. Integrate a tank-mounted plow

or properly prepared heavy vehicle (dozer, loader, or 5-ton

truck with winch) into the plan to reduce rubble or junk vehicle

obstacles.

Rehearsals. A combined-arms breaching rehearsal is

required according to FM 90-13-1. This rehearsal will serve as

the final check for mission-essential equipment and final

adjustments to the plan based on PCIs. Synchronize the

establishment of support-by-fire positions to isolate reduction

sites and trigger conditions for initiating reduction operations

(the conditions and who makes the decision). Determine who

shifts obscuration and suppressive fires and when they are

shifted. Leaders must rehearse handing over lanes to followon forces. Rehearse time-phasing the ground CASEVAC route

clearance to helicopter landing zones and ambulance exchange

points. Construct the unit’s standard lane-marking system and

route signs at the rehearsal site.

Countermobility Planning Considerations

Address these issues in the brigade-, battalion-, and

company-level rehearsals. Plan to issue a scatterable

mine warning (SCATMINWARN) to prevent fratricide.

Tactical Employment of Scatterable Mines

The S3, engineer and FSO should plan, in detail, the

employment of artillery-delivered antipersonnel mines/remote

antiarmor mines (ADAMs/RAAMs) and Multiple-Delivery

Mine Systems (Volcanos). Specify the target to be attacked, a

tentative location, its effect (disrupt, turn, fix, or block), the

delivery system, the observer, and the trigger. To reduce

fratricide risk, the scatterable mine execution plan must be

clearly understood by leaders of mounted elements.

Protective Employment of Scatterable Mines

Ballast load the Modular Pack Mine System (MOPMS) on

vehicles moving into objective area blocking positions.

Consider sling-loading the MOPMS, conventional mines, and

limited barrier materials to support transitioning to the defense

and blocking enemy counterattacks.

Engagement Area Development

Specify the engagement area to interdict the enemy

counterattack force. Ensure that battalion and brigade reserve

forces have specified routes to move to the engagement area.

Engineers may not be available to emplace obstacles, so specify

the engagement area development tasks, including obstacle

emplacement and fire integration, to maneuver units.

January-March 2002 Engineer 9

Survivability Planning Considerations

Perform this work concurrently with initia reconnaissance and “condition setting” by the brigadeto support the brigade and division deception plans.

Field Artillery

Determine positioning areas and plan counterfire radars

and ammunition.

Forward Area Refuel Point

Establish locations for stocking fuel and ammunition. Plan

for multiple refueling sites to support the attack and lift aviation

simultaneously.

Advance Trauma Lifesaving Sites

Locate forward treatment facilities and ingress/egress

routes. The implied task is to establish helicopter landing zones

for these sites.

Summary

While the process for planning engineer support to a

MOUT attack follows existing decision-making

steps, engineer planners must understand how this

diverse terrain impacts engineer operations. Critical points

include the following:

 Structures become key terrain.

 Belowground and multilayered aboveground dimensions

are added.

 Terrain enhances the enemy’s countermobility and

survivability efforts and increases the friendly force’s

mobility requirements.

 Decentralized execution—while staying collectively

synchronized—is required.

 MOUT-specific PCCs, PCIs, and rehearsals must be

conducted.

By accounting for these impacts, engineer planners can

make sound decisions to set the stage for effective engineer

support to the maneuver force in this demanding environment.

Captain DeJarnette (now a major) was an engineer

observer/controller at the Joint Readiness Training Center,

Fort Polk, Louisiana, at the time this article was written. He

is currently serving as a plans officer for U.S. Forces Korea

Strategy and Policy. MAJ DeJarnette is a graduate of the

Command and General Staff College and the School of

Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
l ItOCI'IUNAL CIUlVGES
 

IN UUB OPEBATIONS
 

Bv Lieutenant Colone l AI1f!Jol1v C. Funkhouser and Major Jan et L. Kirk tnn 

Captain Dejarnette's arti cle, "Planning En gin eer SupP0l1 the hori zo ntal plane: th ey now have sid e and top a tt ack 

capab ilities that are command-det on ated. This off e ns ive for an Urban Attack ," p ublished in 1998 (see page 4), 

capability nl affec ts future engineer ope ra tions in is a great primer to realize the signific ant do ctrin al 

ch an ge s that ha ve oc curred since then and to stimula te thought urban te rr ain . In additi on , ad versarie s have re al ized our 

on futur e operation s within urban terrain. M ost sign ificant is vulnerabiliti es and expanded their use of booby traps and 

the change in the operational env ironment. Th is article w as improvised explosive devi ces (rEDs) to counter our detection 

w and neutrali zation efforts. ritte n based on the premise that we wo uld fi gh t a peer 

competi tor in a conventiona l manner. M ost wo uld agree that Ca pt ain Dejarnette 's arti c le is a gre at means to se e the 

this is no longer a valid and/or necessary assumption. Second, impact of eme rgin g doctrine on the military decision-making 

d oct rin e at that tim e supp orted breachin g obstacles by process and in execution. With the unconventional use of 

launching mi ne-clcaring line charges (M ICLICs) down stree ts, mine s, IED s . booby tr ap s, vert ica l o bs truc tio ns, limited 

witho ut consider ati on for c iv ilia ns and co lla te ral da mag e . straight-line dista nces and restri cti on s on co llateral damage , 

Alth ou gh a te chnique, thi s would prob abl y not be th e tac tics, techniques, and procedures (TT P ) th at used to be 

technique of ch oice today. especi ally with the pr evalence o f commonplace will most likely not be effec tive w ithin a large 

bl ast-resistant mines . city. As a re sult. en gineer com mande rs will be ch allenged to 

Re cent co m ba establis h an acc ura te situation template and ta sk- organi ze the t ex pe rie nces in Chechnya . Israel, and 

appropriate co unterrn ine equipment. Th er e is not one pie ce of 

no longer directl y confront our Arm y. In stead, they ha ve engineer equipment that can det ect and neutrali ze all type s o f 

dev el oped new ambush techniques that reduce our Army 's threats, so e xtreme tb ou ght must be used to properly resourc e 

te chnol ogical ad vantages, espec ially w ith in the urban en­ subordinate engineer units, If breach in g is required, new TTP 

Afgh anistan rev eal a trend that contem porary adv ersaries will 

viron me nt. Additionally, the political env ironment has changed . integrating sappers, ex plosive ordna nc e disposal de tachments, 

In most cases, destroying cities to get to the thr eat is no longer mine-detecti on do gs, and hea vy ro ute-clearance assets-c-such 

accepted by the free world. Ba sed on as roll ers or Panthers-s- will hav e to be devel op ed. these developments, the 

joint co mm unity and Army have published new doctrine on In summary, Captain De.Iamettes art icle was a well-written 

th e co nd uc t of military opera tio ns on urbani zed terrain articl e tha t fully explored the en gin eer cha lleng es o f the urban 

(MO UT ). specific a lly JP 3-0 6, Doctrine fo r Join t U rban environment at that tim e. Howev er, the world has ch an ged. 

Op era tio ns: FM 3-06 (DRAG) , Urban Op erations; and FM 3­ and new doctrine will affec t how we approac h solutions to the 

06 .11, Combined Arms Operation s in Urb an Terrain. problems. We chall en ge you to reread Captain De .larne ttes 

Eme rging doctrine in FM 3-06 takes into co nsideration the articl e afte r you read the emerging doctrine and refl ect on 

contemporary o pe ra tional env ironme nt II ab o evtablixhes a solu tio ns fo r co mbat engineering in urban terrain . W new framework for co mm anders to visualize , de scr ibe , and 

direct urban ope ratio ns . This new do c trin e focu se s on Li curenont Colon el Funkhou ser is the chi efo jth« Doctrine un derstanding the terrain, soc iety, and infrastructure . The Devel opment Divisi on, U.S. Annv Engine er School. Fo rt 

doctrine looks to minimize co llatera l damage and preserve criti cal Leona rd Wood, Missouri. In that ca pa city; he recently spen t 

in frastructure. E ng ineers mu st understand the political end th ree mon ths with the Battl e C0 l1111w nd Training Program ­ state o f the operatio n , becau se it impacts bow we conduc t Operations Croup F, specializing in urban operations. He military operati on s. If the end slate seeks only to remove ce rtain also part icip at ed in t he Un it ed States-Isra eli Urh an focu sed indivi du als and ree stablish th e gove rn m ent and Op era tions Work Gro up , in Tel Al'iv, Israel. 

infras tructure. then destroying cert ain utilities and negatively 

affecting the population ma y not achreve the de sired end slate . Maj or Kirkion is the deputy chief, Doct rine Development 

Division, U.S. A rmy Eng inee r Schoo i. Fort Leon ard \\·()()d, As a departure from the article . ioday's adve rsaries do not 

Missouri, emplace conventi on al minefields. instead they use individual 

mi nes with small am bush teams. Mines are not just pla ced on 

10 E ngineer january-March 2003 
January-March 2003 Engineer 11

While executing combat operations after a sudden

deployment to Southwest Asia, light sappers of

the 41st Engineer Battalion, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, New York, gave new meaning to the motto

Essayons. Operating first in Uzbekistan and then in Afghanistan, the light engineers performed numerous construction

and area clearance missions for which they had never trained.

Their combat successes can only be attributed to their versatility and ingenuity, especially when tools and training for

certain uncommon tasks were lacking.

Deployment

Task Force 1-87 Infantry assumed the division ready

force mission on the day before the 11 September 2001

terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington,

D.C. Alpha Company, 41st Engineer Battalion, provided habitual

support to the task force with a light engineer platoon.

Consisting of three 8-man sapper squads and a 3-man platoon

headquarters, the engineer platoon was trained in customary

mobility, countermobility, and survivability support to a light

infantry battalion task force.

On 20 September, the task force was assigned an emergency

readiness deployment exercise (EDRE), designed presumably

to further prepare it for responsibilities as the division ready

force. The entire task force underwent routine checks to ensure

that each soldier was ready for deployment with regard to

medical, legal, and financial requirements. The sappers then

requalified on individual weapons and loaded their prepacked

personal, squad, and platoon equipment. This included

palletization of equipment and bags and U.S. Air Force joint

inspection of equipment and vehicles. The EDRE followed

standard routines until the task force members received new

chemical overgarments, body armor, and desert camouflage

uniforms. It was now clear that this was more than just another

training exercise.

Learning that their squad vehicles were an extremely low

priority for air movement, the sappers refined packing lists

and palletized almost all of their equipment, along with Class

IV supplies for constructing protective wire and fighting

positions at the destination, wherever that might be.

On 2 October, the first elements of Task Force 1-87 Infantry

repositioned to Fort Drum’s rapid-deployment facility to load

By Captain Philip J. Dacunto and Captain (Bo) Arnold

Light Engineer Lessons Learned

in the Contemporary Operational Environment

Engineer soldiers construct a roadblock.
12 Engineer January-March 2003

aircraft for their final, classified destination. In the next few

days, remaining elements of the task force continued this flow

through the rapid-deployment facility until all had deployed.

Uzbekistan

On 5 October, the sapper platoon leader awoke on a

dusty air base in Uzbekistan, with only 50 other

Americans within thousands of miles. During the

days that followed, his squads arrived with their supported

infantry companies.

As anticipated, initial sapper missions included countermobility (wire and obstacles) on the perimeter and survivability

within the base camp. However, the requested dig asset package

of two small emplacement excavators (SEEs) and one D7

bulldozer had not been high enough on the airflow priority to

make it into country. Relying exclusively on hand tools, sapper

productivity was severely limited. After two weeks, a loader

and a SEE arrived with a logistics task force, but the light

engineers could only borrow the equipment for limited periods

of time. Nonetheless, within 30 days, the small platoon

emplaced more than 8,500 meters of defensive wire around the

air base and eventually built more than 40 fighting positions

and bunkers.

Task Force 1-87 Infantry relied on the sappers for construction as well. Although they were neither formally trained

nor equipped for vertical construction missions, the sappers

were initially the only engineers in the area and were assigned

all types of engineer missions. While at the air base, the platoon

built a tactical operations center inside a hardened aircraft

shelter, numerous tent platforms, four guard shelters, and a

detainee facility. In addition to carpentry skills, the platoon

often used the welding skills of some of its soldiers.

Afghanistan

As the Afghanistan Northern Alliance’s operational

successes changed the strategic situation, the task

force prepared for another deployment and new

missions. Moving forward with their habitually associated

infantry companies, sappers cleared land and developed bases

at several bare-bones airfields in Afghanistan. With an estimate

of more than eight million mines emplaced within Afghanistan’s

borders and minimal marking or recording of their locations,

the risk to forces operating there was extreme. In addition,

there was a significant risk of unexploded ordnance (UXO)

left over from more than a decade of war.

Clearing areas for force bed down soon became a concern

at the operating bases, as the new units that were arriving

needed lodgment areas faster than engineers could clear them.

Around Baghram Air Base, which became a major U.S. and

coalition force forward operating base, all areas had a high

risk of mines and UXO and had to be thoroughly cleared before

use. Through coordination with local Northern Alliance

commanders, sappers began by mapping out the locations of

the minefield using laser range finders and Global Positioning

System (GPS) coordinates. Then they prioritized clearance

requirements and began clearing with their limited assets.

The sappers soon found that their organic AN/PSS-12 mine

detectors were of minimal value because of the large amounts

of metal scraps and other detritus left in the ground from earlier

fighting. Fortunately, a coalition Army unit at Baghram was

equipped with a medium-sized Aardvark flail, which could be

used to clear and proof selected areas. While progress was

slow and communications with the foreign soldiers sometimes

difficult, the platoon was able to clear several areas for base

camp construction and airfield improvements.

After the Aardvark departed, the sappers relied exclusively

on miniflails, but this equipment cleared at a very slow rate.

Also available for area clearance—from B Company, 92d

Engineer Battalion—was one D7 dozer fitted with a mineclearing armor-protection (MCAP) kit that provided protection

for the operator. This MCAP dozer allowed safe clearance of

larger areas.

Concurrently with land clearing, the light sappers performed

construction missions as well. Initially, the only other engineer

unit at Baghram was a platoon from the 92d Engineer Battalion,

Engineers construct a guard checkpoint.

The MCAP dozer with operators from B Company, 92d

Engineer Battalion
January-March 2003 Engineer 13

but this superb vertical construction unit was a limited asset

with a long list of tasks. Thus, the smaller jobs—especially

those related to survivability and countermobility—fell to light

sappers. In addition to emplacing thousands of meters of wire

during a two-month period at Baghram, the sappers built or

assisted with two detainee facilities and several guard

checkpoints, installed doors and windows in a guard building,

constructed improvised Hesco bastions for use at entry control

points, welded gates and drop arms, and completed a wide

variety of other tasks. They borrowed tools and employed

more and more carpentry and welding skills.

In a couple of months, other engineer units arrived at

Baghram to augment the base’s construction and mine-clearing

capabilities. Included were a U.S. Air Force Rapid EngineerDeployable, Heavy-Operations Repair Squadron—Engineer

(RED HORSE) team and coalition assets such as a generalpurpose engineer platoon, runway repair experts, and a mineclearing detachment.

Operation Anaconda

I

n late February 2002, light sappers again showed their

mettle in direct combat operations. Headquarters, 10th

Mountain Division, initially designated as Coalition

Forces Land Component Command–Forward (CFLCC–FWD),

had moved into Baghram, redesignated as Coalition Joint Task

Force–Mountain (CJTF–MTN), and assumed control of all

conventional and special operations forces in Afghanistan.

Additionally, CJTF–MTN began planning for what would

eventually become Operation Anaconda, to eliminate a pocket

of Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in an area of the Paktia Province.

Task Force 1-87 Infantry’s mission was to establish positions

to block Al-Qaeda and Taliban troops fleeing the area after a

concurrent attack by Afghan military forces. On 2 March—

and under 3d Brigade, 101st Airborne Division command—

the task force conducted an air assault into several landing

zones. Although initially rebuffed by intense enemy activity

at one landing zone, the task force successfully inserted and

conducted continuous operations over the next nine days

along a ridgeline at elevations between 8,000 and 10,000 feet—

possibly the highest elevations at which the U.S. Army has

ever conducted combat operations. The task force routed out

enemy forces that had not yet withdrawn and destroyed caches

and caves.

The task force commander attached a squad of light sappers

to each infantry company with the platoon leader and platoon

sergeant integrated into the battalion command posts, thus

providing maximum flexibility and capabilities for the maneuver

commanders. This close attachment proved essential because

the rugged, high terrain made it impossible for sappers to move

quickly between separated maneuver units. During planning,

sappers focused on mobility and countermobility tasks,

preparing to breach lanes through minefields and create

obstacles at the blocking positions. During Operation Anaconda, however, sappers focused mainly on cache destruction.

They made maximum use of their demolition skills, destroying

caches of rocket-propelled grenades, recoilless rifles, small

arms, mines, and even several howitzers, with only the

demolitions that they carried on their backs. This often called

for innovation, as they used limited demolitions to destroy

the maximum amount of enemy equipment. For example, the

sappers disabled the captured howitzers using claymore mines

to augment the remaining two blocks of C4 demolition at that

location.

Some of the limitations during Operation Anaconda were

the weight of the soldiers’ loads and the limited availability of

resupply. Although leaders revised packing lists carefully to

minimize excess after the initial insertion, soldiers learned that

they had to pare down even more. They could not move and

fight at the extreme altitudes while carrying even a modest

rucksack load. Officers and NCOs ensured that their soldiers

used a minimum of the most effective clothing to combat the

Engineer soldiers weld a

gate at Baghram.
14 Engineer January-March 2003

freezing temperatures. They left behind all cotton items—even

their desert camouflage uniforms—for a uniform of polypropylene and Goretex. To help lighten the load, some units

deployed without sleeping bags, which were delivered a day

or two later. Load limitations were particularly challenging for

sappers, who brought only the most essential tools for their

mobility and countermobility tasks. Planned obstacles relied

on the innovative use of limited demolitions, and some

materials—such as those for lane marking—had to be kept to

an absolute minimum. Sappers relied almost exclusively on

C4, leaving heavy bangalore torpedoes, cratering charges, and

shaped charges back at Baghram, ready to be pushed forward

should they be needed.

Lessons Learned

The light engineer platoon learned several important

lessons from its deployment to Southwest Asia, which

fall into three categories: deployment readiness, sapper

tools, and sapper training.

Deployment Readiness

Don’t reinforce one platoon too heavily at the expense of

others for any operation. This is important whether the

deployment is to the Joint Readiness Training Center or if it is

an operational deployment. In our case, the priority of

company personnel and equipment supported another

platoon’s impending rotation to Kosovo. As a result, our

platoon deployed with only 21 of the 27 soldiers it was

authorized, and it had more pronounced supply shortages

than it might otherwise have had. This made the short period

following the EDRE that much more difficult as leaders

throughout the company sought to cross-level yet again.

Light engineer squads should not become too reliant on

their vehicles. Modern deployments are usually made by air,

and there is seldom enough space for all the authorized

equipment. In our case, space was allocated for only one highmobility, multipurpose, wheeled vehicle (HMMWV), so load

plans designed for squad vehicles were not useful, and most

squad equipment was palletized. In addition, sappers had to

use their rucksacks to carry demolitions, breach kits, and other

critical tools. Thus, it is important to have load plans with and

without squad vehicles.

A survivability package of two SEEs and a D7 dozer should

be on call for the division ready force engineer platoon. This

package, assembled after our alert, was not assigned a high

enough priority to make it into the airflow. The equipment

would have dramatically increased countermobility and

survivability capabilities, especially with the wide variety of

pneumatic tools on the SEE. The light sappers used mostly

hand tools to dig survivability positions and emplace wire to

protect the airhead.

Sapper Tools

A pneumatic picket pounder attachment should be

included with the SEE for deployments. The platoon emplaced

more than 8,500 meters of wire for survivability positions and

An engineer clears an area with a miniflail.
obstacles in Uzbekistan. The attachment could have been

palletized with minimal impact to aircraft space and would have

greatly improved productivity.

Light sappers need to deploy with organic carpentry tools.

Since light sappers were the first engineers on the ground in

Uzbekistan, and construction engineers did not arrive for

another month, many tasks normally assigned to vertical

construction engineers fell to the light sappers. While their

skills were adequate for the rudimentary construction jobs

assigned, they had no carpentry tools. At a minimum, a power

saw, power drill, hand saw, hand drill, and hammers should be

procured locally, if necessary, and deployed whenever base

development tasks may be assigned. Perhaps these common

carpentry tools should be added to the light engineer squad

tool sets. Larger equipment that would be very useful includes

a reciprocating saw, hammer drill, small arc welder, and gaspowered cutter with a carbide blade. In addition, a small

generator for the power tools would prevent the sappers from

having to borrow power from other sources. These should

either be deployed with the leading sapper unit or palletized

for call forward. Again, perhaps these should be added to the

platoon or company headquarters modified table of organization and equipment.

Detection tools incorporating ground-penetrating radar,

such as the Handheld Standoff Mine-Detection System

(HSTAMIDS), would be extremely helpful in augmenting

existing or improved metal detectors (for example, the

AN/PSS-12 and F1A4 Minelab).

A team of mine-detection dogs with handlers should be

available to any deployed light sapper battalion facing

significant mine-clearing missions. Mine-detection dogs were

invaluable at Baghram, especially for proofing areas for mines

and UXO. Dogs frequently found UXO in areas that were

surface-swept, flailed, and scraped by both an MCAP dozer

and a grader!

The sapper platoon needs a medium-sized flail, about the

size of a HMMWV, that is deployable by C-130. The miniflail

was helpful in proofing small areas, but it had serious

maintenance problems and lacked the necessary power. Scraps

of metal and uneven terrain defeated it, and because of its

small width, it was unsuited for clearing large areas. A midsized foreign flail, the Hydrema, was extremely effective and

cleared large areas at Baghram, but its size and weight would

be a limitation for strategic deployment. Clearly, these additional mine-clearing assets need not be organic to every

light engineer company. However, they should exist somewhere

in the force structure and be attached to deploying units

whenever minefield/UXO clearance is likely to be a significant

task.

Sapper Training

Sappers must be able to clear large areas for base camps

and assembly areas. The light sappers’ capabilities in this

area are weak, primarily because platoon tasks and company

mission-essential task lists usually do not address area

clearance for operational purposes. Instead, training most often

focuses on breaching and bypassing. In reality, today’s

operational environment includes not just carefully laid

obstacles in specific locations but often huge areas littered

with mines and UXO.

Sappers need to be trained to defeat or reduce mines in a

variety of ways. When confronted with mines, sappers are

well-trained to either destroy them in place or bypass them.

However, traditional destruction of mines with demolitions

endangers nearby personnel and equipment and spreads

explosive residue around, reducing the subsequent effectiveness of mine-detection dogs in that area. Sappers must

be well-versed in the use of available flails, but we believe that

more importantly, they must be experts in identifying and

defusing most types of foreign mines. At a minimum, they

should understand the design and attributes common to sets

of mines that can contribute to inferences about other types

of mines not previously studied. Mine instruction should also

include disarming and defusing them so they can be removed

safely and negate the requirement for explosive disposal. A

rudimentary knowledge in identification of UXO is essential

as well. Explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) assets are extremely limited, and when sappers are clearing areas, they are

just as likely to find UXO as mines. Once UXO is found,

engineers should still rely on EOD personnel to clear it.

Since it would be an impossible training challenge to bring all

sappers up to these standards, one way to achieve a limited

capability would be to train some trainers—perhaps one NCO

per sapper squad—in a “master countermine course.” Once

trained, these sergeants would be certified as master countermine

trainers. They would return to their home station and teach other

members of their squads to clear areas for operational use, in

addition to breaching and marking bypasses.

Conclusion

While the brown hills and dust of Uzbekistan and

Afghanistan are now a fading memory for our

company, other light sappers may deploy to another

bare operational base in a mine- and UXO-littered area in the

future. Therefore, all light engineers should benefit from these

lessons learned and try to improve engineer tools and training.

Such improvements, coupled with the Essayons spirit, will

ensure accomplishment of the challenging light sapper

missions ahead.

Captain Dacunto was the company commander who

trained, deployed, and supported the sapper platoon. He

concurrently served for three months in Afghanistan as the

assistant division engineer in Headquarters, 10th Mountain

Division.

Captain Arnold served as platoon leader through-out the

six-month deployment. He was awarded a Bronze Star for

meritorious achievement for his actions during the deployment and during Operation Anaconda.

 January-March 2003 Engineer 15
16 Engineer January-March 2003

Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) are

two of the most important elements of any engineer

construction project. However, QA/QC have not been

officially proclaimed a part of the engineering process,

and there is a trend among the junior officers and noncommissioned officers (NCOs) throughout the services to not

employ the conceptual practices of QC. Additionally, senior

leaders in the battalions and squadrons are not mentoring and

developing a solid QA program within their organizations that

ensures the success of the project and the service members

involved in the construction.

The unit is responsible for maintaining construction

standards as outlined in the design specifications, plans, and

other standard engineering documents. How is this guaranteed? Supervision. Why is it important? There are many

obvious reasons: safety; savings in time and materials; superior

product or outcome; service member satisfaction and reduced

frustration; training in organization, management, and

construction techniques; unit reputation; and mission accomplishment. In other words, QA/QC provide a little more

predictability in an often-unpredictable profession. Figure 1

shows improper bracing and construction of forms.

Engineering Process

Thousands of military engineers are trained in the

engineering process annually at our formal schools.

This process involves six fundamental elements:

project management, planning, design, construction,

operations/maintenance, and disposal. All six elements exist

in almost any engineering undertaking. So which element does

QA/QC fall under? None, some, or all? Up until now, not once

during that formal school experience in the military was the

phrase “QA/QC” emphasized, nor did students receive a block

of instruction on how to set up a QA/QC program and implement it on a construction project. It’s possible that it was

camouflaged in the title of “leadership” or cloaked somewhere

in the project management block of construction. Yet, as a

company grade officer and the officer in charge (OIC) of many

projects, I often found myself figuring things out through

“on-the-job training”—and many of the problems were related

to QA/QC.

QA/QC Constr QA/QC Constr QA/QC Construction Super uction Super uction Supervision

. . . or “ . . . or “Just Wing It” ing It”

By Major Jeffrey J. Johnson

Figure 1. These forms were poorly constructed and not

inspected. Notice the blowing and waving effect.
January-March 2003 Engineer 17

Units from all services execute various types of projects

(from simple to very technical) and implement their own

concept of a QC program. Some of the programs are very good,

but some are almost nonexistent. The quality of the program

depends partly on the leadership, but a lot also has to do with

the lack of formal instruction on the QA/QC process. It is a

refined skill and program that needs to be taught as well as

learned.

QC Recommendations

The project OIC needs to be concerned with the QC of

the project, which can be broken into a phased control

method. The complete performance of the control

phases is the unit’s responsibility, not the customer’s or any

third party’s (such as outside contractors, material procurement

representatives, or inspectors). The role of the S3 shop is to

ensure that the control phases are performed thoroughly, in a

timely manner, and by knowledgeable, unit-designated QC

staff. Enforcing an existing unit SOP is always a good method.

If there is no SOP, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers implements

a QC concept consisting of four phases: 1

Preparatory Phase

This phase begins with actions in advance of construction.

A few examples are reviews of designs, details, specifications,

test reports, and mix designs; a physical check of material onsite against approvals and customer requirements; safety

checks of equipment; and other preparatory steps that depend

on the particular operation. This phase is active from the start

of planning to the initiation of construction.

Initial Phase

This is the time for the unit, customer, and any third party

to ensure or reestablish standards of workmanship. If there

are differences of opinion on the interpretation of construction

requirements, the issue can be discussed and settled at the

outset of work rather than after the work is in place. The initial

inspection phase is a practical method of performing preventive

inspection and reaching agreements (in writing) in advance.

Proper coordination from the unit must be made before

construction starts and during the initial phase. This is to

ensure that construction techniques meet specifications and

the intent of the designer and that tests are identified.

Follow-Up Phase

This phase includes inspections and testing to determine

continuation of compliance and workmanship established

during the preparatory and initial phases. Follow-up

inspections may occur on a daily, routine, or predetermined

basis as required to ensure strict construction compliance (see

Figure 2). This happens throughout the project. For example,

units can construct “mock-ups”—such as sample footings,

walls (masonry or lumber), and trusses—to establish standards

or have inspectors approve the mock-ups before constructing

the proportionate load of the project. Figure 3, page 18, shows

a county inspector conducting a slump test on a grout place

for a concrete masonry unit wall.

 Completion Phase

When a segment of work or a project is near completion,

the unit should carefully examine this work and prepare a list

(called a punch list) of anything that is not completed or that

does not conform to design/customer requirements. Prefinal

and final inspections should be conducted by the customer,

unit, and third parties about a week before the project is

completed and turned over to the customer. This will ensure

that all items are identified on the list and that the customer is

satisfied.

Everyone in the unit—from commanders down to the junior

NCOs—can make a big difference in the QC system by implementing daily meetings and establishing a team-building/

project-ownership concept into the mission. First, daily

meetings help the unit prepare for future tasks, identify possible

material or equipment problems, recognize QC tests or

measurements, and organize for the next day’s operations

(possibly for a week, if feasible). For instance, a platoon

Figure 2. This QC NCO ensures that the CMU wall and block are

properly located and measured/cut for placement.
18 Engineer January-March 2003

preparing for a large concrete placement on a project can

conduct daily meetings, which can help monitor and define

the materials required (on-hand/shortfall), the equipment

needed (such as vibrators, screed, a power trough, floats, and

a pump truck), the personnel responsibilities and duties in

support of that task, mandatory testing (such as slum or

cylinder), deliveries, start and stop times, and on and on. This

can be done for each task or subtask, using the critical path

method of evaluation.

Second, explain the process, methods, and techniques to

the most junior service members so they will understand the

duties involved in concrete placement. This will help them

appreciate what they are doing and why. It will also develop a

sense of accountability for the workmanship quality. It should

parallel the same actions taken by an infantry unit preparing

for a patrol: inspections, briefs, sand table exercises, rock drills,

and rehearsals.

Lessons Learned

Many lessons are learned on each project, and no

project is ever the same as the last one. But there

are a few consistent slipups that can mean the

difference between quality workmanship and poor workmanship on any project.

Units seem to wrestle against developing a QC notebook

that contains all daily QC reports, tests, and measurements.

This notebook helps the project OIC or senior NCO formally

document many things. It can help track deficiencies in

materials and trends in production (positive or negative);

document corrective actions; identify positions of assigned

personnel, equipment usage, and tests or measurements

conducted; and help maintain those reports in a neat and

orderly fashion.

For example, a unit was placing several hundred yards of

concrete for the foundation of a simunitions facility in North

Bronx, New York. A few days after the placement, the customer

requested documentation of the slump tests conducted on

each batch of concrete delivered. The unit could provide only

two handwritten documents on the entire placement (more

than 12 truckloads), because the test results were either never

documented or were lost. The unit was very close to hammering

out the entire placement and starting all over. This could have

been prevented if a QC representative had been supervising

the requirements and the paper trail of testing for that task.

Units fall short in identifying the control, inspection, and

testing procedures—both on- and off-site—for each task and

assigning these responsibilities to the QC staff. On one

project, a unit was placing concrete and didn’t have a slump

test kit. The trucks were turned away, and the placement was

delayed until they found a kit. QC supervision, which was

missing during this installation, could have helped identify

tests to be performed for each task and state who was

responsible for the results and who should have prepared

and signed reports.

Checking the designs, details, notes, specifications, and

checks, and measurements and ensuring that they match

materials on hand are commonly overlooked until they affect

the progress of the project. A unit that was constructing a

facility in San Diego cut the rebar, bent it, and started placing

it in the footers in preparation for the first placement of

concrete. A county inspector failed the footings because

specifications called for grade 60 rebar in about 90 percent of

the foundation, but the unit had used grade 40. Figure 4 shows

how rebar is marked and graded.

Figure 4. This is an example of the identification markings rolled onto the surface of reinforcing bars. The unit

did not verify design specifications with the materials

being used.

Figure 3. County inspectors assist the unit QC representative in conducting a

“slump” test for a grout fill on a CMU block wall. The slump was to be about

8 inches.
January-March 2003 Engineer 19

Constant QC oversight or supervision during the workday

on tasks being performed is often sporadic. This causes a lot

of problems with workmanship quality and construction

techniques, which leads to many tasks being repeated. For

example, one unit built, tore down, and rebuilt a concrete wall

three times because it was not using proper masonry construction methods, and the wall consistently lost its bond and

was out of plumb. Figure 5 shows a pilaster that was constructed incorrectly.

QA Supervision

Now that a few control measures are in place, unit leaders

must guarantee that QC actions are being followed

through. As in troop-leading procedures, supervision

is critical to the success of any mission. Therefore, QA becomes the final engineer troop-leading step on a construction

project. This includes such things as inspections, intelligence

updates (design changes or guidance), rehearsals (practicing

essential tasks, revealing weaknesses, and improving understanding of the concept of operations at all levels), brief backs,

rock/sand table drills, stick drills, site visits, meetings (daily/

weekly/monthly after-action reviews), encouragement,

motivation, mentorship, and participation. These are just a

few effects that the leadership in a unit can bring to bear on a

QC program and help set up young officers and NCOs for

success. Figure 6 shows rebar with grease accidentally smeared

on it. Adequate supervision could have prevented this

problem.

Figure 6. The grease on this rebar will not allow the

concrete to adhere around the reinforcement as it should.

More care should be taken when lubricating forms.

Summary

I

t is possible that a QA/QC program could evolve by itself

if solid “Leadership 101” was exercised; however, there

are many negative lessons learned on a construction

project that could be avoided if units would implement a formal

program (the unit’s SOP). Often, junior troops are fixing,

replacing, working harder, taking longer, and exercising poor

construction habits because the QA/QC program on the site

for that project is broken. Thus, those experiences are carried

over into the next project or back in garrison with sour attitudes

about the leadership and the service. Behaviors then become

a reflection of that attitude, and ultimately unit esprit de corps,

motivation, and workmanship decline. As leaders, we owe it to

our troops, our superiors, and our customers to not “just wing

it” but to exercise excellence in organization and fineness in

declaration.

Endnote

1

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Pamphlet 415-1-

261, Quality Assurance Representatives Guide, Volumes 1-5,

1992.

Major Johnson, United States Marine Corps, is the

engineer planner at Joint Task Force 6, Fort Bliss, Texas.

Previously, he was a platoon and company commander, 3d

Marine Division, 3d Combat Engineer Battalion, and a wing

engineer officer and department OIC, 2d Marine Aircraft

Wing, Marine Wing Support Squadron 27. Major Johnson is

a graduate of the Engineer Officer Basic and Advanced

Courses and the Marine Corps Command and General Staff

College and holds a bachelor’s in architectural technology

from the University of Memphis. He will attend the Air

Command and General Staff College in 2003.

Figure 5. This pilaster is “out of plumb”

by 1 1/4 inch on the seventh course, the

second course CMU block is cut, and the

mortar joints are sloppy.
20 Engineer January-March 2003

Alpha Company, 44th Engineer Battalion, Camp Howze,

Korea, habitually supports 4th Squadron, 7th Cavalry

Regiment (4-7 Cavalry), in Korea. The opportunity is

rare in the Engineer Corps, because divisional cavalry units

do not usually have habitual engineer support. As a consequence, their offensive and defensive doctrine are not well

integrated. The support that engineers provide on a consistent

basis offers great combined-arms training. In providing support

to 4-7 Cavalry, Alpha Company works outside of the rest of

the 44th for all its combat operations. This article addresses

many of the keys of the trade that can help in understanding

the cavalry’s mission and mindset and how task force engineers

can best support it.

Cavalry Operations

The divisional cavalry squadron is usually out in front

of the division providing security and/or reconnaissance. In essence, the squadron is the eyes and

ears of the division and provides vital information that allows

the division commander to make critical decisions on the

battlefield. Cavalry operations can be broken into four

subcategories as listed in FM 17-95, Cavalry Operations. They

are reconnaissance, security, offense, and defense. As an

engineer supporting these operations, it is essential to

understand what they mean and the fundamentals involved.

Of these operations, reconnaissance and security will be

discussed.

Reconnaissance Operations

Divisional cavalry squadrons perform area, route, and zone

reconnaissance. The squadron or troop especially needs to

use engineers on route reconnaissance operations. Cavalry

squadrons and troops are trained on this task, but not to the

level of expertise of the engineer platoon leader or company

commander. Coordinating efforts and fully understanding the

roles that the engineers and the squadron play on this mission

help give better reconnaissance results. The squadron’s

mission for reconnaissance, in relation to the fundamentals of

reconnaissance as stated in FM 17-95, is as follows:

 Maintain tempo and focus.

 Orient on the reconnaissance objective.

 Report all information rapidly and accurately.

 Retain freedom of maneuver.

 Gain and maintain enemy contact.

 Develop the situation rapidly.

The squadron is tasked to clear routes for follow-on forces

from the division. It must maintain a fast tempo to allow the

rest of the division with more firepower to move up the

designated routes or recommend different routes. The engineer

leader in this situation must understand the objective and

ensure that the squadron does not get slowed down by

obstacles. Ensuring that each troop has the capability to breach

obstacles allows the squadron or troop to maintain the proper

tempo and focus.

The squadron and engineer support must also

remember to orient on the reconnaissance objective—

usually form-fixed points on the battlefield. The

temptation is to lose sight of the objective of clearing

routes and to focus on the enemy. Engineers must not

let the squadron become bogged down in heavy enemy

contact, which is not the purpose of the recon. They

must ensure that mobility corridors are open to the

squadron.

In reporting information rapidly and accurately,

engineers become key personnel. If a route is not

passable by heavy vehicles or tanks, engineers must

ensure that the situation is properly reported. All too

often, a troop or squadron commander will decide if a

route is passable to follow-on forces without engineer

input. An incorrect assumption can impede an entire

operation. The engineer leaders must readily determine

the trafficability of routes.

Out Front With the Divisional Cavalry

By Captain Elliott J. Bird

The combined-arms team battle-tracks situation reports from

the troops.
January-March 2003 Engineer 21

The troop and squadron need engineers to give them

freedom to maneuver. The squadron, which is usually up front,

may be the first to come in contact with the enemy, and it

maintains contact and develops the situation. All of these

elements are necessary for engineers to understand. The

squadron engineer in the tactical operations center (TOC) must

plan alternate routes for the squadron to allow the troop

commander the maneuver freedom he needs to accomplish

the mission. The terrain analysis that engineers bring to bear

on the situation is unparalleled. As they plan the routes, they

ensure that troop commanders and engineer attachments

understand the routes and purposes for them.

Once the squadron gains enemy contact, the focus of the

engineer effort shifts to route accessibility and possible

mobility problems. The squadron will continually maintain

contact through air troops, but ground troops will rely on

engineer planning to find the most accessible route that allows

them to maintain contact.

As the squadron gains contact, it develops the situation,

and the engineer effort becomes secondary. Depending on

the situation, the engineers may plan for the squadron to

continue to push forward offensively or to hand off the battle

to follow-on units.

When engineers and the cavalry squadron use all of these

fundamentals, they become a greater fighting team, accomplishing the necessary missions together.

Security Operations

Security operations for a cavalry squadron are usually

based on executing a screening mission, which it frequently

performs out in front of a brigade or division front. A screen

line is nothing more than a defense in-depth that allows the

squadron to trade ground for time and allows the division to

properly prepare its defenses or reconsolidate its forces for

future operations. To have an effective screen line, the

squadron needs a good engineer plan that includes situational

obstacles. Screening operations also use some basic security

fundamentals:

 Orient on the main body.

 Perform continuous reconnaissance.

 Provide early and accurate warning.

 Provide reaction time and maneuver space.

 Maintain enemy contact.

When a cavalry squadron prepares a screen line, the

squadron engineer must be directly linked into the planning

process. To orient itself on the main body, it often calls on the

engineer to coordinate with engineer units behind the screen

line to find the emplaced obstacles and ensure that lanes are

available for passage of lines. This allows the squadron

commander accurate information on what the defense behind

him looks like and how to establish his forces.

Out in front, the squadron becomes the eyes and ears of

the division, and the air troops continue to send in reports of

enemy movement, which helps the division commander make

decisions on the course of the battle. This continuous

reconnaissance provides the early and accurate warning

needed. The squadron engineer must have knowledge of all

such spot reports so he can plan for situational obstacles.

The obstacles that are planned and put in are usually

scatterable mines or quick obstacles to slow an enemy and

provide the necessary reaction time and maneuver space. By

slowing the enemy and integrating an effective obstacle plan

to support the squadron’s screen line, engineers help the

squadron maintain combat power and fulfill its overriding

mission as the eyes and ears of the division commander.

As discussed previously, once enemy contact is made, the

squadron will strive to maintain contact. At this time, engineer

effort becomes secondary to the squadron’s battle. The

engineer in the TOC must look ahead to the next course of

action and provide necessary mobility planning for the

squadron to accomplish.

Conclusion

I

t is important to remember the history of the cavalry, its

great lineage, and its current mission. The division cavalry

squadron moves fast and furiously on the modern

battlefield. Its missions are different than any other unit,

because it is not a normal maneuver battalion. Although its

capabilities and diversity make it successful, with proper

coordination and planning, engineers can facilitate the

squadron’s overall success.

Captain Bird was the executive officer, Alpha Company,

44th Engineer Battalion, and later the adjutant for the 44th.

He will attend the Engineer Captain’s Career Course at Fort

Leonard Wood, Missouri, beginning in March 2003.

Soldiers from Alpha Company, 44th Engineer Battalion,

work in the TOC, updating reports and tracking engineer effort on the battlefield.
This article describes the Royal Building System (RBS) as

used in the New Horizons 2002 exercises in Nicaragua and

El Salvador. The intent of the article is not to summarize the

New Horizons 2002 projects or evaluate exercise results but

to present to the military engineering community lessons

learned from using the RBS. This system is one of several

similar construction systems available today.

As part of the Deputy Joint Chiefs of Staff-directed New

Horizons exercise organized by the U.S. Southern

Command, active duty and reserve engineers from all

four services train by building public infrastructure and utilities

throughout Central and South America. The arrangement has

been ideal for creating and maintaining expertise in theater

construction methods in U.S. Army engineering units, while

providing needed infrastructure projects to our American

neighbors.

New Horizons 2002 did not focus engineer training on the

concrete masonry building materials typically used in theater

construction. Instead, U.S. Army South (USARSO) elected to

use the Canadian-developed RBS for vertical construction. In

the Caribbean, civilian RBS buildings have withstood tropical

storms that leveled their conventional neighbors, bolstering

the vendor’s claims that the resulting buildings are among the

most survivable structures, even though they can be built

relatively quickly.

The RBS uses vinyl wall forms constructed of 4-, 6-, or 8-

inch-wide modular sections to create a single continuous

“mold” of a building. Vertical steel reinforcing bars are fixed

into an underlying concrete slab and interweave through this

mold, and they are tied together by horizontal steel bars.

Finally, concrete is poured into the formwork from above in

“lifts” or layers. Once the concrete sets, the result is a reinforced-concrete building with a colored vinyl covering.

The potential uses of these rapidly built reinforced-concrete

buildings are obvious. Buildings that can be built quickly yet

are well insulated, relatively soundproof, and resistant to blast

damage, fires, and small-arms fire have many applications in

semipermanent forward installations.

Designs for the project buildings were supplied to the task

force by USARSO, and the vendor used the designs to project

a bill of materials (BOM) for each site and supply the correct

components. U.S. Army reservists from the 389th Engineer

Battalion (Iowa), Marine reservists from the 6th Engineer

Support Battalion, and active duty sailors from the 4th Naval

Mobile Construction Battalion (Seabees) were all assigned

RBS projects. None of the units had prior experience with the

system, and both Marine and Army construction crews rotated

out every two weeks, leaving only a handful of cadre for the

duration of the exercise.

The New Horizons environment in Central America was

ideal for testing the RBS. The tropical heat and limited infrastructure of the host nations mirrored the challenging

Using the R sing the Royal Building S al Building System

in Theater Construction ter Construction ter Construction

By Captain Samuel Pickands

22 Engineer January-March 2003
conditions in forward-deployed operations. The reinforcedconcrete buildings produced are also sure to be appreciated

in the region where earthquakes and extreme weather are the

norm.

In general, RBS wall forms were simple to use and suitable

for military construction, even with untrained crews. Like any

system, however, many lessons were learned from the first

use of the RBS. If your unit has an opportunity to build with

the RBS, you will profit by incorporating these lessons learned

during your training, engineering, and logistics planning.

Assembly and Training

Building walls with the RBS is theoretically much faster

than building with concrete masonry units (CMUs).

Under ideal conditions (expert crews familiar with the

RBS, good weather, horizontal work complete, all equipment

and parts available, and long workdays) RBS structures can

be built in 72 hours. These examples, however, are not useful

for military planning, since they fail to account for the military

realities of personnel rotation, confusion of site BOMs in

shipment, remote worksites, BOM shortages, formwork

adaptations to extreme climates, heat category work-rate

limitations, time lost to force protection measures, local vendor

delays, and utility connection delays.

When planning, leaders must also remember that the RBS

is primarily a wall system. With trained leadership, wall

construction may be faster with the RBS, but horizontal work

and slab preparation are virtually identical to CMU construction. Roofing, utilities, doors and windows, and internal

finishing are somewhat faster with the RBS, but at least initially,

even these advantages will be offset by the unfamiliarity of

the system. If your unit is not experienced at horizontal, utilities,

roofing, and finishing work, your worksite progress will be

slow, whether or not you use the RBS correctly.

In the final analysis, RBS wall construction is not faster

than CMU construction unless and until the worksite

leadership has experience with the system. Fortunately, the

learning curve with the RBS is very steep, and a small number

of trained cadre can shorten construction time even with

untrained crews. For example, Task Force Oxelotlan needed 10

days to install the wall forms and pour the concrete at its first

project, the San Marcos Lempas School in El Salvador.

However, after the cadre had become familiar with the RBS,

the task force was able to use two trained NCOs and an untrained multinational construction crew to install rebar forms

and pour the walls in just 6 days for the Zamoran School. An

even steeper learning curve can be seen in the overall project

durations—the San Marcos Lempas School took 80 days to

complete, whereas the Zamoran School took just 41 days.

Concrete Slab

The basis of all RBS structures is a concrete slab.

Monolithic slabs were used in El Salvador; however,

nothing about the RBS restricts the use of floating

slabs instead. A unit that can build a slab for a CMU structure

can also build one for the RBS.

First, unless the plans have already taken expansion into

account, slabs must be slightly oversized to account for the

predictable expansion of the wall forms in hot environments.

If the slab is not oversized, the walls may overhang the edges

of the slab by as much as an inch at points. Oversizing ensures

that the walls are completely supported by the slabs and

creates a professional appearance.

January-March 2003 Engineer 23

Soldiers brace the wall of the Zamoran School.
The vertical rebar that will weave through the vinyl wall

forms may be placed in the slab while the concrete is still wet.

However, if the concrete is allowed to set (and concrete sets

quickly in hot climates), engineers will need to drill holes for

the rebar instead. To do this, units must be prepared with

powerful (preferably pneumatic) drills and have three bits for

each drill. Examples of suitable drills are the pneumatic drills in

the small emplacement excavator (SEE) truck BII or the Marine

Corps compressor-driven drill sets. To reduce wear on the drill

bits (which are difficult to replace while deployed), the site

crew must ensure that the metal reinforcing mesh is either set

back from the edges of the slab or fixed so that that these

vertical holes will not strike the mesh or reinforcing bar.

Form Distortion

The RBS forms were initially designed for use in Canada.

They begin expanding once the ambient temperature

exceeds 5°C or 41°F. The manufacturer has studied this

expansion and can complete building drawings with this

expansion taken into account if you provide the expected

ambient temperature at the time of the pour. However, if you

are using a standard military design drawing that does not

account for form expansion in heat, use the formulas below to

project how much larger your forms will be when assembled in

a certain heat. Note that the following formulas are for 6-inch/

150-millimeter panels. Different formulas are available for 4-

inch/100-millimeter and 8-inch /200-millimeter panels.

D = overall change in length

L = planned length of wall being considered

T = ambient temperature at the expected pour time

If you are measuring length in meters and temperature in

Celsius, use the following formula to determine the change in

length in your wall given the temperature:

Dmillimeters=(((Tcelsius-5)/15))(Lmeters))

If you are measuring length in feet and temperature in

Fahrenheit, use this formula to predict your change in inches:

Dinches=(((Tfarenheit-41)/27)(Lfeet/40)(.48))

If you are faced with an existing slab that was not poured

with this expansion in mind, there are two adaptations that

can help minimize form expansion and fit the walls to the slab.

If the projected wall overhang is large, examine the plans to

see if there are any RBS panels you can remove from the form

structure to meet the slab size. If the projected overhang is

small, tap the panels tightly together with rubber mallets during

assembly. RBS staff engineers have stated that the form

expansion is otherwise irreversible, so if the modifications

above are not enough, you may need to accept and manage

wall overhang on the slab.

Form expansion is not the only challenge heat brings to

RBS construction. In temperatures higher than 30°C or 87°F,

RBS panels begin to soften. Softened form walls become more

susceptible to hydraulic pressure from fluid concrete and tend

to bow outward when filled. In El Salvador, the high heat and

fluid concrete combined to create schoolhouse walls with

noticeable inward and outward bends and even form blowouts.

To minimize the distortion and control possible blowouts,

first cool the forms with a light spray of water. Not only will

this stiffen the forms slightly by cooling them, but it will also

help the concrete fill the forms completely and minimize air

pockets. After spraying, fill the forms in thinner lifts, using

five or six lifts instead of the typical three. This reduces the

amount of fluid concrete in the forms at any one time and thus

the hydraulic pressure exerted on the softened forms. Third,

combine these thinner lifts with increased wall bracing. In the

heat of El Salvador, however, the bracing had to be tripled and

augmented by additional braces within the structure to produce

smooth, straight walls with a pleasing appearance.

24 Engineer January-March 2003

Soldiers work on the school at Zamoran.

Slab and rebar for the Lempas project
Storage

During shipment and storage, strict handling requirements must be followed to prevent damage toRBS panels. Panels that are at the bottom of large

stacks, or have additional equipment piled on top of them,

become irreversibly warped, particularly in the heat. In

most cases in El Salvador, engineers could still fit warped

components into the formwork once pieces had softened in

the sun, but these pieces cost a good deal of labor time and

effort to force into place. In the worst cases, however, some

panels were completely unusable.

When temperatures regularly exceed 30°C (87°F), the following steps are recommended to protect RBS components:

 Store vinyl components in the shade or cover with loose

tarps that provide shade but still permit airflow.

 Do not store vinyl components in unvented containers, as

these can become hot enough to melt RBS parts.

 Store all components in flat, straight piles with continuous

support underneath. If components are stored without even

and flat support, they will become permanently warped.

 Do not store other equipment on top of RBS panels. In

temperatures over 30°C (87°F), do not stack RBS panels

more than 1 meter (40 inches) high.

Quality Control

With CMU construction, progress on the walls is

gradual, and leaders have time to identify problems

and correct them as they occur. Individual blocks

that are out of line are easily identified and can be adjusted, or

even knocked out and replaced. With the RBS, once the

concrete is poured into the forms and sets, nearly all the

previous steps of construction become irreversible. Consequently, quality control of every detail before filling the walls

with concrete is necessary. A full workday dedicated to quality

January-March 2003 Engineer 25

control—including rechecking the formwork level and plumb,

bracing tightness, and rebar connections—produces the best

results.

BOM Management

With CMU construction, if blocks are lost or broken

in storage, one simply obtains more blocks, since

CMU blocks are virtually identical from block to

block, vendor to vendor, and even country to country. But

with the RBS, if you break or lose a component you’re stuck,

since the nearest replacements may be in storehouses in

Ontario. In the worst cases, components may have been

custom-made for your project and may need to be

remanufactured.

Even if all the RBS parts are intact, it is easy to misuse

them. Most parts can be connected easily to other parts, and

many look very similar to each other. Without supervision,

engineers may use wall sections without conduit where plans

call for conduit, or even insert sections with very slightly

different widths in the wrong locations in the walls, creating

opposite walls of unequal lengths.

In operational terms, what this means is that RBS

components must be carefully inventoried, stored, and

accounted for throughout construction. Outside of North

America, loss, destruction, or accidental misuse of components

is irreversible in a practical time frame. Rather than being an

“extra duty” assigned to an unlucky junior NCO you don’t

trust to swing a hammer, managing RBS components is a

valuable mission that is best performed by an experienced

BOM manager.

Concrete Pumping System

RBS construction depends on crews being able to fill

the form from above with concrete. In North America,

this is usually done with a well-regulated concrete

pump operated by crews on scaffolding. If all else fails,

A heat-damaged RBS panel

Using a concrete bucket to fill the panels
engineers with ladders and pails of concrete could fill the forms,

but this would take a very long time. For efficiency’s sake,

every effort should be made to find a concrete pump, either to

deploy with your unit or to be on hand at your destination.

In general, lower-volume pumps are preferable to highervolume pumps when filling RBS forms. Higher-volume pumps

tend to create thick lifts, which create more hydraulic pressure

and distort the forms under hot operating conditions. Highervolume pumps also have larger-diameter hoses that become

extremely heavy when filled with concrete. In North America,

with a well-regulated pump, contractors generally start and

finish a pour with one crew.

In El Salvador, the only available concrete pump in the

region was a large-volume pump used for quickly pouring

industrial slabs. The “pouring crew” was a grueling six-man

detail that had to be rotated every 20 minutes as soldiers grew

tired from steering the heavy, bucking concrete hose into the

narrow RBS wall panels. This large-volume hose had a wider

diameter than the RBS panels, which allowed concrete to spray

over the surfaces of outer walls, requiring additional cleanup

before the concrete hardened.

An alternative to a missing or an inappropriate concrete

pump was used in Nicaragua. Here, a basin of concrete was

suspended with a crane over an RBS wall. By managing a

chute from this basin, engineers could gravity-feed concrete

into the forms. This was much less work for the engineers and

used labor and concrete more efficiently. However, it required

lowering and refilling the basin often and was somewhat slower.

Maximum filling efficiency with the RBS can only be

obtained with a concrete pump with a hose or nozzle diameter

smaller than the width of the RBS panel you are using. Other

options are available, but these will absorb more manpower,

equipment, and time.

Summary

The RBS is simple to use and creates concrete or

reinforced-concrete walls superior to CMU walls. RBS

construction has the potential to be dramatically faster

than standard CMU construction. But to attain this speed,

task forces need to be familiar with the RBS, be trained in their

other construction tasks, manage RBS BOM carefully, adapt

construction techniques to hot weather, and ensure that

suitable concrete-delivery systems are available. Otherwise,

the RBS will create sturdier buildings than with CMU construction, but it will not necessarily do so faster or more

efficiently.

Captain Pickands, who is now attending the Engineer

Captain’s Career Course at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri,

was chief of projects at Joint Task Force–Bravo, Soto Cano

Air Base, Honduras, when this article was written. Previously,

he was the deputy secretary of the general staff and deputy

division G5, 1st Infantry Division, and engineer operations

officer for Joint Task Force–Kelly. CPT Pickands holds a

bachelor’s in political science from Cornell University and a

master’s in international training and education methods

from American University.

For more information concerning New Horizons projects

and planning, contact the USARSO DCSEN engineer

planner, presently Major Humberto Ramirez (ramirezh

@usarso.army.mil).

For more information on the Royal Building System and

its applications, visit the company’s Web site at

www.rbsdirect.com.

26 Engineer January-March 2003

The pump detail uses the large-volume hose to fill

the panels.

Spillage resulting from using an oversize pump
January-March 2003 Engineer 27

Combat engineers are accustomed to finding themselves in precarious positions. However, many do notknow that operating the ACE might be one of those

instances. From the beginning of their training, operators are

cautioned about the unique characteristics that make the ACE

difficult to maneuver on most terrain and roadways. Additionally, recent cutbacks in equipment or personnel have

decreased the amount of “throttle time.” In actuality, students’

behind-the-wheel experience may be no more than an hour or

two, not nearly enough time to gain full operational knowledge.

When soldiers receive their first permanent duty assignment, the gaining commanders sometimes make the

assumption that the soldiers know how to drive the ACE

because they recently completed their formal school training.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Soldiers are familiar

with the vehicle’s inner workings, how to properly perform

preventive maintenance checks and services, how to spot a

defective track, and how to troubleshoot some of the systems.

However, training must continue at the first duty station and

throughout the soldiers’ tenure with their unit. Ongoing

proficiency training and testing must also be a part of the

soldiers’ everyday routine.

A key element in training is ensuring that visibility or the

lack thereof is explained to the new operators. When properly

seated, they are at a disadvantage—they cannot clearly see

obstacles directly adjacent to the vehicle. On level ground,

with the operators seated, the “blind” spots range from 13 feet

to the rear to 46 feet to the right (see figure). If the vehicle is

on an incline, the distances of blind spots change dramatically.

This factor is often not stressed during prebriefings, risk

assessments, and after-action briefings. Soldiers must remain

aware of their position in relation to everyone and everything

else in the area in which the vehicle is operated.

Operators must be thoroughly familiar with the capabilities

of the vehicle. They must know, instinctively, where the vehicle

is located in relation to the surroundings. This cannot be taught

in school; it comes from hands-on experience. Commanders at

all levels must ensure that operators are given ample opportunity to train before being placed in a dangerous situation

with an unfamiliar vehicle. A dangerous situation can be

nothing more than a roadway with a drop-off. For example,

some drivers have driven the ACE off the road surface and

down an incline because they could not see the edge of the

roadway.

The ACE is designed to function as a bulldozer in combat

conditions. However, the majority of the accidents have

involved the vehicle being operated in either training or convoy

scenarios. Engineer branch accident experience began in 1990

when two Army reservists (both E7s) were killed while riding

on the outside of the operator’s compartment. The driver lost

control while driving at an excessive speed for the conditions,

causing the vehicle to overturn, killing both persons outside

the protection of the cab.

From this dramatic beginning, causes of accidents have

stabilized and now range from operator error to track failure,

which causes the vehicle to overturn. If operators are properly

secured in the cab—properly seated and restrained with

belts—they can survive a rollover. Rollover drills are a vital

part of the training process and must be diligently conducted.

The senior person on the vehicle is responsible for ensuring

that all safety measures are enforced.

More complex missions and austere resources have become

a way of life in the military. Loss prevention for both equipment

and personnel is paramount to an effective fighting force. This

means that accident prevention is everyone’s business. We

must all keep a watchful eye on daily routines, identifying

potential problem areas before they become problems, and

changing the way we do business. The blind

spots on the ACE are just one example of

hazards that are present. If you, as an operator

or leader, make sure your soldiers know of

this hazard and teach them how to operate

within its contraints, you can prevent future

accidents.

For additional information on this or any

other safety subject, refer to the MANSCEN

Safety Web site at http://www.wood.army.mil/

safety/.

Ms. Hall is a safety specialist for the

Engineer Branch, U.S. Army Maneuver

Support Center Safety Office, Fort Leonard

Wood, Missouri.

Hazards of the M9 Armored Combat Earthmover (ACE)

By Ms.Vicki Hall

M9 ACE Operator Visibility Chart

All distances shown are on level ground. Drivers cannot see objects or hazards

within these distances.

Measurements are not to scale.

13 feet (with door off)

15 feet

32 feet

46 feet
28 Engineer January-March 2003

The École Supérieure et d’Application du Génie, or

French Engineer School, located in Angers, France, is

the home of the French Engineer Corps and the training

center for engineers in combat and technical skills. The school

has two missions:

 Train future army officers and noncommissioned officers

(NCOs) in the craft and culture of engineers, in three

branches of the Engineer Corps: combat engineering,

infrastructure, and civil defense. The school provides

specialized training in civil defense on the techniques of

lifesaving and clearing debris for missions during natural

disasters.

 Perform doctrinal studies in the future employment of

engineers and engineer equipment for operations

worldwide.

To optimize personnel and equipment resources, the various

engineer training establishments (equipment operators,

electricians, mechanics, etc.) were consolidated in Angers. This

reorganization was completed in 1995 with the fusion of the

Technical Engineer School from Versailles and the Combat

Engineer School in Angers.

The school trains about 3,000 students per year, with

training covering more than 60 different courses. Students

may attend courses ranging from a few days to two years for

technical degree programs. A major characteristic of the school

is its student diversity. Representing 25 different countries,

students are officers; NCOs; soldiers; Ministry of Defense

civil servants; and personnel from other branches, services,

and government departments. The school is also responsible

for intensive mine awareness training for more than 5,000

military and civilian personnel per year.

Organization

The school is organized into four levels:

Command Group. Consists of the general, the commanding

officer, and the headquarters staff.

Administration and Resources Section. Covers all

the functions required for operating the school.

Training Directorate. Including both the student courses and

the facilities needed to train them, the directorate is divided

into two areas:

 Student Management Division

√ Division d’Application (officer basic course)

√ Division Sous Officiers (NCO courses)

√ Cours de Futurs Commandants d’Unite (captain’s

career course)

√ Diplôme Technique (technical courses)

 Training Departments

√ Departement Formation Operationelle (tactics)

√ Departement Formation Technique d’Arme (engineer

skills)

√ Departement Enseignement Scientifique et Technique

(technical courses)

By Major Andamo E. Ford

The French Engineer School and U.S. Army The French Engineer School and U.S. Army The French Engineer School and U.S. Army

Engineer Training Opportunities in France Engineer Training Opportunities in France Engineer Training Opportunities in France

The French Engineer School and U.S. Army The French Engineer School and U.S. Army The French Engineer School and U.S. Army

Engineer Training Opportunities in France Engineer Training Opportunities in France Engineer Training Opportunities in France
January-March 2003 Engineer 29

√ Departement d’Enseignement Physique et Sportif

(sports and fitness training)

√ Departement Formation de l’Exercice de l’Autorité

(leadership)

Support Group. Furnishes the troops needed to support

practical training of students.

To carry out the missions, the school has several specialized

installations, which include local training areas and camps,

bridging schools on the Maine and Loire Rivers, diver training

facilities, and other specialized facilities. The school also has

ties to the civilian academic world, including universities and

training institutions, which play an increasingly important role

in technical training. About 40 civilian professors and

instructors teach courses at the French Engineer School every

year. This demonstrates a recognition of the quality of

instruction.

Restructuring the French Army

The French Army has undergone profound changes,

and as a result, there was a significant reduction in

manpower. There are now just 85 total regiments, 11 of

which are engineer. Eight engineer regiments are assigned and

support each armored, infantry, and mechanized brigade. The

other three are assigned to the French Engineer Brigade,

located in Strasbourg along with a nuclear, biological, and

chemical (NBC) group and a topographic group (not shown in

the chart on page 30).

Over the period of army restructuring, the military manpower

at the French Engineer School has diminished by 60 percent—

from 1,500 to 630, which has impacted the support group—

although there has been an increase in civilian personnel in

administrative functions. The challenge is to train the same

number of students, while maintaining the quality of instruction

with less than half the original manpower.

Partnerships and contracting out are possible solutions to

the manpower problem. To provide the practical training

support, despite the disappearance of most of the support

group, an arrangement has been established with the field

army in which it provides the troops and equipment necessary

to carry out field exercises. Contracting out allows some

support and administrative functions to be provided by civilian

companies, thereby saving military manpower. These contracts

are expensive and cannot be expanded. Contracting out some

of the training to civilian organizations or calling on external

instructors, although they are already in place for technical

training, is more difficult for specific military-type training.

Liaison Officer Program

The Liaison Officer Program is supported by selected

elements of allied defense establishments for the

mutual exchange of information on combat

development, doctrine, training, and educational information

with appropriate personnel. Liaison officers act as TRADOC

emissaries to facilitate the exchange of information and fulfill

the host activity’s requirements for information. Liaison

officers represent the commandant of the U.S. Army Engineer

School in France and effect and enhance coordination between

the two countries on matters relating to doctrine, training,

force structure, and equipment. They initiate, organize, and

participate in joint studies, visits, and training activities

designed to extend interoperability and improve understanding

between the two armies. Liaison officers coordinate with the

French research, development, and acquisition community.

They operate independently under broad guidance from the

Students at the French Engineer School
30 Engineer January-March 2003

commandant of the U.S. Army Engineer School in the following

areas:

Unit Visits. Work with the French army, the French Engineer

School in particular, and engineer regiments around the

country. Throughout the year, they visit engineer regiments

to receive their latest mission/capabilities briefs.

Exchanges. Schedule various exchanges and training

opportunities for U. S. Army Engineer and explosive ordnance

disposal (EOD) units and individual soldiers either at the French

Engineer School or with French engineer units.

Briefings and Presentations. Brief and teach classes in

either English or French on the U.S. Army and engineers to

the French equivalent of the Engineer Captain’s Career Course

(ECCC) and additional officer and NCO basic and

technical-level courses.

Training and Testing. Help the U.S. Army Command and

General Staff College liaison officer to the French army conduct

English language testing of French captains. The intent is to

test staff officers’ proficiency in the use of U.S. operational

terminology (operational English).

English language testing is an integral part of the training

that French captains receive at their staff course, which all

French officers must attend. The six-month course, which is

equivalent to a combination of the ECCC and Combined Arms

and Services Staff School (CAS3), consists of about 200

officers. U.S. and British officers conduct English language

testing throughout the year. However, American English is

critical to the success of a French officer’s career, which means

that the staff course has increased the involvement of

Americans in all aspects of the course curriculum. Liaison

officers also participate in training exercises throughout the

year. They act as a higher-level commander, adjacent unit

commander, or liaison officer receiving tactical operations order

briefings.

Training Opportunities in France

U.S. Army engineers receive invaluable training from

the French engineers each year. Recently, a U.S. Army

engineer captain attended the CFCU, the French

Engineer School’s equivalent to the ECCC, and 16 officers and

NCOs attended a one-week course conducted specifically for

U.S. Army officers and NCOs that focused on demining

operations in the Balkans. The French Engineer School

continues to develop and train in the most up-to-date demining

techniques in the world. It continues to emphasize the role of

demining awareness and planning to all of their junior leaders.

The school has the requirement for mine awareness training

for the entire French army. The emphasis on demining training

to junior officers and NCOs is typical of the importance placed

in all branch schools as French army and engineer units are

present on various operations worldwide.

These training opportunities are conducted through the

International Military Training Office, 7th Army Training

Command, Germany. Contact Mr. Art Brown at (011) 49-96-41-

83-8449/8450 or e-mail browna@hq.7atc.army.mil.

Captain’s Career Course

The 11-week CFCU is designed to prepare a captain for

company command. The course flows in a progressive,

mission-oriented manner. Blocks of instruction are not organized by subject area—such as construction, demining, or

leadership—but by mission (for example, employing a unit in

a peacekeeping operation). Subject areas are taught throughout

the course as they apply to the mission type. The course is

divided into two blocks:

Note 1: Of the two lieutenants in the brigades, one is airborne, the other is mountain.

Note 2: All units (regiments) below the brigade line should be multiplied by 2.

French Army Structure for 2002

11 Engineer Regiments out of 85
January-March 2003 Engineer 31

Block I. The captain prepares the unit for employment.

 Exercise command. Includes communications/leadership/

command, training/ educating, and security.

 Know the environment. Includes the battlefield, enemy,

other branches and their relationship to engineers, and

engineer branch (missions, structures, principles, etc.).

 Optimize resources. Includes giving orders; organizing,

conducting, and inspecting training; and managing

personnel and materiel.

 Prepare unit for operations. Includes mobilization and

deployment, planning (the military decision-making

process), and force protection/NBC operations.

Block II. The captain employs his unit in an operational

mission.

 Support combat operations.

 Support peace operations.

 Support civil authorities (disaster relief, civil defense,

etc.).

The majority of instruction is devoted to tactical or combat

engineering training. Sustainment engineering training is

limited to deployment support missions such as base camp

construction and route maintenance. The course consists of

two sessions per year with about 30 captains per course. The

average age of the French officers in CFCU is 30. About 70

percent have a college degree and an average of six to seven

years experience in units, although some have as little as three

years experience. The course is open to many foreign army

officers.

Engineers who are interested in attending the French CFCU

should meet the requirements below. Attendance at this course

is in conjunction with a permanent change of station (PCS) to

Europe.

 Be a first lieutenant (promotable) or a captain.

 Speak and comprehend French. (The course is taught

entirely in French).

 Have completed the U.S. Army ECCC and CAS3—or be

scheduled to attend these courses—and be eligible for a

PCS move.

 Have not participated in the University of Missouri-Rolla

master’s program.

 Attend French engineer officer’s advanced course

(unaccompanied) TDY in conjunction with a PCS to Europe.

 Volunteer for the course.

Officers interested in attending the French CFCU should

first contact their assignments branch manager at PERSCOM.

Other important contacts include Ms. Victoria Anthony at the

Engineer Personnel Proponency Office, U.S. Army Engineer

School, (573) 563-6137, DSN 676-6137, e-mail anthony

@wood.army.mil, or Major Andamo E. Ford, U.S. Army

Engineer Liaison Officer (France), (011) 33-24-12-48-279, e-mail

at TRADOC.FR.ENLO@Wanadoo.fr for additional information.

Demining/Mine Exercise (MINEX) Course

At least twice a year, the French Engineer School schedules

a course for U.S. Army engineers and EOD units that is

designed as a “train-the-trainer” course for leaders (NCOs

and officers). Subjects covered during the course include—

 Learning about the French EOD branch.

 Demining according to international standards.

 Identifying and treating antipersonnel mines in the Balkans

and Afghanistan.

 Identifying and treating antitank mines in the Balkans and

Afghanistan.

 Demining in the Balkans and Afghanistan.

 Organizing and conducting a mine clearance worksite

(classroom instruction).

 Identifying and treating rockets and missiles in the Balkans

and Afghanistan.

 Identifying and treating grenades in the Balkans and

Afghanistan.

 Identifying and treating booby traps in the Balkans and

Afghanistan.

 Identifying and treating antipersonnel and antitank mines

in a field environment.

 Using demining tools.

 Organizing and conducting a mine clearance worksite (in a

field environment).

 Monitoring demining operations.

 Becoming familiar with the mine situation in Bosnia,

Kosovo, and Afghanistan.

Transportation, lodging, and course fees are at no cost to

the unit. Funding is handled by 7th Army Training Command,

Germany. The point of contact is Mr. Art Brown, (011) 49-96-

41-83-8449/8450, e-mail browna@hq.7atc.army.mil, or Major

Andamo E. Ford, U.S. Army Engineer Liaison Officer (France),

(011) 33-24-12-48-279, or e-mail TRADOC.FR.ENLO

@Wanadoo.fr for additional information.

Major Ford has been a U.S. Army engineer liaison officer

to France since June 2000. Previous assignments include

commander, HSC, 84th Engineer Battalion (Combat)

(Heavy), Schofield Barracks, Hawaii; battalion maintenance

officer, 84th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy); and

tactical support team commander and operations officer, D

Company, 96th Civil Affairs Battalion (Airborne), Fort Bragg,

North Carolina.
32 Engineer January-March 2003

National Training Center

Opposing Force’s (OPFOR’s) MTK-2

By Captain Thomas F. Nelson and Sergeant First Class

Gary A. Smith

As the National Training Center (NTC) continues to

implement the contemporary operational environment,

the OPFOR will adjust its equipment inventory to better match threat capabilities. The MTK-2, the latest addition

to the engineer inventory, provides the OPFOR with an explosive reduction capability that greatly enhances its flexibility

across the battlespace. Though there are several sources that

differ in their descriptions of the MTK-2, the NTC based its

system on TRADOC’s worldwide equipment guide and implemented an addition to NTC’s rules of engagement (ROE).

Capabilities

Based on the 2S1 self-propelled howitzer chassis, the

MTK-2 has a turret-like superstructure that contains three

UR-77 rockets on launch ramps. The range of the rockets is

about 200 to 400 meters. Each rocket is connected via a towing

line to 170 meters of mine clearance hose that is stowed folded

in the uncovered base of the turret on the vehicle roof. The

hose, with pressure fuses, is command-detonated to clear a

path up 140 meters long and 6 meters wide through

minefields. The MTK-2 is capable of operating in a nuclear,

biological, and chemical environment and has good crosscountry capability.

Characteristics

The visual modification (VISMOD) of the MTK-2 is built

up on an M113 chassis and includes the launching tubes and

Smokey Sam rail. The organic OPFOR engineers, the 58th Engineer Company, configured three MTK-2 VISMODs. The

MTK-2 will fight as a component of the movement support

detachment for offensive missions. It will use the Multiple

Integrated Laser-Engagement System (MILES) II.

NTC MTK-2 ROE

The MTK-2 is a similar vehicle to the U.S. Army armored

vehicle-launched mine-clearing line charge (MICLIC) (AVLM);

therefore, the OPFOR will simulate reduction with the MTK-2

using the same procedures as for the AVLM.

For each charge, 100 x 7 meters are allowed. The tank commander (or third crew member) will dismount from the vehicle

and walk the vehicle through the minefield. An observer/

controller will remove mines as the tank commander encounters them (only the mines directly in front of the vehicle to

create a 7- by 100-meter lane).

The OPFOR will not transport an engineer squad in the

MTK-2 VISMOD during offensive operations, nor will the

vehicle be used in conjunction with the obstacle detachment.

MTK-2 in operation

 MTK-2 VISMOD (with launch tubes raised)
January-March 2003 Engineer 33

The points of contact (POCs) for OPFOR engineer issues

are CPT Tom Nelson (Red Devil 6), e-mail NelsonTF

@irwin.army.mil and SFC Gary Smith (SW09), DSN 380-5151

or e-mail Sidewinder09@irwin.army.mil.

Leader’s Training Program (LTP)

By Major Michael W. Rose and Captain Thomas B.

Hairgrove, Jr.

The NTC offers a six-day LTP about 120 days before a

scheduled rotation. Though the Wrangler Team is responsible for the brigade LTP, the Sidewinders provide additional resources to enhance the LTP experience.

LTP Attendees and Tools

To get the most from the LTP, the Sidewinders recommend

that the following engineer battalion personnel attend:

 Battalion commander

 Battalion executive officer (XO)

 S3

 S2

 Assistant brigade engineer

 Assistant S3 (planner or battle captain)

 S1 or S4

 Company commanders

 Company XOs

 Specialty leaders (light engineer platoon, combat support

equipment, explosive ordnance detachment)

The following tools are recommended:

 NTC maps

 Modified combined obstacle overlay of NTC

 Pluggers

 Laptop computers

 Printer

 Tactical standard operating procedure (SOP)

 Binoculars

 Digital camera

 TerraBase w/ MrSids Imagery

 NTC ROE

 Field Manuals 101-5, Staff Organization and Operations;

101-5-1, Operational Terms and Graphics; 3-90.3, The

Mounted Brigade Combat Team; 5-71-3, Brigade Engineer Combat Operations (Armored); 5-71-2, Armored TaskForce Engineer Combat Operations; 20-32, Mine/

Countermine Operations; 90-7, Combined Arms Obstacle

Integration; and 3-34.2, Combined Arms Breaching

Operations.

Planners 101

The Sidewinder team conducts two classes during an LTP

that are designed to enhance the performance of the engineer

battalion planners. Both battalion and company-level planners benefit from the session. The first class is NTC Terrain

Analysis; it focuses on how to provide the “so what” of terrain to the commander. The second class, Engineer Planning

at the Basic Combat Training and Task Force Level, provides a planner’s overview and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) for planning in a time-constrained environment.

Brigade Combat Team Classes

The following classes are also available, by request, for

either the engineer battalion and/or the brigade LTP participants: Combined Arms Breaching Operations and Combined

Arms Obstacle Integration. Since trends at the NTC indicate

that these two subjects pose significant challenges to brigade

combat teams, we recommend that units work through their

brigades to schedule these classes.

The POCs for the LTP are MAJ Michael Rose (SW03),

e-mail Sidewinder03@irwin.army.mil, and CPT Tom Hairgrove

(SW03B), DSN 380-5151, or e-mail Sidewinder03B

@irwin.army.mil.

Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and

Integration (RSOI) MICLIC Range

By Captain James R. Koeppen and Major Michael W. Rose

To improve the battlefield performance of combat engineers, in particular MICLIC employment, the 52d Infantry Division now mandates in-theater training on the

MICLIC by RSOI 4. Historically, units that have fired live rockets and high-explosive line charges during RSOI have maintained better MICLIC launcher operational-readiness rates and

have had fewer misfires during the live-fire portions of their

rotations. The Sidewinder team recognizes the tremendous

potential this additional training offers and will ensure that

every effort is made to include this event in each rotation.

Initial coordination for the RSOI MICLIC Range should

occur during the LTP. During the LTP, the Sidewinder Team

will provide the unit with a compact disk (CD) containing the

MICLIC Range SOP that has a general overview of the event,

rotational unit responsibilities, range layout with surface danger zones, sample memorandums required by Fort Irwin Range

Control, Fort Irwin POCs, and a sample battalion operations

order (OPORD). A MICLIC CD is also available from the

Sidewinder team and includes TTP, photos, and other information to prepare units in their train up.
34 Engineer January-March 2003

The following are keys to successful execution of the RSOI

MICLIC range:

 This is a battalion effort; a single company cannot plan

and resource this training.

 Issue a battalion OPORD for this training before deployment.

 Get the range officer in charge and range safety officer to range control on RSOI 1 or during the LTP.

 Coordinate with the Sidewinder team for MICLIC inspections on RSOI 2 or 3.

 Check your blasting machines with voltmeter (M34–220

volts, CD450-4J–220 volts, and a fresh 9-volt battery).

 Draw ammo no later than 1600 RSOI 3 and coordinate with

the Sidewinder team to conduct joint inspection of ammo

on RSOI 3.

 Plan to begin range operations no later than 0700 on

RSOI 4; this will get you off the range by 1200.

 An M985 heavy expanded, mobility tactical truck (HEMTT)

is required (M977 series does not have lift capacity for

MICLIC tubs).

The POCs for the RSOI MICLIC range are MAJ Michael

Rose (SW03), e-mail Sidewinder03@irwin.army.mil and CPT

Jim Koeppen (SW11), DSN 380-7055, or e-mail Sidewinder11

@irwin.army.mil.

A MICLIC detonation

Troop-Leading Procedures (TLPs)

for Task Force Engineers

By Captain Mark C. Quander

A trend that has become prevalent at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) among rotational engineer units is the lack of thorough TLPs. This has

resulted in vague tasks and purposes for squad leaders and

poor allocation of troops to engineer tasks. While most people

understand the definition of TLPs and their functions, rarely

are TLPs ever executed. Engineers have a method of linking

the military decision-making process (MDMP) and TLPs

through the engineer estimate (see Figure 1). Some of the critical issues observed at the JRTC follow.

Issuing Warning Orders (WARNORDs)

While missions are received and WARNORDs issued, it is

common that the WARNORDs are incomplete. Key items missing from them include a clearly stated mission, specified subunit tasks with a purpose, critical precombat checks (PCCs)

and precombat inspections (PCIs), and a tentative time schedule. Tentative plans are normally inadequate since proper mission analysis—which includes the engineer battlefield assessment (EBA), specified tasks, implied tasks, and facts and assumptions—are not delineated and known. Platoon- and

squad-level operations orders (OPORDs) are normally only

very detailed WARNORDs and lack the coordinating instructions necessary for integral and synchronized combined-arms

fight. Doctrinally, leaders should issue three WARNORDs; at

a minimum, they should address the—

 Higher headquarters restated mission (WARNORD #1).

 Terrain analysis and associated products (WARNORD

#2).

 Engineer enemy composition, disposition, and strength

(WARNORD #2).

 OPORD location and time (WARNORD #2).

 Updated timeline (WARNORD #2).

Joint Readiness Training Center
January-March 2003 Engineer 35

 Subunit instructions (WARNORD #2).

 Types of rehearsals and locations (WARNORD #3).

Developing the Scheme of Engineer Operations (SOEO)

Another prevalent trend is the lack of information in the

SOEO paragraph, which is directly linked to platoon leaders

failing to issue a task and purpose to subordinate units.

Task force engineers conduct limited EBAs that do not fully

support the task force’s mission analysis. These deficiencies in the initial planning phases lead to an inability to

better impact and multiply the mobility/survivability effects

of the task force maneuver plan. A clearly stated task and

purpose with complementing SOEOs is generally absent from

orders.

Task force engineers can help overcome this problem by

conducting a thorough EBA and then, with the commander’s

guidance, fully participating in the COA development of properly allocating troops to engineer tasks. During the construct

of the EBA, they should, in concert with the battalion S2,

conduct an intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB). It

is then that they will develop the enemy engineer situational

template, continually updating the information. Some call this

reverse Battlefield Operating Systems (BOSs). You identify to

the battle staff what you think the enemy engineers will do,

given resources and available time. At the conclusion of the

mission analysis, the task force engineer should be able to

clearly articulate the enemy engineer capabilities, friendly engineer capabilities, and the effects that terrain and weather

will have on the operation to both friendly and enemy forces

Figure 1

Military Decision-Making Process

Relationship Between the Military Decision-Making Process, the

Engineer Estimate, and Troop-Leading Procedures

Engineer Estimate Troop-Leading Procedures

Receive the mission Receive the mission Receive the mission

- Issue the WARNORD to subunits

Develop facts and assumptions Conduct IPB/EBA

- Enemy engineer capability

- Friendly engineer capability

- Impact of terrain and weather

Issue a WARNORD

- State the mission

- Specify essential tasks to sub-

 units, critical PCCs

- Issue timeline

Analyze the mission Analyze the engineer mission

- Specified tasks

- Implied tasks

- Constraints

- Limitations

Make a tentative plan

- Backward plan action from the

 objective(s)

- Assign mission to subunits

- 1/3 - 2/3 time management rule

- Subunits conduct PCCs

Issue the commander’s guidance Initiate necessary movement

Develop courses of action (COAs) War-game and refine the engineer plan

- Focus on key events in the operation

- Backward plan from the objective(s)

- Identify shortfalls in resources

- Identify benefits and risk for each

 course of action (COA)

Conduct reconnaissance

- Leader reconnaissance of critical

 objective areas

- Subunits conducting individual and

 squad rehearsals

Analyze COAs Recommend a COA Complete the plan

- Modify the tentative plan based on

 results of recon

Decide on a COA and issue orders Finalize the engineer plan and issue

orders

Issue the operations order

- Key leaders attend

- Brief on terrain model or sketch

- Graphics and execution matrix to

 squad level

Inspect, supervise, and rehearse

- Leaders conduct PCIs

- Rehearsals at squad, platoon, and

 combined-arms levels

- Resource the essential tasks

 with generic units and specific

 classes of supply

Develop the SOEO
Maximum

Minimum Maximum

Radio

Terrain map

Sketch map

Terrain model

Reduced force

36 Engineer January-March 2003

and whom it favors. Friendly engineer capabilities should

not just focus on what assets are available. They should

also focus on what the engineers can do with those assets

down to how many breaches they can conduct or how much

minefield frontage they can emplace with time and resources

available. Task force engineers should also look at the other

BOSs and see how they can assist the engineer effort in

shaping the battlefield for task force commanders.

Once the task force engineers have completed a detailed

EBA and understand the commander’s guidance, they can

begin identifying the task and purpose of engineer subunits. They will have proper troops for engineer tasks and

can communicate this to the squad leaders or other engineer units in a second WARNORD and eventually the SOEO.

Rehearsing

Platoons conduct very few rehearsals, and those that

are conducted focus only on the basic engineer missions.

Full-force combined-arms rehearsals are generally absent.

The engineer-only rehearsals are mainly conducted as “talkthroughs” and never address an uncooperative enemy or a

contingency plan. During the issuance of the WARNORD,

or at least the OPORD, the task force engineers/platoon

leaders should specify what actions to cover during the

rehearsal and the type of rehearsal to conduct.

Task force engineers also fail to identify critical engineer

tasks that serve as their “actions on the objective”; therefore, they do not make those tasks the priority for rehearsals. They should give specific guidance for what to rehearse

during the MDMP to the platoon sergeant so he can prepare the platoon as

planning continues. The platoon sergeant must fully understand what type

of rehearsals the platoon leader wants

to conduct (confirmation brief, back

brief, combined-arms rehearsal, support

rehearsal, battle drill) and the various

techniques so time is not wasted (see

Figure 2). Failing to conduct rehearsals

to standard also prevents a unit from

identifying shortcomings in the plan.

The lack of combined-arms rehearsals degrades the platoon’s effectiveness

in areas such as communication from

squad to platoon, understanding individual responsibilities for the mission,

and actions on contact. Platoon leaders must vehemently insist on combined-arms rehearsals, conduct detailed

engineer-specific rehearsals, and apply

analysis to decide the appropriate rehearsal type and technique. There are

various tools and techniques for combined-arms rehearsals

in FM 3-34.2, Combined-Arms Breaching Operations. The

more detailed the rehearsal, the greater understanding the

soldiers will gain.

Summary

Task force engineers must learn to balance task force

engineer duties and responsibilities as well as those of platoon leaders. The task force engineer will fail to accomplish

the engineer mission if he does not first conduct a thorough

EBA and then pass that information on to his subordinates.

For those that are inexperienced, a planning or preparation

checklist outlining what to provide subordinates during each

step of the TLPs in the form of a WARNORD, SOEO, and

OPORD will lead to better time management and better preparation by those subordinate units.

Captain Quander is a light engineer platoon senior observer/controller. Previous assignments include commander, C/326 Engineer Battalion (Air Assault)—deploying to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring

Freedom; platoon leader, A/307 Engineer Battalion (Airborne); and assistant brigade engineer, 1st Brigade, 82nd

Airborne Division.

Combined-Arms Breaching Operations Rehearsal Techniques

vs. Leader Preparation and Resources Available

Full dress

Preparation and resources

Leader participation

Detailed understanding gained

Figure 2
Enlisted PERSCOM Notes

January-March 2003 Engineer 37

On behalf of the staff here in Alexandria, Virginia, greetings from the Engineer Enlisted Branch, Total Army

Personnel Command (PERSCOM).

Health of the Regiment

Overall, the Engineer Regiment is very healthy with a

major exception of our flagship military occupational

specialty (MOS), 12B (combat engineer). Today our

Regiment is manned with 16 of 21 MOSs at or above 100

percent, with three more at 99 percent (see Table 1).

Our biggest challenge continues to be the 12B MOS.

Manning levels in units throughout the Army have resulted

in the addition of this MOS to the Army’s top ten critical

shortage MOS list. There are several reasons for this. The

primary reason is the very low accessions for 12Bs in FY01

and early FY02 in order to decrease the MOS, which at one

point reached 111 percent manning levels. This low influx of

new combat engineers now has units in the field at or below

90 percent manning for skill level one soldiers. The fix to this

problem is already in place. In October 2002, we raised the

number of new soldiers that we will recruit into the combat

engineer field. It is comforting to know we are taking action

to bring manning strengths to appropriate levels; however,

we also know that it will take almost a year to get the MOS

healthy.

Several actions taken over the past fiscal year have dramatically improved our low density MOSs: 00B (diver), 52E (prime

power production specialist), and airborne 62E/J (construction

equipment operator). The largest issue for the diver community

is the requirement to be diver-certified before being promoted to

E5 and E6. The lack of progress in the certification process can

slow promotion rates to a crawl. The good news is that the diver

community can solve its NCO shortage problems by aggressively pursuing the certification process. The bad news is that

we still have many promotion-eligible diver soldiers who are

waiting to be certified.

Our prime power community will get healthy this spring

with the graduation of the next advanced individual training

class. We can fully expect this MOS to come off the Stop

Loss Program at that time. Airborne construction equipment

operators are always in short supply. These MOSs offer very

attractive reclassification bonuses under the Bonus Extension and Retraining (BEAR) Program. Call this office if you

are interested in reclassifying into these specialties.

Recruiting and retention have been well above historical

averages across the Army and in the Engineer Regiment. Our

FY03 recruiting program is at 103 percent, year to date, for the

engineer career management fields, and we have recruited 71

percent of FY03s total engineer recruiting mission.

On the reenlistment side, all but one of our 21 specialties is

well above the five-year historical trend. Current trends indicate this success rate will continue. Note, however, that in

December 2002, a message was published that dramatically

decreased the selective reenlistment program for the Army.

More than 200 MOSs were removed from the bonus program,

and the remaining few experienced decreases in the amount of

money in the bonus program.

The long-term projections for the Regiment are very good.

We can expect our shortage MOSs (12B10, 00B, and 52E) to

improve dramatically in the next 12 months. Meanwhile, other

By Lieutenant Colonel Jack Smith

Strength

(percent) MOS Authorized

Strength

12B

12C

12Z

8,161 96

672

234

103

91

00B 129 102

51B 881 118

51H 433

51K 115 103

51M 247

51R

51T

51Z

127

257

116

148

127

100

106

94

52E 183 89

1,326 103

62F 278 103

62H

62J

62N

81L

81T

81Z

82D

Total

102 101

673 105

466 102

233 112

469 100

19 95

109 110

15,240 98.5

62E

 Engineer Enlisted Operational Strengths*

Table 1

 *As of 6 December 2002
38 Engineer January-March 2003

specialties (51B, 51R, 51T, and 81L) will experience decreases

in overall strength to bring them in line with authorized manning levels. The 51R, 51T, and 81L each have some soldiers

enrolled in the Fast Track Program, where they are required to

reclassify into another MOS due to overstrengths in those

particular fields.

Assignment Process

The assignment process is simple:

 The Army defines where soldiers are authorized.

 PERSCOM identifies those authorizations that have no

soldiers assigned to them.

 PERSCOM requisitions the branches for soldiers to fill

those authorizations.

 An assignment manager goes into the personnel data

base and identifies those soldiers who are eligible to fill

the requisitions and nominates them to be slotted against

those requisitions.

 The nomination process can end with the assignment

manager’s direct supervisor, depending on the complexity of the assignment, or the process may have to go all

the way to the director of the Enlisted Personnel Management Directorate for approval to place a soldier on assignment instructions. In the case of specialty assignments

like recruiting and drill sergeant, the files also have to go

before administrative boards to ensure that only the best

NCOs are slotted into those critical billets.

Now that I have been a part of PERSCOM for six months

and have explained the assignment process, I am even more

aware of some critical information that needs to be reviewed

and updated periodically:

 Unit commanders, first sergeants, battalion S1s and S3s,

and personnel managers at all levels must periodically review their modified tables of organization and equipment

(MTOEs) or tables of distribution and allowances (TDAs)

for completeness. These documents define the authorizations, and it is only these authorizations that can have

soldiers requisitioned.

 Unit manning reports are the next important documents.

The data in the reports is a direct reflection of what soldier

inventory your unit has assigned against its authorizations.

Because I was a company commander for more than three

years and a battalion S1, executive officer, and commander, I

am familiar with the frustration that arises from trying to manage a unit manning roster. However, I cannot overemphasize

that this data must be accurate so PERSCOM will have the

opportunity to assign the right person to the right billet.

The most common mistakes in the database include improper

grades for enlisted soldiers; soldiers spending an inordinate

amount of time with a “gain” code, even after they have been

working in a position for months; and soldiers not being placed

on a loss roster. Improper grades for your soldiers have the

impact of not getting the proper rank structure assigned to

your organization. Remember that promotables are counted

against the next higher grade for assignment purposes. The

loss roster is perhaps the most important data at the unit level.

If a soldier is not carried as a loss, the personnel system will

never identify a soldier to replace that loss until after the soldier has left. In the case of retirements, this can result in a billet

going empty for over 18 months since the unit will not have

the soldier available during transition and/or on terminal leave.

In the last PERSCOM Notes, I provided a detailed discussion on how to get your assignment preferences to us. The

preferred method is your Army Knowledge Online account.

The next best way is to submit a DA Form 4187 Personnel

Action. Also key is to contact your assignment manager at

least every six months. Our Web site, listed at the end of this

article, has all the phone numbers and addresses you need. It

will have information that can help you make career decisions

and set you up for future success in the Army. I highly encourage you to visit our Web page at least monthly. We are updating it every month with information pertinent to the engineer

enlisted force. We also have a new site that lists critical billets

throughout the Engineer Regiment that most soldiers do not

even know exist. If you are an E6, E7, or E8 and are due for a

new assignment in the next 8 to 18 months, visit this page on a

monthly basis, and contact your assignment manager when

you see a billet that piques your interest.

Promotions and Training

There is nothing more frustrating here at PERSCOM than

reviewing readiness reports every month that complain about the shortage of NCOs across the Army. At

the same time, we see monthly reports that lay out the thousands of soldiers who are eligible for promotion but have not

yet been boarded. A look at the engineer star MOSs provides

a clear example of how we could solve our own NCO shortages

(see Table 2).

Fully understanding that not all board-eligible soldiers are

worthy of consideration for promotion, I also know that most

are worthy. The chain of command needs to aggressively pursue the promotion board program. There are thousands of

reasons and excuses that make it hard to implement the promotion program, but it has to be done well for our great soldiers in

the field. It is usually the combat units, the forward deployed

units, and the units in the field that have the hardest times

meeting the promotion board process because they are simply

working so hard at their missions. But it is exactly these soldiers who deserve the promotions. I will never stop publishing

the simple message to all the soldiers in the field. “If your unit
I

f you are a new lieutenant in the Army and are dissatisfied

with your current assignment—if you’re looking for a

change and seeking career progression—then Korea could

be for you. I went there from my first duty station in October

2000 on the First Lieutenants to Korea Program; was immediately sent to a company executive officer (XO) position

in the 2d Engineer Battalion, 2d Infantry Division; and can

honestly say that I was pleased with my decision and

experience.

The Program

The First Lieutenants to Korea Program is an unofficial

Army program that encourages experienced first

lieutenants to serve a tour in Korea as company XOs

or in staff positions. Because the short overseas tour is a year

long, units are losing second lieutenants before they gain the

rank and experience needed to fill company XO slots. This

leaves most companies without XOs and forces them to assign

their most senior second lieutenant to the position. These

lieutenants often have limited experience and only serve in

the position for a few months until their tours are up.

The target recruits for this program are first lieutenants

with 18 to 24 months on station at the time they move to Korea

and who will not be promoted to captain during their tour.

Korea is considered a hardship tour, and you may wonder

why someone would volunteer to participate in such a program.

In this article, I share my perspective of the program’s

advantages.

Make a New Start

One reason for going to Korea is if you are dissatisfied

with your current job. As a young second lieutenant,

you may make a lot of mistakes. You may go about business

incorrectly, gain an unfavorable reputation, or rub someone

the wrong way—such as your platoon sergeant or your

company commander. As you climb the steep learning curve a

new officer faces, you should grow and mature and see the

errors of your past ways. It is difficult to make a change to

your leadership style and management practices while being

part of the same organization and working with the same

people. Going to a new place and working in a new organization, with new people, allow you to make a fresh start. You

can more freely implement the lessons you learned from your

previous assignment. The people who saw you struggle early

in your career are not there; there are no looming notions

about your shortcomings.

Obtain an XO Position

Another reason to go to Korea is if you want an XO position.

If you have done your platoon leader time and want to progress

to an XO spot, this program was especially designed for you.

Most companies have three to four platoon leaders but only

one XO. There could be a long wait at your current duty station

for an XO position, and you might not get that opportunity at

all but be moved to a staff position, such as assistant battalion

S3, instead.

If you plan to take a company command, gaining experience

as an XO will help set you up for success as a commander. As

a platoon leader, you only see a slice of the company’s overall

operations. You do not gain the experience of tracking and

running supply and maintenance issues at the company level.

As an XO, you learn what needs to happen to allow the

company to function successfully. You are drawn into the

planning process and exposed to company- and battalionlevel planning and coordination.

After your tour in Korea, you are automatically slotted for

the Captain’s Career Course at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri,

which puts you on a fast track. You can serve as little as 18

months at your current duty station, spend a year in Korea,

and be at Fort Leonard Wood learning to be a company

commander after being in the Army for only about three years.

Learn More and Faster

Korea has a high operating tempo. Things happen fast,

and you are always busy and constantly reacting. It is

demanding, and you will put in long hours. There is a

By Captain Chad Suitonu

January-March 2003 Engineer 39

First Lieutenants to Korea:

My Experience With the Program
real -world threat fro m North Korea, so along with addres sing 

normal op erat ions and tra ining issues, you must deal with 

periodi c alerts and main tain a high state of read iness to be 

pre pared to " fight ton ight." There are other com plex ities that 

co me with worki ng in Korea th at en ha nce yo ur le arning 

e xpe rience . For ex am ple , there yo u are constrained by uni que 

rules and pro cedures. Ofte n yo u la ck adeq uate ly tr ained 

manp ower. It takes much lon ger to receive supplies or de red 

from the United States. and land to use for tra ining is scarce. 

With all of the constra ints yo u deal with and overco me, you 

become better at managi ng resources and finding innovative 

ways to ac co mp lish the mission . 

A side be nefit o f always bein g bu sy is that it helps tim e 

pa ss qui ckly. Ev eryone I have tal ked to agrees that altho ugh 

the year in Korea is somewhat difficult, it seem s to fly by. 

Broaden Your Experience 

Going to Korea will broaden your profes si on al and life 

ex pe rie nce s. This cross-fertilization helps you develop into a 

mor e sophistica ted and we ll-ro unde d officer. Ex po sure to a 

ne w wo rking environment gives you some thing yo ur pee rs at 

their original dut y stations will not ga in. 

Unique to an assignment in Korea is the op po rtuni ty to 

work with Kor ean Aug menta tion to U .S. Army sold iersco mmo nly known as KATUSAs. These Korean nationals 

live, wor k, and train with U .S . Army un its to su pplement 

manning need s. The assign ment provides young officer, the 

opp ort unity to manage and lead fo reign so ldiers. gain IIpclose expo sure to a new cult ure , and address the cultural differen ces and language barri ers. 

How to Apply 

I f you ar e inte rested in the Fi rsl Lieutenants 10 Korea 

Progr am . disc uss it with yo ur chain o f comma nd . They 

mi ght be able to dev elop a so lution that satisfi es your 

de sire s an d their needs with out yo ur having to ma ke a 

per manent mov e. If you and yo ur chain of command decide 

thai going to Korea would be the best solution. call or e-m ail 

yo ur Enginee r Branc h representati ve fo r furthe r detai Is about 

the program. In my case, I simply sub mitted a DA Form 4187, 

Personnel Action. signed by my batt alion comma nder. and I 

had orders a few we eks later. 

A Korea n assignment is no t fo r ev eryone. hut if yo u ar e 

int erested in so me of the bene fits outlined in this article. it 

may be wh at you are looking for. I learned a lot fr om my 

part icipation in the First Lieutenants to Korea Program . and 

the opportunity for new experi ences and professio na l growth 

was inva luable . III 

Cap ta in Sui tonu i s the G3 (XO ), l-Corps, F OrT Lewis, 

Washington . He It'lI.1 pre viou sly the XO of C Company. 2d 

Engineer Battalion, 2d In fantry Division, Republic ()f Korea. 

CPT SUitOIl U is a gra duate ofthe Eng inee r Captain '.I' Ca ree r 

Cou r se and holds a master '.1' in p ublic policy [rom th e 

Univ ersity ofMissouri-St. Louis. 

Engin eer STAR MOSs 

MO« Rank Number Needed Num~~iEligible .". 

OOB SSG 22 26 

51K SGT 7 31 

51M SGT 1 3 51 

51 M SSG 19 26 

(PERSCOM Notes. continuedfrom page 3R) l 

Table 2 

has yo u wo rking or to a billet that requires the next 

hig her grad e . go to yo ur fi rst se rgeant a nd/or co m ma nd 

sergeant major and request to be put before the ne xt board if 

you are eligible." If the cha in of co mmand wants to work you 

at the next higher paygrade. then get promo ted and paid for 

the level of respon sibility that the y are demand ing of you. 

Condition al promotion , have been on the "treet for some 

time , hut they req uir e atte nda nce in the req uisi te Noncom ­

mis-.i oned Officer Education System (NCOES ) co urse (Primary 

Le ad er De velop ment Co urs e. Ba sic an d Adv anced No nco uuu ission cd O ffice r 's Cou rse s) wi thin o ne ye ar o f the 

conditional prom otion . Fai lure to meet this req uirement ca n 

re s ult in a dem ot ion. The re ar e e xceptions to po licy fo r 

operationa l and hardxhip reas nns : howe ver. it is impera tive 

that the so ldiers atte nd the NCOES co urses as soon as possibl e. 

Do not he sit ate 10 contac t thi s offi ce if you have qu esti on s 

abo ut NCOE S attendance or co nditio nal prom otio ns. 

Fo r info rma tio n o n pend ing se lectio n board s . vis it the 

PER SCO M Web site .Jlt'l' ('omonliJ1e. rl/1 .1flll for the 

latest news. It's up to yo u 10 review yo ur Offici al M ilitary 

Pers onne l Fil e . You can obta i n u co py by fo llowi ng the 

procedure s posted at the PERSCO M Web site. 

Contacting Us 

T1e sa le fun ction of Engineer Branch is to supp ort so ldiers and commanders in the field . I enco urage you to 

co ntac t yo u r assi g n me nt mana ge r, p rofe ssi o na l 

dev elop men t NCO. branc h sergeant maj or, or me wit h an y 

qu e s rions you ha ve a bo ut assig n me nt s or pr ofe ssio na l 

dev e lopme nt. Th e PERSCO M Web <ite has in formation on 

how 10 reac h us, Remember, the only thing in the assignment 

proce ss that does not have to be a variable is your preference . 

Take the lime to let us know you r preferenc e. 

40 Eng ineer J(II1 IWI) ··lVlarch 2003 
Military assignments in Korea are many and varied.

Among them are opportunities for active duty

Army engineers to serve in the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE) Far East District (FED). Both noncommissioned and commissioned officers can serve here. This

article describes two possible assignments—that of project

engineer and construction inspector.

Project Engineer

Most officers assigned to the FED come through the

Advanced Civil Schooling Program. This is usually

an 18-month program in a specified engineering

discipline or in construction management. (See the engineer

Web site for more information: https://www.perscom

online.army.mil/OPeng/advanced_civil_schooling.htm).

Another way to be eligible is to already have your master’s,

perhaps through the University of Missouri-Rolla program at

the U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center, Fort Leonard Wood,

Missouri, or through the Degree Completion Program. You

must also have completed a successful company command. If

assigned to the FED, you will have the option of serving in a

two-year command-sponsored tour or a one-year noncommand-sponsored tour. If you select a one-year tour, then

you will return to the states to complete your three-year

commitment to the Corps. Currently there are seven engineer

officer positions authorized at the FED, two of which are the

commander and deputy commander.

 As a captain or major you will probably be assigned as a

project engineer, working in one of six resident or project

offices. Project engineers serve in a position similar to an area

construction manager in a civilian construction company. You

will supervise civilian quality assurance representatives whose

responsibility is projects ranging in cost from thousands to

multimillion dollar contracts. Your job as a project engineer

will include several types of contracts, to include military

construction and host-nation-funded projects. The FED

supports the United States Forces Korea (USFK), and therefore, our customers cover every service component and other

agencies such as the Army and Air Force Exchange Service

and Department of Defense Dependents’ Schools.

Some of your responsibilities as a project engineer will

include—

 Verifying and processing contractor payment

applications.

 Visiting project sites to monitor safety, quality, and

progress.

 Corresponding with contractors and customers.

 Interpreting contract drawings and specifications.

 Attending periodic progress meetings with contractors.

 Managing quality assurance representatives.

 Being involved in military exercises.

As a project engineer, you will also be appointed as a

contracting officer’s representative. This gives you the

authority to administer contracts and direct contractors as

they execute projects.

This job is an excellent opportunity to use your engineering

skills/education that you may not have exercised in most troop

units. You will manage projects of varying scope—from dining

facilities and fire stations to barracks upgrades and airfield

runway pavements. In managing these projects, you will

interface with contractors, customers, facility users, Directorate

of Public Works personnel, base civil engineer personnel

from the Air Force, and a variety of other people involved in

the construction process. This also includes a large USACE

team. The FED maintains a staff of technical experts—to

include designers and mechanical, civil, electrical, architectural,

structural, environmental, and geotechnical engineers. You

can also “reach back” to USACE labs, Centers of Expertise, or

By Major Richard T. Byrd, Jr., and Sergeant First Class Carl L. Lindsay II

January-March 2003 Engineer 41

Assignment Opportunities

in the Far East District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
any other USACE district for assistance if you need to. So,

although you may not have much experience in construction,

you are surrounded by other people who do. It’s just like

being a platoon leader again; if you’re smart, you keep quiet

and listen to your NCOs. The same principle applies here; you

listen and learn from those around you with the experience,

and you’ll be up and running in no time. The learning curve is

initially steep, but you will catch on quickly and be on your

way to being a successful project engineer.

Another responsibility you will have is working with the

service components in Korea during contingencies. As the

only USACE maneuver district, we have the added task of

assisting with the development and maintenance of the

contingency construction list—a list of construction projects

to be executed in the event of a contingency. The major work

for this list occurs during two exercises held each year: Ulchi

Focus Lens and Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and

Integration. The FED provides liaison officers or teams to each

service component, USFK, and the Republic of Korea army

during these exercises. The entire FED team—as well as reachback capabilities to the Centers of Expertise in the states—is

utilized during these exercises.

Other duties during contingencies for military members

include leading facility damage assessment teams, performing

staff officer duties, or deploying as a member of a deployable

forward engineer support team-advance (FEST-A) as part of

the USACE field force engineering doctrine.

Construction Inspector

Noncommissioned officers assigned to the FED as

construction inspectors are usually staff sergeants

who have completed their squad leader time and are

close to promotion to sergeant first class with military

occupational specialty (MOS) 51H, construction engineer.

Construction inspectors work for a project engineer and are

delegated authority and responsibility to monitor and

administer the contractual provisions for assigned projects.

 About 10 percent of your time will be spent on—

 Reviewing plans and specifications during the design and/

or bidding phase, paying special attention to existing field

conditions.

 Preparing comments for possible changes to plans and

specifications.

About 80 percent of your time will be spent on—

 Monitoring on-site contractor supervision and inspection

of construction activities.

 Ensuring that construction quality is achieved by

enforcing the quality control provisions of the contract. This includes ensuring that the contractor’s field

staff makes periodic inspections and tests.

 Reviewing and evaluating construction progress, quality

assurance findings, and recommended field and office

engineering changes for consistency with contractual

provisions, specifications, and cost estimates.

 Discussing problems and recommendations with the project

engineer and providing input for solutions or courses of

action based on knowledge and experience with the

contract and from observations made at project sites.

 Reviewing the contractor’s construction schedules, safety

program, and quality control plan and initiating field

changes.

42 Engineer January-March 2003

A project engineer

inspects a standing

seam metal roof.
 Informing the project engineer of progress and other

significant contract administrations.

 Ensuring that contractor as-built drawings are kept up to

date.

 Participating in joint occupancy and final transfer

inspections.

 Furnishing field information for construction progress and

feeder information for other reports.

About 10 percent of your time will be spent on—

 Enforcing the project safety program.

 Supervising the contractor’s efforts in the implementation of Engineer Manual 385-1-1, Safety and Health

Requirements.

There are also exercises that the FED participates in that

transition the soldier from the duties of construction inspector

to those of a liaison officer for one of the service components.

In this, you help the component complete the contingency

construction list by offering the design and construction

services the FED has as well as the ability to “reach back” for

a vast amount of technical information. In addition, there are

the daily soldier duties of physical fitness training, weapons

qualification, etc.

 This assignment is definitely a career-enhancing assignment. The number of construction projects, methods, and

techniques that NCOs will be exposed to during an assignment

with the FED is unequalled in the average Army construction

engineer’s NCO career.

Conclusion

I

f you come to Korea with the right attitude and are willing

to learn, you’ll have a great tour. Things have changed

since some of you were here. The commander has really

worked hard to improve the quality of life all around the

peninsula. Not only does this equate to more work for USACE

but also to a better way of life for all of us here. This job is

definitely unique and, no, you are not stuck behind a desk all

day. Getting out and seeing the construction projects allows

you to experience new things every day. It is a very rewarding

assignment, knowing that you play a major role in improving

the quality of life for all service members in Korea.

Major Byrd received a master’s in construction management from the University of Oklahoma through the Army’s

Advanced Civil Schooling Program before serving two years

with the Far East District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

as a project engineer in the Central Resident Office at Osan

Air Base, Korea. He is currently a staff officer for the 8th

Army Engineers, Korea. MAJ Byrd’s next assignment will be

the Command and General Staff College at Fort

Leavenworth, Kansas.

Sergeant First Class Lindsay was a construction inspector

with the Far East District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

when this article was written. He is currently the platoon

sergeant of 1st Platoon, Alpha Company, 46th Engineer

Battalion, Fort Polk, Louisiana. SFC Lindsay holds an

associate in general studies and is working on a bachelor’s

in business and management.

January-March 2003 Engineer 43

A construction inspector checks roofing materials.
44 Engineer January-March 2003

At Camp Monteith, Kosovo, the

day ended not with a bang or

whimper but with a tremendous

thud that echoed through the valley.

That morning, Task Force 9th Engineer

Battalion had departed from the camp to

blow up a suspected smuggling route

crossing into the Former Yugoslavian

Republic of Macedonia from Kosovo.

The day began 16 hours before the last

explosion, with the high-mobility,

multipurpose wheeled vehicles

(HMMWVs) crisscrossing up and into

the mountains. The route soon became

more of a footpath than a vehicle trail.

Still, there was evidence that the trail had

been used: scarred trees, discarded water

bottles, and tire tracks.

First, the task force had to pick a site,

which would depend on existing

obstacles and terrain in the area. It would

be best to link this access to a very steep

slope on either side of the road. The site

the task force chose was a trail in the

German sector of Multinational Brigade

(East) with steep slopes on both sides

near the top of a densely wooded slope.

There was some economic smuggling

along the administrative boundary line

that separates Kosovo from other

provinces in the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia—tax avoidance stuff—but

here, the problem was support to armed

elements. The task force wanted to stop

the smuggling of weapons and the

support of ethnic armed groups on either

side of the border.

The plan was to set off two

explosions—the first from shaped

charges and the second from cratering

charges. Shaped charges, made of composition B explosives, will go through

reinforced concrete and cut through

steel. Inside the charge is a cone, and

when it detonates, it detonates from the

top and consumes itself. By the time it

comes out the bottom, it’s just a ball of

plasma. It pushes everything out of the

way. Shaped charges are set a couple of

feet off the ground for optimum

penetration. These charges would create

six boreholes, which would be used for

the larger, more robust cratering charges

(made of composition H6).

By Specialist Patrick Rodriguez

Making Molehills

Out of Mountains

Engineers Have a Blast Blocking Smugglers’ Path
January-March 2003 Engineer 45

But before destroying the smuggling

route, the task force had a few tasks to

complete that consumed most of the day:

 Phase 1 consisted of clearing the

brush. The team hacked unmercifully

for hours at the trees and bushes on

both sides of the trail to provide a

view of the explosions from both the

shaped and cratering charges.

 Phases 2 and 3 consisted of preparing

the explosives and setting them off.

The task force ensured that the U.S.

and German soldiers who had been

providing security for the platoon had

evacuated the area after the shaped

charges were placed the required

distance above the sloped trail. From

several hundred feet away, in the

protective cocoon of an armored

HMMWV, the demolition team set off the

first explosion. It ripped through the

valley and was felt more than half a mile

away.

Moments later, the task force returned

to the site of the explosion. The ground

was covered with green leaves from the

trees overhead, and the site smelled like

fresh-cut grass. Five of the six charges

had cleared holes straight into the

ground. One of the charges hit a large

rock on the way down and stopped a

few feet short of the desired depth. After

examining all six boreholes, the task force

dug the holes so they were wide and

deep enough for the cratering charges.

Then, the cratering charges were put in

place and detonated. The explosion

rocked the mountainside and flung the

trail skyward, including trees, gravel, dirt,

and large rocks. Debris rained down on

the HMMWV with loud bangs. This

time, when the team returned to the site,

it smelled like tilled earth.

The “tank ditch” was such a success

that the Task Force 9th Engineer Battalion worried that if smugglers came at

night, they would be injured if they fell

into the ditch. So the final touches to

the 18-wheeler-size gouge across the

trail were strands of concertina wire that

led off the trail and down the steep

slopes on both sides of the barrier.

Specialist Rodriguez is a journalist/

photojournalist with the 302d Mobile

Public Affairs Detachment, Camp

Monteith, Kosovo.

A soldier primes a 40-pound shaped charge with a

blasting cap crimped to detonating cord.

Soldiers duel-prime a 40-pound cratering charge with the use

of composition B explosives.
46 Engineer January-March 2003

Ghosts of the ETO, American Tactical Deception Units in the

European Theatre of Operations, 1944-1945, by Jonathon Gawne.

Published by CASEMAT (Havertown, Pennsylvania) 2002, 342 pages,

more than 100 photos. The ISBN is 0-9711709-5-9 for a hardback

($34.95).

For more than 50 years, a veil of secrecy lay over the role of

tactical deception employed by the U.S. Army in the European Theatre of Operations (ETO) in World War II. This veil was lifted during

1996, when information was declassified regarding these deception

operations and the Army organization that—for the first time in the

history of warfare—was created to execute tactical deception operations as its full-time mission.

In an important new book, Ghosts of the ETO, author Jonathon

Gawne chronicles the formation and activities of the U.S. Army’s 23d

Special Troops and credits its wartime deception operations with saving American lives and contributing to the Allied victory. In revealing

the 23d’s World War II activities, Gawne analyzes the role and importance of tactical deception and—in light of the Army’s “deactivation”

of a formalized deception capability following World War II—points

to the need for the Army to revive tactical deception as a necessary

tool for waging war.

Gawne identifies the two features that made the 23d a unique organization: One, it was the first organization in the history of warfare

that was organized and dedicated to conducting tactical deception on a

continuing basis. In the past, the great commanders—including Napoleon, Caesar, Hannibal and Lee—conducted deception operations on

an ad hoc basis. They employed all or a portion of their troops in a

deception operation, and when this operation was completed, the troops

returned to their normal fighting roles. For the 23d, tactical deception

was its sole mission. The organization was, in effect, a military traveling road show. It would perform its deception act in one location, and

when the operation was completed, it would move on to another location and perform a similar or different act. At times, its units performed simultaneously in different locations.

Two, the organization raised tactical deception to a highly sophisticated, full-spectrum level. It was able to reproduce the “sights and

sounds” of the various units and headquarters of a field army.

Gawne has written a fascinating, thoroughly researched, well-documented, and very readable account of this unique organization, covering the “what, where, when, how, and why.” He describes its genesis and

its activation as well as its “growing pains.” He also describes, analyzes,

and evaluates each of the 21 major deception operations, culminating

with the 1945 crossing of the Rhine River. For each operation, he

gives the “big picture” as well as a “nuts-and-bolts” account of what

happened. Each deception plan has a battle sketch to facilitate easy

understanding of the concept of operation. And an understanding of

the tools of deception is enhanced by the inclusion of many photographs.

This new concept of tactical deception originated in the ETO as a

result of a study initiated by General Devers, then the commanding

general, which analyzed Field Marshal Montgomery’s use of deception

at the battle of El Alemein. General Devers submitted a request to the

War Department for a unit to be authorized, organized, and dedicated

to tactical deception, with the capability of simulating two infantry

divisions and one armor division for the crossing of the Rhine River.

This request was approved, giving birth to the 23d Special Troops.

The 23d consisted of a headquarters, a headquarters company, and

four line units—two of which were engineer units:

 An engineer camouflage battalion to provide inflatable dummy

tanks, trucks, artillery pieces, and other types of vehicles and

equipment as well as to operate flash devices replicating the flash

of artillery firing.

 An engineer combat company to provide perimeter security against

enemy forces as well as local security against enemy agents and the

local populace; conduct mine clearing; execute construction and

demolition tasks, including digging tank and artillery positions; and

simulate tank tracks by using bulldozers.

 A signal company to transmit false radio messages.

 A sonic company equipped with half-tracks and loudspeakers to

reproduce sounds such as tanks on the move, assault boats in action, and bridging operations.

The 23d was activated at Camp Forrest, Tennessee, on 20 January

1944, with an eventual strength of 82 officers and 1,023 enlisted men.

In the beginning, there was no guidance, no doctrine, no manuals, and

no SOPs. Throughout most of the life of the organization, it was a

matter of learning by trial and error—a large part of which occurred on

the battlefield.

The organization’s first mission was a small operation called

Troutfly. A lieutenant and 13 radiomen landed in Normandy on D+3.

The original plan was aborted, and the detachment became the 82d

Airborne Division’s main means of radio communications. The division had lost almost 95 percent of its radio equipment on D-Day.

The 23d participated in 21 major deception operations and several

smaller ones that extended from Normandy to Brittany and Brest,

through the rest of northern France, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg,

and Germany to the Rhine River and involved most of the divisions,

corps, and armies.

By the time of the Rhine crossing, the 23d Special Troops was a

seasoned organization, having learned its lessons well. And senior headquarters had gained an appreciation for deception and how to properly

utilize the capabilities of the unit.

Some important lessons learned along the way include the following:

 There was a lack of knowledge of deception and appreciation for

its value on the part of many commanders. Some showed little

interest in employing deception, others used deception only halfheartedly, while others misused it.

 Close and continuous coordination of the deception operation with

other aspects of the tactical plan was vital to success. In an attack

at Brest, the maneuver plan was changed at the eleventh hour to

have the main attack pass through the area where a deception

buildup of forces had been portrayed. With the Germans in waiting,

unnecessary casualties were sustained and tanks destroyed.

 The use of “special effects” was not considered during training

in the United States. However, once the organization initiated

operations, special effects became an important means of
completing the deception picture. Special effects involved the identifying features of the simulated units, such as shoulder patches,

bumper markings, and command post signs. While the 23d units

wore and displayed these identifying features, the simulated units

were required to black out and remove their own identifying features. Special effects assumed progressively greater importance as

the German aerial observation capabilities decreased, and the enemy placed increased reliance on ground observation for intelligence information.

 Tight local security was needed to prevent enemy agents and the

local populace from observing certain aspects of a deception operation, especially the dummy equipment.

 It was not only necessary to deceive the enemy and the local

populace but also to deceive our own troops to maintain secrecy of

the deception operations. Enter another phase of playacting; scripts

outlining the simulated unit’s organization, recent activities, and

current officers were given to the soldiers. Ad libbing was often

required to satisfy incredulous officers and enlisted men as well as

to carry on conversations with the local populace.

 Probably the most important lesson learned was the necessity for

strict discipline and attention to detail during the planning and

execution phases of a deception operation. Failure to do so could

easily compromise an operation. Enemy intelligence was continuously on the lookout for operational irregularities and mistakes.

The crossing of the Rhine—known as Operation Viersen—was a

classic deception operation, executed the way deception should be

executed. The staff member of the 23d who masterminded the deception operation portion of the tactical plan was stationed in the Ninth

Army G3 section to work closely with all elements of the Army staff

and to monitor the execution of the deception operation. Consequently, the operation carried the full authority of General Simpson,

the Army commander, resulting in the development and execution of

detailed plans at all subordinate levels. In this operation, the 23d simulated—with all of its sights and sounds—the 30th and 79th Divisions.

These simulated divisions were deployed in the center of the army

sector with the mission of feigning the main attack on 1 April. To fill

out the deception picture, as happened in some of its previous deception operations, the 23d was augmented with real units—in this case

there were infantry, engineer, antiaircraft artillery, field artillery, and

tank units. When the two real divisions attacked to the north, crossing

the Rhine in the vicinity of Wesel on 26 March, they suffered only 31

casualties. This extremely low casualty figure was considered a remarkable achievement in view of the fact that the Rhine was a major barrier

defended by a determined enemy and constituted the last barrier to

entry into the heartland of Germany. In a letter of commendation to

the 23d, General Simpson recognized its considerable contribution.

While the 23d participated in a few deception operations that were

aborted, some that were of uncertain success, and others that were quite

successful, the overall performance of the organization in these operations was judged as excellent. A measure of the real contribution of the 23d

to the winning of the war was not in the number of Germans killed but

rather in the many thousands of American lives that were spared.

In summary, Ghosts of the ETO is an excellent, balanced history of

the 23d Special Troops. Gawne tells the story like it was—warts and

all. I say this because I was there as commander of the 406th Engineer

Combat Company.

Besides telling the story of the 23d, the book is important for

another reason. To date, no book written about the war in the ETO has

included the participation and impact of the 23d’s effort on the outcome of the tactical plans of divisions, corps, or armies. This is understandable since the activities of the 23d were only recently declassified. In the future, such books should include a discussion of the

organization’s participation and an evaluation of its contribution to

the outcome of the tactical plans in order to provide a complete story

of what occurred. For the same reason, sections of many books already

written about the battles in the ETO should be rewritten. This book is

an excellent starting point for researching this new dimension in many

of the ETO battles. In addition, many of the Army’s field manuals need

to be rewritten to incorporate the deception doctrine and techniques

developed by the 23d, but they should be updated for the 21st century.

Gawne also addresses, in a limited way, the future of deception. He

suggests that—building on the 23d’s World War II experiences—new

equipment, doctrine, etc., need to be developed that incorporate the

latest technology. I venture to add the following comments:

With this “Everything-You-Ever-Wanted-to-Know-AboutTactical-Deception” book now on the market, it is fair to assume that

at least all of the major foreign armies, intelligence agencies, and

military schools will buy the book to learn about the sophisticated use

of deception as developed by the Army in the ETO during World War

II. With this background, foreign armies may do at least three things:

 Direct their intelligence agencies to ensure that they have the

capability of gathering information on the full spectrum of the

sights and sounds of the U.S. Army.

 Develop their own tactical deception units to operate on a continuing basis.

 Emphasize the teaching of deception in their service schools so

that officers and noncommissioned officers at all levels are knowledgeable in the art.

What must the U.S. Army do? It must build on the solid foundation

of the battlefield knowledge the 23d Special Troops gained in World

War II and move forward by taking advantage of the latest technology

and military thinking. To do this, the Army should establish a full-time

organization to continuously study tactical deception with the goal of

developing doctrine, materiel, etc., appropriate for future warfare.

This organization should be charged with—

 Developing criteria, requirements, and funding for research and

development of new, advanced tactical deception equipment.

 Developing doctrine, procedures, techniques, tables of organization and equipment, SOPs, etc., appropriate for the employment

of a self-contained tactical deception unit.

 Ensuring that our intelligence agencies are devoting sufficient resources toward determining the enemy’s means of intelligence gathering so that ways can be developed to neutralize, counter, or turn

these means to our advantage.

 Ensuring that tactical deception is emphasized in its various aspects in the curricula of all of our service schools. Gawne’s book

should be a part of the course material.

The end product of these activities is a self-contained organization

that is dedicated to tactical deception operations on a continuing basis

and is operational at the outbreak of hostilities.

The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command should incorporate

tactical deception in future organizations and training, to include all

service schools.

Based on the above discussion, there is reason to believe that Ghosts

of the ETO may be one of the most important books to come out of

World War II. It should be read by all officers from the highest to

lowest rank and by all noncommissioned officers.

Reviewed by Major General George A. Rebh (Retired). In addition

to commanding the 406th Engineer Combat Company, ETO, he served

in various units, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Districts, and Chief of

Engineers positions during his 32-year military career. He is a graduate

of the U.S. Military Academy and was a Rhodes scholar.

January-March 2003 Engineer 47
Thunderbase, this is Metal 36.

Adjust fire, over . . . BMP in the

open . . . Dustoff 6, this is Metal

36 . . . I have three casualties, two

ambulatory and one KIA. Similar radio

transmissions echoed over the Wolverine network for ten intense days

during the 94th Engineer Battalion

(Combat) (Heavy) live-fire exercise—

called Protective Wolverine—at Grafenwoehr training area in Germany.

The concept of such an exercise was

foreign to the construction engineers of

the 94th, which is assigned to the 130th

Engineer Brigade. Even the most

seasoned Wolverine soldiers, having

spent more than five years in the organization, could not recall an event that

was remotely similar. The genesis

occurred more than ten months before,

when the operations officer pitched a

concept at the annual training strategy

seminar. His suspicion, which included

a perceived shortcoming in basic combat

skills and a lack of confidence in weapons

employment, was confirmed by the

reaction of the officers and senior noncommissioned officers in the audience.

The support for the live-fire concept was

overwhelming, and Exercise Protective

Wolverine steadily progressed from a

concept sketch to a deliberate plan.

The Intent

The battalion commander’s intent

for the exercise was clear: prepare

the leaders and soldiers of the

battalion to respond to enemy contact,

employ organic and nonorganic

weapons systems, and survive and carry

on with the construction mission. The

overarching objective was to preserve

and prolong the battalion’s ability to

construct in potentially hostile

situations.

An additional aim was to define a

model for leaders in the battalion to plan,

resource, and execute large-scale

training exercises according to the

deliberate eight-step training process

(see article “ Cobra Gold ’99 Tests the

Eight-Step Training Model,“ Engineer,

April 2000). The commander also

quantified success for this exercise.

Leaders would become more comfortable with making command decisions

in a highly stressful environment.

Furthermore, they would cultivate an appreciation for the fog of battle and

understand its impact on deliberate

planning. Most importantly, however,

individuals would walk away from the

exercise as better soldiers—more confident in basic tactics, more adept at

integrating and synchronizing weapons

systems, and more competent as construction engineers and warfighters.

Finally, the commander specified one

standard for implementation: safe execution with deliberate risk management.

The Plan

The S3 launched the military

decision-making process, while

the executive officer (XO) set the

wheels in motion to stand up a

responsive support network for the

exercise. The plan was exhaustive with

many considerations. The S3 synchronized a complex and expansive

execution matrix, published all pertinent

orders, specified evaluation criteria in

painstaking detail, resourced and

scripted the scenarios, mastered the

muddled bureaucracy of range control,

coordinated for all external resources,

and developed a thorough plan to ensure

preparedness for the exercise.

By Captain Alexander J. Buehler

Live Fire . . . Heavy Live Fire . . . Heavy

48 Engineer January-March 2003
Such planning seems somewhat

routine in the absence of external

constraints; however, it was the indelible

presence of these constraints, which

were abundant and ever changing, that

brought challenge to the planning and

pliability to the execution. Limitations

included no heavy fire on German

holidays or after 0200 hours and narrow

windows of opportunity for air medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) and C-130

overflights. Adaptation would be

paramount.

In addition to planning the training,

the S3 devised a notional operations

order with a uniquely realistic enemy

situation. All elements of the exercise

were crafted to fit neatly into the big

picture. The scenario was a coalition

army fighting westward, leaving

bypassed units and special-purpose

forces in the battalion sector. Generally

operating in 12-man teams, the forces

would seek to impede construction

operations, harass Wolverine soldiers,

and disrupt logistical supply centers.

Concurrent with the diligent

preparations of the S3, the XO harnessed

the staff energy to cement a support cell.

The burden of support was deliberately

withheld from the unit level. All commanders would focus purely on combat

training and safe execution. The “beans

and bullets” would be left up to the

battalion. This included a feeding plan

with two separate mess operations along

with Class I logistics trains, which

allowed feeding downrange to reduce

time in transit.

Additionally, the XO—along with the

S4—planned the largest ammunition

receipt, storage, and distribution plan in

battalion history. Notwithstanding a

major Class I and Class V push, the XO

considered all details—no matter how

trivial—and integrated them into the

overall support network. The companies

would not need to consider sustainment

of their soldiers.

The Method

Exercise Protective Wolverine was

not only a live-fire exercise, but it

was also a platoon-level external

evaluation. First, companies deployed

from home station, conducted a convoy,

and occupied a tactical assembly area,

all of which were critically observed by

observer-controller-evaluators (OCEs).

Next, platoons cycled through a casualty

evaluation, treatment, and evacuation

(CETE) lane, training with battalion

medics and air MEDEVAC personnel to

perfect these skills before game day.

After successful validation of the

CETE training, platoons proceeded

through a fire-maneuver (F-M) lane,

which focused on movement under

direct fire, weapons discipline, and the

initiation and control of fire. After a twoday hiatus for internal training, the

platoon began the first of two capstone

exercises, the convoy ambush lane.

Conducting a tactical convoy en route

to a construction site, the platoon was

confronted with an enemy ambush. A

complex blocking obstacle (a wire/mine

configuration), a BMP in the open, and

enemy soldiers to the front combined to

intensify the complexity of the scenario

and place an uncomfortable level of

stress on the platoon leadership.

Platoons integrated and massed fire,

called for 120-millimeter-mortar indirect

fire, and ultimately removed casualties

via air MEDEVAC. The “crawl-walk-run”

training strategy was necessary to

facilitate safe execution on the lane. After

a crawl led by the OCEs, the platoon

validated a daytime blank iteration—or

walk phase—before the run phase, which

added live ammunition to the training.

January-March 2003 Engineer 49

The platoon synchronized direct and indirect fire to suppress the

enemy and then removed casualties via air MEDEVAC.
Subsequently, platoons validated a

nighttime blank iteration before the night

run phase. The minimum number of

iterations for this lane was five, assuming

that platoons validated both blank

iterations on the first try.

After the convoy ambush lane, the

platoon progressed to the culminating

event—the jobsite security lane. During

this lane, the platoon conducted a tactical

convoy to the jobsite, occupied the area,

established jobsite security, initiated

construction operations, and—upon

enemy contact—suppressed and reduced the threat. Similar to the convoy

ambush lane, the platoon synchronized

direct and indirect fire to suppress the

enemy and then removed casualties via

air MEDEVAC. Likewise, OCEs implemented an identical crawl-walk-run

methodology. Unlike the convoy ambush

lane, the platoon installed, tested, and

fired claymore mines as part of the

validation. Finally, after successful completion of four lanes—CETE, F-M,

convoy ambush, and jobsite security—

companies regrouped, consolidated, and

redeployed to their home station.

Exercise Protective Wolverine provided training for platoons, but the

aforementioned summary does little to

capture the training that occurred behind

the scenes. Companies conducted extensive training before the exercise, and

all officers attended a call-for-fire class

at the Combined Arms Training Center

at their home station in Vilseck, Germany.

Additionally, all OCEs underwent an

incremental train-up session and became

validated on their lanes before their first

iteration.

OCE teams were composed of six

personnel from various backgrounds

to maximize the collective experience

and overall effectiveness of the team,

and they adhered to a day-on, day-off

schedule to maintain focus. As any

veteran officer in charge (OIC) can attest,

running a range on the Grafenwoehr

training area is no simple undertaking.

Throughout the 15-day Protective

Wolverine exercise, the 94th Engineer

Battalion occupied Range 117, managed

an ammunition holding area on-site,

survived numerous “courtesy” inspections from range control, and turned

over the range and facilities without a

hitch. Two officers worked alternating 24-

hour shifts, manning the Range 117 tower.

Several FM radios, two main frequencies,

two Motorola frequencies, and two fixed

lines combined to create a unique command and control challenge, but the

tower OICs met the challenge head-on.

Range control expressed ongoing approval for the exercise at large.

The numbers speak volumes regarding the intensity and complexity of

the exercise. Ammunition expenditures

included ninety thousand 5.56-millimeter

rounds; ninety 81-millimeter illumination

rounds; one hundred forty-four 120-

millimeter high-explosive rounds; thirty

M18A1 claymore mines; and an abundance of simulators, smoke grenades,

and pyrotechnics. Black Hawk pilots

logged more than fifty MEDEVAC flights

in support of the operation. The live fire

was . . . heavy.

The Aftermath

As platoons and companies

redeployed, Range 117 was

cleared and turned over. One

resounding afterthought remained: the

exercise was excellent, and the commander’s intent was met. A value-added

aspect of the exercise, which exceeded

the commander’s intent, involved the

intangible team building that underlined

the training. As leaders and soldiers

prepare for upcoming construction missions in Africa, Poland, and Germany,

they go forth with more confidence and

proficiency, knowing full well that—in

the event of hostile aggression—they

are better prepared to survive the threat

and carry on with their construction

missions. And as for the organization,

the 94th Engineer Battalion proved that

combat heavy engineers can safely and

effectively conduct a live-fire exercise

and . . . the fire tends to be heavy.

Captain Buehler was the S4 of the

94th Engineer Battalion (Combat)

(Heavy), 10th Engineer Brigade,

Vilseck, Germany, when this article was

written. He has since left the Army and

is attending the Wharton School of

Business at the University of Pennsylvania. His previous assignments

include civil engineer for the 94th

Engineer Battalion, where he deployed

to Kosovo and Albania, and platoon

leader, Task Force Able Sentry, Skopje,

Macedonia. He is a graduate of the U.S.

Military Academy, the Engineer Officer

Basic Course, and airborne and air

assault schools.

50 Engineer January-March 2003

The platoon carries on with the construction mission.
George Washington was a great

early American engineer. Hundreds of books have been written

about his accomplishments as a Virginia

planter, a military commander, a noble

statesmen, and a symbol for the new

American nation. Although Washington’s

surveying achievements are fairly well

publicized, almost nothing has been

written about Washington the engineer

and engineer advocate. In this article, I will

show that the father of our country was

an accomplished engineer who served as

a strong proponent for establishing American engineering institutions.

George Washington did not have a formal

education. However, from the time he was a young man, he

engaged in engineering activities. As he continued to mature, the

same skills that made him a good surveyor, builder, and innovator

were applied to other pursuits. These talents and experiences

formed the solid foundation upon which Washington built his

more notable achievements, much the way that Lee and MacArthur

applied their engineering backgrounds to become two of the

greatest American practitioners of operational art. As you will

see, it is time to add Washington to the long list of great American

engineers.

Defining Engineers

Engineers have been labeled as professionals who apply

math and science to create something of value1—a

rather mundane definition. Theodore Von Karman, an

aerospace engineer, put it differently.

“Scientists discover the world that exists;

engineers create the world that never

was.”2

 This definition fits Washington. In

many ways, he was indispensable in

creating a world that had not existed in his

time. He did this on a grand scale in his

efforts as commander of the Continental

Army and first President of the United

States. He also did it on a smaller scale

in Virginia as a surveyor, planter, businessman, and gentleman. Washington created

through natural talent, devotion, resoluteness, and hard work.

Engineers throughout history have

used this formula for success. Rudyard

Kipling recognized these traits when he wrote Sons of Martha,

his ode to engineers. His ode defends Martha’s comment to

Jesus about her sister Mary (Luke 10:42). In Kipling’s poem,

now adopted as the poem for engineers, he writes:

“The Sons of Mary seldom bother, for they have inherited

the good part; But the Sons of Martha favour their Mother of

the careful soul and the troubled heart...They say to the

mountains, ‘Be ye removed.’ They say to the floods, ‘Be dry.’

Under their rods are the rocks reproved—they are not afraid

of that which is high. Then do the hilltops shake to the

summit–then is the bed of the deep laid bare, That the Sons of

Mary may overcome it, pleasantly sleeping and unaware.”3

Past in Review

Washington—Engineer and Engineer Advocate

By Major John Richard Boulé II

January-March 2003 Engineer 51

A survey, commissioned by Lord Fairfax, and a map of Alexandria, Virginia, were done by

George Washington.
Washington was definitely a Son of Martha. He fearlessly

persevered through many daunting challenges until he

prevailed. Virginians, and later all Americans, benefited from

his efforts.

Engineering in Washington’s Time

Washington lived most of his life before the advent

of the Industrial Revolution. Engineering, as we

classify it today, did not exist in his day. Although

colleges like Harvard and Columbia (then called King’s College)

operated in the colonies, America did not have a school where

formal engineering skills were taught. In Europe, engineering

instruction often focused on fortifications and siege craft. Even

the Great Wall of China, finished in 1640, was barely 100 years

old when Washington was born!

It is safe to say that American engineering was in its infancy

during Washington’s time. The first engineered structure in

America, the Castillo de San Marcos, was designed and

constructed in Florida in 1695, only 37 years before Washington’s birth.4

 Some of the most famous engineering projects

completed during Washington’s time were the first municipal

pumped waterworks in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, in 1755, and

the survey of the Mason-Dixon line, officially designating the

Pennsylvania-Virginia boundary, in 1767. Engineers were not

even legally recognized as experts in America until 1782, one

year before the Revolutionary War concluded.5 Therefore, we

cannot expect Washington to be involved in major engineering

projects; they simply did not exist. Likewise, we cannot

consider him an engineer unless he demonstrated some

engineering credentials.

Washington, Engineering Qualifications

As a young man, Washington learned to survey. He

had a natural talent for mathematics. At the age of

16, he apprenticed with several accomplished

surveyors on a month-long trip to the Blue Ridge Mountains

to survey Lord Fairfax’s lands.6

 He mastered the trade quickly,

earning an appointment as county surveyor of Culpeper

County, Virginia, at the age of 17.

Washington later used his knowledge of topography and

mapmaking to produce drawings of the Ohio River Valley in

1753, while on a dangerous mission to deliver a message to

the French demanding their withdrawal from the region. These

sketches represented the state of geographical knowledge of

the area at the outbreak of the French and Indian War that

occurred shortly after his trip.7

Even though he was heavily burdened as a Virginia planter,

businessman, and legislator; commander of the Continental

Army for eight years; and President of the United States for

eight years, he is credited with conducting an extensive

number of surveys. During his lifetime, Washington surveyed

more than 200 tracts of land consisting of 60,000-plus acres.

He is credited with drawing more than 100 maps,8 including a

map of the city of Alexandria. He was involved with L’Enfant

in planning the technical layout for the future capital city that

would bear his name.

Washington, Innovator and Builder

I

n the true spirit of engineering, George Washington

demonstrated his ability to create things to solve problems.

Many of his innovations were designed to expand his

business and to make farming more efficient and his residence

more comfortable and stately. He engineered farm tools and

wheat-processing facilities and designed and expanded his

country estate. He was also involved in a land reclamation

and canal project in the Dismal Swamp of southeastern Virginia

and northeastern North Carolina.

Plow Invention

Washington’s engineering achievements were numerous

and varied in scale. By 1770, he had designed a new plow,9

which was actually a combination plow and seeder. Seeds

were placed in a perforated cylinder, and as the plow was

moved, the cylinder rotated releasing the seeds. After experiencing some clogging, Washington redesigned the

cylinder incorporating funnel-shaped holes that made it less

likely for the seeds to jam.10 He had demonstrated the tried

and true engineer technique of trial and error to solve a practical

problem.

52 Engineer January-March 2003

Washington’s grain-threshing structure was rebuilt at Mount Vernon. He created these plans while President of the

United States.
Mount Vernon Expansion

Washington greatly expanded the simple Mount Vernon

farmhouse he inherited. Beginning in 1758, he turned the

1 1/2-story structure with several rooms into a 2 1/2-story,

twenty-room mansion without the aid of an architect.11 He

also designed and built all twelve outbuildings placed around

the central structure. Attempting to turn his property into an

estate worthy of a country gentleman, Washington added a

stunning two-story piazza overlooking the Potomac River and

an elegant cupola on the top of his estate house.12 With Mount

Vernon, Washington demonstrated a flare for architecture.

Agricultural Facility

One of Washington’s most innovative creations was his

two-floor, sixteen-sided (or circular) barn. After experiencing

mixed results from growing tobacco, he converted many of his

fields to wheat. To separate the grain from the stalk, treading

animals were commonly used. Washington wanted to create a

facility that would keep the working animals out of the weather

and protect his grain from theft.

In 1792, construction of his 52-foot-diameter barn began.

(Remember, Washington was President at the time!) He had

drawn diagrams of the structure and had done many

computations to determine the bill of materials. His design

specified a brick first floor and a wooden second floor.

Washington’s own calculations called for 30,280 bricks.13 In

the center of the barn was an octagonal room designed to

store the separated grain. Horses would walk up an earthen

ramp to the second floor and then tread on the harvested

wheat while walking in a circle. Washington designed a space

of 1 to 1 1/2 inches between floorboards to allow the separated

grain to fall to the first floor. The grain was then placed in the

octagonal room until it could be transported to his gristmill.

The circular barn can be thought of as Washington’s own

threshing machine. This creation represented true originality

in agricultural production.

Land Reclamation and Canal Construction

Washington spent his years between the French and Indian

and Revolutionary Wars improving his estate and expanding

his land holdings. In 1763, he visited the Great Dismal Swamp

on the eastern border of Virginia and North Carolina, separating

the Chesapeake Bay and Albemarle Sound.14 Here he saw

opportunities. Once again demonstrating his engineering

vision, he suggested draining the swamp and digging a northsouth waterway to connect the Chespeake and Albemarle. 15

Joining with other southern colonial businessmen, he formed

two syndicates hoping to drain the swamp, harvest the trees,

and use the land for farming. Washington directed the

surveying and construction of a 5-mile-long ditch. By adding

another trench, Washington’s ditch provided a means to move

logs and drain the swamp. The investors soon realized,

however, that the task of draining the Great Dismal Swamp to

reclaim the land was too difficult.

However, the idea of connecting the Chesapeake and the

Albemarle by an inland waterway had other merit to

Washington. In 1793, he and Virginia Governor Patrick Henry

helped form the Dismal Swamp Canal Company to build a canal

for flat-bottomed boats. The Great Dismal Swamp Canal—the

oldest continually operating man-made canal in the United

States—was completed by hand in 1805, six years after

Washington’s death.16 In 1987, this canal was designated as a

national civil engineering landmark. Today the canal is operated

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and provides a means

for boaters to traverse between the two states, avoiding ocean

exposure.

Other Contributions

The canal, estate, barn, and plow represented manifestations

of Washington’s engineering ability. His construction ability

was initially displayed in building Fort Necessity, a stockade

that he fought behind in 1754 during a losing battle with the

French. In 1785, Washington became president of the Potomac

Navigation Company. The company’s goal was to connect a

more navigable Potomac River with the Ohio River system

using a portage road. Another engineer completed the road,

later named the National Road.17

When combined with his cartographic portfolio, and

considering the context of his time, there can be little doubt

that Washington should be classified as an accomplished

January-March 2003 Engineer 53

Mount Vernon was largely designed and built by Washington

without the assistance of an architect.
engineer. Yet, his greatest contribution to American

engineering was his advocacy of developing native engineering institutions.

Washington, Master Advocate for Future

Master Builders

The 19th century was a glorious time for engineering

development in the United States. Engineers were often

referred to as master builders, and chief engineers had

absolute authority over all the operational, technical, logistical,

financial, and administrative functions of major projects.

Military engineers led many of America’s largest engineering

projects. These American engineers could trace their origins

to 18th century George Washington.

As early as 1755, when Washington served as aide to

General Braddock—English commander during the early part

of the French and Indian War—he experienced the need for

military engineers or pioneers firsthand. As Braddock’s forces

advanced from Virginia to attack Fort Duquesne (located at

what is now Pittsburgh), they built a road to move the supply

wagons and cannons. In front of the combined British and

Virginian forces, pioneers cut a road west over the Allegheny

Mountains.18 Watching these early combat engineers,

Washington must have filed away the lesson of the importance

of infrastructure and the need to have the forces available to

create it for military purposes.

Creating an American Corps of Engineers

Washington’s later studies reinforced the importance of

military engineers and sappers fulfilling important military

functions, such as building field fortifications and conducting

siege craft. This attitude was evident considering that after

being named commander of the Continental Army on 15 June

1775, it took him only a day to appoint a Chief of Engineers.

Colonel Richard Gridley of Massachusetts was named to that

position, as he was one of the few colonials with experience in

constructing fortifications.19 Gridley’s appointment was soon

validated as his defensive plan provided protection for the

militia in the staunch colonial effort at the Battle of Bunker

Hill.

In early 1776, at Dorchester Heights, Gridley’s successor,

Rufus Putnam—in consultation with Washington—devised

an ingenious method to erect aboveground fortifications,

because of frozen earth conditions. These fortifications allowed

the Continental Army to quickly emplace cannons, giving them

command over the city of Boston. This positional advantage

forced the British to abandon the city.

As Washington realized that the nature of the Revolutionary

War would generally be defensive, he pleaded with Congress

for more engineers.20 Congress responded by recruiting

foreign engineers like Frenchman Louis Duportail, who worked

with Washington to establish a permanent and separate branch

of sappers and miners, and Thaddeus Kosciuszko, who helped

erect the formidable defenses at West Point. Washington later

moved his headquarters there, as Continental soldiers continued to strengthen the Hudson River strongpoint. In 1778,

Congress authorized three companies of engineers. The

fledgling American Corps of Engineers enjoyed its finest hour

at Yorktown in 1781 when Washington and his engineers

conducted a successful siege that culminated by engineers

clearing the way for the decisive assault that led to the British

surrender.21

Advocating an American Engineering Institution

Washington’s wartime experience convinced him that the

new nation needed its own engineering educational institution.

The long war had exposed America’s dependence on European

nations to provide military technical experts. On 1 May 1783,

Washington wrote to Alexander Hamilton recommending the

establishment of “academies, one or more for the instruction

of the art military; particularly those branches of it which

respect engineering and artillery, which are highly essential,

and the knowledge of which is most difficult to obtain.”22

54 Engineer January-March 2003

A statue of George Washington at West Point, the first engineering

school in the United States
Congress disestablished the Continental Army after the

war because of strong political views against a standing

military. Washington, however, continued to advocate the

need for an institution dedicated to engineering instruction in

the United States. In an address to Congress in 1796, making

his case, he stated,

“Whatever argument may be drawn from the particular

examples, superficially viewed, a thorough examination of

the subject will evince that the Art of War is at once

comprehensive and complicated; that it demands much

previous study; and that the possession of it, in its most

improved and perfect state, is always of great moment to the

security of a nation. This, therefore, ought to be a serious

care of every government: and for this purpose, an Academy,

where a regular course of instruction is given, is an obvious

expedient, which different nations have successfully

employed.”23

Washington did not live to see his academy established.

He died in December 1799. In 1802, Thomas Jefferson signed

legislation authorizing the establishment of a United States

Military Academy. To overcome resistance to creating a purely

military school, the federal law that established West Point

called for an institution that produced trained officers who

also possessed badly needed engineering skills for the nation.24

West Point was the only engineering school of higher learning

in the United States for fifty years. During that time, its

graduates were largely responsible for the nation’s initial

railway lines, bridges, harbors, and roads.25 If he had lived to

see his vision materialize, George Washington would certainly

have been content.

Conclusion

Washington’s strong institutional support

strengthens his impressive personal engineering

achievements. This “Son of Martha” proved himself as an impressive practitioner and leader. Lacking formal

instruction, Washington was a quick study who learned by

doing. He was not afraid to apply his technical talents to solving

practical farming, construction, infrastructure, or military

engineering problems. Washington recognized the need for

engineers in the United States Army and throughout American

society. His early engineer advocacy, combined with his

impressive personal portfolio, makes him one of America’s

great early engineers.

Author’s Note: I would like to thank Professor William Calhoun

of the Naval War College for his assistance in discovering the

real George Washington. Attending his class on George

Washington motivated me to write this article.

Endnotes

1“Engineering, the Stealth Profession,” Discover Engineering

Online, http://www.discoverengineering.org/eweek/about_eng.htm,

13 April 2001.

2

Ibid.

3

A Poem for the Engineers, US Army Corps of Engineers Museum,

http://www.wood.army.mil/museum/History/en_poem.htm, 25 April

2001.

4

“Timeline- A Chronology of American Civil Engineering,” American

Society of Civil Engineers, http://www.asce.org/history/timeline/

1600_timeline.html, 20 April 2001.

5

“Timeline- A Chronology of American Civil Engineering,” American

Society of Civil Engineers, http://www.asce.org/history/timeline/

1700_timeline.html, 13 April 2001.

6George Washington—Surveyor and Mapmaker, Library of

Congress, http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/gmdhtml/gwmaps.html, 13

April 2001.

7

Ibid.

8

Ibid.

9

John E. Ferling, The First Among Men, Knoxville, University of

Tennessee Press, 1988, p. 67.

10George Washington: Pioneer Farmer, Mount Vernon Ladies

Association, http://www.mountvernon.org/pioneer/farms/barrel.html,

13 April 2001.

11Ferling, p. 63.

12Mansion Tour, Mount Vernon Ladies Association, http://

www.mountvernon.org/mtour/one.asp, 24 April 2001.

13George Washington: Pioneer Farmer, Mount Vernon Ladies

Association, http://www.mountvernon.org/pioneer/barn/, 24 April

2001.

14Douglas Southall Freeman, Washington, New York, Touchstone,

1968, p. 151.

15“The Great Dismal Swamp – A History,” Coastal Guide Web

page, http://albemarle-nc.com/gates/greatdismal, 13 April 2001.

16“The Dismal Swamp Canal”, Coastal Guide Web page, http://

www.albemarle-nc.com/camden/history/canal.htm, 20 April 2001.

17Neal Fitzsimons, “George Washington: An Engineering Legacy,”

The Military Engineer (December 1999): 44. (Fitzsimons’ article is

the only one I could find that described Washington as an engineer.

His work provided the original motivation for this paper.)

18Freeman, p. 81.

19“The History of the Corps of Engineers, The Revolutionary War,”

University of Virginia, http://www.virginia.edu/gwpapers/documents/

ace, 13 April 2001.

20Ibid.

21“The History of the Corps of Engineers,” US Army Corps of

Engineers Museum Web page, http://www.wood.army.mil/museum/

History/en_hist.htm, 25 April 2001.

22George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-

1799, Library of Congress, http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/

gwhome.html, 13 April 2001.

23Ibid.

24Jeffrey Simpson, Officers and Gentlemen, Tarrytown, Sleepy

Hollow Press, 1982, p. 6.

25“U.S. Military Academy History,” United States Military Academy,

http://www.usma.edu/PublicAffairs/history/, 13 April 2001.

Major Boulé is a member of the Army Staff. Previous

assignments include executive officer of the 2d Engineer

Battalion in Korea and assistant professor in the Department

of Civil and Mechanical Engineering at West Point. He has

had numerous other combat engineer assignments in the 1st

Armored Division, 10th Mountain Division, and 20th Engineer Brigade.

January-March 2003 Engineer 55
Commercial numbers are (573) 563-xxxx and Defense System

Network (DSN) numbers are 676-xxxx unless otherwise noted.

56 Engineer January-March 2003

ENGINEER UPDATE

Directorate of Training (DOT)

Officer Education System (OES) Transformation. The Army

is moving forward with its plans for transformation of the OES.

The proposed transformation is based on findings and recommendations from the Army Training and Leader Development

Panel officer study published in May 2001. The transformed

education system will include the following:

 Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC). This course will

ensure a tough, standardized, small-unit leadership experience that flows progressively from precommissioning

(BOLC I) to the initial-entry field leadership experience

(BOLC II), and then to branch technical/tactical training

in BOLC III. BOLC III will be held in residence at the U.S.

Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Plans are for the BOLC to be fully implemented in the 3d

quarter, FY06.

 Combined-Arms Staff Course (CASC) and Combined-Arms

Battle Command Course (CABCC). CASC is designed to

train staff officer skills. The Engineer School has developed a modular concept for CASC that is built around six

engineer staff/technical courses: assistant brigade engineer, assistant division/corps engineer, task force engineer, geospatial manager, construction engineer, and U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers engineer. All six courses will

include advanced distributive learning (ADL) and new

high-impact resident training experiences. These courses

will provide assignment-oriented training, just in time for

the staff duty position. The construct of this design allows engineer officers to receive training before assuming

a staff/technical position anywhere along their career path.

The six courses have some foundational knowledge in

common. This commonality allows for reduced training

time as officers receive the foundational knowledge in the

first course attended. Subsequent courses will not repeat

this baseline, but will build on it to train the unique skills

and knowledge for that course.

Like CASC, the Engineer School has developed a modular

construct to train battle command skills in CABCC. The

curriculum in the proposed command course is divided

into seven modules: take command, train, administer, maintain, deploy, fight, and lead. Each module will include both

distance learning and experiential training activities. The

course will culminate with a two-week combat training

center (CTC) experience.

Currently, the Army is considering two courses of action

for CASC and CABCC. The first option separates the two

training experiences into two distinct courses. CASC

would require the student to complete two weeks of common-core ADL, one week of branch-specific ADL, and a

two-week residential phase. CABCC would require two

weeks of common-core ADL, two weeks of branchspecific ADL, a four-week residential phase, and a twoweek CTC experience.

The second course of action would combine the two

experiences into one course. Under this option, the student would complete three weeks of common-core ADL,

three weeks of branch-specific ADL, a six-week residential phase, and a two-week CTC experience. Both courses

of action will be piloted in FY05. Plans are for the selected option to be fully implemented in FY06.

 Intermediate Level Education (ILE). ILE will provide all

majors with the same common core of operational instruction and additional tailored education opportunities tied

to the officer’s specific career field/branch/functional area.

Plans are for ILE to be fully implemented by 4th quarter,

FY05.

POC is MAJ Storm Reynolds, Chief, Transformation Cell

Team, 34132; DSN -4132; e-mail reynoldss@wood.army.mil,

or LTC Jeff Bedey, Director, Department of Instruction, 34132;

DSN -4132; e-mail bedeyj@wood.army.mil.

Contingency Operations (CONOPS) Training. In response to the Combined Arms Center’s requirement that proponent schools provide additional training opportunities to

students en route to “troop-listed” units, the Department of

Instruction is teaching the following subjects to identified

engineer noncommissioned officers (NCOs), lieutenants, and

captains:

 Mine awareness training—Iraqi-theater specific

 Iraqi intelligence briefing

 Terrain analysis—developing and manipulating data and

terrain products for the country

 Combined-Arms Lessons Learned from Desert Storm and

other relevant operations

This training is being given to students with assignments

to U.S. Army Europe; Fort Benning, Georgia; Fort Campbell,

Kentucky; Fort Stewart, Georgia; Fort Riley, Kansas; Fort

Carson, Colorado; and Fort Hood, Texas. Initial sessions were

held on 25 January and 1 February. This training provides a

tremendous opportunity for NCOs, lieutenants, and captains

who will serve together in the not-too-distant future to interact with each other here at the Engineer School.

POC is CPT Ken Boggs, Tactics Division Chief, 34132;

DSN -4132; e-mail boggsk@wood.army.mil, or LTC Jeff Bedey,

Director, Department of Instruction, 34132, DSN -4132; e-mail

bedeyj@wood.army.mil.

Countermine/Counter Booby Trap Center (CMCBTC).

The Center has developed seven countermine-related training packages: mine awareness training, mine awareness instructor training, engineer-specific countermine training, engineer-specific countermine instructor training, counter

booby trap familiarization, Matilda robot training support plan
January-March 2003 Engineer 57

(operator maintenance and employment), and Handheld Standoff Mine-Detection System (HSTAMIDS) training support

plan. By the end of February 2003, the Center will have provided training to about 4,500 troops, CONUS and OCONUS.

In addition, the Center has completed or initiated the

following:

 Developed handbooks to counter the mine and explosive

hazards facing our forces in Afghanistan (Explosive Hazards Reference Guide) and Iraq (Commander’s Guide and

Soldier’s Handbook). Handbooks were coauthored by the

National Ground Intel Center and Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technical Center. They include common

mine and unexploded ordnance (UXO) disposal hazards,

plus their doctrinal usage; recognition features; immediate action drills; reporting; countermeasure equipment;

and tactics, techniques, and procedures to deal with these

threats. The Afghanistan book addressed known land mine

hazards. The Iraq handbooks consist of a common soldier

handbook and a more detailed commander’s reference

guide. Both Iraq books include land mines and UXO hazards and are available on the Web site discussed below.

 Is developing the Tactical Minefield Database (TMFDB)

in concert with the Topographic Engineering Center and

its materiel developer, Northrop-Grumman/TASC. The

TMFDB can track and display point, linear, and area obstacles, minefields, and explosive hazards. Built as a subset of the Maneuver Control System (MCS)-Engineer, the

application is being designed to interface with the command and control personal computer (C2PC) and MCSLight, plus input and output minefield databases to multiple formats (for example, United Nations standard Information Management System for Mine Action [IMSMA]).

This capability will be exportable and available to designated units via the Secure Internet Protocol Network

(SIPRNET).

 Established classified Web sites on the SIPRNET (http://

www.faisa.army.smil.mil/remote/tradocmo/) and on the

Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System

(JWICS) (http://www.faisa.ic.gov/remote/tradoc/

tradocmo/). It also has an unclassified Web site (http://

www.wood.army.mil/cmcbtc/).

POC is Mr. Dorian D’Aria, 35361; DSN -5361; e-mail

dariad@wood.army.mil.

Mine-Detection Dog (MDD) Detachment. The MDD Detachment was approved by the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army

and will be established at Fort Leonard Wood in FY04. DA

approved $4.8M and will fund in increments, with the first

increment expected to arrive by February 2003. An additional

skill identifier has been designated (K9), and eight soldiers

have been assigned to the MDD Detachment.

POC is Mr. Jim Pettit, 37887; DSN -7887, e-mail

pettitja@wood.army.mil.

WANTED! Applicants for Terrain Analysis Technician

Warrant Officer. Military occupational specialty 81T NCOs

with five to twelve years of service may apply. The duty description is in DA Pamphlet 611-21, Military Occupational

Classification and Structure. Soldiers may obtain information

on how to become a warrant officer on the home page of the

Warrant Officer Career Center, http://leav-www.army.mil/wocc/

or U.S. Army Recruiting Command http://www.usarec.army.mil/

hq/warrant/.

POC is SGM James Biggerman, 37232; DSN -7232; e-mail

biggermanj@wood.army.mil.

Proponent Guidance “Promotion Book.” The Engineer Personnel Proponency Office (EPPO) prepares proponent guidance for panel members to use to select soldiers for promotion

to senior grades (E-7 through E-9). The guidance is posted on

the EPPO Web site for NCOs to check where they stand. New

guidance is posted on the day the annual board meets. Guidance for the upcoming calendar year 03 Master Sergeant Centralized Selection Board has been completed and is posted on

the Web site.

POC is SGM James Biggerman, 37232; DSN -7232; e-mail

biggermanj@wood.army.mil.

Center for Engineer Lessons Learned (CELL). The Web site

repository of lessons learned is continually being updated. We

have added a listing and short synopsis of Operation Enduring

Freedom lessons learned. This list will continue to be updated as

we receive material. You can obtain this material by viewing the

CELL Web site (http://www.wood.army.mil/CELL/index.htm), selecting the items you want, and sending an e-mail request or calling the CELL POC below. Most current operations material is for

official use only (FOUO) and cannot be placed on a public Web

site but can be sent to a .mil e-mail address.

We thank units and individuals that have sent digital copies of their lessons learned and after-action reports (AARs)

We request that all units forward engineer lessons learned and

AARs from exercises and operations to the CELL POC. This

material is used to revise/develop doctrine and training and is

provided to units preparing to conduct similar missions. Others can benefit from your experiences.

POC is Mr. Reggie Snodgrass, 34117; DSN - 4117; e-mail

snodgrar@wood.army.mil.

Field Manual Update. The Doctrine Development Division will

release two publications for review in February 2003. The

Regiment’s capstone manual, FM 3-34, Engineer Operations, will

be released as a coordinating draft. FM 3-34.221, Engineer Operations - Stryker Brigade Combat Team, will be released as a

final draft. The development of quality doctrinal manuals requires

the incorporation of lessons learned and insights based on the

operational experience of the Regiment. As part of your busy

schedules, please allocate some time to review these important

manuals and provide us your feedback.

POC is LTC Anthony Funkhouser, 37537; DSN -7537;

e-mail funkhousera@wood.army.mil.