A Nation is Born! 

APR MRY JUN 1976 

APR MRY JUN 1976 

5 OPMS and the Reserves/Engineer Staff 

6 489th Stop Sign Proiect/LT Anonymous 

9 How an Early Bird got an '*Fd'/GENERAL Bruce C. Clarke 

10 The ltschner Award Presentation/Engineer Staff 

12 Engineer R & D/MAJ Jack Case 

IS EADS Bridge/MAJ Ralph W. Gilbert 

20 The ''Man" RetiredEngineer Staff 

21 Motivation: A Staff Officer Speaks/CPT Jon Thompson 

26 A Thrifty Approach to Management/LTC David G. Cotts 

MAJ Robert L. Oliver 

30 WES: Busy as a Beaver/LTC Robert K. Hughes 

44 The Corps gets a MedaVEngineer Staff 

46 Readership Survey/ Engineer Staff 

1 Chiefs' Briefs/ History 

2 Pipeline/News Items 

4 stop 1dlLetters to the Editor 

8 Helping Hands/SGT Jerry Condo 

38 Engineer Potpourri/Engineer Branch 

42 Bridging the Gap/Career Notes
Brevet Major General John Newton was born in Norfolk, Virginia, 

August 24, 1823. He was graduated from the United States Military 

Academy on July 1, 1842 and promoted Second Lieutenant, Corps of 

Engineers. 

Newton was Assistant Professor of Engineering at the Academy 

from 1843 to 1846. He supervised the construction of fortifications 

along the Atlantic Coast and Great Lakes from 1846 to 1852 and served 

as a member of special coastal defense boards from 1855 to 1860. 

Although a Virginian, Newton did not follow Lee in joining the 

Confederacy, but remained loyal to the Union. From 1861 to 1862, he 

helped construct the defenses of Washington, D.C. and led a brigade at 

Antietam. As a division commander, he stormed Marye Heights at 

Fredericksburg. Newton led the 1st Army Corps to break Pickett's 

charge at Gettysburg and commanded a fighting division during 

Sherman's Atlanta Campaign in 1864. 

After the war, Newton supervised the defenses of New York 

Harbor and served on many Engineer boards until his appointment as 

Chief of Engineers in 1884. 

Upon retirement in 1886, Newton became Commissioner of Public 

Works, New York City, and became President of the Panama Railroad 

Company in 1888. 

General Newton died May 1, 1895 in New York. 

Edward B. RusseU 

Curator, US Army Engineer Museum 

United States Army \ 

Engineer School 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Commandant 

MG James A. Johnson 

Assistant Commandant 

BG H. McK. Roper, Jr. 

Editor 

LTC Arthur E. Williams 

Editorial Board 

MG James A. Johnson 

BG H. McK. Roper, Jr. 

COL Charles J. Osterndorf 

COL John P. Chandler 

COL Glenn C. McChristian 

COL Hugh G. Robinson 

LTC Edward K. Wintz 

LTC Arthur E. Williams 

CSM Robert G. Cady 

Production Manager 

John W. Savage, Jr. 

Production Assistant 

Mr. William W. Behring 

Editorial Assistant 

SP4 J. Arnold Montgomery 

The Engineer is an authorized quarterly publica 

tion of the U.S. Arrny Engineer School. It i! 

published to provide factural and in-depth informa 

tion of interest to all Engineer units. Articles 

photographs and art work of general interest may bm 

Submitted for Consideration to: Editor, The Engi 

neer, USA Engineer School, Fort Belvoir, Virginii 

22060. Views and opinions expressed herein are no 

necessarily those of the Department of the Army 

Use of funds for printing of this publication has beer 

approved by Headquarters, Department of thl 

Arrny, January 1. 1974. 

Subscriptions to THE ENGINEER are available 

Make checks payable to the "United States Treas 

ury." Send to The Engineer Magazine. Fort Belvoir 

Va., 22060. Annual Rates are W.00 for Domestic an1 

APO address and $5.00 for overseas addresses. 

Engineer Magazine Telephone: (703) 664-2838 - Autovon: 354-2838 

ABOUT OUR COVER 

America has celebrated another Birth 

day. This one was special because i' 

marked 200 years of independence. Jusl 

200 short years ago the United States o. America was 13 small fledgling states 

each struggling almost independently for 

its survival. Now the U.S. has grown tc 

become the strongest industrial nation or 

earth. A remarkable story of success tc 

say the least. 
PIPELINE. PIPE 

CCE UPDATE 

The major activity in the 

CCE area involved the various 

commercial trucks destined for 

Engineer Units. A specification has been prepared describing the Transportation 

Corps Line Haul Truck Tractor 

(XM915), the Engineer Truck 

Tractor (XM916) and two configurations of truck chassis to 

be used to carry the Concrete 

Mobile, 20 Ton Dump and 

Bituminous Distributor bodies. 

It is anticipated that repair 

parts for the four Engineer 

vehicles will be common. 

Major milestone include the 

award of contracts for the 750 

CFM Compressor, the 6000 

Gallon Water Distributor, the 

Nuclear Moisture/Density 

Tester and the 25 Ton Crawler 

Crane all in June; and conduct 

of the Firt Article Demonstration on the High Speed Tamper 

in May. Fielding of the 

Tamper is scheduled to commence in June under a revised 

schedule. 

DUAL ROLE 

FOR NEW 

CARGO PALLET 

A cargo pallet designed to fit 

the Army's ribbon bridge 

transporter for a dual role as a 

general cargo carrier has been 

developed by the U.S. Army 

Mobility Equipment Research 

and Development Command 

(MERADCOM), Fort Belvoir, 

Va . 

The 5-ton transporter 

equipped with a hydraulic 

boom is used to carry, launch 

and retrieve complete bays of tons (DWT) while bulk fuel is 

the Army's newest floating discharged thru pipelines up to 

bridge. 5000 feet long to onshore storWhen not performing its 

bridging mission, it can retrieve and launch the speciallydesigned 19 x 10-foot pallet 

loaded with up to five tons of 

equipment or supplies to 

double as a cargo hauler. 

Loaded in place the aluminum 

flatbed platform can support 10 

tons for highway transport. 

The second capability to selfload:' transport and off-load 

cargo was added by MERADCOM late in its ribbon bridge 

transporter development when 

cutbacks in military vehicles 

made maximum utilization imperative. R&D pallets were 

procured, tested, and type 

classified in a period of only 

eight months, a fraction of the 

time normally required to 

complete the development 

cycle. 

Initial production quantity of 

120 pallets will be delivered to 

the field in summer of 1976. 

NEW PIPELINE 

SYSTEM DEVELOPED 

BY MERADCOM 

An air-transportable tactical 

mooring and off-loading pipeline system developed by the 

U.S. Army Mobility Equipment 

Research and Development 

Command (MERADCOM), 

Fort Belvoir, Va, permits unloading tankers over undeveloped beaches or where port 

facilities are unavailable due 

to battle damage or natural 

disaster., 

Tests have been successful 

on the system which can moor 

tankers up to 25,000 deadweight 

age facilities. 

The lightweight system including support equipment can 

be delivered by C-130 transport 

planes to rough landing zones. 

It can be installed in 72 hours 

by an Engineer Port Construe. 

tion Company of 80 plus 2 radar 

men. 

Each of four mooring legs is. 

comprised of a catamaran'connected to a 50,000 pound holding capacity explosive embedment anchor. Machinery 

aboard the catamarans lower 

the anchors to the ocean flo-or 

where they embed automatically upon contract. The catamarans then serve as mooring 

buoys for hawsers run from the 

tanker's stern after the 

tanker's bow anchors have 

been dropped. 

Support equipment includes 

two motor surf boats, pulling 

block assemblies and winches, 

and mooring site survey equipment which are also air transportable. 

After mooring is complete, a 

submersible six-inch pipeline is 

installed using a winch, 55 gallon drum buoys and a special 

floating block also anchored by 

an explosive embedment anchor. 

GENERATOR TESTING 

COMPLETED BY 

MERDACOM 

Component testing has been 

completed on a 10 KW gas 

turbine engine driven generator (GTED) generator set 

under development by the U.S. 

Army Mobility Equipment Re-
LINE.PIPELINE. 


search and Development Com- When complete in 1977, the 10 

mand. (MERADCOM), Fort KW set is expected to offer 

Belvoir, VA, as the first in a many advantages over the 5 

series of new military electric and 10 KW gasoline engine 

power units designed to give driven generators it is slated to 

the Army a higher degree of replace. 

mobility and reliability supply- Compared with the current 

ing power to ground and ve- standard 10 KW engine driven 

hicular support systems. set it is lighter weight: 450-

The successful test ends this pound package contrasted with 

phase in the $3.7 million d 850 pounds for the gasoline 

sign, development and te engine driven set; more comcontract with Solar Division pact: 20 versus 28 cubic feet; 

International Harvester Cor and more reliable: 500 to 1200 

PanY. hours mean time between failures compared with 160 hours, 

and 6,000 to 10,000 hours between overhaul versus 1500 

hours. 

In addition, the 10 KW GTED 

generator set can operate on a 

variety of fuels, including nolead gasoline, jet, and diesel 

fuel, and at temperature extremes of 125 degrees Fahrenheit to minus 65 degrees. Also 

its operation is vibration-free, 

low-pollutant, and without external cooling. 
SIR: 

On your 201st anniversary, 

your comrades in arms in 

Korea join me in extending 

heartiest greetings conjoined 

with deep respect and admiration for the many accomplishments and dedicated service 

which have long been the hallmark of the Corps. Throughout our nation's history, the 

Corps of Engineers has demonstrated unflagging professionalism in the discharge of 

every task, whatever the circumstance. And it has never 

been found wanting. The result is a record notable for its 

brilliance, its scope and its 

contributions to the attainment 

of national objectives. The 

Eighth United States Army 

salutes your predecessors and 

you for your collective devotion to duty, superb competence and adherence to the 

highest standards of the profession of arms. We are confident that you of the Corps will 

be true to the motto "Essayons," as you welcome 

every new challenge. 

General Richard D. Stilwell 

Commander, Eighth Army 

APO SF 96301 

Sir 

Reference the article, "AntiTank Ditch Construction," 

published in the Fall 1975 issue 

of "The Engineer." 

The method recommended 

for construction of anti-tank 

ditches in paragraph 4 of the 

referenced article seems to me 

could result in some disastrous 

consequences. The article 

states that the spoil is to be 

placed along the friendly side 

of the ditch -that's the problem ! 

The spoil on the friendly side 

of the ditch hinders observation by the friendlies of tanks 

moving up to the ditch. Once 

the tank is in the ditch, it can 

use its main armament to push 

aside the spoil and fire from 

hull defilade. Thus the engineer has constructed an ideal 

defensive position for the 

enemy armor. 

It would seem logical to me 

that the spoil should be placed 

on the enemy side of a narrower (3-4) and deeper (2 plus 

m) ditch and the tank taken 

under fire as he proceeds over 

the spoil and then is entrapped 

at a steep angle within the 

ditch under full observation of 

friendly weapons with its engine compartment exposed. 

But even this technique offers the enemy tank the opportunity to use the spoil as cover 

for a firing position. Therefore, 

the logical solution would be 

leveling the spoil out to no 

more than 1 to 2 feet in thickness on the enemy side of the 

narrower and deeper tank 

trap. With the addition of 

mines buried in the spoil, the 

trank trap becomes lethal 

under full view of friendly 

weapons. 

KENNETH R. KOTHE 

Director 

Geogra hic Sciences 

Laboratory 

Sir: 

I was quite impressed by Cpt 

McCloskeyis article in your 

Fall '75 issue on the BEST 

training program designed by 

the 237th Engineer Battalion 

Operations during the years 

1973-1975. 

As a past member of that 

organization I would, however, 

like to correct a few facts. 

The so called "BEST" training program had been designed, tested and implemented in the same organization during the 1969 through 

1971 period. The program was 

supplemented by construction 

of several training sites for 

that purpose, to include an 

excellent bridge site on the 

Neckar river on the outskirts 

of Gundelsheim. 

The program was considered 

quite successful and the last I 

knew, it was considered for 

implementation USARE UR 

engineer unit wide. 

The credit for the design of 

the training program definately should go to Colonel's Hartman and Focht, the battalion 

commanders during period '69 

through 71. 

HUGH A. KALNS 

Sergeant Major 

USA ROTC Instructor Group 

Saint Lawrence University 

Canton, NY 13617 
Engineer Staff 

The importance of the modern-day "citizen-soldier" has been repeatedly emphasized, and broad 

directives have been recently issued to upgrade the training level of Reserve forces for use during a 

potential mobilization. Experienced reserve officers will be needed to "beef up" the fighting forces 

when a real crisis develops. Army Reserve officers currently improve themselves on an idividual 

basis, and there is no system to verify that enough officers are being trained in the critical skills 

needed for effective performance of duty during a call-up. 

The Officer Personnel Management System-United States Army Reserve (OPMS-USAR) will 

provide an experienced, well-trained corps of Reserve officers capable of performing as mobilization 

assets. 

The OPMS-USAR Program is designed to insure Congress and the Department of Defense that 

Army Reserve officers will be ready for mobilization when required. The program is being designed 

to quickly achieve several key objectives and will assist in identifying and classifying what the Army 

has currently available for immediate recall from Reserve officer assets. All career Reserve 

officers will have a readily-available Career Manager to provide training, develop guidelines, and 

audit the Reserve officer's duty performance. 

Key OPMS-USAR objectives closely parallel the critical mission responsibilities of the Army's 

Reserve components and will: develop and train officers in the right numbers, with the right skills, 

to meet the "One-Army" mobilization requirements; provide officers a personalized, professional 

development plan that includes rotation within the ready reserve; and improve the training, 

motivation, professional satisfaction, and retention of quality officers in the USAR. 

The program will manage each officer as a unique individual, and consideration will be given to 

the realities of citizen-soldier status. The needs of the Army and the professional developmental 

needs of the officer will be the key assignment considerations. In addition, command responsibilities 

and prerogatives and readiness of Troop Program Units must be evaluated. Geographic constraints, 

job and family commitments, community responsibilites, and the amount of time the individual 

officer can give to military activities will also be carefully considered when managing the career 

Reserve officer. Career Reserve officers not on extended active duty will be given a centralized, 

professional development and management program similar to the Active Army OPMS. Training 

funds will be used to teach the skills officers will need if mobilized. 

A highly successful program -Counterpoint Training -has been developed to train Reserve 

officers with Active Army units to improve and update required military skills. The Reserve officer 

will also complete military education requirements to keep pace with technological advances in 

military areas. 

The reservists' OPMS will be implemented over a 3-year period, from FY 77 through FY 79. 

During FY 77, approximately ten per cent of the USAR officer force (10,000) will come under the 

umbrella of centralized management, and in FY 78, another 26,000 officers will be brought into the 

system. During FY 79, the remaining 35,000 officers will be included. 

Both unit and non-unit officers will be managed and will be rotated between unit and non-unit 

status as required by the professional development plan prepared by the officer's career manager. 

The approach to professional development will be based primarily on development of a single 

specialty with limited training and assignments for alternate or acquired specialties when 

appropriate. Additional specialties will be validated based on military-related civilian skills and 

specialties acquired through unit assignments. Officers will be phased into the system on a 

geographic basis by Readiness Regions to insure proper coordination and control. 
LT Anonymous 

I am the Earthmoving Platoon Leader from 

"Battling Bravo" Company, 94th Engineers ("We 

aid our allies") stationed in Darmstadt ("The Pearl 

of Hessen"), Germany. I control an imposing fleet 

of equipment: four proud dozers, three spirited 

graders, four arrogant 290M tractors with 

scrapers, and twenty other pieces of ready, 

willing, and able engineer equipment. The motto 

for my platoon epitomizes our "can do attitude" 

and aggressive elan: "Just show us where, we'll 

shove it there." When I initiated the motto, the 

troops were reluctant to shout it as they saluted, 

but since they abreviated it to "Shove it, sir!" I 

have noticed a marked increase in enthusiasm and 

the motto seems to be serving it's purpose. 

With proper humility I consider myself a 

polished member of the Corps. A graduate of both 

Engineer Officer Basic Course and the Construction Officer Course, I am a finely tuned, highly 

trained manager of resources and a leader of men. 

Armed with the fourteen traits of leadership 

(Chapter 2, FM 22-100, p 2-1) and the Engineer 

School programmed text on "The Critical Path 

Method," I am convinced that there is no hurdle 

too high, no distance too great, no problem too 

complex for the Engineer Small Unit Leader (MOS 

1328). Everything falls into place when faced with 

organized charisma. 

This article deals with my successful attempt to 

combine the two critical skills of management and 

leadership, in the execution of a high priority 

construction project in USAREUR. This project, 

with its intricate construction complexities and 

innovative techniques, makes it well worthy of 

note by this magazine's erudite and discerning 

audience. The S-3 (Wombat In Charge of Operations) called me in his office in October 1975, and 

told me, "I have a difficult and dangerous mission, 

I need an Engineer Small Unit Leader." "Just 

show us where, we'll shove it there, sir!" I 

replied, rendering a smart salute. The mission 

was to place in the ground 489 traffic signs on the 

interior roads of an abandoned ammo dump. At 

first I could not see the strategic importance of the 

task, but the S-3 dispelled all my doubts. If the 

enemy captured the abandoned ammo depot and 

found no signs on the interior roads, they would 

know it was abandoned. I was awed by the insight 

displayed by the S-3, but knew that I, too, in 

future years, would have the experience to see 

things so clearly. 

Placing 489 traffic signs in the ground would 

seem difficult for a no-time-in-grade second lieutenant, but in the Basic Course, we had solved 
much harder and difficu-, ,-~blems. I knew 

intuitively that the end without the sign was the 

end that went in the ground. I knew (for I am an 

extremely observant person) that the signs had to 

be placed where they could be read by oncoming 

traffic. 

What I did not know was how to place the signs 

into the ground. It is hard to sharpen the end of a 

metal pipe. I remembered from the Construction 

Officer Course that all the answers required by an 

earthmoving platoon leader could be found in the 

Roads and Airfields TM. I studied the TM and in 

no time at all I deduced that what I really needed 

was a mass diagram. The project specifications 

said that the signs has to be anchored one meter 

into the ground, at specified intervals along 5 

miles of road. So very simply I first needed to 

make a one meter cut along 5 miles of road. Now I 

had to find some way to suspend my signs while I 

backfilled with my dashing dozers. All good 

officers, when they are stumped, rely on the 

experience of their subordinates (FM 22-100, 

chapter 8), so I approached my Platoon Sergeant 

with my plan and my problem. He just laughed 

and said, "Why don't we borrow some cranes from 

the line platoon?'F'M 22-100 is always right, 

subordinates come up with good ideas if you just 

show enough consideration to consult them from 

time-to-time. The next problem I solved myself. 

How was I to know when I had backfilled enough 

around the signs? First, I thought of using the 

Battalion Surveyors, but then I was hit with one of 

those flashes of brilliance with which I am blessed 

from time-to-time. I had each pole painted with a 

red ring one meter from the bottom of the pole! 

Then all I had to do was backfill to the red ring! 

The next question was how to compact the dirt once 

it was backfilled around the signs. Again, 

stumped, I asked my NCO. Again, laughing (for it 

was routine to him), he said, "Let's cut off the 

signs at the ground, compact, and then weld the 

signs back on the stems." Now you might think I 

had a particularly bright NCO, but I don't think so. 

I credit it to the fact that he had just returned 

from NCOES. As I finished all my planning and 

estimating, I noted that the bill of materials for 

the project included "umpteen" tons of concrete. 

At first, I thought some inexperienced designer 

had made some stupid mistake, but remembering 

my lack of insight in not realizing the overall 

importance of the project, I thought harder. Then 

I knew. The concrete must be for a sidewalk. The 

enemy would never think the depot was abandoned if it had a 5 mile long sidewalk, The amount 

of concrete I had on the BOM spread over 5 miles 

came to a I12 inch thick slab. This puzzled me for a 

while until I realized that the concrete did not 

have to be a sidewalk. It just had to look like a 

sidewalk. Tactical deception at its best (FM 

31-40)!! 

The ultimate reward for any effort is the praise 

by one's leaders. I remember the day the 

battalion commander came to my project. Everything was going like clockwork. On the front part 

of the road, my valient 290s were making the required one meter cut. Behind them, along the 

road, the two stalwart cranes suspended two 

traffic signs as two determined dozers backfilled. 

Further down the road the stouthearted company 

maintenance contact team was cutting the signs off 

at the ground with a torch. Up the road from 

them the lumbering 290M bobtails with sheepsfoot rollers were compacting. Right on the tails of 

the bobtails was a skillful grader cleaning the dirt 

off the top of the severed poles, and close behind 

the grader, a team of dedicated welders was 

reattaching the signs to the stems. Behind the 

welders came the contracted concrete trucks 

spreading a thin layer of concrete. The concrete 

trucks were followed by a squad of inspired men 

who evened the concrete with hoes and rakes. 

The battalion commander surveyed the scene and 

asked me, "Is your platoon fully committed?" 

I took my chart and showed him that every man 

was utilized every day on the project. There was 

100°/o utilization! The battalion commander turned 

to his S-3 and said words I will never forget, "This 

is an Engineer Small Unit Leader." Buoyed, I 

broke in, "Just show us where, we'll shove it there, 

sir!" and I rendered a smart salute. 
bridge as a temporary replacement. An estimated 

700 vehicles use the road per day, according to 

William R. Foster, chief deputy engineer for 

HELPING 


HANDS 


SGT Jerry Condo 

Butler County, Ohio, residents are using Somerville Road again -thanks to the Ohio Army 

National Guard. 

When a World War I era bridge over the road 

had to be closed and razed recently, members of 

the 1193rd Engineer Co., 512th Engineer Battalion, Cincinnati, O., responded by spending their 

drill weekend, March 20-21, putting in a panel 

Butler County engineer's office. 

The effort by the Guardsmen means residents 

will not have to make time-consuming detours. 

School buses and fire trucks use Somerville Road 

as the major access route to the northeast 

quadrant of Oxford Township. The Guardsmen 

liked the on-the-job, hands-on training. 

SF-4 Greg Ionna, 24, Cincinnati, said that, "I 

think this is a lot better than spending a weekend 

at the armory:' 

SFC Johnny Jones, 32, Loveland, Ohio, first 

shirt of the 1193rd. felt that the bridge assembly 

"builds morale. The Guardsmen are doing something meaningful." Foster said the engineer's 

office "is very pleased with the assistance:' 

So was Mrs. Donald Hoffman, a Somerville Road 

resident. "The bridge sure makes it more convenient for me," said Mrs. Hoffman, as she 

watched the troops put the panel bridge in. 

The 1193rd is a unit of the Columbus-based 16th 

Engineer Brigade, commanded by Brigadier General Jean G. Peltier. 

HEAVE, HO - Ohio National Guardsmen launch part of a panel bridge across Somerville Road in rural Butler County, 0. The 

members of 1193rd Engineer Co., 512th Engineer Battalion, Cincinnati, O., put the bridge in on their March 20-21 drill weekend as a 

replacement for a bridge that had to be razed. The Guard-owned panel bridge will remain on the site until the Butler County 

engineer's office begins construction on a permanent replacement structure. Meantime, county residents have no need to make 

time-consuming detours. 
,mF 


General Bruce C. Clarke 

As a Captain in the Corps of Engineers, I was in 

the last Regular class at C&GSC; which graduated 

early in 1940. 

In January, the final two-sided map maneuver 

was held. The Red side was a Corps of two 

Infantry Divisions. The Blue side was a Corps of 

three Infantry Divisions. Each Division had an 

Infantry Tank Company organic for the problem -

Blue was on the offense. I was the Division 

Commander of the Blue left Division making the 

holding attack. The Red left flank was being 

enveloped in the Blue Corps plan of attack. 

The morning of the third day of the problem I 

had moved my Tank Co. behind one of my front 

line regiments. That morning I attacked with an 

Infantry Regiment in a column of battalions -the 

Tank Co. was attached to the rear battalion. My 

order to the Regimental Commander was to push 

hard in a column of battalions, make a breakthrough and then push the rear battalion through. 

The Tank Co. was to push fast ahead and attack 

the town in the Red Corps rear in which I had 

guessed the Red Corps Headquarters was located. 

This happened quite quickly; before the problem 

controllers could stop it. By 10:30 A.M., the Tank 

Co. was in the town and had captured the Red 

Corps Commander and his Headquarters. 

There was much consternation in the school. 

The problem had ended a day early than was 

planned. 

In the critique which followed, I was criticized 

severely for my action. I was told that I had 

misused tanks because tanks were never sent into 

towns -that I had broken my tanks away from 

the protection of my Infantry in doing so. It was 

inferred that being an Engineer, I would not 

understand such things. My rating as a Division 

Commander was "unsatisfactory." This was the 

last rating I received in my course at C&GSC. 

Maybe because of this, I received orders to the 

7th Mechanized Brigade at Fort Knox, Kentucky, 

to organize the first Armored Engineer unit in the 

Army -the 47th Engineer Troop, Mechanized. 

Three years later, as my CO "A:' 4th Armored 

Division, leading Patton's 3rd Army across France, 

arrived at the Moselle River facing Nancy, I 

decided to move about 30 miles to the left, quickly 

bridge and cross the Moselle and, with Abrarns' 

37th Tank Battalion (Reinf) leading, to drive deep 

into the enemy rear. From my L-4 plane, I noted a 

couple hundred German vehicles parked on the 

streets of Arracourt off to my right. I turned COL 

Abe south and told him to over-run Arracourt at 

all speed. He did this, captured the German Corps 

Headquarters defending Nancy and the Moselle 

line. I closed my Combat Command in the 

Arracourt area. We were behind three German 

Divisions. There was panic in their ranks. We 

destroyed most of them as they streamed to the 

rear unit by unit. 

I thought more than once of my "F" at Leavenworth, but Patton's "A" plus erased it during my 

post-graduate course in the use of tanks with the 

Armor and Engineers. 
Engineer Staff 

The Emerson C. Itschner Award is awarded by 

the Society of American Military Engineers 

(SAME) to the engineer company which best 

symbolizes the character, mission and performance 

of the Corps of Engineers. The award, presented annually at the Engineer Dinner at Ft 

Belvoir, is named in honor of LTG Emerson C. 

Itschner, a former Chief of Engineers and past 

president of the society. 

One of the aims of the award is to promote 

leadership in junior officers and to foster "espirit" 

in company sized engineer units. For the purposes 

of the competition, company sized units include all 

engineer numbered and lettered or headquarters 

companies, separate or belonging to a battalion, 

brigade, group or larger organization, and activated under a TOE/TDA. In the past, the award 

was limited to active duty units. In 1974, the 

competition was expanded, providing separate 

awards for both National Guard and Reserve 

units. 

The winners for calendar year 1975 were as 

follows: 

ACTIVE ARMY: Company B, 10th Engr Bn, 

3d Inf Div, 7th US Army, Germany. The unit was 

commanded by CPT Albert Kraus. 

ARMY RESERVE: Company D, 463d Engr Bn 

(Const), 99th ARCOM, 1st US Army (Penn). The 

unit was commanded by CPT John E. Barnes. 

NATIONAL GUARD: HHC, 1457th Engr Bn 

(Cbt), Utah ARNG. The unit was commanded by 

CPT Ronald H. Skillcorn. 

Although the designation of a single winner 

from a field of highly qualified finalists is a difficult 

chore at best, the Itschner Award Selection 

Committee would like to see more units compete 

for this award. The key to turning out a winner, 

in addition to having the qualifying credentials, is 

to adequately document the unit's activities over 

the course of a given calendar year. 

How does your unit compare to the best? The 

Itschner Award is one way to find out. Here's to a 

successful year during 1976. 
DISPLAYING THE ITSCHNER AWARDS -Presented to them by Lieutenant General W. C. Gribble, Chief of Engineers, are from 

left: CPT Albert Kraus, Commander, Co B, 10th Engr Bn, 3d Inf Div, 7th US Army, Germany; LTG W. C. Gribble; CPT John E. 

Barnes, Commander, Co D, 4634 Engr Bn (Const), 99th ARCOM, 1st US Army (PENN); and CPT Ronald H. Skillcorn, Commander, 

HHC, 1457th Engr Bn (Cbt), UTAH ARNG. 
Major Jack Chase 

Historically in the field of military research and 

development there has been difficulty in arriving 

at a commonality of thought in defining R&D 

efforts. Determining what is an appropriate R&D 

problem may be perceived one way by the military 

and in an entirely different way by the research 

community. 

On one hand, military users may not be abreast 

of R&D developments. They may be unaware that 

a problem can be solved by using newly developed 

equipment or techniques. Or, the military at the 

user level may believe that researchers have come 

up with a panacea to solve a problem when, in fact, 

the state-of-the-art falls far short of a solution. 

On the other hand, researchers often (though 

usually unintentionally) widen the communication 

gap by expressing their capabilities in needless 

technical detail or in terminology so different 

from and unrelated to day-to-day operational 

problems that practical applications may never be 

realized. This is especially true in those areas of 

research which are not particularly oriented 

toward developing a specific hardware end item. 

Still another problem occurs when pet projects are 

pushed by scientists and engineers to enhance 

their professional prestige and job security. Sadly, 

every dollar pounded into the bottomless rathole 

of projects such as this could be better spent doing 

relevant, valid R&D which could save the lives of 

men on some future battlefield. 

The engineer research and development effort 

has not escaped being taken to task for some of 

these reasons. Perhaps the nature of engineer 

R&D has made it easier to criticize and question 

its validity. While some engineer R&D is hardware oriented, many engineer efforts such as 

terrain analysis or military geographic intelligence 

are largely concerned with procedures and methods. These types of efforts have less direct 

application and results are not as easy to see. It is 

difficult for these non-hardware R&D activities of 

a combat support nature to compete with major 

weapons systems that have a direct effect on the 

battlefield. 

This does not mean that engineer R&D is any 

less important -quite the contrary, it has a vital 

function if the Army is to be responsive and 

capable of winning the first (and perhaps the only) 

battle in any future way. The challenge lies in 

designing programs which are based upon proved 

and validated criteria which apply the right 

balance of basic, long-term research, applied research, and technology transfer. 

This is no easy task. What follows is an example 

of a method developed by one Corps laboratory in 

order to have a responsive research program in 

one predominantly non-hardware oriented area. 

The program area happened to be remote sensing; 

however, the principles of such an approach might 

be applied to many other areas. 

In 1975, the Engineer Topographic Laboratories 

(ETL), at Fort Belvoir, became concerned that the 

rapidly expanding capability for collecting reconnaissance imagery was outstripping the Army's 

ability to interpret and use it. Basic photo, 

infrared, and radar interpretation methods had to 

be modified and updated to reflect changing Army 

priorities and operational concepts. In an effort to 

insure that the ETL R&D effort in remote sensing 

was oriented and responsive to tactical operational 

exigencies, the Commander and Director formed a 

Remote Sensing Study Team in April 1975. 

Comprised of four Army officers and four civilian 

consultants with specific remote sensing expertise, 

the task force's objective was to develop a concept 

for the use of remote sensing to support military 

operations in critical geographic areas of the 

world. The flow diagram illustrates the procedure 

ETL used to arrive at a fully defined program. 

This team began by studying the Joint Intelligence Estimate for Planning (JIEP) FY 1977-1985, 

and the Joint Long Range Estimative Intelligence 

Document (JLREID) FY 1986-1995, in which the 

Joint Staff identified the probable threats most 

critical to the U.S. national interest. The Joint 

Strategic Operations Plan (JSOP) FY 1977-1984 
PaOQPURE FOR DESIGWICIG 


provided a list of specific high-interest countries. 

From these, the team selected an area of conflict 

and intensity for wargaming. 

Parallel to this effort, they identified broad 

Army requirements from the Operational Capability Objectives (OCOs) and the Catalog of Approved 

Requirements Documents (CARDS). This identification process was made easier when the team 

discovered that DCSOPS had ranked in order of 

priority all the validated Army-user R&D goals. 

While many of the goals were written with specific 

hardware items in mind, the team realized that in 

several instances the goals could be partially 

accomplished by improving remote sensing tech- 
niques. For example, the development of an 

improved area-denial system such as a soil 

destablization device might be a goal; remote 

sensing could support accomplishment of this goal 

by providing the means to identify areas of 

marginally stable soils. 

All of the Army-user goals were analyzed in this 

manner. Brainstorming would be a more accurate 

description; for at this stage the task force was 

more concerned with the total spectrum of what 

remote sensing might offer in light of Army 

requirements. Any idea, no matter how wild it 

sounded, was considered fair game. Some goals 

were obviously irrelevant to any remote sensing 

application and were discarded immediately. 

Nevertheless, the team compiled a long list of 

potential work units. At this stage, no attempt 

was made to restrict these work units to a 

particular organizational mission; in fact, they fell 

rather haphazardly across division, laboratory, and 

even agency boundaries. 

Next, work units were put into a matrix based 

upon DCSOPS approved priorities and approved 

development times. This formatting highlighted 

the more critical areas of research. 

It followed then, that if the critical research 

areas as identified were applied to the priority 

areas of the world, the general scope of research in 

remote sensing would be defined. With this 

accomplished, the work units were refined and a 

number of high investment-to-return efforts identified and discarded. 

At this step in the process, only one of the 

essential inputs had not been entered. How would 

the results of this research ever be applied in the 

projected land-combat structure of the Army? 

Doctrine, organization, and tactics had to be 

considered. TRADOC's Scenario Oriented Recurring Evaluations System (SCORES) provided the 

answer. 

Taking the SCORES scenario which was most 

representative of the priority geographic areas 

identified in the threat analysis, the study team 

wargamed each of the work units. In this fashion, 

irrelevant work units were identified and discarded. The others were modified as required by 

the environment and the tactical situation. 

At this point, it became necessary to evaluate 

each remaining work unit in light of the ETL 

mission and ongoing efforts in other agencies. 

Areas of duplication were discarded from further 

consideration. When it was all boiled down, out of 

96 R&D goals and over 50 possible separate work 

units, a total of 4 work units were selected to 

implement the initial program. 

Was it worth it? You bet it was. About a half 

man-year of effort went into designing the program. Out of this expenditure of effort came a 

balanced and relevant non-hardware oriented 

engineer R&D program which is based on stated 

needs. This program insures that R&D money will 

not be shoved down ratholes in wasted efforts. 

Summarizing, some of the advantages to the 

procedure are as follows: 

Only DA and joint service approved independent variables are used, e.g., geographic areas, 

research goals, priorities, development times, 

levels of conflict, and general scenario play. By 

using these, in-house uncertainty and personal bias 

in these areas are eliminated. 

A program derived in this fashion is easy 

to justify. When the generalogy of each work unit 

can be traced directly back to Army stated needs, 

threats and doctrine, individual scientists and 

engineers can spend less time defending their 

program and more time doing productive research. 

Military research is goal-oriented - not 

open-end and irrelevant. 

The procedure provides freedom of individual 

scientific pursuit while retaining a structure to 

enable management and orchestration of work 

efforts. 

The procedure provides justification for emphasizing high-potential research and shelving 

non-productive efforts. 

Finally, the procedure is an approach which 

can be adapted to virtually any type of research -

in particular that which relies on refining techniques and methodologies rather than specific end 

items of hardware. 

Winning the first battle is half the effort -the 

rest of the effort is the planning which goes into it 

-planning which can be traced back to the design 

of individual R&D programs. If these R&D efforts 

are poorly designed and based on faulty criteria, 

that first battle -no matter how brilliantly fought 

- will in all probability be lost. It would seem 

that all engineer research and development programs should be carefully scrutinized to insure 

that they are responsive and truly reflect the 

needs of the Army in light of today's international 

situation. Only then can we say with confidence 

that we're doing our best for the Army. 

Major Jack Chase is an armor officer assigned to 

the Center for Remote Sensing, U. S. Army 

Engineer Topographic Laboratories (ETL). He 

was formerly the Deputy Commander of ETL. A 

graduate of the United States Military Academy, 

he has a Masters Degree in geology. He has held 

key advisory assignments in Thailand and Vietnam. Major Chase has been an Instructor and 

Assistant Professor of Military Science at the Ohio 

State University and the University of Vermont. 

He has commanded units in Germany and the 

United States. 
These outstanding nineteenth century engineers 

clashed over two significant projects during the 

same period in American History. Each was 

firmly convinced that his own ideas were correct; 

both used technical and political skills in their 

efforts to overcome adversity. History now shows 

who was the more successful. An interesting 

story unfolds as we observe the men themselves, 

their relationship to each other and the reflection 

of similar conflicts in today's world. 

Andrew Atkinson Humphreys, born in 1810, 

came from a family of naval architects. He is well 

known to members of the Corps, having served as 

Chief of Engineers nearly thirteen years, beginning in 1866. He is credited with approving the 

establishment of the original Engineer School at 

Fort Totten, New York, and with the cofounding 

of the National Academy of Sciences. Humphreys, 

a West Point graduate, fought with distinction 

during the Civil War, rising to the rank of Major 

General. He lead the Second Division, 111Corps at 

Gettysburg, and the I1 Corps at Appomatox. 

Following the War, he continued service as the 

Philadelphia District Engineer. Prior to his appointment as Chief of Engineers, he conducted a 

survey of the Mississippi River levee system. This 

was familiar work for Humphreys who, as a junior 

officer, in the early 1850's had performed a 

topographic and hydrographic survey of the 

Mississippi River. He and Lieutenant Henry L. 

Abbot published their findings in the text, Report 

Upon the Physics and Hydraulics of the Mississippirn 

River, which was recognized for many years as the 

"Bible" on hydraulic engineering. It was translated into four foreign languages and helped to 

establish Humphreys as an expert in this field. 

The person of James Buchanan Eads is less 

familiar throughout the Corps today than is 

Humphreys, primarily because he was a civilian 

rather than a military engineer. Eads, born in 

Laurenceburg, Indiana, in 1820, came to St. Louis, 

Missouri, via Cincinnati and Louisville. He was 

the son of a less than successful real estate 

speculator. A formal education was out of the 

question for young Eads; therefore, he instead 

satisfied his thirst for knowledge by reading 

through the local grocer's technical library. Financial success came early in life to Eads when, at age 

nineteen, he opened a river salvage company, 
using a diving bell of his own invention Within 

the next eighteen years, he was to amass a 

personal fortune of one-half million dollars. With 

the outbreak of the Civil War, Eads turned his 

efforts to the manufacture of gunboats for the 

Union Navy. His ironclads played a significant 

role in defeating Confederate forces and contributed to the successful campaigns of Sherman and 

Grant. As we shall see, this contribution was not 

to be forgotten by Grant in later years. 

It is interesting to note at this point that during 

the late 1850's Eads and the Corps found themselves arguing the same case before Congress . . . the need for more appropriations to improve 

western rivers. The Corps had been charged in 

1824 with mapping and maintaining the nation's 

navigable waters. Congress had done little, however, to finance these tasks. As an example, only 

$75,000 was appropriated for maintenance of the 

entire Mississippi and Ohio Rivers in 1824. Neither 

the Corps nor Eads were successful in their fund 

raising efforts until after the war. 

Eads' interests were not tied solely to the river. 

As railroads moved westward, there developed a 

pressing need for a major link across the Mississippi at St. Louis. Eads turned his genius to the 

solution of this problem. Several proposals, by 

such noted bridge designers as John Roebling and 

Charles Ellet, as well as others, eventually gave 

way to Eads' plan for three steel arches springing 

from stone piers and abutments resting on bedrock 

far below the surface. The center span of 520 feet 

was to exceed any arch bridge of that day by over 

200 feet! Each side span was to be 502 feet with a 

dual railroad and roadway incorporated into the 

structure. It was to consist mostly of a new 

material . . . steel . . . which was still relatively 

unknown in America. Many of Eads contemporaries thought the plan impossible and said as 

much. Eads' confidence and salesmanship were 

convincing enough for Congress, however, who 

authorized construction of the bridge by an act on 

July 25, 1866. 

As Chief Construction Engineer, Eads hired 

Henry Flad, a graduate of the University of 

Munich and former Corps of Engineers Colonel. It 

Erection of West Arch showing cables to joints 6, 9, and 12. 

16 
West and Center Arches. View looking North-East. 

was Flad who developed the cantilever method of 

construction to the unprecedented extent needed 

for erection of the St. Louis Bridge. Work began 

on the first abutment foundation on August 20, 

1867. Despite numerous challenges from other 

bridge companies, navigation interest, and even 

from a tornado which struck the bridge, work 

continued until September, 1873, when the first 

steel arch was closed. Ice packings were used to 

contract the ribs in order that the final member 

could be placed. Interestingly enough, a similar 

technique was required to close Saarinen's Gateway Arch which today overlooks Eads' Bridge. 

As the bridge neared completion, some six years 

and six million dollars after start of work, it was 

again challenged by a most formidable foe . . . the 

Corps of Engineers. Navigation interests had 

finally convinced officials in Washington that the 

bridge was too low for steamboat smokestacks. On 

August 20, 1873, exactly six years after groundbreaking, Army Special Order 169 appointed a 

board of engineer officers to examine the construction of the bridge and to make recommendations 

as to its modification or removal. The board was 

to report to General Andrew A. Humphreys, 

Chief of Engineers. They met for two days in 

September, heard arguments for and against 

modification of the bridge, then closed proceedings 

to write their report. Eads was never summoned 

to appear. He was, in fact, not even in this 

country at the time of these proceedings, being 

away on a fund-raising campaign in Europe. 

The board submitted its report to Humphreys 

within the week, recommending major modifica- 
tions to the structure. Humphreys approved the 

report and forwarded it to Secretary of War, 

General William W. Belknap, stating that the 

bridge should either be modified as recommended 

or removed completely. Meanwhile, Eads had 

returned from Europe, and upon hearing of the 

board action, went directly to Humphreys in 

Washington, D. C. Little is known of what 

transpired at this meeting except that Eads left 

without receiving any satisfaction, proceeding 

directly to visit his old acquaintance, President 

U. S. Grant. It was following this meeting that 

Grant summoned Belknap and told him and the 

Corps to "drop the case." This was promptly done! 

The first confrontation between Eads and 

Humphreys was decided in favor of the former. 

This was only a foretaste of other disappointments 

to come for Humphreys. 

The reader will recall that Humphreys was a 

recognized expert on Mississippi River hydraulics 

He contended in his text that the formation of 

sandbars at the mouth of the Mississippi could 

only be prevented by dredging. Eads, on the 

other hand, publically challenged this theory. At 

a public meeting in March, 1873, Eads proclaimed 

the only permanent solution was to construct a 

system of jetties which would constrict the flow, 

remove sediment and prevent future bar formation. A long and heated debate followed, eventually being settled by Congress in 1875 when they 

voted to back Eads' proposal over the Chiefs. 

Humphreys was so disturbed by this second loss to 

Eads that he committed one-tenth of the entire 

Corps budget just to have Eads, jetty project 

observed. His hopes of discovering an error were 

dashed when the South Pass was successful 

completed in 1879, thereby permanently opening 

the way for New Orleans to become a major 

seaport. 

Humphreys retired that same year, spending 

the remaining four years of his life in Washington, 

D. C. Eads continued river and harbor improvement work throughout the U. s., Mexico, and in 

Europe. He was fighting for approval of a 

Closing the Center and East Arches. 

18 
The Ribs completed and the roadways beginning. 

ship-rail isthmiam crossing at Tehuantepic, 

Mexico, at the time of his death in 1887. 

Eads Bridge, now a national historic landmark, 

still spans the mighty Mississippi, carrying modern 

day loads with the grace and beauty that so clearly 

typifies the principle of "form follows function." 

Humphreys Hall and, indeed, Fort Belvoir, stand 

as tributes to Andrew Humphreys. These two 

men, engineers of outstanding stature, came from 

different backgrounds, possessed different educations, persued often conflicting ideas, and were 

both contributors to our great American heritage. 

Their memory should not be allowed to fade from 

the main stream of American consciousness. 

Symbolically, the opening of Eads Bridge 

signalled the closing of steamboating days on the 

Mississippi River, and the beginning of the railroad saga. Not until the mid-twentieth century 

would water transportation regain its former 

significance. Today, as in the Eads-Humphreys 

era, the Corps of Engineers again finds itself 

involved in the railroad versus water transportation feud, presently contested at Locks and Dam 

26 on the Mississippi. Ironically, this project is 

located a few miles north of St. Louis. One may 

well imagine how this battle would be fought by 

our two campaigners of yesteryear. Perhaps the 

Corps should consider itself fortunate that the 

opposition isn't being lead by a Mr. James B. Eads. 

Major Ralph W. Gilbert, Jr. is currently assigned as an Engineer Inspector General, Offie 

Chief of Engineers, with duty station at Fort 

Sheridan, Illinois. He is a gradwzte of the 

University of Mississippi and holds a Master of 

Science degree from Prince ton University. He 

graduated from the Command and General Staff 

College in September, 1974, and is a registered 

Professional Engineer. 
After more than 35 years of military service and 

nearly three years as Chief of the US Army Corps 

of Engineers, Lieutenant General William C. 

Gribble, Jr. has retired from active duty. 

In a ceremony held June 30, General Gribble 

relinquished his command to his successor, 

Lieutenant General John W. Morris. 

Lieutenant General William C. Gribble was 

appointed the Army Chief of Engineers on 1 

August 1973 following approximately 2% years as 

Chief of Research and Development, Department 

of the Army, Washington, D.C. 

As Chief of Engineers, General Gribble was 

charged with many military and civil responsibilities of critical importance to the Nation. 

He was the principal advisor to the Army Chief 

of Staff on all military engineering matters, and as 

such, directed a 11/2 billion dollar annual construction program for the Army, Air Force, and other 

government agencies. 

He also directed the Federal Government's 

major planning and construction program for the 

comprehensive development of the Nation's water 

resources to meet the full range of present and 

future water-related needs. The program, currently funded at $11/2 billion a year, is responsible 

not only to rapidly mounting material necessities 

of the American people, but also to the imperative 

Engineer Staff 

need for the preservation and enrichment of the 

quality of our environment. 

A native of Ironwood, Michigan, General Gribble 

was commissioned in the Army Corps of Engineers 

in 1941 following graduation from the U. S. 

Military Academy, West Point. 

Prior to his last assignment, he served in 

responsible command and staff positions both 

stateside and overseas. He commanded the 118th 

Engineer Combat Bn, 43rd Inf. Div.; the U. S. 

Army Engineer Reactor Group; the Alaska Engineer District; and the North Central Engineer 

Division, Chicago. 

He also served with the Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C.; as Director, Army 

Nuclear Power Program; and as Deputy Director 

for Military Construction, Office of the Chief of 

Engineers; with the Army Materiel Command; 

and on the Department of Army General Staff as 

Deputy Chief of Research and Development and 

Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff for Force Development. In April 1969, he assumed Command of the 

U. S. Army Engineer Center and Fort Belvoir and 

became Commandant of the U. S. Army Engineer 

School there. He became Chief of Research and 

Development on 1January 1971 and on that date 

was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant General. 

He received a master of science degree in 

Physical Science from the University of Chicago in 

1948, and has an honorary doctorate in Engineering from Michigan Tech. He is also a graduate of 

the Army Command and General Staff College, 

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and the National War 

College, Washington, D.C. 

He is a registered professional engineer in the 

District of Columbia and a member of the Society 

of American Military Engineers and of the American Defense Preparedness Association. 
h@L# 43 

C\ d -3 f - , 

/

\ \ 

CPT Jon Thompson 

Eventually in a soldier's career, whether officer 

or senior NCO, the time comes when his responsibilities suddenly seem to increase without end. 

For in addition to his normal TOE position and 

ever present "extra" duties, he finds himself the 

program manager of a special project. This can be 

a challenging opportunity or a career-crushing 

nightmare. It all depends on the skill and resourcefulness with which the project is undertaken. 

While no set amount of specifics can be delineated to cover every situation, certain conclusions can be drawn from past experience to aid the 

neophyte project manager and, hopefully, ensure 

his success. 

The major attributes required of a project 

officer are the ability to communicate, regulate, 

negotiate, and motivate. Each ability involves 

various techniques and duties that must be 

mastered if the project officer is to be successful in 

The project officer's place in the unit structure, 

while fixed by TOE, is frequently largely dependent upon the size of the pEoject in relation to 

the size of the unit. His place, then, can be a 

tenuous one. It depends, to a large extent, on 

factors beyond his control. Special projects requiring detailed technical competence in planning 

or design of selected construction or destruction 

projects are invariably relegated through the 

S-2/S-3 to the staff engineer. Unlike functional 

engineers, staff engineers are rarely responsible 

for an engineering element (detachment), and so, 

as project officers, they must negotiate for key 

people to staff their project. 

Since project officers are normally appointed 

from staff positions (and must continue to function 

normally in their staff responsibilities throughout 

the duration of the project), their initial problems 

in project organization are especially awesome, for 

example, when compared to autonomous TOE 

elements. Existing element commanders are free 

to concentrate on the technical excellence of their 

particular element (whether it be battalion, company, or detachment), and, because of their 

inherent structure and chain of command, need 

lose little time adapting to a particular mission. 

This completeness of a TOE unit highlights a main 

disadvantage of the project officer's team -the 

personnel are "borrowed." They are not really 

"his," and he must create a functional organization 

based on the project's mission. This attaching of 
personnel to the project can be advantageous in a 

small way, however, for the project officer is 

relieved of many personnel problems and has more 

time to manage the efforts of the men and 

equipment under project control. Obviously, the 

project officer's knowledge has to be broad with 

respect to functional organizational structures, 

personnel utilization, and management in addition 

to being deep with respect to his staff position. 

Background knowledge and experience such as 

this are the basis for good program management. 

Similarly, a prime requisite for program management is good business sense. It is an asset to 

the project officer in his effective and economical 

utilization of the men and material allocated to him 

by the commander. Few engineers survive as 

officers unless they study and practice the science 

and the art of project management. But how can 

an officer properly prepare himself for project 

management? The obvious path is to follow up his 

technical degree with management courses and 

spend as many years as possible at company (and 

battalion) level involved as an assistant in the 

execution of projects before graduating to the 

position of program manager. But, lacking the 

opportunity to develop experience at the company 

level, there's nothing in the Army like starting at 

the top, even for a program manager. 

Assuming that starting at the top is a practical 

necessity, what - apart from a thick skin and 

unfailing optimism - makes a good program 

manager? Many essential abilities spring to mind, 

such as leadership and the flexibility to effectively 

coordinate the activities of various supporting 

elements and engineering disciplines. But above 

all, a program manager must be able to communicate, regulate, negotiate, and motivate. To do any 

of these well takes the ordered calculation and 

precision of a science and the wit and imagination 

of an art. 

All supervisors have to possess these abilities, 

but certain aspects of each are peculiar to a 

program manager's position. A project officer, or 

program manager, has to communicate with 

people at varying levels and in varying units. This 

includes everything from negotiating with his 

superiors to coordinating with subordinates. He 

has to regulate and control their expenditures and 

performance. He must be able to motivate people 

who know he has very little control over their 

promotional prospects or efficiency ratings. 

Admittedly, these are not the only abilities a 

program manager should possess, and they really 

apply equally well to officers and supervisors in 

every branch. They are certainly not limited to 

those who are routinely responsible for designing 

and installing sewage disposal plants, constructing 

base camps, or building bridges. 

COMMUNICATION 

To communicate means to share, transmit, and 

impart information. To communicate well is both 

an art and a science, for no one can communicate 

without having ideas and facts and the ability or 

skill to transfer them to others. So at the 

beginning of a program, before the project officer 

sends people running off in all directions, he 

should consider carefully what he's asking them to 

do. However rushed the schedule, he must plan 

and organize his thoughts, write precise assignments, and relate them to the actions of his key 

people. 

With his thoughts organized, he's ready to 

follow the first rule of good communication: 

establish a dialogue between the project officer 

and the executing staff. To do this, precise 

assignments must be discussed with each task 

leader. Face-to-face discussions are essential because written directives are rarely as clear as they 

should be. Clarification can then be made before 

distribution. 

After opening up the lines of communication, 

use these techniques to keep them open. 

A. Keep in personal contact; make the rounds 

of each activity at least daily. It's up to the 

project officer to know what's going on and nip 

any trouble in the bud. 

B. Keep key people in the picture. Besides 

formal meetings, hold short stand-up reviews 

around the planning table or in the work area as 

required. 

C. Listen! People think about five times faster 

than they speak, so when someone is talking it's 

easy to start anticipating what he is about to say 

and walk away with the wrong conclusions. 

D. Be constructive. Don't demolish a person's 

ego with criticism of his performance or ideas; 

build his confidence with constructive suggestions. 

Remember your responsibility to develop your 

subordinates. 

E. Explain the reasons behind a decision. This 

works hand-in-glove with keeping key people in 

the know. If the reasons for a change are 

discussed, the project officer is likely to get the 

cooperation he needs. 

F. Try to see the other man's point of view. 

Communication is a two-way street. An officer, or 

leader, shouldn't ask a man to perform a task that 

he, the leader, wouldn't do if he were in the man's 

place. Develop empathy with your subordinates. 

REGULATION. 

To regulate means to reduce, to order, or to fix 

or adjust the time, degree, amount, or rate of 

performing a function. To regulate, in program 

management, means to apportion part of your 

resources to each task and to assign tasks on a 

timely basis in order to meet the given schedule. 
It must be recognized that this is a continuing 

requirement throughout the course of a project. 

The materials proposal and master plan are 

available to the project officer as sources of 

guidance in the general breakdown of manhours to 

be allocated to major tasks. From this information, he'll be able to approximate the type of 

support he'll need from various adjacent, subordinate, and support organizations. His projected 

support requirements will be used by these 

organizations for long-range planning. 

Now comes the difficult part. It's never 

possible to specify in detail the work that has to be 

accomplished during the whole mission. On the 

other hand, if the officer in charge gives broadbrush manhour breakdown directives like "base 

camp perimeter construction 800 m-hrs," he's not 

only failing to communicate detailed requirements 

but he also has absolutely no control over material 

expenditures or schedule. A further example of 

bad regulation is an open-end request like "upgrade demolition range as required - 400 m-hrs." 

The officer in charge (OIC) of the project cannot 

expect a maintenance element supervisor to take 

him seriously if he presents such direction. 

The way to avoid these situations is to break 

all tasks into subtasks and state explicitly what 

must be accomplished within a specified schedule 

and manhour budget. Immediately, concepts like 

"the five-paragraph field order" come to mind and 

similarities are noted. Short duration assignments 

are essential to maintain program control. Any 

task that takes more than a month is difficult to 

specify in detail. 

Monitoring performance is of critical importance. This is where a good project officer comes 

into his own. The OIC should be familiar with 

every assignment and maintain responsibility for 

monitoring technical performance against the 

schedule. At the same time, he should require the 

project staff to plot hours expended against budgeted hours, on a weekly basis. Feedback from 

these two sources allows the project officer to keep 

a running account of accomplishments versus expenditures. Those familiar with critical-pathmethod (PCM) project programming will immediately note the dovetailing of a subordinate project 

element's CPM program with the OIC's control of 

the project as a whole and realize the manner in 

which the critical path method can assure the OIC 

that his elements have identified and understood 

the subtasks that comprise their explicit portion of 

the mission. 

Such precision is absolutely necessary, for the 

best way to regulate expenditures is by issuing 

explicit directives in the form of short-duration 

task assignments and closely monitoring performance. 

NEGOTIATION. 

Regulation may be reduced to a science, but 

negotiation is mainly an art. To complete a program properly, the organization needs sufficient 

time and materiel. This is easy enough to say, but 

it's up to the project officer to see that it happens. 

Therefore, he must be astute at the negotiating 

table and smart enough to work out the "political" 

problems that invariably arise during the course of 

a project. 

The project officer's briefings with his commander very often take on aspects similar to 

civilian contract negotiation. We've all heard of 

the car salesman who, when asked the price of a 

car, replied, "It depends on whether you're selling 

or buying." That applies to the commander's 

resources also; but, for the purpose of this 

discussion, emphasis will be placed on the seller's 

role. In this case, that is the project officer's role. 

The commander has many different projects 

clamoring for his attention, time, men, and material. Even if the "need" for your project has 

been recognized and it has command sanction and 

approval, it will still be necessary to receive an 

adequate priority and the time, men, and material 

to do an adequate job. It involves competitive 

negotiation to win a high priority and the necessary support. The project officer must defend the 

manhours and materials specified in his project 

proposal. To do this, he must break down major 

tasks into subtasks and be prepared to discuss 

hours required by labor category for each operation. This can be a tedious job at best, but it 

should follow logically from task assignments. 

However, since preparation of detailed assignments is frequently a continuing process, the OIC 

may have to estimate some future tasks to justify 

his position. 

Frequently, the project officer does not know 

the complete extent of the other demands on his 
commander's resources. Accordingly, he must 

balance the emphasis in his proposals and requests 

so that resources estimates do not denigrate his 

ability to meet mission requirements. He should 

never plan to exceed mission requirements, or he 

may then be told to remove the extras and, 

accordingly, Suffer crippling resource reductions. 

A technical man will never refuse the offer of 

more men and supplies to produce better performance, but it would be remiss of his commander to expend additional funds for an "improved" product when a more basic one will 

suffice. In order to receive the most complete 

command support, the project officer should stress 

the advantages of his proposal -reliability, maintainability, and serviceability - which a commander will find difficult to argue against. 

A few hints on negotiating are: 

A. Insure that the commander's representative 

has the authority to award you the support 

required when, or if, you cannot be in direct 

contact with the commander. 

B. Be prepared to discuss specifics by breaking the proposal into hourly tasks. Don't itemize 

contingencies; spread them among detailed operations. 

C. Be patient. It is not only a virtue, it is a 

necessity. Be prepared to discuss details ad 

nauseum. 

D. Don't underestimate the opposition. Don't 

be put off by seemingly insane questions. Never 

slough off a question; treat each with equal 

sincerity. 

E. Be accurate. Never distort the facts to 

your commander - vis-a-vis - don't B.S. the 

troops. Defend an opinion to the last breath, but 

don't exagerate when quoting actual manpower 

expended or materials estimates submitted. 

F. Be prepared to leave something on the 

table. Preserve manhours if possible, but always 

have a fallback position. Psychology helps. 

Programs are rarely completed without some 

changes. Every change provides an opportunity 

to contractually modify the schedule. For our 

purposes, negotiation is a continuous process until 

the project is successfully completed. After 

arriving at the best possible support contract with 

the commander, the project officer is left with the 

job of negotiating his way through the project. 

Two of the quickest ways to run into trouble 

are to go off on a tangent (and get wrapped 

around the proverbial axle) and to turn a blind eye 

to command-suggested changes in scope. Many 

small changes may come up during the program 

that an engineer is tempted to accept without 

much thought. Be careful! Try not to add work 

without written authorization. Keep records of 

important communications and changes. 

It is always important to keep in mind your 

rank and grade relationship with your commander. 

Try to remain objective and not let your enthusiasm damage your career. Always be tactful. 

When conducting your arguments with the commander and his staff, you can quickly reach the 

point of diminishing returns and possibly jeopadize 

your position. 

A useful tactic related to me by a full colonel is 

the following one which he learned from a reasonably astute lieutenant general. When you reach 

the point where you are in doubt as to the benefits 

to be accrued by continuing to pursue a particular 

argument, stop and ask your boss, "Sir, is this 

topic still open for discussion or have you already 

arrived at your decision?" Hopefully, he will 

realize that whether he has made up his mind or 

not, he has nothing to lose by hearing you out and 

everything to gain. He will probably let you 

present your case. If he says he has alreay made 

up his mind, you may conclude that he has rightly 

and justly done so, or that he is just a dimwit 

acting without complete data. It all depends on 

the commander and the circumstances. Regardless of your opinion, you have the opportunity to 

stop here and accept his decision without endangering yourself or needlessly irritating him. And, 

once he has made his decision, support it as if it 

were your own; fall back and regroup for the next 

topic to be discussed. This way you'll be more 

likely to negotiate the hazardous path of project 

support 
MOTIVATION. 

Motivate means to provide with a motive. 

Motive, in this case, implies an emotion operating 

on the will and causing action. And, according to 

Webster, it is synonymous with incentive, inducement, spur, and goad. But if a project officer tries 

to motivate his team by putting these synonyms 

into practice, he's asking for trouble. Many 

officers consider themselves leaders as a result of 

their commission and fail to note that it may be 

only their rank and authority that serve as 

incentive and inducement; this smacks of blackmail. Spur and goad reek of downright armtwisting -the worst possible negative motivation. 

Inducements and goals don't really instill motivation; they only force movement. Movement is 

most noticeable when people are hard at work; 

and let's face it, this is a prerequisite for the 

successful completion of any job. But, work will 

soon become a drudgery if it isn't challenging. This 

is what motivation is all about. In the situation of 

leadership without force or coercion, you must 

insure that a man has job enhancement or job 

fulfillment for him to develop the right attitude 

and put out that needed extra effort. 

Job fulfillment is achieved by giving a man 

tasks commensurate with his skills or by increasing his responsibility. To illustrate: the project 

officer should delegate authority for liaison with 

command and support elements to task leaders 

who have completion responsibilities. 

Despite all the Army's preoccupation with 

leaders and theories about motivation, the best 

motivators are people who understand their fellow 

men and who follow their native instinct in dealing 

with them. A few things to try are: 

A. Maintain your positive attitude. Let everyone know there's a solution to every problem. 

B. Don't get involved in discussions that 

criticize superiors, adjacent groups or leaders, 

subordinates, or anyone for that matter. It's bad 

for morale. 

C. Don't make promises that can't be kept. 

D. Give each key man the attention he requires. Some people prefer to be left alone to do 

their work. Others need to communicate often, 

even when they are on top of their job. It's in the 

project officer's best interests to size up the 

individuals working for him and give them the 

time required. 

E. Develop your subordinates. Help people 

organize themselves and increase their own output. Don't criticize or condemn if you can teach 

instead. A simplified example: a small boy at a 

scout camp was staggering back from the water 

pump with a full bucket of water. He spilled most 

of it as he walked. His scout master poured half 

the water into another bucket and sent the lad off 

with two half-filled buckets. Soon the boy could 

carry two buckets, three-quarters full. The 

"leader" had increased the boy's output by 100 

percent and had given him a feeling of accomplishment. 

In summary, it is apparent that the project 

officer's position cannot be taken lightly. He must 

establish and maintain a dialogue with all the 

people working on his program. He must see that 

the work is accomplished on time and within 

resources; he must arrive at an understanding 

with the commander as to mission priority, 

support required, and project feasibility; and he 

must provide the motivation to make all this 

happen. 

In short, he must have the ability to communicate, regulate, negotiate, and motivate, for 

program management is an exacting science that 

should be mastered and practiced until it is honed 

to the state of the fine art. 

Captain Jonathan S. Thompson is currently 

assigned as the Operations Ofher of the. Special 

Forces School, Fort Bragg, N. C. His previous 

assignments include Platoon Leader, 27th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Airborne) and Group 

Engineer, 5th Special Forces Group Airborne. 

LT Thompson is currently enrolled in EOAC 

(Correspondence) and holds a BS in Mechanical 

Engineering from Texas A & M University. 
LTC David G. Cotts 

MAJ Robert L. Oliver 

The dream of every commander is to obtain 

willing and maximum output toward defined goals 

from each member of his unit. Needless to say, 

this is easier said than done. Personal supervision 

of the myriad of tasks required of a commander 

above platoon level can be overwhelming and can 

detract from the other functions of command. A 

new approach to command, from the book of the 

behavioral scientist, shows promise to bring the 

commander's dream closer to reality. Management by objective (MBO) appears to have the 

potential to significantly improve the performance 

and overall contribution of members to an organization. This article relates the experiences of the 

249th Engineer Combat Battalion (Heavy) with the 

type of MBO program during CY 1975. This was 

the first known MBO program tried at battalion 

level within the US Army, Europe. This article 

concentrates on the battalion level experience; 

however, the lessons learned in the 249th can 

assist the brigade/group or company commanders 

as well. While expectations exceeded results in 

some respects, many lessons were learned and the 

overall positive results make this approach well 

worth considering for any troop unit. 

The basic concepts of MBO can be applied to any 

element from the individual soldier to the Theater 

Army. Although many variations are possible, 

MBO generally consists of a system of objective 

identification, quantification and periodic appraisal. For best results, those responsible for 

objective achievement (company commanders in a 

battalion program) should also have a say in 

objective establishment. Enhanced motivation by 

the soldier or subordinate commander should 

result from reduced anxiety by knowing clearly 

what is expected and where he stands and from the 

substitution of self-actuation and self-control for 

control and stimulation imposed from above. 

It is easy for us in the military to accept the 

principle of the objective as overriding. Every 

organization should have objectives and its primary efforts should relate to them. The problem is 

that there are so many important goals, objectives, and programs in the Army today with high 

level or command interest, that the small unit 

commander can become confused without a consolidated program to assist and guide him. This 

single purpose makes MBO an option to be 

considered. In addition to this one-step source of 

relatively stable guidance, other purposes of the 

249th MBO program were to broaden and re-direct 

the thrust of the battalion driven by a TOE change 

from Construction to Combat Heavy, to focus on a 

new commander's desires, to trigger response at 

lower echelons, to provide a means for self-evaluation and to provide a vehicle and semi-fixed format 

for the conduct of the inevitable briefings. In 

addition, it was fully expected that additional 

benefits of a comprehensive MBO program could 
be decentralized execution of various progams, 

enhancement of NCO professionalism, improved 

staff inspection, assistance and evaluation, motivation of all supervisors to a higher level of 

meaningful activity and, in general, improved performance of the battalion. 

Following the classic military planning cycle, 

our MBO program started with the commander's 

guidance. However, due to the originality of the 

program and late start (the end of January), the 

guidance took the form of a positive statement 

from the commander, "These are our objectives 

for CY 1975." This necessary step was neither 

pure MBO nor was it classically military. Some 

of the results of this concession to time are 

discussed later in this article. 

Formulation of the MBO program continued 

with a staff estimate of appropriate content in the 

various functional areas. Key input was derived 

from current higher headquarters guidance and 

programs, TOE missions, the most recent inspection emphasis (such as the AGI), the desires of the 

commander and an attempt to guess what would 

be "hot" in USAREUR and the Army in the 

upcoming year. This latter input required an "ear 

to the ground" and a crystal ball. Its importance 

cannot be overemphasized. The initial tendency 

was toward philosophy and non-definitive generalizations. Eventually, specific desired results were 

isolated and quantified. 

Several challenges in the construction of a MBO 

program were encountered. Grouping and categorizing goals and objectives is an area where a 

balance had to be struck between having too many 

and having too few. Although a minimum of two 

groupings, such as personnel readinesdequipment 

readiness, could have been possible, breakdown to 

a level to facilitate quantification and measurement was the determining factor. A second 

challenge was the appropriate quantification of 

each objective. Several kinds of quantification 

were attempted to make the 249th program as 

objective as possible and to minimize unmeasured 

subjective opinions from entering into the appraisals. Pure statistics were the preferred 

method and numbered thirty-six. "Go-no go" 

quantification was aimed at a determination as to 

whether something happened or not, such as 

on-time project completion. A third method of 

quantification was by percent of items rated 

satisfactory on a detailed checklist which was 

developled for each goal. This expanded quantification definition was necessary for each goal if 

important non-statistical functions were to be 

given emphasis and if the program was to be at all 

comprehensive. 

The actual program consisted of thirteen objectives (Figure 1)which were further divided into 

forty-two sub-objectives, or goals, with appropriate yardsticks to measure progress toward established standards. Each objective was assigned to a 

proponent staff section and checklists were prepared for each goal to facilitate inspection and 

evaluation. Figure 2 shows the form and content 

of one objective. 

Alcohol/drug abuse prevention 

Contingency trainingheadiness 

Equal opportunity for all soldiers 

General educational development 

lmprove performance of chain of command 

Improve quality of life 

Maintenance 

Maximize personnel/equipment utilization 

MOS improvement and match 

Physical readiness 

Quality construction 

Resource conservation 

Safety 

Two last items on program construction should 

be mentioned. As indicated earlier, a basic 

principle in MBO literature is that objectives are 

jointly determined by a subordinate and his supervisor. This was not possible when our program 

commenced. Our next higher headquarters did not 

use MBO; we had no time to consult with company 

commanders. A second principle is that priorities 

placed on objectives allowed the most important 
things to get done first or best. These principles 

became victims of the volume and detailed nature 

of mandatory activities established by higher 

headquarters and broad command interest in all 

things being done well. While some of these 

new requirements could be absorbed as a 

part of an existing objective, others prevented 

adherence to these principles. When the commander did not hold the line, his objectives just added 

to the already heavy burden of his subordinates. 

As an added feature to our MBO program, the 

best company of the quarter competition was 

initiated to reinforce, focus attention on, and lend 

added motivation toward the battalion's objectives. A quarterly evaluation of all objectives was 

instituted to appraise progress and to be the basis 

for selection of the best company. Final selection 

was based on briefings given to the battalion 

command group (commander, executive officer, 

command sergeant major) by each company covering all objectives and by the proponent staff 

sections on their assigned objectives. The company briefing was an opportunity to show and tell 

what had been and is being done to achieve the 

goals and objectives. A great deal of imagination 

was seen in these briefings. They varied from a 

one-man monologue to a presentation by each key 

company NCO and officer with tours of various 

company areas. The staff briefing was informal, 

but fact-filled and covered each objective by 

company to include checklist results, statistics, 

and an appraisal as to the absolute and relative 

standing of each company. An adjectival overall 

appraisal of the battalion's progress in each 

objective was also required from each proponent 

at each quarterly briefing. 

After four iterations of quarterly evaluations 

described above and several midcourse refinements, the results of the program can be tentatively judged. The evaluative function has been 

accomplished extremely well. A glaring searchlight has been put on every facet of the battalion's 

activities. The battalion and company commanders know where they stand, what progress 

has been made and where emphasis/attention is 

needed. Although progress toward most objectives has been steady and improving, in retrospect, progress toward thirteen objectives was too 

ambitious. Staff assistance was systematized and 

related directly to battalion objectives. Wholesome competition among the officers and NCOs 

was clearly developed by objective evaluation 

leading directly to selection of a best company. 

Quantification was a success in that remarkably 

few disagreements occurred between raters and 

ratees. 

In response to a questionaire on the impact on 

their activities, the primary implementors (battalion staff and company commanders) agreed 

generally that the MBO program made clear what 

needed doing but still allowed some flexibility and 

managerial freedom. They agreed also that the 

progam guided their efforts more near the end of a 

quarter before an evaluation rather than continuGoals Yardsticks Methods and Taraet Standards -- 

Project Managemenl Briefing Confident, comprehensive. 

Organization Layout, NCOs present and in key positions, 

tasks by unit. 

Materials status No holdups, corrective action to obtain. 

Policy letters Present and complete-group and battalion. 

Productivity Daily goals, control, efficiency. 

Hand tools Secure, maintained, accounted for, inventoried once per month. 

High Quality Work Plans and specs vs actual work Professional, commercial finish type work. 

No discrepancies. Quality control plan 

comprehensive and followed, periodic 

classes. Supervisors technically knowledgeable. 

Protective measures and police Protect finished work; clean as you go. 

Drainage Effective before, during, after; no water 

delays. 

Testing Tests conducted at proper times with specs 

met or exceeded. 

Timely Accomplishment EDCs met No proiect extensions requested. All contingencies planned for. 

Scheduled vs actual progress All projects on or ahead of schedule, work 

status proceeding on critical path. 

WCPRs 90% submitted prior to established deadline 

with no errors. 

Proiect completion reports All documentation submitted within 30days 

after project turnover. 
ously. They felt that NCO professionalism and 

supervisor motivation were enhanced but not to 

the degree desired. Responses from company 

commanders were mixed on whether the program 

became their primary management tool, increased 

their ability to plan, improved communication, 

focused or scattered efforts, was used as a whip or 

was imposed too much from above. Established 

standards were, in some cases, felt to be unrealistic and unattainable although logical and 

relevant. In some cases, these were standards 

developed at DA/USAREUR level. There were 

also mixed feelings on how much commanders 

could influence progress in some areas and the 

effectiveness of the program in these areas. 

Improved motivation of the entire chain-of-command by MBO did not occur to the degree 

envisioned. Reasons for this probably were that 

subordinates did not have much input as to what 

their own appropriate and realistic objectives 

should be. Some appeared overwhelmed by the 

comprehensive listing of prescribed duties and 

responsibilities. The company commander especially felt the concentrated nature of the program. 

His position was like being at the neck of a funnel. 

It appeared to him that many levels of highpowered talent were continuously at work above 

him, while Murphy's Law was hard at work below 

him. Although simplification of the MBO program 

might be indicated, no company commander could 

recommend any item to eliminate or change. 

As might be expected, periodic crises and 

priority drives detracted noticeably from the MBO 

program. Hopefully this will be reduced when 

MBO is practiced at other levels, especially those 

above the battalion. The commander must honestly keep his pact with his subordinates and should 

not apply direct or subtle pressure outside his 

stated objectives. Responsiveness was not impeded however, since the program was so comprehensive and few areas were not already covered. 

As with any new program and particularly one 

which attempts to provide the entire management 

guidance for a battalion, bugs needed to be worked 

out. Format, as well as content, changed several 

times. Subordinates tended to react rather than 

act as changes occurred and, until the end of the 

year, never really had the chance to implement 

MBO at their levels. An associated problem was 

the need for an extensive sales effort to educate 

and gain acceptance of any new program prior to 

implementation. This is particularly true of MBO. 

Ideally the entire chain-of-command, down to the 

first line supervisor level, practices MBO on the 

job daily. A great deal of inertia had to be 

overcome to reach that ideal situation. 

In summary, the MBO was most effective as an 

evaluative tool with significant value as a motivator when intimately tied to an award. Although 

primarily dictated from above, the 249th program 

provided a very definitive basis for a company 

commander to decentralize and establish his own 

MBO program. Briefings revolving around this 

program, given at company and battalion level to 

visiting VIPs, were very well received. Documentation of the program also facilitated submission of 

the Sturgis and Itschner Award nominees from 

the battalion. 

Engineers are sometimes accused of trying to 

reduce any activity to a quantitative formula, 

program or punch list. Hopefully MBO will not 

result in reduction of unit management to a rigidly 

quantitative model, but it does appear to be a 

valuable tool that can go a long way toward 

reducing ambiguities, false starts, wheel spinning, 

wild occillations and guess work. The 249th 

program is offered for consideration as a comprehensive attempt at getting a handle on and doing 

many things well. It is one way, but certainly not 

the only way. However, the proliferation of 

objective listings by headquarters within 

USAREUR in the latter half of CY 75 indicated 

that MBO has arrived at least for the near future. 

It behooves commanders and those who wish to 

command to understand MBO and to be prepared 

to implement it with wisdom and judgment. 

LTC David G. Cotts graduated from the US Military Academy in 1959. He holds a MS in civil 

engineering from Iowa State University and has 

successfully completed the Engineer Officer Advance Course and Command and General Staff 

College. He holds a professional engineer degree 

from the state of North Dakota. His assignments 

include service as an engineer platoon leader in 

Korea, S3 and executive officer of an engineer 

construction battalion in Vietnam, adwisor to the 

Minister of Transportation in Vietnam, tactical 

officer at the United States Military Academy, 

.USAREUR level staff officer and commander of 

the 249th Engineer Combat Battalion. 

Major Robert L. Oliver graduated from the US 

Military Academy in 1961. He holds an MS in civil 

engineering from Kansas University and has 

successfully completed the Engineer Officer Advance Course. His assignments include service as 

an engineer platoon leader and company commander in USAREUR, an instructor in the Department of Engineering and Military Science at 

Fort Belvoir, tactical officer at the United States 

Military Academy, MACV adwisor in J46 EAD, 

and S3 and executive ofker of the 249th Engineer 

Combat Battalion. 
LTC Robert K. Hu,ghes 

The U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) at Vicksburg, Mississippi, is 

the oldest, largest, and most diverse of the Corps 

of Engineers' research and development activities. 

Organized in 1929 as an experimental hydraulics 

laboratory, WES devoted the first ten years of its 

existence to solving civil-oriented problems related 

to flood control. With the advent of World War 11, 

the WES mission began to evolve to one of 

conceiving, planning, and executing engineering 

investigations and research and development studies in support of both the civil and military 

missions of the Chief of Engineers and other 

Federal agencies. WES now operates a complex of 

laboratories in the fields of hydraulics, soil 

mechanics, concrete, engineering geology, pavements, expedient construction, nuclear and con-
ventional weapons effects, mobility, and environmental systems and effects. 

WES's first venture into military-related 

projects was in 1939 when war clouds began to 

gather over Europe. The model shop at WES was 

called upon to construct 100 sets of pontoon bridge 

models for use at training centers around the U. S. 

to teach young military engineers the techniques 

of float bridge construction. For the next six 

years WES efforts were devoted almost entirely 

to war-related activities. Projects included a 

study of the stability of artificial harbor breakwaters designed and constructed for the Normandy invasion; testing of airfield landing mats; 

mobility of military vehicles in jungles, beaches, 

and rice paddies; and design of flexible airfield 

pavements for the Air Corps. 

WES participation in military engineering research and development continued to grow after 

World War I1 and by 1968, at the height of the 

Vietnam War, approximately 68 percent of the 

total WES effort was directed toward the solution 

of military-related problems. Effects of nuclear 

and conventional weapons on strategic and tactical 

structures; design of harbors in Vietnam; the 

detection, location, and destruction of Viet Cong 

tunnels; the geographic location of construction 

materials in the Mekong Delta; the design of 

protective shelters and fighting bunkers; the 

design and procurement of landing mat and 

membrane; dust control techniques; lime stabilization of soil; etc.; are just a few of the areas related 

to military engineering which have been studied 

by WES engineers. 

Today, the total reimbursable work load at WES 

is $56 million annually. Of this total program, 

approximately 49 percent is military funded. In 

addition to research for the Chief of Engineers, the 

FY 76 program includes work for the Defense 

Nuclear Agency, Army Materiel Development and 

Readiness Command, Training and Doctrine Command, U. S. Navy and Air Force, NASA, Defense 

Civil Preparedness Agency, and many others. To 

accomplish this work load WES has a staff of 1478 

employees, of which 487 are professional engineers 

and scientists. In addition to the civilian staff, 

there are 27 officers and 10 enlisted men, all of 

whom have degrees in engineering or the physical 

sciences, and most of whom have advanced 

degrees. 

Presently, there are numerous R and D efforts 

ongoing at WES directed at solving problems of 

the combat engineer in the Theater of Operations. 

Remember the dust problems in Vietnam during 

the dry season? Or the roads which became 

impassable during the monsoon? And the sensors 

used in perimeter defense and RPG screens 

around observation towers? These are just a few 

of the areas in which WES scientists and engineers 

are working to develop new techniques and 

materials to assist the combat engineer in performing his mission in a more efficient and effective manner. 

There are several research studies under way to 

develop data and methodology for the design and 

evaluation of field fortifications and protective 

structures to defeat the effects of conventional 

weapons. To-date, equations have been developed 
and verified in field tests relating cover depth, 

structural strength, and safe charge size for 

timber bunkers covered with earth. The influence 

of burster, shock-absorbing, and crater-arresting 

layers in various soil cover materials has also been 

determined. Sometime this year, WES will publish a family of curves which, with a simple 

equation, will provide the engineer in the field 

with a quick "bridge card" evaluation of the 

protection afforded by a particular bunker and will 

assist in designing bunkers from timber to defeat a 

specified threat. In addition to horizontal triggering screens and burster layers, criteria for the 

use of vertical screens to defeat direct-fire HEAT 

rounds are presently being developed. These 

studies are examining the relationships between 

the threat, the type of triggering screen, the 

standoff distance, and bunker design and construction. 

During FY 75 a research project was initiated to 

developed design methods and criteria for unique 

metal-framed, fabric-covered underground protective shelters for use in the Theater of Operations 

for housing command and control functions, communications equipment, aid stations, or ammunition storage. These shelters are lightweight, 

easily transportable, can be installed without 

special equipment or personnel, and are expandable to meet desired size requirements. A 

method has been developed to analyze the structural behavior of the fabric material when used as 

a covering for the underground shelter. A finite 

elements structural analysis computer program 

has been used to analyze various frames for 

supporting the fabric covering. Laboratory tests 

to verify analysis methods and to evaluate a 

framed shelter in soil have been conducted. 

Conventional weapons proof tests were conducted 
on one of the shelter designs at Fort Polk, 

Louisiana, in May 1976, and a prototype shelter 

concept will be tested in DICE THROW 11, a 

high-explosives field test scheduled for White 

Sands Missile Range in October 1976. 

Surveys of field fortifications used in Vietnam 

indicated a need for a fighting-hole cover that 

could be handled and installed by nonengineer 

troops and provide a means of decreasing the 

vulnerability of key fighting positions. With this 

as the objective, a corrugated metal fighting-hole 

cover shell has been developed. The concept of 

this shell is almost identical with that suggested 

by GEN Frank Camm during his assignment in 

Vietnam in 1968. The shell is made from four 

identical circular curved arch sections that, when 

connected, form a square base. The shell can be 

delivered by helicopter or truck and can be field 

erected using hand tools in 18 to 23 man-hours, 

including excavation of the fighting hole. The 

assembled shell is nestable and weighs 300 pounds. 

The reinforced concrete parapet structure of the 

same size weights 6800 pounds. When covered 

with 2% feet of dry sand, the shelter withstood 

the effects of direct contact bursts of medium 

mortars and artillery rounds. 

In the not-too-distant future, the manufacture of 

military dynamite will be discontinued. Industry 

is using bulk explosives that are safer, cheaper, 

more effective, and easier to use than our present 

military explosives. WES has a program, Military 

Engineering Applications of Commercial Explosives, called the MEACE program, in which the 

use of bulk explosives for military construction 

problems such as quarrying, excavation, and 

crater barriers is being investigated. Engineers 

are also looking at the use of bulk explosives as an 

expedient structural demolition for use against 

tactical structural targets such as bridges, field 

fortifications, and ot.hers. 

To date, a slurry-type blasting agent has been 

demonstrated to be an effective demolition charge 

when applied against steel, concrete, and wood 

targets. Current investigations are attempting to 

establish effectiveness factors as in FM 5-25 for 

slurry blasting agents. Establishing the minimum 

quantity of explosive, the best container, and the 

best boosting technique requires considerable 

attention due to the nature of slurries. 

The bridge in photo 1 was destroyed by four 

men in 15 minutes with six 60-lb slurry charges. 

Charges were attached to the truss and the 
bottom chord. No access to the underside was 

necessary. 

A new concept for the creation of crater-type 

obstacles was tested for the first time during FY 

75. This concept envisions the creation of doublerow craters through the placement of two widely 

spaced rows of cratering charges. This technique 

is especially applicable in sandy soils. Initial 

experimental results indicate that such craters not 

only present effective obstacles, but can be 

emplaced using significantly less explosives than 

those required for comparatively effective singlerow design (40% to 50% less explosives). Although more emplacement holes are required, 

these holes are smaller in diameter than for the 

single-row crater to keep within the capabilities of 

equipment usually found with Engineer units in 

the field. Mobility tests showed that the M60 tank 

was able to negotiate the first crater encountered; 

however, when the tank entered the second crater 

at the high angle created by the center ridge, its 

progress was completely stymied. 

Effective employment of atomic demolition 

munitions and conventional explosives for barrier/ 

denial operations is impaired by the absence of 

accurate cratering, target response, and collateral 

effects data. This results in "over-kill" in yield 

selection and much greater safety requirements 

than actually necessary. We must also rely on an 

ADM stockpile developed with outdated technology. WES research in this area is concentrated 

heavily in a series of experiments funded jointly 

by OCE and the Defense Nuclear Agency. This 

series of experiments is designated as "Effects of 

Subsurface Explosives," or ESSEX. 

Seven different areas are being investigated 

under the ESSEX program: 

I Cratering phenomenology, effects, and barrier assessment 

I1 Dams 

I11 Bridges 

IV Tunnels 

V Hardened and nonhardened structures 

VI Airfield and railway systems 

VII Ports and inland waterways 

In ESSEX I, among other things, a nuclear 

explosives simulation technique using gelled 

nitromethane as the explosive source was developed. WES also developed a fallout simulation 

technique using nonradioactive iridium and neu-
tron activation analysis. 

Under ESSEX I1 it was confirmed that arch 

dams are vulnerable to water-shock loadings from 

low-yield nuclear explosions. These experiments 

were conducted on a 1:24-scale model of the North 

Fork Dam on the American River in California. 

A series of experiments was conducted at Fort 

Polk, Louisiana, over the past two years to 

determine the degree of runway damage resulting 

from a subsurface detonation of an ADM or earthpenetrating weapon (EPW) as a function of 

warhead yield, burst depth, and runway geology. 

The results show that for a warhead detonated at 

near optimum depth, the area of runway destroyed 

by displacement of the ground around the crater 

alone is almost four times that originally expected. 

The objective of the ESSEX V field test, 

conducted in October 1975 at Fort Polk, was to 

investigate the effectiveness of a low-yield earthpenetrating weapon against a class of generic 

structural targets. Ten tons of high explosives 

detonated at a depth of 6 meters below the ground 

surface were used to simulate a 1-kt EPW 

detonating at 22 meters. Eleven structural models 

consisting of bridge elements, aircraft shelters, a 

POL storage tank and pipeline, and hardened 

command, control, and communication structures 

were placed at various ranges from ground zero. 

In addition to damage from the force of the detonation, data were also collected on relative ground 

motion and ejecta fallback. The test provided 

significant information on the damage mechanisms 

and failure modes for certain types of structural 

targets. 

Tests have recently been initiated in the ESSEX 

IV program to study damage of tunnels and 

hardened facilities in rock from low-yield nuclear 

explosions. An objective of the study is to 

determine effects of yield, burst position, and rock 

properties on cavity damage. To-date, tests have 

been conducted on models to collect data on such 

variables as material strength, standoff distance, 

depth of burial, and tunnel and weapon size. 

Final results of the ESSEX program will be 

incorporated into appropriate Army manuals to 

aid in employment of nuclear weapons and in 

defining requirements of earth penetrators for 

attacking hardened targets. The data being developed will help in determining the minimum 

yield and best placement necessary to accomplish 

the mission and at the same time minimize 

collateral effects. 

The ability of the U. S. Army to project ground 

forces onto a foreign land mass and sustain them 

logistically is limited by the ability to transfer 

heavy tonnages of containerized supplies and other 

material from seaborne surface transport to landbased transportation. Development of concepts, 

doctrine, and hardware in this area recently has 

concentrated on over-the-beach and logistics over 

the shore (LOTS) systems. While these developments were necessary and have resulted in 

effective logistics systems to support assault 

forces, they are expensive for sustained operations 

and must be replaced by semipermanent container 

port facilities early in the operation. Design 

criteria for constructing military container ports 

within reasonable time periods (by D + 90) which 
are capable of accommodating the heavy loads need for new design concepts resulted in 

(1000-psf uniform live loads and very heavy TRADOC funding a container port construction 

concentrated off-loading crane loads) imposed by (PORCON)study at WES. To-date, this study has 

modern container operations are needed. The produced: 
Design concepts for an 80- by 900-ft container 

pier consisting of three self-propelled, 80- by 

300-ft, prefabricated, speed-type, steel barge pier 

units, each mounted with two pedestal-supported 

3500 ft-ton electrical off-loading cranes, which are 

capable of erection (jacked up) and full operation 

as container handling facilities within 2 to 3 hours 

after the individual units arrive at the Theater of 

Operations. 

A preliminary design for container storage 

and marshalling area. 

A suggested plan for using the individual 

self-propelled units as lighters if this should 

become desirable or necessary. 

WES is currently engaged in the design of a 

lightweight general-purpose panel which will have 

multiple usage in various military applications 

other than airfield surfacings. The proposed usage 

will range from surfacing for vehicular roadway 

traffic to flooring for pedestrians and field hospital 

equipment. It is also envisioned that the multiplepurpose panel will be used in vertical construction 

as siding, roofing, and support columns. The main 

purpose for acquiring this type of panel is to 

eliminate the diversion of the heavier and more 

expensive airfield landing mats that have been used 

for such applications in the past. 

In many instances, the construction of tactical 

bridges is greatly affected by the construction of 

their approaches. As rivers often flow through 

low-lying areas which are subject to flooding, 

bridge approaches often cross floodplains, swamps, 

or mud flats. Often the time required to construct 

approaches is the controlling factor in the selection 

of a bridge site, and this may not be the most 

desirable site from the tactical viewpoint. 

The construction of bridge approaches over soft 

ground requires a great deal of manpower, construction materials, time, and money. The major 

problem is that the construction materials used in 

the foundation keep sinking into the soft ground or 

allow the soil to penetrate the construction 

material. 

WES is currently performing a study to develop 

criteria necessary to provide rapid construction 

techniques and material requirements for approach roads from a bridge, across extremely soft 

ground, to the nearest existing roadnet. To-date 

investigations have included the use of plastic and 

wire construction fabrics and sand confinement 

concepts. Additional studies are scheduled along 

with field tests to develop other material requirements. 

Research has shown that an explosive detonated 

beneath the water surface will generate a water 

plume whose demolition potential far exceeds that 

of the explosive itself. The use of the explosiveproduced water plume as a means of bridge 

demolition is being studied in a series of laboratory tests and field tests on prototype bridges. 

Water plume tests have been conducted on three 

obsolete prototype bridges. Two water plume 

shots were fired against a concrete deck bridge 

near West Point, Georgia. Two steel truss bridges 

in the Raystown Lake near Huntington, Pennsylvania, were also tested. Tests are continuing to 

determine quantitatively the forces developed in a 

water plume as functions of charge yield and 

geometry and to devise protection schemes to 

mitigate the forces in a plume that produce 

damage to bridges. 

At WES the matter of technology transfer, 

getting new developments to the field users, is of 

primary concern. Progress on each of the projects 

mentioned above is reported periodically to the 

sponsor by letter report. At the conclusion of the 

project, a final report is prepared and disseminated Army-wide as well as to other interested 

agencies such as Defense Nuclear Agency, U.S. 

Air Force, etc. Simultaneously, information is 

provided to the Office, Chief of Engineers, for 

inclusion of new developments in appropriate field 

and technical manuals. 

LTC Hughes graduated from The Citadel in 

1958 with a BS in ciwil engineering. He is a 

graduate of the Engineer Officer Basic and Advanced Courses at Ft. Belvoir, Va, and the US 

Amy Command and General Staff College at Ft. 

Leavenworth, KS. LTC Hughes also received his 

Masters and Doctorate degrees in ciwil engineering from Oklahoma State University. He has 

served in Europe, Greenland, Indonesia, Vietnam 

and CONUS. LTC Hughes has been the Deputy 

Director of WES since December, 1973. 
-- 

-- 

-- 

ENG y ?A+* 

.-2 s ss
 -,,4 d

ENGINEER PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT CONTACTS .::s 

.

Colonels Division: (DAPC-OPC-AE) 

*-

-

-%5 

Engineer Assignments, LTC Tom Sands . . 325-7871 -,--3 * 

LTC Division: (DAPC-OPL-AS) 2-

Engineer Assignments, LTC Henry Covington . . . 325-0423+...: 

Majors Division: (DAPC-OPM-AS) =S -.+.

Engineer Assignments, MAJ Gary E. Woodham . . . . . 325-8109 = *- Combat Support Arms Division (Company Grade) : (DAPC-OPF-E) -

Engineer Branch Chief, LTC Norman Muklinski . . . . . . . . . . . 325-06: -

-hnr-aC .*.I@

CPT Assignments, MAJ James E. Corbin .... . . . 325-0651~7, - LT Assignments, CPT Michael R. Foster . 325-74Yr .rsr

-9- .- -c-*
 -1-

. Professional Development/ .-


Personnel Actions, MAJ Roger Yankoupe . . . . . 325-06: r -V 

-:+-

rrrr 

AT:.
 'Varrant Officers Division: (DAPC-OPW-AU) 

Engineer Assignments, CW4 Jean L. Derby . . . .--"I 

.. . 325-78: 

-dY

-;=,% 

' = 'rofessional Development Division: (DAPC-OPP-P, &,. A, -

-

- - -* Engineer Specialty Monitor, MAJ Tom Ostenbera , . 325-0250 -

L

Zr;rw 

:-. 

--,

, . :=:< 

Chief, Plans Branch, MAJ Galen Yanagihara , . 325-8152 zIr;-

"a&
 <..em 
 -c:

"Sa rr--." 

.z=;"T-ZT ~\IZG. -%- GRADUATE SCHOOL NOTES: SF 

-

.r,^~~q+ ,--. d-. -Cp.m.? y:yl,.f: --c---
 + .- ;zL: GRADUATE CIVIL SCHOOL ACADEMIC DISCIPLINES. Regardless of program, ~rrny--:*:' . 

rnn*' ,.7%'

,*r*-.

sponsored graduate training is restricted to those disciplines in which the Army Educational 7 .. d'* r .r 

r*r

,.--..- Requirements Board has validated requirements and a "shortage" of qualified officers exists,. -17 - ...* 4 - * 

S;sS'.r: 

Currently, for Engineer officers these disciplines are as listed below: - ,

.. 

-., 

. --.* r "

- -+ q- ,+.A" 
 .w'-

..%-x- :;'.&-= 

---* ~~5'1;" BUSINESS: :-: (:;-

...r;LS 1 

-+ ,,-.-- BAL ORSA Analysist :,,.-.

. A ..,.-+ ,+.3 .I- - i 7

V ~ - BAM Comptrollership -,-

?-" -s=?i BAN ADPS Business - * r)rh.nr '-* 

-

. 

,

.-

.-

---s+lA 

-? BBF Logistics Management A,".
 -&';--- .- BBP Procurement .--...

..-.. 

.,. 


. 

- -,> - ENGINEERING: 

._ 
 CCX Civil Engineering 

CFX Aeronautical Engineering 

CLX Nuclear Effects Engineering 

CEX Chemical Engineering 

CSX Engineering Physics 

ClJC ORSA Engineering 

CUA ADPS Enginyeriny 
OTPOURRI 


PHYSICAL SCIENCE: 


DEX Geodetic Science 


DE D Topography & Photogrammetry 


DLX Physics 


DLD Nuclear Physics 


SOCIAL SCIENCE: 


EBX Foreign Area Studies 


These Shortage Disciplines also support an alternate specialty in addition to Engineer. 

GRADUATE SCHOOL OPPORTUNITIES IN FY 77. Input levels are anticipated to remain at 

levels similar to FY 75-76. We expect to input approximately 100-120 officers depending on 

requirements and officer availability 

FULLY FUNDED ADVANCED DEGREE TRAINING (AR 621-1, CHAPTER 4). This is the 

principal program for obtaining a graduate degree and provides the primary means to train officers 

at the masters level. Application is made by forwarding DA Form 1618-R. An officer's application is 

automatically considered each time he becomes available for reassignment. The primary zone for 

consideration for schooling is 5 to 14 years service. An outstanding overall record of performance is 

necessary to be a contender for selection. 

ADVANCED DEGREE PROGRAM FOR ROTC INSTRUCTOR DUTY (AR 621-101). ROTC inputs 

preceded by graduate training are being programmed ahead as far as the summer of 1979. Quotas will 

permit Engineers to enter graduate school in FY 77 with a follow-on ROTC assignment. 

DEGREE COMPLETION PROGRAM (BOOTSTRAP) FOR GRADUATE DEGREE (AR 621-1, CH 

8). Thinking about beginning a masters degree off-duty wit.h a goal of obtaining e "8olotstrap" to 

finish degree requirements? Good plan, but besure that the academic discipline is one which we can 

support. All participants must study in an academic descipline for which an AERB position exists 

and serve in a follow-on utilization assignment. 

INPUT SCHEDULE. In order to insure your applications are received, processed, and evaluated the 

following schedule should be adhered to: 

CALENDAR 

SCHOOL INPUT APPLICATION DUE SELECTIONS ANNOUNCED 

JAN n 1 JUL 76 15 AUG 76 

JUN 77 1 NOV 76 15 JAN 77 

SEP 77 1 FEB 77 15 MAR 77 
ENGINEER 


SE LECTlON CRITERIA. Officers must possess the following qualifications in order to be 

considered competitive for selection: 

1. Be considered in the top third in comparison with contemporaries. 

2. Be an Advanced Course Graduate. 

3. Have successfully completed a company command tour. 

UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOL NOTES 

DEGREE COMPLETION PROGRAM (BOOTSTRAP) (AR 621-1, CH 8). Currently, we estimate 

that 30 officers will begin undergraduate training under this program in FY 77. The maximum 

period of training that can be supported is 18 months. Our obiective is to support those officers with 

outstanding performance records in obtaining a bachelors degree in disciplines that the Army can 

use. These disciplines are too numerous to list, but undergraduate education directed in the areas 

where graduate level shortages exist get preferential consideration. See the disciplines previously 

listed. 

CALENDAR 

SCHOOL INPUT APPLICATION DUE SELECTIONS ANNOUNCED 

JAN 77 JUL 76 AUG 76 

JUN 77 DEC 76 JAN 77 

SEP 77 MAR 77 APR 77 

MILITARY SCHOOLING NOTES: 

-ngineer Officer Advanced Course (EOAC) classes have been reduced in course lengtn trom 32 

decks to 26 weeks. Advanced Course Classes scheduled for FY 7T and FY 77 are as follows: 

EOAC - 26 WEEKS 

Class Number Report Close 

1-7T 26 SEP 76 15 APR 77 

6 FEB 77 11 AUG 77 

5 JUN 77 13 DEC 77 

18 SEP 77 7 APR 78 

The FY 77 schedule for the 12 weeK long Engineer Officer Basic Course (EOBC) classes IS as 

follows: EOBC - 12 WEEKS 

Class Number Report Brief Close 

13 JUL 76 27 JUL 76 5 OCT 76 

10 AUG 76 24 AUG 76 4 NOV 76 

21 SEP 76 5 OCT 76 17 DEC 76 
I 

I 

POTPOURRI I 

11 JAN 77 

1 FEB 77 

19 APR 77 

14 JUN 77 

16 AUG 77 

25 JAN 77 

15 FEB 77 

3 MAY 77 

28 JUN 77 

30 AUG 77 

5 APR 77 

26 APR 77 

13 JUL 77 

7 SEP 77 

10 NOV 77 

13 SEP 77 27 SEP 77 9 DEC 77 

,. 

PROFESSIONAL CHALLENGE: I Below are some thoughts that have been passed from hand to hand, officer to officer for years. The original author is unknown, but his thoughts will always be valid. 

WHAT'S A LIEUTENANT? 

To paraphrase Mark Twain, everybody talks about lieutenants but - you know the rest. It's time to restate a fw 

convictions about these soldiers some of whom have a way of turning up a few years later as colonels and generals. 

bet me tell you a thing or two about lieutenants. I claim to know something about what maka them tick. Liwtenants are ilmd pople, also officers and gentlemen. I am in no mood to listen to or to snicker at any more wry tokes to the conkary. ,::&JJ$%"qd

Lieutenants will continue to be officers and gentlemen iust so long as we treat them and use them that way. If any of them are 

commissianed errand boys its because some commanders have made bad mistakes. +

,-F "'UJ 

Lieutenants don't want to be coddled or babied into the Army. They're men and they want to be treated like men. They 

have the brains, education, aptitudes and attitudes that we established as prerequisites to their appointment. On our 

recommendation they now bear the President's commitslbn. 

Lieutenants trust us to give them direction and virile leadership. In return, they expect us to trust them. 

Lieutenants are prepared to give us every courtesy that rank or position may demand. In return they expect from us the 

unfailing courtesy one gentleman owes another. 

Lieutenants have a lot to learn. They want to learn. They'll provide the perspiration. They expect us to furnish the 

opportunity. 

Lieutenants expect to acquire experience and maturity of professional judgement with the passage of time. They're willing 

to work hard to get them, They know that professional perception and iudgement seldom come to errand boys. They wan? iots 

that will test them to the upper limits of their capabilities, and they are willing to gamble their profeSsional futures that bey 

can dQ them well. 

Wnm they do something right they like to know it. When they goof, they expect to be instructed. When they get out ol line 

-as we all do at one time or another -they expect to catch unshirted hell and are disappointed when we don't give it to them. 

When they have a chewing out coming, they know it. They expect us to have the courtesy and the courage to make it a 

private session, eyeball to eyeball. When they respond properly to this treatment, there is no need to report the seance in their 

next efficiency report where it will be read by selection boards for the next 25 years. 

Every old-timer worth his salt can remember one or two high spots in his career. Many of the came to pass because of 

the thoughtful, kindly and timely advice of some senior who believed in him and trusted him. This, I think -more than any 

other one thing -is what lieutenants hope for from their seniors. 

Don't cry to me about retention rates. Money, while important, is only one part of the motivation. What happens to these 

officers in the field during their first tour of active duty will do more to shape their attitudes than a few extra bucks. 

We talk -my God, how we talk! -about leadership. Sometimes 1 think all we want of lieutenants is their ears. There's 

more to leadership than the old "Gung Ho:' One iob of leadership is to translate the Army to its lieutenants, and to do it 

honestly, forcefully, credibly. 

Officers that sound like apologists for their own professions are no help at all. The few who who do Wis must accept a share 

of the blame for the depressing results. 

In seeking career officers for the Army, we do not ask fw plaster saints. God Forbid! We want much more than beef, 

brawn, and physical courage. We seek intellect, heart, passion, imagination, and a little of the romanticism that persists in any 

man who is worth more than the pinch of powder it takes to blow him to hell. We seek men who live, laugh, work, play, love, 

fight, make mistakes, fall, and pick themselves up again. We seek men of character and color, who are clearly identifiable 

personalities in their own right. We seek men of moral fiber and personal integrity, whose given word is as good as money in 

the bank. We seek men who, by personal conviction, understand the mystique of commissioned status and believe passionately 

in the United States of America. 

Seek them? We've got them! Look at your Lieutenants. Let's take them, trust them, and work their pants off. Let's quit 

talking, and show them what we know about this man's Army. If we do it well enough, we won't have to talk. Best of all, we 

will have helped a grand group of young men toward an understanding of the real meaning of career satisfaction. 

Are you with me? I 
BRIDGING 

OPMS Specialty Designators for YG 69 Officers 

The Officer Personnel Management Directorate's (OPMD's) company grade career divisions 

have initiated file reviews to determine OPMS alternate specialty qualifications of all OPMDmanaged officers in Year Group 1969 (YG 69). Some of the factors being considered include the time 

officers have served in various OPMS specialty areas, how well they performed in these specialty 

assignments, and their civilian and military education. 

Final determination of alternate specialties -which each year are designated formally for all 

officers completing eight years' Active Federal Commissioned Service -is based on three criteria: 

Army needs, the individual officer's experience, and his or her personal preferences. Army 

requirements must be the primary consideration in making final designations. 

Year Group 69 officers will have an opportunity to cite specialty preferences on personal 

questionnaires which OPMD will furnish through servicing Military Personnel Offices (MI LPOs) 

during the month of May. When completed and returned through the MlLPO to OPMD, each 

officer's specialty preferences will be compared with the results of the file reviews. OPMD's 

company grade career divisions then will make final designations for each officer. 

The specialty designation process is more complex than most officers realize. The least 

complicated situation occurs when the company grade officer cites specialty preferences which 

correlate with his education, training and experience. If there is little or no correlation, OPMD must 

evaluate the officer's eiperience and preferences and make a judgment decision based on both 

Army requirements and individual preferences. If an officer's preferences are not supported by 

experience, the OPMD evaluator must also judge not only the officer's potential to complete the 

necessary training successfully, but also whether Army requirements for the specialty could be 

filled better by other captains with similar specialty preferences but who already have training and 

experience in the area. At the end of the process, we must have about the right number of officers in 

each specialty, based upon the best information available concerning projected requirements. 

While OPMD career managers may have to designate some officers from YG 69 into OPMS 

specialties in which Army requirements exceed the number of officers who have indicated a 

preference for those specialties, OPMD's goal is to minimize the number of captains who will be 

designated specialties which they did not list in their preferences. 

Designation of specialties for members of YG 1969 will be completed by 31 August 1976. Officers 

will be notified by personal letters routed through MlLPO channels as soon as p.ossible thereafter. 

Special Instructions 

FOR MILPOs. Detailed advanced planning for designation of alternate specialties for YG 69 

officers has been provided in DA message DAPC-OPP-S 3014002 Mar 76. MILPOs are reminded that 

this specialty designation action applies only to OPMD-managed officers having at least 84 months' 

Active Federal Commissioned Service (AFCS) on 30 June 1976 and less than 96 months' AFCS on 1 

July 1977. Commissioned officers of the Army Medical Department, the Judge Advocate General 

Corps and the Chaplain Corps are not affected. 

FOR COMMANDERS. Since this action will have long range impact on the military career of 

the individual officer, commanders are encouraged to provide personal counseling for officers 

scheduled to participate in OPMS alternate specialty designations. 

FOR OFFICERS IN YG 69. Officers should consult DA Pamphlet 600-3, Officer Professional 

Development and Utilization, for detailed information on OPMS specialties. 
THE GAP 

DA Suspends Waiver Promotions to E4 

Due to FY 76 budgetary constraints, all waivers of time-in-service for promotion to E4 have been 

suspended until 1 July 1976. According to HQDA message DAPE-MPE-PS 0513422 Apr 76, 

commanders may promote only those E3s who have more than 24 months' TIS and who meet the 

remaining criteria specified in Chapter 7, AR 600-200. The message also explains that the suspension 

does not affect current policies governing student promotions or E4 advancements authorized either 

in valid enlistment contracts or under the Stripes for Skills Program. 

TENTATIVE BOARD DATES FOR HQDA ENLISTED 

PROMOTION/SELECTION BOARDS 

For information and field planning purposes, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for . , 

Personnel has released the following schedule for senior enlisted promotion/selection boards: 

BOARD TENTATIVE DATES LOCATION 

Advanced NCOES 27 Apr 76-27 May 76 Fort Harrison 

Command Sergeant Maior 15 Jun 76-25 Jun 76 Fort Harrison 

E8 Standby 14 Jul 76-15 Jul 76 MILPERCEN 

USA Sergeant Major Academy 27 Jul 76- 6 Aug 76 Fort Harrison 

E9 8 Sep 76-18 Sep 76 Fort Harrison 

E7 Standby 6 Oct 76- 7 Oct 76 MlLPERCEN 

E8 27 Oct 76-17 NOV 76 Fort Harrison 

€7 11 Jan 77-11 Feb 77 Fort Harrison 

E9 Standby 1 Mar 77- 2 Mar 77 MILPERCEN 

Advanced NCOES 8 Mar 77- 1 Apr 77 Fort Harrison 

Early Submission of Reenlistment Applications 

Too many soldiers wanting to reenlist are waiting too long before submitting their reenlistment 

applications. 

While current policy prohibits reenlisting any soldier who has more than 90 days remaining on 

an enlistment contract, MI LPERCEN1s Enlisted Personnel Management Directorate (EPMD) is 

urging unit commanders to counsel prospective reenlistees -especially those classified in GROUP I I 

under the Year Group Management Program (that is, soldiers who require waivers, who have MOS 

scores below 100, or who lack high school diplomas) -that reenlistment applications can be 

submitted as early as six months prior to ETS. 

The additional three months' leadtime would give EPMD sufficient opportunity to review and 

process individual applications in order to notify soldiers of reenlistment approvals or denials at 

least 90 days before their ETS dates. Encouraging early submission of reenlistment applications 

also would benefit the unit commanders' local reenlistment programs by providing them a higher 

assurance of achieving their monthly reenlistment goals. 
The Corpsgets 


a Medal 


The Army Corps of Engineers, designers and builders 

of Libby Dam (near Libby, 

Montana), the architect for the 

project, and the sculptor of the 

dam's lntenational Treaty 

Tower, received The National 

Sculpture Society's Henry 

Hering Memorial Medal in a 

New York City ceremony May 

11th. 

Brigadier General Walter 0. 

Bachus, Director of Facilities 

Engineering, accepted the 

medal for the Corps of Engineers. Paul Theiry, Seattle 

architectural consultant, and 

Albert W. Wein, Scarborough, 

New York, sculptor, who won 

the international competition 

for design of the sculpture, also 

received the medal. 

Making the presentation was 

Michael Lantz, a former president of the National Sculpture 

Society, and one of the judges 

Engineer Staff 

for the Libby Dam sculpture 

competition. 

The International Treaty 

Tower commemorates the 

agreement between the United 

States and Canada for the cooperative development of the 

Vast Columbia River Basin 

water resources. The dam, 

dedicated by President Ford 

last August, is on the Kootenai 

River in northwestern Montana. 
1. What is your age? 

17 to 21 

22 to 25 

26 to 30 

31 to 40 


Over 40 


2. 	 Your Sex? 

Female 


Male 


3. 	 What is your relationship to the Army? 

Active Army 

Army Reserve 

National Guard 

Retired 

DAC 


Dependent 


4. 	 If military, what is your pay grade? 

El to E3 

E4 

E5 to E7 

E8 or E9 

01 to 03 

04 or 05 


06 and above 


Engineer Staff 

5. 	 How often do you read THE ENGINEER? 

Rarely 

Regularly 


Every issue 


6. 	 How would you rate distribution of THE 

ENGINEER at your installation unit? 

Thorough 

Adequate 

Inadequate 

7. 	 How would you rate the material contained 

in THE ENGINEER? Check whatever appropria te : 

Entertaining 


Useful 


Believable 


Stimulating 


Well illustrated 


Well rounded 


Pointedly written 


Worthwhile 


Dry 


lrrelavent 


Questionable 


Boring 


Poorly illustrated 


Narrow in scope 


Verbose 


Superfluous 

DVARTMEWT OF TIE ARMY 	 i'rntdtlr arid Fn?. Pntd 

Lkp~rt!r:c-ntot ~tuArrr.v 

THE ElCllEER YAQAZllE WD 3r4 

USA EIIQIIEER S611OOL 

FORT BELVOIR, VlROlRlA 22080 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

MIALTT FOR MIV4TE USE $300 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

THE ENGINEER MAGAZINE 

USA ENGINEER SCHOOL 

FORT BELVOIR, VIR61NlA 22060 

8. 	 Would you like to see more or less articles 

by the following groups (if you're already 

satisfied, leave blank) :' 

MORE ' 	 LESS 

Junior Enlisted 

Junior NCO 

Senior N CO 

Junior Officer 

Field Grade Officers 

General Officers 

9. 	 Would you like to see a pin-up girl or guy 

in THE ENGINEER? 


Neither 


Pin-up girl 


Pin-up guy 


Both 


10. 	 Do you have any comments, criticisms or 

suggestions for the magazine? 

11. 	 Can you name any articles which appeared 

in THE ENGINEER that particularly impressed you?