u.s. Army Engineer School 

573-563-8080 I DSN 676-8080 

COMMANDANT 

MG R.L. Van Antwerp 

563·6158 

<vanantwerpr @wood.army mif> 

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT 

BG William H. McCoy, Jr. 

563·6192 

<mccoyw @wood.army.mil> 

REGIMENTAL COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR 

CSM Clinton J. Pearson 

563·8060 

<pea rsonc @wood .army.mil> 

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT 

COL John (Pat) Leake 

563-8080 

«toekei tewood.ermy.mu» 

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT-USAR 

COL Gerald Lago 

563-8045 

<lagog @wood.army mil> 

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT-ARNG 

LTC Denn is V. Smith 

563·8046 

<sm ilh de@wood.army.mil> 

CHIEF OF STAFF 

LTC Pau l Grosskruger 

563-7116 

<paul.grosskruger@us.army mil> 

TRADOC SYSTEMS MANAGER for ENGINEER COMBAT SYSTEMS 

COL John H. Holler 

563·4081 

<hollerJ@wood.army.mil> 

TRADOC PROGRAM INTEGRATION OFFICE-TERRAIN DATA 

COL David A. Kingston 

563 -4086 

<kings lond@wood.army.mil> 

COMMANDER, 1st ENGINEER BRIGADE 

COL Paul W. Kelly 

596-0224 , DSN 581-0224 

<kellyp@ wood.army mll> 

DIRECTOR OFTRAINING 

COL Thomas E. O'Donovan 

563·4093 

<odocoventeewood.srmy.mit» 

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION 

Dr. Rebecca N. Johnson 

563-4119 

<joh nsonr@wood.army.mll> 

CHIEF OF DOCTRINE 

LTC Reinhard W. Koenig 

563 -7537 

<koenigr @wood.army mil> 

HUMANITARIAN DEMINING TRAINING CENTER 

Mr. Paul Arcangel i 

596·3869, DSN 581-3869 

<arcange/ip@ wood.army mil> 

COUNTER EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS CENTER 

Mr. Dorian D'Aria 

(573) 596-0131 , ext. 37347 

<dariad@ wood.army.mi/> 

By Order of the Secretary of the Arm y: 

PETER J. SCHOOMAKER 

General, United States Army 

Chief of Staff 

j:dtlU-J 

JOEL B. HUDSON 

Administrative Assistant to the 

Secre tary of the Army 

0412702 

Engineer (ISSN 0046 -1989) is prepared quarterly 

by the U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center, 320 

MANSCEN Loop, Suite 210. Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8929. Peri odicals postage is paid at 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and additional mailing offices. 

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to U.S. 

Army ManeuverSupport Center,AnN: ATZT-DT-DS-B 

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

Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8929. 

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

copies. and unit address changes should be sent to 

Engineer at the preceding address. Telephone: (573) 

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

is <engineer@wood.army mil>. Our Intern et home 

pag e is located at <http ://www.woo d.army mill 

engrmagl emag_hp.htm>. 

DISCLAIMER: Engineer presents professional information designed to keep U.S. military and civi lian engineers informed of current and emerging developmen ts within their areas of expertise for the purpose of enhancing their profes sional development. 

Views expressed are those of the authors and not 

those of the Department of Defense or its elements. 

The contents do not necessarily reflect official U.S. 

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

news items constitutes neither affirmation of their 

accu racy nor product endorsem ent. Engineer reserves the right to edit material. 

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

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

PERSONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS are available for 

$19.00 ($26.60 foreign) per year by contacting the 

Superintendent of Docume nts. P.O. Box 37 1954. 

Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania 15250-7954. 

ADDRESS CHANGES for personal subscriptions 

should be sent to the Superintendent of Documents , AnN: Mail List Branch , Mail Stop SSOM , 

Washington. D.C. 20402 
ENGI

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers

NEER

 Engineer 1

COMMANDANT

Major General

R.L. Van Antwerp

April-June 2004

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

By Major General R.L. Van Antwerp

03 Lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major Clinton J. Pearson

30 Regimental Awards

33 Engineer Writer’s Guide

FEATURES

04 Engineer Expeditionary Force Design Concepts—From Theory to Practice in

 Task Force Able

 By Colonel Christopher J. Toomey

07 Preparing the Engineer Brigade for Operation Iraqi Freedom

 By Colonel Don C. Young

12 Support Facilities for the Future Force

 By Mr. Larry Allen and Mr. Kirk McGraw

16 The Tale of Two Towers

By Second Lieutenant Ryan J. Johnson

19 Iraq Museum Reopens

By Staff Sergeant Conrad College

20 Bridging the Gap—Modernizing Army Bridge Units

By Lieutenant Colonel Andrew DiMarco

22 NCOs Train the Force

By Captain Maycros I. Baez

24 Integrating Mechanized and Combat Heavy Engineer Capabilities

By Captain James Beaulieu

26 The Tikrit River Bridge

By First Sergeant Gary Fioretti

28 A Day of My Life in Baghdad

By Sergeant First Class Ray Deering

31 Soldier Enhancement Program

By Sergeant Major Thomas House and Mr. Larry T. Hasty

32 Logistical Base Support for the Polish Multinational Division

By Captain Christopher S. Cooper

39 The Marauders: A Small-Scale Joint and Multinational Operation

By Major Ted Read

41 Is The Flag “Backward” on Soldiers’ Sleeves?

By Ms. Lisa Burgess

April-June 2004 Headquarters, Department of the Army Volume 34 PB 5-04-2

34 CTC Notes - “Force-on-Force Convoy STX Lane”

By Captain Christopher Kuhn (NTC)

35 CTC Notes - “Convoy Live-Fire Exercise”

By Captain Timothy R. Vail (NTC)

37 CTC Notes - “Geospatial Teams”

By Sergeant First Class Gregory T. Alston (NTC)

41 Environmental Compliance Officer (ECO) Course

UNITED STATES ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

Back Cover:

2d Engineer Battalion: A

view of Camp No. 1,

Dogan’s Farm Division

Headquarters. Photo

courtesy of the U.S.

Army Engineer School

History Office.

Front Cover:

Varied photos show the

roles of engineers.

MANAGING EDITOR

EDITOR

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Jennifer Morgan

Shirley Bridges

Rick Brunk
Clear The Way 

By Major General R.L. Van Antwerp 

Commandant, U.S. A nny Engineer School 

I can't tell you how much we enjoyed 

having you at ENFORCE this year. 

From my view, there was an excellent 

exchange of ideas and a hearty celebration 

of our Regiment and the accomplishments 

of our sappers and engineers . We were 

blessed because you came, and we're 

already looking forward to next year! 

Approximately 500 senior leaders attended the conference-leaders from active 

duty, reserve, and National Guard ; the Army 

Corps of Engineers; civilians from the Army 

Corps of Engineers; retired civilians and 

general officers; and engineer representatives from industry. Engineers from the Air 

Force, Navy. and Marine Corps all sent senior leaders, and delegates from Germany, France, Australia, 

Canada, and Great Britain attended as well. A big thank-you to 

all who did the heavy lifting and made it special. 

We were honored to have a wide variety of speakers at the 

conference: General Kevin Byrnes, Commanding General of 

TRADOC; Lieutenant General Bob Flowers, our Chief; Major 

General Richard Wightman, JointWarfighting Center, U.S. Joint 

Forces Command Deputy Commander; Major General David 

Melcher, Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation Directorate of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G8; Major General Ron 

Johnson , Commanding General, U.S. Deputy to the Program 

Management Office, Coalition Provisional Authority in 

Baghdad, Iraq ; Colonels John Peabody and Gregg M311in and 

a great intern ational panel of Colonel John W. Shanahan OBE , 

United Kingdom; Captain William C. McKerall, U.S . Navy; 

Colonel Bill Sowry, Australia ; Lieutenant Colonel Anthony 

Funkhouser, U.S. Army ; and Major Keith Cameron, Canada. 

The Regiment focused on how our Future Engineer Force 

will be designed to support joint and multinational operations. 

We were able to pull together the senior leadership and take a 

close look at how the Engineer Regiment needs to change to 

meet the structure of the Anny of the future, The conference 

breakout sessions were a great success in 

giving our developments folks the input they 

need from the field to plan the Future Engineer Force structure as a modular force. During the multinational operations breakout 

session, foreign-service delegates discussed 

common problems and concerns and proposed solutions, They also talked about engineer equipment and capabilities. 

At ENFORCE we set the stage to move 

toward a jointly trained and equipped engineer force capable of organizing and deploying to any area of operations and employing separately or as a joint force in 

support of the combatant commander. We 

need to become more efficient. We can all 

benefit from financial savings if we purchase equipment together or use one contractor or supplier. We are exploring 

ideas to find a way for the branches of service to work together better, even to the point of proposing an engineer joint 

training center. Ideally, we want a force that is made up of four 

services that are trained alike, equipped alike, and capable of 

supporting the warfighter in whatever way he needs . 

As this also becomes my farewell article, I challenge you 

to continu e this transformation and rebuilding that we 've begun. Much of what we're learning has been paid for by the 

sweat and blood of engineer soldiers. There have been times 

when the "book soluti on" didn't always work, but innovative 

and adaptive engineers found a way to get it done right anyway. Much of that was captured at ENFORCE and will be 

analyzed through the Center for Army Lessons Learned. 

As we remembered our fallen com rades in the historic 

World War II chapel next to our memorial grove, I thought of 

the great legacy we have and the sacrifices that have been 

made in our ranks. We owe it to them to do our very best for 

them and for our Army. Our Regiment is strong because theyand you-make it so. The sapper spirit is alive and welL 

Essayons ! 

First Lieutenant Doyle Hufstedler 

$peciallst Sean MitChell ' 

Specialist Michael Karr 

Private,FirstClass Clsston Raney 

PrivateBrandonDavis 

Specialist RichardTrevithiek 

Sergeant BrianWood 

Staft'SergeantAbraham Penamedina 

Specialist Isaac Nieves , ' , 

Staff Sergeant Oscar Vargas:M~ ina

Speclalist Ramon Ojeda 

'Specialist Ervin Caradine 

tst EnllJpeer Battalion, Fort Riley. Kansas 

1st Engineer Battalion,Fort Riley. Kansas 

1st Engineer Battalion, Fort Riley, Kansas 

1st Engineer Battalion,Fort Riley,Kansas 

tst Engineer Battalion. Fort Riley,Kansas 

9th EngineerBattalion, SchweinfUTt, Germany 

. 9th EngineerBatialion,Sehweinfurt, Germany 

20th Engineer Battalion, fort Hood.Texas 

82d EngineerBattalion, Bamberg, Germany 

841h Engineer Battalion.Schofield Barracks. Hewaii 

84thEngineer eattalion, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii 

9tstEngi~eer Battalion.Fort Hood, rexas 

PrivateJeremy Drexler 

Private First Class WillIam Strange 

SpecialistKyteBrinlee , 

SpecialistChristopher Gelineau 

Specialist Phiiip Brown 

Specialisl JamesHolmes 

SpecIalist Dennis Morgal'\ 

SergeantCory Brooks 

PrivateFirstClassThomasCaughman 

SpecialistDoran Chan 

Private First Class James Parker 

Private First Class Bert Hoyer 

91st Engineer Battalion, Fort Hood, Texas, 

91st Engineer Battalion, Fort Hood. Texas 

1'20thEngineerBattalion. Pryor,Oklahoma 

13;ld Engineer Battalion, Gardiner,Maine 

141st EnginoorHattalion, Jamestown,NOrth'Dakota 

141st Engineer Battalion. Hettinger, North Dakota 

153dEngineerBattalion,Winner,SouthDakoia 

153dEngineerBallalion. Winner,SouthDakota 

391s1,Engineer Battalion,Spartanburg. SouthCarolina 

411th Engineer Brigade, Win'dsar,New Yor'k' " 

5B8thEngineer Battalion,Fort Hood, Texas 

652dEngine'erCompany, Ellsworth, Wisconsin 

2 E ngineer April-June 2004 
Lead The Way 

By Command Sergeant Major Clinton J. Pearson 

U. S, Army Engineer School 

I wou ld like to take this opportunity to 

thank the command team of the l st Engineer Brigade for their efforts in making ENFORCE 2004 the succe ss that it was. 

Under the leadership of Colonel Paul Kelly 

and Command Sergeant Major Gerald Jones, 

the soldiers and civilians of the brigade 

sho wed their dedication to the mission by 

working tirelessly throughout the weeks 

leading up to and during the conference. 

And thanks to the Arm y Engineer Association (AEA) for its hour s of support throughout the week. A special thanks goes to Mrs . 

Nancy Gregory and her team in our Executive Services Office for the ir work . Thanks 

for all you continue to do for our great Regiment and for making ENFORCE 2004 such a success . 

Among the many events that took place during ENFORCE 

was the annual Council of Command Sergeants Major. It was 

gr eat to see so man y repres entatives from acros s the Regiment. Briefings ranged from Command Sergeant Major Michael 

Cline (5th Engineer Battalion) and Command Sergeant Major 

Greg Glen (555th Engineer Group ) speaking on lessons learned 

from Op erations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, to 

Ma ster Sergeant Sean Conner (Sapper Leader Cour se Nonco mmissioned Officer in Charge) giving a cour se update, to 

Master Sergeant Michael Bergeron and Staff Sergeant Richard Coo k briefing on mine/countermine and the Mine Dog 

Secti on . 

In concert with our ENFORCE theme , Forging our Future 

- Shaping Engineers f or Joint and Multinational Opera/ions, 

we were fortunate to have briefers from our sister services. 

Ma ster Sergeant Frank Miller (U. S. Marine Corps), Master 

Chief Thomas Babb (U .S. Navy), and Chief Master Sergeant 

Steven Fraher (U.5 . Air Force) provided updates that will bridge 

the gap between engineer capabilities in all services as our 

armed forces move into a new era of joint operations. 

One of the most deb ated briefings came from Lieutenant 

Colonel Bryan Watson. It drew a mixture of supp ort and dissent when he spoke on the Future Engineer Force , based on 

the White Paper on that subject. It is my sincere hope that we 

left this briefing with a better understanding that the Regiment must change now to support the combatant commander. 

The White Paper, which articul ates our vision for the Future 

Engineer Force, is consistent with the Army's transformation 

to a joint and expedit ionary force . 

Activities the rest of the week included the AEA Golf 

Scramble and the annual AEA luncheon. Honored guests at 

the luncheon were Major General Jack 

Waggener (Retired) and Command Sergeant 

Major Jack Butler (Retired), our out goin g 

Honorary Colonel and Command Sergeant 

Major of the Regiment. Receiving their 

charge as the incoming Honorary Colonel 

and Command Sergeant Major were Maj or 

General Pat Stevens (Retired) and Command 

Sergeant Major LeRoy Mello (Retired). Both 

were formally recognized at the 15th Engineer Regimental Dinner. We were fortunate 

to have Mr. Don Stivers, who unveiled his 

first-ever engineer print. Titled The Command Team, the print depicts the relationship between commander, command sergeant major, and their soldiers as they 

prepare to cross the line of departure. 

This year's Regimental Review/Regimental Muster featu red 

a special tribut e to Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers, 50th 

Chief of Engin eer s. Unbeknown to General Flowers, when the 

adjutant gave the command "Officers and Colors, Post." the 

col ors from all of General Flowers' previous units posted to 

the side of the reviewing stand. Also, during the "Pass and 

Review," General Flowers was joined on the reviewing stand 

by his wife Linda and honors were rendered to the entire Flow ­

ers famil y for all of their years of service, support , and dedication to the Engineer Regiment and the Army. They will surely 

be missed when he retire s this summer. 

The mo st explosi ve event was the Sapper Leader Course 

dem onstrati on after the Regimental Run . We also introduced 

a "Best Sapper" competition that will be held at Fort Leonard 

Wood on 22-25 April 2005 . Select and train your best sapper 

team for this new annual competition . 

Amon g those honored at the Regimental Dinner were the 

recipients of this year 's Regimental Awards. See page 30 for a 

list of the acti ve duty, reserve, and National Guard winners. 

Con gratulations to all of the se outstanding sappers . 

Wc took the time to hon or our fallen sappers during a 

solemn memorial ceremony at the Engineer Memorial Grove. 

Lieutenant Colonel Tony Funkhouser and Command Sergeant 

Major Michael Cline, command team of the 5th Engineer Battalion, recited the names of all our engineer comrades who 

have given their lives in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. This somber event served 

as a reminder that freedom isn 't free. We are forever in their 

debt , and our thoughts and prayers are with the familie s of 

every soldier who has paid the ultimate sacrifice. We continue 

to pray for those soldiers who are deployed in harm 's way. 

April-June 2004 Engineer 3 
4 Engineer April-June 2004

The Army is changing. Recent dramatic changes in the

Army force structure toward a modular force impel the

Engineer Regiment to change to stay relevant. We must

continue to contribute on a battlefield that bears little resemblance to the linear, Cold War environment in which most of

our engineer forces were structured to fight. Though we are

busy fielding Stryker-equipped engineer companies in the

Stryker brigade combat teams (SBCTs) and will develop

companies as integral parts to the maneuver-based brigade

units of action (UAs),1 the bulk of our Regiment must adapt to

the fundamentals of the future Army, (primarily at the unit of

employment [UE] level) that call for tailored, scalable, modular,

and responsive forces.2

Expeditionary Force Design Concept

The Regiment is exploring the engineer expeditionary

force design concept as a force structure framework

(Figure 1).3 At the tactical level, the concept proposes

combining engineer effects modules (EEMs)—building block

elements with well-defined skills—with command and control

(C2) elements into engineer mission teams (EMTs) that optimize

engineer effects for a specific mission. The concept envisions

a palette of EEMs that are dynamically task-organized into

EMTs to fight discrete engineer engagements and then are

reallocated by the engineer mission force (EMF), the

headquarters that orchestrates and synchronizes their efforts,

as the mission dictates.

It is a valid concept, but if it is exclusively tied to radical

changes in engineer unit structure, it must overcome friction

in the force development process. The long-term answer may

be to make new, purpose-built engineer forces. However, a

midterm solution is a mindset that engineer leaders can adopt

today to employ engineer expeditionary concepts using current

forces. The intellectual leap involves shedding the traditional

parent organization and rigid logistical tail approach to

employing engineer forces and turning available units into

By Colonel Christopher J. Toomey

Engineer Expeditionary Force Design Concepts—

From Theory to Practice in Task Force Able

Figure 1. Future Engineer Force Framework

EOD = Explosive ordnance disposal

LOC = Lines of communication

ME = Maneuver enhancement

RDE = Rapidly deployable earthmoving

RRR = Rapid runway repair

TPC = Theater protection command

UEx = Unit of employment (tactical)

UEy = Unit of employment (operational)
April-June 2004 Engineer 5

EEM packages that are combined into EMTs and used to fight

specific engineer engagements.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, the 555th Engineer Group

led the multifunctional and multicomponent Task Force Able

as an EMF integral in the 4th Infantry Division. It successfully

employed engineer expeditionary concepts with traditionally

organized combat and general engineering assets to execute

combat missions that not only enhanced the versatility and

agility of Task Force Able but increased its ability to contribute

to the division’s fight.

Starting in July 2003, Task Force Able aligned its forces to

create a menu of C2, sapper, vertical and horizontal

construction, bridge emplacement, and logistical EEMs that

were rapidly combined under C2 nodes to fight specific

engineer engagements and then disengaged as the mission

set changed. This required adopting a revised mental map of

engineer forces that transformed traditional organizations into

EEMs and EMTs. For example, rather than looking at a combat

heavy battalion as three combat heavy companies with a

headquarters, Task Force Able created a mental map of this

unit as a battalion-level C2 node, company-level EMT C2

nodes, and vertical and horizontal EEMs (Figure 2). Other units

were viewed similarly. A corps wheeled company was mapped

to consist of an EMT C2 node, three sapper EEMs, and a

horizontal construction EEM. Though EEMs execute specific

skills, early on it was deemed impractical to make them smaller

than platoons, given the nature of combat operations, force

protection requirements, and the need for small-unit cohesion.

From Theory to Practice

Building the Haight-Jordan Bridge

Named for two 14th Engineer Battalion soldiers who died

in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Haight-Jordan Bridge is a

Mabey-Johnson float bridge, more than 300 meters long, across

the Tigris River, south of Tikrit. Building the bridge included

developing a connecting road network and significant road

construction, as well as initiating force protection measures

and field fortifications during and after construction. To

accomplish this mission, Task Force Able employed engineer

expeditionary concepts. A company-level C2 node was

assigned the following EEMs: a horizontal construction module

for earthmoving, a bridge module for bridge erection, and a

combat engineer module for security and force protection.

None of these units came from the same company or battalion,

but represented the diversity of Task Force Able, with units

from all Army components—active, reserve, and National

Guard. The result was the seamless integration of all forces

and a successfully executed mission. Of particular note was

the C2 node that was in fact a corps wheeled company

headquarters. Its task was to integrate and orchestrate the

technical modules to accomplish the mission.

Figure 2. Mental Mapping Expeditionary Concept

DS = Direct support

HSC = Headquarters support company
6 Engineer April-June 2004

Forming Task Force Trailblazer

Combating improvised explosive devices (IEDs) along key

routes within the 4th Infantry Division’s area of operations

made it necessary to form Task Force Trailblazer. Established

around a battalion headquarters as a lieutenant colonel-level

EMT C2 node, Task Force Trailblazer was formed with company

EMT C2 nodes controlling mission-oriented surveillance,

security, and obstacle reduction modules from multiple

organizations. The C2 nodes used the modules in a plug-andplay mode that optimized their capabilities. Construction

equipment platoons coordinated with sapper platoons to clear

and grub roadway shoulders and medians to eliminate IEDs

and discourage future emplacement. Surveillance and security

modules were integrated to provide oversight and protection

along the routes during clearance operations and counterIED ambushes. The end state was fully optimized clearance

packages that could be moved easily about the battlefield to

respond to changing threats.

Lessons Learned–Keys to Success

Task Force Able gained early lessons learned from

incorporating engineer expeditionary concepts with

current engineer forces. As the task force reflects on

its role in Operation Iraqi Freedom and prepares for future

operations, it will continue to revise and assess these lessons.

Creating Multifunctional EMT C2 Nodes

Battalion and company leaders conducting operations with

Task Force Able freed themselves from traditional, unit-specific

jurisdictions. A bridge company headquarters was expected

to serve not only as an EMT for bridging operations but also

as an EMT C2 node for nearly any engineer operation. This

gave the task force commander greater flexibility since any

company could provide the C2 necessary for an EMT and,

given the appropriate EEMs, complete any engineer mission.

The commander could rapidly task-organize around assets

that either were not engaged or were near the mission location.

This became critical on a dispersed and dynamic battlefield

and required great agility on the part of the company-level

leaders, who had to transform from engineering specialists to

engineering generalists. Clearly, this application required a

touch of reality: a combat heavy EMT C2 node was best for a

construction engineer mission. Yet, multiple missions were

accomplished with EMT C2 nodes going “against type” in

directing a variety of EEMs.

Building Flexible EEMs

Battalions and companies were charged with developing

truly plug-and-play EEMs from their platoons. This developed

over time, and success varied among units.

 Units must tailor their logistics and free their units from

logistical constraints. The task force and subordinate

battalions became adept at providing combat service

support to a variety of EEMs, and moving logistical EEMs

became routine. Maintenance was the toughest area to

resolve. Units profited from an understanding of the

maintenance requirements of all EEMs. Task Force Able

relieved maintenance shortfalls by aggressive use of mobile

maintenance teams and the development of transferable,

EEM-specific prescribed load lists (PLLs) that could

accompany units.

 Units must ensure that communications and standard

operating procedures (SOPs) are compatible, consistent,

and streamlined. Faced with a multicomponent force, Task

Force Able had to reallocate communications assets and

work hard to develop consistent SOPs and protocols

that helped ensure continuity across the task force. There

were hiccups, but over time an EEM from one battalion

could easily work with an EEM from another battalion as

part of an EMT.

 Units must establish protocols to rapidly integrate EEMs

into EMTs, with the burden placed on the EMT C2 node.

These bonding techniques, based on enhanced leader

battlefield circulation and staff focus on integration, placed

incredible demands on the unit leadership.

Task Force Able built the Haight-Jordan Bridge across the Tigris River, south of Tikrit.
April-June 2004 Engineer 7

How does a unit prepare for stability operations and

support operations (SOSO) missions with highintensity conflict operations occurring daily? This

article incorporates the initial lessons learned from the 1st Armored

Division (1AD) Engineer Brigade operations in Baghdad and

recent observer-controller trends used to prepare an engineer

brigade headquarters during a division command post (CP)

exercise for a follow-on Operation Iraqi Freedom-designated

deployment. The article focuses on three key themes: mission

areas, CP operations, and predeployment training.

Mission Areas

T.

he figure below outlines the five baseline mission areas

that an engineer brigade (or division engineer in the

case of a light division) must influence for the mission

success of the division. Some may classify them as “glass

balls,” but I would rather treat them as mission-essential task

list items. This enables the engineer brigade and subordinate

units such as sapper battalions and assigned echelon-abovedivision (EAD)/echelon-above-corps (EAC) units to conduct

further mission analysis to identify the battle tasks required

for engineers at all levels. These battle tasks and their

information management requirements will drive the structure,

operations, and systems of the engineer brigade CPs: engineer

main (EMAIN), assistant division engineer (ADE), engineer

tactical action center (ETAC), and engineer rear (EREAR). Once

engineer leaders understand the missions of the Operation

Iraqi Freedom theater and how to run the engineer CPs, they

can focus the predeployment training program on the essential

individual and collective tasks required for mission success.

The engineer brigade must configure itself to handle

simultaneously the role of the five mission areas. Each one

must be treated separately with fully assigned assets for

command and control responsibility. A construction

Preparing the Engineer Brigade

for Operation Iraqi Freedom

By Colonel Don C. Young

“Engineers are everywhere! No matter where I go in Baghdad, I see engineers hard at work, doing a wide variety of missions.”

—Brigadier General Martin Dempsey

 Commander, 1st Armored Division

 16 July 2003

Baseline Mission Areas Engineers Must Influence
8 Engineer April-June 2004

management section (CMS) is an absolute necessity, whether

augmented from a combat or construction engineer group or

combat heavy battalion headquarters or fielded “out of hide”

with school-trained engineer officers and senior noncommissioned officers assigned to the brigade headquarters.

Also, the use of liaison officer augmentation at key locations

will enhance situational awareness and parallel planning. In

our case, the EMAIN often was able to inform the division

main CP about engineer missions about to be assigned to the

division from Coalition Joint Task Force-7 (CJTF-7)/Coalition

Provisional Authority (CPA) because of the highly effective

use of liaison officers. Another area of interest is contract

construction completed by many different programs and

“colors” of money. The key to success is the ability to access,

track, and influence the division priorities with construction

contracting capabilities within the commanders’ discretionary

funds, civil affairs, the CPA, and the Gulf Region Division.

The engineer brigade civil affairs officer (S5) pays big

dividends for the EMAIN. The S5’s interaction with the

Assistant Chief of Staff, G5 (Civil Affairs), the division CivilMilitary Operations Center (CMOC), and civil affairs units will

help identify and obtain construction contracts and hard-toget Class IV supplies. In some cases, sapper battalions are

attached to their brigade combat team (BCT) headquarters.

Even under this type of command and support relationship,

the force provider role of supplying trained and ready forces

never ends for the division engineer. Therefore, the engineer

brigade commander (or division engineer) retains the essential

responsibilities for maintaining engineer equipment, supplying

force protection barrier material, and providing construction

and additional sapper capabilities. A key element to success is

sapper battalion reporting (dual chains of command) and

functional area stovepipe requirements that must remain in

effect to maximize engineer support across the entire division

sector. The Assistant Division Commander (Support), the

Division Support Command (DISCOM), and the Assistant

Chief of Staff, G4 (Logistics), will also look to the engineer

brigade for expertise and leadership on base camp master

planning, Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP)

contract interface, facility preparation work, and priorities for

Class IV transport and issue.

One last area that the engineer brigade must take the lead

on is improvised explosive device (IED) database tracking;

predictive analysis; and tactics, techniques, and procedures

(TTP) trend identification through coordination with explosive

ordnance disposal (EOD) units, the Assistant Chief of Staff,

G2 (Intelligence), the analysis and control element (ACE), and

the BCT engineers. The brigade intelligence officer with AllSource Analysis System-Light capability in the EMAIN

provides IED expertise throughout the division.

CP Operations

T.

he basic layout of the engineer CPs must be structured

to handle the full spectrum of combat operations. Our

crossing force headquarters configuration for the

EMAIN facilitated the CP expansion for this deployment. Force

modernization will include the usual problems of transitioning

from analog to digital systems, coupled with the challenges of

transitioning CPs from high-intensity conflict to SOSO

missions. Information management is the key system for

ensuring success by enabling the commander to “see himself.”

Identifying the critical information requirements is essential

to streamlining the wide variety of data that comes into a CP

daily and then deciding what to do with it. One way to achieve

this objective is to establish a common operational picture

(COP) that aligns and synchronizes all four engineer CPs,

especially for informing the division command group. It can

include digital maps, but map images alone will not help the

division engineer to influence the division fight. One invaluable

option is the “brigade snapshot” (shown in the table on page

9). This one-page document enables the brigade commander

and subordinate commanders to see themselves and to quickly

outline problem areas. It drives the information management

process, to include critical collection efforts. Coupled with the

rolling battlefield update briefing slides and current missions

on sector maps, the four engineer brigade CPs remain

synchronized and focused with the same engineer COP.

Predeployment Training

Units will struggle with the mandatory Coalition Forces

Land Component Command (CFLCC) and major

command training requirements to be accomplished

before deployment and those required during reception,

staging, onward-movement, and integration (RSOI). Based on

our experience in Baghdad, leaders should focus on the

following “Big 8” areas of predeployment training for all

engineer units:

Weapons Familiarization

Every soldier is a rifleman first. Help your soldiers become

comfortable with their weapons. Go to the range as often as

possible and practice reflexive fire techniques, both mounted

and dismounted. Like it or not, engineers are performing a lot

of infantry tasks in Iraq.

Convoy Live-Fire Training

Soldiers must be accustomed to firing their weapons while

mounted. This should be practiced before entering the theater.

Scenarios can include ambushes along obstructed routes, IED

attacks, IED attacks followed by rocket-propelled grenade and

small arms fire, attacks by single or multiple snipers, and

mounted or dismounted suicide bombers. Each scenario

contains a unique set of challenges and appropriate

counterreactions.

Extra Crew-Served Weapons Gunner Qualification

There is always a shortage of qualified gunners for tactical

movements and patrols. Double-qualify so you can

continue the mission while allowing the crew to rest. Include

squad automatic weapons in this effort.

10 Engineer April-June 2004

IED/Unexploded Ordnance

Ensure that every soldier has situational awareness, the

ability to recognize a multitude of devices, an understanding

of force protection measures, and the TTP for enemy

employment.

Antiterrorism Training

The focus is on how to design secure forward operating

bases. Engineers are expected to be the experts, but few have

received any training on minimum standoff distances for

various IEDs and how to effectively design and emplace

protective measures against vehicle and suicide bomber

attacks. Capitalize on the talents and resources of the Engineer

Research and Development Center via TeleEngineering or other

means, when appropriate.

Engineer and EOD Interaction

Clearly define the sapper role versus the EOD role for the

various types of joint missions being performed in theater.

Use of Demolitions

Validate every sapper and engineer, regardless of military

occupational specialty, on demolition procedures. They will

definitely use them in Iraq. Include in this training the proper

manner to safely destroy captured munitions without causing

second-order hazards.

Physical Fitness

Emphasize upper-body strength and long-distance runs to

provide the fitness needed to endure the heat and the tempo

of operations.

Mission Success

The Big 8 will pay huge dividends for your unit as an

enduring foundation for a year-long deployment.

Additionally, leaders must oversee focused planning

to establish systems within each engineer brigade CP and to

complete required cross-leveling to handle daily requirements.

Consider the following areas for ensuring mission success:

 Integration of EAD engineer units into the division (taskorganized Active Component/Reserve Component assets)

and mission planning for other EAD/EAC engineer assets

conducting a short-term mission in the division sector.

 Use of division terrain teams in support of five BCTs

(urban operation products) maximized.

 Role of the ADE in the division targeting effects process

and operations and plans.

 Creation of a CMS (out of hide) for the EMAIN. This must

include battle-tracking techniques for contract

construction and troop construction projects.

 Operation of the Class IV yard instead of leaving it to the

DISCOM or main support battalion to run a division-level

yard for force protection and construction materials.

 Maintenance support of construction equipment (beyond

sapper unit modified table of organization and equipment

[MTOE]) and special engineer equipment in the sapper

battalions.

 Security, repair, and upgrade of existing infrastructure

(water, power, sewer, airports, zoos, and bridges).

 Assured mobility through bridge replacement planning

and main supply route upgrades.

 Predictive analysis of IED and UXO use by the enemy.

 Use of the ETAC on CPA/ CJTF-7/division priority project

sites.

 Command and control of MK2 bridge boats for river

patrols.

 Request for information and force request process to the

next higher engineer headquarters.

 Use of the up-armored D9 and mine-clearing armorprotected (MCAP) D7 dozers (TTP).

 Use of casualty tracking/reporting (doctrinal use, as well

as use of alternative channels).

 Use of EREAR manning versus rear area engineer

responsibilities.

 Best utilization of an assigned engineer group

headquarters.

 Use of the corps wheeled battalion across the division

sector.

 Use of patrol and tactical road march briefs and operations.

 Reaction to contact (mounted and dismounted, direct/

indirect/ambush).

 Knowledge of unit basic loads and vehicle movement load

plans.

 Utilization of contracting/field ordering officer/Class

A agent.

 Security plans of every operation with internal engineer

assets.

 Use of engineer liaison element with the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers division, the CMOC, the CPA, and attached

maneuver units (beyond the normal three BCTs).

Conclusion

The Engineer Regiment is fully engaged in the Iraq

theater of operations. An example is shown in the

photo on page 11. It depicts sappers from a Reserve

Component EAD unit—the 1457th Engineer Battalion (Corps)

(Wheeled), Utah Army National Guard, task-organized to the

1AD Engineer Brigade—working on a war-damaged

suspension cable on the 14th of July Bridge, now called the

Freedom Bridge. The repair design was done through reachback

capability to the U.S. Army Engineer Research and

Development Center at Vicksburg, Mississippi, via the brigade

TeleEngineering Toolkit, while the BCT sappers provided

security and logistical support to the EAD unit operating in

their BCT sector. Materials to repair the bridge were fabricated

by soldiers from the 1457th, who have extensive military and
civilian experience with such tasks. This is an important point

to note as Reserve Component soldiers bring a wealth of

expertise from their civilian professions and experiences. The

heavy-gauge cable for the repair was obtained by the 1AD

Engineer Brigade logistics officer through a local vendor.

Initiative and re-sourcefulness by engineer leaders focused

on logistics resources are paramount in missions of this nature.

The synchronization and resourcing of engineer operations

from the sapper squad to the contracting support of infrastructure rebuilding in a division area of operations fall to the

engineer brigade commander (or division engineer). The current

engineer brigade MTOE and doctrine must be adapted for

mission success in Iraq and future theaters of operation.

Operation Desert Storm in Iraq, Operation Joint Endeavor in

Bosnia, and Operation Iraqi Freedom clearly outline the need

for, and added value of, having an engineer brigade organic to

a heavy division. We must prepare our young engineer leaders

for the challenge to make them flexible for future operations as

our senior leaders on the ground. They are our future and are

vital to ensuring that engineers remain as superb value-added

to the combined arms team. Essayons!

Colonel Young serves as executive officer to the deputy

commanding general of U.S. Army, Europe. He was the commander of the 1AD Engineer Brigade from July 2001 to July

2003. The brigade tripled in size with the addition of EAD/EAC

engineer units following the transfer of authority with Engineer

Brigade, 3d Infantry Division, in Baghdad in May 2003. A

graduate of the U.S. Army War College, he holds a bachelor’s in

civil engineering from Vanderbilt University and a master’s in

civil engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology and

is a certified professional engineer in Virginia.

April-June 2004 Engineer 11

Sappers work on a war-damaged suspension cable

on the 14th of July Bridge, now called the Freedom

Bridge.

Training the Battle Staffs

It was essential to train Task Force Able’s battle staffs to

accommodate dynamic task organization to ensure that the

EMTs were properly integrated and resourced. This required

extensive training, and the task force developed an in-theater

program—executed concurrently with combat operations—

to train them. After-action reviews that focused on the

application of EMF principles were essential. Units that train

for a traditional, pretransformational, echelons-above-corps

role were most challenged in retooling their battle staffs.

However, all units made the transition.

Ensuring Cohesive Senior Leadership

Leadership at the task force and battalion levels was

essential to the successful implementation of EMF concepts

and the success of Task Force Able. Battalion leaders had to

stop thinking in terms of “their” units, assume a broader task

force identity, and become dedicated to ensuring that uniformly high Task Force Able standards were applied. All

soldiers and junior leaders required coaching, counseling, and

mentoring. It was a challenge to maintain unit identity, ensure

that administrative actions were accomplished, and foster

critical home station threads such as family readiness groups.

Yet, a great result of employing EMF concepts was a more

cohesive senior leadership that was extremely familiar with

the breadth of task force operations.

Conclusion

As the Army moves to greater modular forces, the

Engineer Regiment should not wait for radical changes

in its current echelon-above-division and echelonabove-corps force structure to align itself with emerging

concepts. As shown in recent combat operations, engineer

soldiers and leaders are equal to the challenge. Engineer

organizations, once liberated from traditional employment

concepts, can embrace transformational concepts and embark

on the road to more modular, agile, and responsive forces.

Colonel Toomey commands the 555th Engineer Group at

Fort Lewis, Washington. He is a graduate of the U.S. Military

Academy, the Naval War College, and MIT. He has had

numerous command and staff assignments, to include

Commander, 14th Engineer Battalion, Fort Lewis,

Washington.

Endnotes

1 Unit of Employment (UE) Operations White Paper,

Training and Doctrine Command Analysis Center (TRAC), 23

January 2004, p. 39.

2

 Ibid, p. 12.

3

 Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Watson, Future Engineer Force

Brief, U.S. Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood,

Missouri, 27 February 2004.

(“Force Design Concepts,” continued from page 6.)
12 Engineer April-June 2004

Evolving Future Force doctrine focuses on executing

decisive offensive and defensive combat operations—

winning the war—but little thought has been given to

Future Force missions such as stability and support—winning

the peace—and to operational support facilities1 needed at all

levels of conflict. The logistics community will doctrinally drive

support facility requirements. The U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers will drive site selection, construction technologies,

and environmental concerns. The U.S. Army Maneuver

Support Center (MANSCEN) schools—Engineer, Military

Police, and Chemical—will drive the doctrine, organization,

training, materiel, leader development, personnel, and facilities

(DOTMLPF) requirements for site selection, construction,

environmental concerns, and all aspects of protection for these

facilities.

This article attempts to translate current and past force

requirements for base camps and supply depots into the

context of the still-evolving Future Force. By doing so,

requirements for future support facilities2

 can be determined

and provided for as the Future Force evolves. As the Future

Force gains more definition, the true requirement for future

support structures will also gain more definition. The purpose

of this article is to start discussion about Future Force support

facility needs.

A Historical Perspective

Armies have always needed and used base camps and

supply depots. Valley Forge was a base camp where

General George Washington’s men wintered over to

wait for better fighting conditions. City Point, Virginia, was

General Ulysses S. Grant’s supply depot for the Battle of

Petersburg. Base camps and supply depots were located all

across Vietnam, and the Army is using base camps today in

South Korea, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Base camps and supply depots served four basic purposes

for past armies:

 Buildup, drawdown, and stockpiling.

 Lodging and planning (to include beddown and feeding).

 Protection.

 Cultural separation (for example, separating American

troops from defeated adversaries, such as Germans at the

end of World War II, or from different cultures, such as

American troops in the Muslim world today).

While each of those tasks might be handled without them

(the British commandeered civilian housing during the

Revolutionary War, for example), base camps provide the

best overall solution.

The Future Force

As a “joint force,” the Future Force is compatible with

the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. The joint force

concept is more than a simple deconfliction of servicespecific operations. It is the “warfare of combinations”

extended beyond a single service and reaching down to the

tactical level. This implies interoperable forces within each

service for operational efficiency and interdependent forces

among services for maximum effectiveness when combined.

These forces are focused on leveraging the best potential

tools of speed, operational reach, staying power, and precision

offered by the strengths of each service. The very nature of

“jointness” must be rooted in trust and commitment among

the services.

 As an expeditionary force, the Future Force goes beyond

rapid deployment on short-duration missions. There is also a

critical endurance aspect to our expeditionary force mindset.

It must be both responsive to crisis and capable of sustained

engagement—able to fight at multiple points on arrival,

particularly in the austere environments that will likely be the

norm. An expeditionary force can contend with the uncertainty

over when and where it will be deployed and what it will be

asked to accomplish. It is comfortable fighting for information

versus depending on fighting with information. It is made up

of adaptable formations and operations, not trained and

equipped for a known array of predictable threats. An

expeditionary force can contend with profound changes in

the context and character of the conflict.

The Future Force is designed to fight with minimal forces,

but with maximum technology that tracks friendly and enemy

operations. This will allow the Future Force to identify the

threat and reduce it almost simultaneously. Future Force

concepts project at most a medium, unified force with light,

highly lethal, highly dependable weapons systems. Heavy

forces will not be required.

Army plans for the Future Force call for rapidly deploying

a modular force into a theater of operations ready for combat,

where it will then engage in short, high-intensity fights enabled

by its superior lethality and situational awareness and

understanding. The Future Force will bring everything it

Support Facilities

for the Future Force

By Mr. Larry Allen and Mr. Kirk McGraw
April-June 2004 Engineer 13

needs, eliminating the need for a buildup of supplies, personnel,

and equipment. It will develop the situation out of contact,

either at its home station or en route. This will allow it to “see

first, understand first, and act first” through superior

intelligence, information management, and collaborative

planning. It will finish decisively by executing strategic and/

or operational maneuver to strike the enemy’s center of gravity

at the decisive time and place. This force will be able to engage

in combat operations 30 minutes after landing and sustain

itself for a number of days during combat operations. During

this time, the unit of action (UA) will be self-sustaining until it

can replenish in stride or rotate to a “UA recycling point”

provided by the next higher organization, the unit of

employment (UE). The UE supplies subordinate UAs through

multiple entry points within its operating radius and with a 48-

to 72-hour planning horizon. The UE accomplishes force

protection through decentralized, highly mobile operations

occurring along multiple routes, relying on superior situational

awareness and understanding, maneuverability, and standoff

engagement. Future Force support facilities are to be pushed

back at least to intermediate staging bases (ISBs) and optimally

to the continental United States.

Need for Support Facilities

The Future Force logistics concept emphasizes velocity

over mass, meaning that an agile, high-speed inventory

in motion will be used rather than building large intheater stockpiles. The Future Force will be resupplied and

sustained during additional combat operations through

“pulsed logistics” rather than by conventional, linear

techniques. These operational parameters imply that the UE

must be able to rapidly identify potential sites for critical

command and control and sustaining nodes and develop a

sustainment infrastructure with so little effort and materiel that

it can be abandoned if need be.

But there are reasons why support facility contingency

plans should be incorporated into each operations plan:

 Until the entire Army is modernized to Future Force

standards, including reserve, maneuver support, and

maneuver sustainment elements, support facilities will be

needed to support the current force modules, including

joint forces. For example, the Army is charged with providing

supplies to Marine Corps forces ashore for any duration

over 30 days. Also included are our allies and other coalition

forces. Each will require support facilities for their operations

if they are not at Future Force standards. Standard

reception, staging, onward movement, and integration

(RSOI) protocols would apply in these cases and may for

some time bleed over into the Future Force.

 It may be necessary to use support facilities to redeploy

forces, liberate a country, or sustain postwar recovery

efforts by using them as training facilities to reestablish a

police force or military in the country. U.S.-led conflicts

may devolve into occupation (in the case of Germany and

Japan at the end of World War II) or long-term support (in

the case of South Korea) and almost always devolve into

reconstruction. Unless that reconstruction is to be

performed entirely by contractors (and given the nature of

postconflict casualties in Iraq, that is unlikely), then certain

Army and joint forces will be needed to perform or supervise

that reconstruction. While it can be argued that the Future

Force will surgically remove the threat with precision effects

without creating mass damages from war operations, that

has not been the case in Iraq, where weapons with accuracy

approaching Future Force precision were used. Further,

Advanced technologies will reduce site preparation time and logistics

requirements, enabling support elements to keep pace with maneuver units.
14 Engineer April-June 2004

adversaries may not feel constrained to limit damages and

could adopt a scorched-earth policy.

 The current force corollary to the Future Force UA is the

small, self-contained force, such as Army Special Forces

and Navy SEALs. These forces do not need support

facilities when they are in the operational environment,

but they do need support facilities located in safe havens

for planning and resupply. The Future Force is likely to

follow this pattern, but with endurance as a core

competency, for up to 72 hours. Units will then be cycled

out of the fight for replenishment, and it is neither practical

nor desirable to expose exhausted troops to a long march

back to their point of entry (which may not be controlled).

 There are finite numbers of aircraft and ships available for

force projection missions. Rather than increasing during a

conflict, this number is likely to go down as other needs

arise and as damage occurs. Maintenance also drives the

number of aircraft and ships available and is directly

proportional to their use. The more sorties flown by a C-17

and the more landings it makes on primitive or unimproved

airfields, the more maintenance will be required on that

aircraft. Navy vessels have similar constraints. For those

reasons, the Air Force will want improved airfields and the

Navy will want improved ports and harbors as soon as

possible, thus leading to the development of support

facilities for security, storage, and maintenance. Air Force

RED HORSE and PRIME BEEF units are not configured for

large-scale construction efforts. Construction is, and will

probably remain, an Army responsibility. The Army is also

responsible for port construction.

 The requirement to care for enemy prisoners of war (EPW)

and displaced persons will continue to require support

facilities.

 The scenario of the fight may change after arrival, creating

the need for a longer stay and for a support facility.

 Not all battles, conflicts, or wars will end quickly, thus

establishing the need for support facilities for efforts such

as military operations other than war and foreign

humanitarian assistance.

 If the goal of an effort is a regime change, then additional

assistance will be needed to fill the ensuing vacuum and to

help ensure the success of the new regime.

What Might Be Needed

T.

here will be a constant need for force beddown,

logistics support, medical treatment, internment, and

refugee holding facilities to sustain Army operations

in the contemporary operating environment. Currently, with

few exceptions, this sustainment infrastructure must be in place

or in the process of being built before any force deployment

and must remain in place to sustain operations. As the force

transitions to the Future Force, there will still be a requirement

for sustainment infrastructure before or during any force

deployment. This up-front requirement will decrease as the

Army transitions to the Future Force because of its embedded

sustainment capabilities. However, it is likely that the Future

Force will always require some form of in-theater infrastructure

to sustain operations. Otherwise, where would EPWs be

interned and refugees be sent? What about logistics support

to multinational or coalition forces not organized along Future

Force lines? Where will the pulsed logistics support originate,

and how will it meet customs requirements to redeploy? That

is not to say that support facilities will not change from today’s

norm. These facilities must be scalable, must reduce the

logistics tail, must consider the environment, and must leverage

technology to develop solutions out of contact. They are most

likely to be built and maintained by military engineers and

contractors. To enable the Future Force, there will be varying

levels of support facilities. Existing facilities will be used where

available; and where they are not available, tentage and other

temporary structures will be used. Only in the direst of

circumstances will new construction take place.

The largest support facility would be an ISB, a 10,000- to

20,000-person installation in a relatively safe location with a

high level of infrastructure, heavily supported by contractors.

This would be the most permanent of the three levels of

facilities, and would use existing facilities if possible. If that is

not possible, then temporary facilities would start with tentage

and range upward to more permanent construction such as

Force Provider modules, Southeast Asia (SEA) huts,3

 trailers,

containers, concrete masonry units, and existing buildings.

Examples of these ISBs from past experience include England

serving as the staging area for Allied forces preparing to invade

Europe in World War II, Okinawa serving as a giant supply

depot for the Vietnam War, and Saudi Arabia providing support

facilities for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

A much smaller type of support facility could be called a

forward operating base (FOB). Because the surrounding

population might not be friendly, these facilities would need

to be as self-sufficient as possible. These 100- to 200-person

temporary installations would be small fortresses with high

levels of self-sustaining infrastructure and might be located in

unstable locations for peacekeeping and other operations.

The most flexible type of support facility might be called a

forward operating location (FOL). These locations would be

flexible 50- to 500-person temporary facilities in the battle zone

but not near openly hostile areas. Very light temporary shelters

and a tight sensor perimeter would characterize them.

Each of these facilities (and they probably are not limited

to just three types) will likely change over time. Facility design

and construction will be governed by the time available, the

size of the force supported, and the duration of operations.

The size of the engineer force available will also be factored

into design and construction standards. Initial entry might

require a number of FOLs to control key objectives. These

would change over time into larger establishments with more

facilities and creature comforts. What would distinguish them

from today’s norm would be their ability to be moved from one

site to another as the situation dictated. As has been seen in
April-June 2004 Engineer 15

Iraq, overhead protection from mortars and rocket-propelled

grenades is likely to remain a constant.

Technologies must be developed that will enable the UE to

quickly and flexibly establish support facilities. These

technologies will reduce logistics requirements by selecting

sites that best meet unit-tailored requirements and provide

modular, lightweight, redeployable shelter systems and

minimize site preparation. This will allow the Future Force to—

 Generate a set of sites ranked according to the commander’s

priorities, such as force protection, proximity to water, and

availability of construction materials and equipment.

 Develop a mission-specific site plan with integrated force

protection.4

 Construct lightweight, low-cost, all-weather shelters using

innovative techniques such as thin-shell composite

structures that provide SEA hut performance

characteristics with a fraction of the resources. The

technical challenge is to identify material solutions meeting

functional criteria such as cost, weight, density, and fire

rating and construction criteria such as low effort,

modularity, and redeployability.

Future support facilities are likely to share a number of

characteristics. They may—

 Be joint.

 Be expeditionary.

 Have a smaller footprint.

 Be dispersed.

 Be relatively self-sustaining, capable of independent

operation with built-in water production, power

production, and waste treatment/disposal independent of

local materials and labor.

 Be quickly erected modular designs.

 Require minimal site preparation.

 Be mobile, with minimal lift/transportation assets or organic

means.

 Have plug-and-play modules capable of rapid expansion,

contraction, and upgrades.

 Be rapidly assembled and disassembled by a small workforce

or remote-controlled robots.

 Have built-in force protection, to include sensors, selfdefense capability, lethal and nonlethal weapons;

passive force protection measures such as standoff

distance, dispersion, barriers, and overpressure protection

against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear

hazards; and perhaps be capable of providing their own

360-degree hemispherical protection, to include

protection for fuels, munitions, and aircraft.

 Be capable of incorporation with existing structures.

 Use local materials and labor where they are available.

 Be environmentally friendly, to include self-contained waste

treatment plants and “cradle-to-grave” site management.

 Be able to incorporate modern inventory control

techniques, such as just-in-time arrival and throughput

with minimum storage of supplies.

 Be able to provide sustainment support to the force

immediately upon entry into the theater.

Conclusion

The Future Force will provide capabilities unmatched

by today’s Army. It will be a highly flexible, mobile, and

lethal force on tomorrow’s battlefield. But its

centerpiece will still be the service member, who requires

periodic rest to maintain the edge provided by superior

technology. Support facilities will adapt to Future Force needs

and those of the geographic location, proximity to the fight,

and expected longevity. But the Future Force will not succeed

without support facilities to repair battle damage, rest troops,

and sustain noncombat operations. That is why it is so

important that we start today to define the Future Force’s

support facility needs.

Mr. Allen is the research program liaison from the Engineer

Research and Development Center to the U.S. Army Engineer School

and the Maneuver Support Center. He holds a bachelor’s in public

administration from Southwest Missouri State University at

Springfield and a master’s in journalism from the University of

Missouri at Columbia. He is a graduate of the U.S. Army Command

and General Staff College, the National Security Management Course

of the National Defense University, and the Army Management Staff

College. He served with the 4th Infantry Division in Vietnam and

with the 1st Infantry Division in Germany.

Mr. McGraw is the Project Manager for Forward Facilities Footprint

Optimization at the Engineer Research and Development Center’s

Construction Engineering Research Labortory. His current research

areas include remote-sensing technologies, site selection, base camp

planning, and Class IV (construction) planning factors. He holds

bachelor’s and master’s degrees in mechanical engineering from the

University of Texas at El Paso.

Endnotes

1

 Just as the UA and UE concepts provide a way to look

beyond current force structure, the term “support facility” is

used in this article to describe Future Force base camp and

supply depot requirements.

2 In conjunction with this discussion, the issue of airfield

improvements may require a forward presence before entry to

improve airfields to the minimum acceptable level for Air Force

certification.

3

 SEA huts were first designed for the Vietnam War.

4

 This could require reachback to U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers assets (field force engineering) to assist with site

layouts requiring minimal construction effort. Constraint-based

layout techniques will support dynamic reconfiguration to

account for the effects of terrain.
16 Engineer April-June 2004

Charlie Company, 52d Engineer Battalion (Heavy),

attached to 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne

Division, received the mission to build two rappel

towers for the division’s Air Assault School at Qayyarah West

(Q-West) Airfield, Iraq. Charlie Company is an Army Reserve

unit with headquarters and two platoons at Fort Carson,

Colorado, and a detachment that includes

earthmoving and maintenance troops

located at Santa Fe, New Mexico. The

company’s 2d Platoon (with help from the

maintenance troops) had six weeks to

design and construct the towers. The goal

was to replicate the tower at Fort Campbell,

Kentucky, but resources and time would not

permit that. Instead, the engineers used an

existing tower for the main tower and pieced

together a smaller tower from a container

express (CONEX) frame and a radar dish

housing.

Every rappel tower must have a solid

foundation to withstand the forces that act

upon it. The foundation of the existing tower

was two flatbed railcars positioned side by

side. The tower sat on two 9-inch steel Ibeams that connected the rail cars. This

foundation seemed solid, yet when the

engineers first saw the tower, it was 45 feet

off the rails. The railcars, and hence the

tower, had to be moved back into position.

Using three D7 dozers and a heavy

expanded-mobility tactical truck (HEMTT)

wrecker, the platoon moved the railcars back

onto the rails without damaging the tower.

At this point, Charlie Company’s design

team ensured that the tower was structurally

sound before making any modifications.

The tower was fabricated using 6- by

6- by 1/4-inch angle iron with both pinned

and fixed connections. The four vertical

members were welded at the base to the

9-inch I-beams that connected the two

railcars. The tower consisted of five sections

that were 9 feet 10 inches by 8 feet 8 inches

and connected by steel plates with bolted

connections. Each plate consisted of eight

1/2-inch-diameter bolts, where two plates connected two

vertical members. Cross-bracing and horizontal members

between each section were 2- by 2- by 1/2-inch angle iron.

After a visual inspection and mathematical structural analysis,

leaders decided to use the existing tower as the starting point

for the main tower.

The Tale of Two Towers

By First Lieutenant Ryan J. Johnson

Charlie Company, 52d Engineer Battalion, completed this 43-foot main

tower for rappel training at Q-West Airfield, Iraq.
April-June 2004 Engineer 17

Many modifications had to be made. To

prevent the tower from moving, the railcars

were welded to the rails, the brakes were

welded closed, and the tension cables were

refastened and tightened. Before any

construction could take place, the design

team had to ensure that the tower would

not tip over from the wind or the force of

rappelling students. Leaders found the

tower to be sufficiently supported by the

railcars.

As these modifications took place, the

design team worked to complete the tower.

The first area to be addressed was the

wooden stairs, which had to be strong and

safe. A zigzag design with a landing between

each flight ensured that the least space

possible would be used. The vertical

members were 4- by 6-inch rough-cut lumber

joined by a 1/2- by 18-inch steel pole through

the center of each member with a 2- by 6- by

18-inch lumber splice on each face. The stair

risers and treads were cut from 2- by 10-inch

material. At completion, the system consisted

of 11 landings with 12 sets of stairs.

The landing area needed room enough for

the rappellers to land and for the belay person

to maneuver. The problem was that the railcar

was 5 feet off the ground and did not provide

enough space for soldiers to maneuver. The

solution was to build a platform on top of

the railcar that would accommodate students

and instructors. The design for the platform

was similar to a deck raised off the ground, with reinforcements

in the landing areas. The main deck rested on 4- by 4-inch

studs spaced every 4 feet with 4- by 6-inch stringers and 2- by

6-inch floor joists. The joists were spaced at 16 inches on

center except for the landing areas, which were spaced at 12

inches on center. The completed deck measures 45 by 58 feet

and is enclosed by handrails, with stairs leading up both sides

of the deck. Soil was pushed up along the other two sides of

the deck so that soldiers would have adequate room to run off

the ropes without fear of falling over the side.

After the tower, stairs, and landing areas were built, the top

platform and sides of the main tower were constructed. Two

sides of the tower were planked with 2- by 6-inch material for

rappel familiarization. One side was to be a free-fall side that

simulated rappelling from a CH-47 Chinook helicopter. The

top platform had to accommodate six soldiers at a time, so

each side had two sets of primary and secondary hookups. In

addition, the free-fall side needed to extend at least 8 feet from

the side of the tower to ensure that soldiers would not collide

with the tower. Welders from the maintenance section

constructed a top platform using salvaged materials. Fiveinch I-beams were welded into place to mirror the shape of the

existing top platform. The extension for the free-fall side was

fabricated into this new platform, and then the entire platform

was raised into position using a crane. Once the new platform

was welded to the existing platform, it was covered with 2- by

10-inch lumber on its weak axis to provide a nonslip surface.

To ensure safety, a double rail system was placed around the

platform. These modifications completed the main tower and

provided a good start toward completing the mission.

The next phase of the project was to enhance the rappel

site by adding a second tower. The original plan included a

30-foot planked rappel side with a 20-foot inclined ramp to

practice rappelling techniques. The material used was gathered

from six radar dish housings. Each housing was 11 by 8 by 8

feet. The plan was to weld the housings together, then weld

the ramp to the combined dish housing. However, the cadre

arrived at Q-West and brought some changes to the project.

They liked the main tower, but instead of a large inclined ramp

protruding from the smaller tower, they wanted two smaller

inclined ramps attached to the deck that had already been

constructed.

The biggest change, however, was to have two free-fall

sides on the 30-foot tower. The radar dish housings were

The completed 30-foot rappel tower has two free-fall sides.
18 Engineer April-June 2004

discarded, and new materials were added. Charlie Company

scoured through wreckage left behind from the first Iraqi war

and found materials that would be much stronger. The main

structural support of the tower is a 20- by 8- by 8-foot CONEX

frame standing on end. Three sections of 6-inch-square tubing

with 1/4-inch-thick walls made up the entire frame. This did

not produce the required 30 feet of height, so Charlie Company

used one of the radar dish housing units for the additional 10

feet. Even the design team felt it would be a tough job to stack

the housing unit on top of the CONEX frame, but the plan

came together ahead of schedule. The radar dish was welded

to the frame, and reinforcement was added to support the

structure. The company’s maintenance troops worked many

hours salvaging pieces of steel from other radar dish housings

to use as reinforcement splices. In addition, they had to

construct a stronger foundation to prevent tipping.

The only foundation for the CONEX frame that formed the

base of the tower was the concrete it rested on. Its own mass

would not be enough to support the structure once forces

were applied to it, so a foundation was designed that would

be structurally sound without sacrificing maneuvering space

or height. The solution was to fabricate 15-foot extensions

from each side of the tower and case the extensions in a

concrete pad. Soldiers welded 5-inch I-beams to the base of

the tower and placed 12 inches of concrete over the entire

extension area. Now that the tower stood 30 feet tall, it needed

stairs to take soldiers to the top.

The stairs were almost a mirror image of those at the large

tower and went up in just a third of the time. The real difference

in the second tower was the top platform. The cadre wanted

two free-fall sides and no planked sides. The maintenance

personnel had no problem fabricating a top platform that would

allow four students to hook up at a time. Each free-fall side

had primary and secondary hookup points with a bar running

across the hookup point to simulate a CH-47 Chinook

helicopter. The hookup points, each handmade so that a snap

link could be inserted without damaging the rope, were also

fabricated from scrap metal found at the Q-West Airfield.

Customized fabrication was a recurring theme throughout the

project due to the time constraints and lack of available

materials. Charlie Company’s soldiers had the ability and

knowledge to fabricate all the parts needed to accomplish the

mission.

Charlie Company had experience in tower construction from

a previous mission for Joint Task Force-6, but the learning

process was intense for this mission. However, the long hours

and hard work paid off when the first class graduated from the

Air Assault School at Q-West. When the school went back to

Fort Campbell in December 2003, more than two thousand

soldiers had earned their air assault wings while deployed to a

combat zone in Iraq.

First Lieutenant Johnson deployed to Iraq in April 2003

with the 52d Engineer Battalion, Fort Carson, Colorado,

which was attached to the 101st Airborne Division (Air

Assault). He graduated from the United States Military

Academy with a degree in civil engineering and is a graduate

of the Engineer Officer Basic Course.

Charlie Company’s maintenance personnel place the top platform of the main rappel tower.
April-June 2004 Engineer 19

U.S. soldiers and Baghdad University staff, faculty, and

students mingled on 3 December 2003 at the

university’s Bab Muadham campus for a historic day.

The Iraq Museum of Natural History was reopened, a new

Internet café began serving patrons, and a refurbished child

care center for staff and faculty opened its doors during the

ceremonies.

The three projects were a cooperative effort of the Coalition

Provisional Authority (CPA), the Ministry of Higher Education,

the University of Baghdad, and the U.S. Army. The renovations

are part of an ongoing effort by the coalition military, the CPA,

and the U.S. Agency for International Development to rebuild

Iraq’s educational system.

The 16th Engineer Battalion, 1st Brigade, 1st Armored

Division, was in charge of the three projects, which took about

six months to complete. The Army provided more than $10,000

for the work.

By Staff Sergeant Conrad College

Looters had badly damaged the museum, stealing or

breaking displays, fixtures, and every piece of glass. Many of

the exhibit cases are still empty. Iraqi contractors were hired to

repair the facility, replacing broken glass and

missing fixtures to allow the museum to restart

its role in scientific research and public

education. As part of the recovery process,

the museum has established relations with

American and British natural history museums.

There was no Internet café at Baghdad

University before coalition forces arrived. The

CPA and the Ministry of Education provided

$40,000 for the computer equipment and

Internet satellite service, and local contractors

were hired to refurbish the building. There are

now 20 new computer stations in the café,

which will provide a link for students to the

rest of the world.

More projects are underway. Coalition

forces are working with the Ministry of Higher

Education to improve schools throughout

Baghdad. A number of schools still require

repairs and renovations, and there are still

books to be printed and delivered.

Staff Sergeant College was a public affairs

noncommissioned officer with the 372d

Mobile Public Affairs Detachment, based in

Nashville, Tennessee. He has a master’s in

journalism from Ball State University.

Iraq Museum

Reopens

Museum reopening dedication ceremony

Iraq Museum of Natural History
20 Engineer April-June 2004

I

n early 2003, the Program Manager for Bridging began

fielding two new bridge systems to the Army’s multirole

bridge companies (MRBCs): the improved ribbon bridge

(IRB) and the dry support bridge (DSB). Both systems are

integral components of the MRBC’s objective capability.

The Army designed MRBCs to give commanders a flexible

and adaptable unit that can accomplish both float- and fixedbridge missions, are 100 percent mobile (every bridge load has

a prime mover), and take advantage of product standardization.

MRBCs are being upgraded with the common bridge

transporter (CBT), which is a variant of the heavy expandedmobility tactical truck (HEMTT); palletized load system (PLS)

trailers; and standard PLS flatracks. Every bridge load, whether

it is related to the IRB or the DSB, is palletized so that any CBT

or comparable load-handling vehicle could carry, deliver, or

reposition palletized bridge loads. MRBCs are optimized to

conduct simultaneous fixed- and float-bridge operations.

Improved Ribbon Bridge

T.

he IRB system provides enhanced capabilities to the

MRBC by increasing military load class (MLC)

capabilityfrom MLC 60 tracked (T) to MLC 80T/110

wheeled (W) in water speeds up to 10 feet per second (about

6 miles per hour). This system is a one-for-one replacement for

the improved float bridge (IFB), which is reaching the end of

its service life. The system is composed of M16 ramp bays

and M17 interior bays that can be interconnected into rafts or

bridges over nonfordable water gaps. Each MRBC is authorized

30 IRB interior bays and 12 IRB ramp bays, providing 210

meters of bridging.

The IRB is deployed in a manner similar to its IFB predecessor,

and the new system is fully interoperable with CBTs, PLS trailers,

bridge-erection boats (BEBs), and supplementary sets. The IRB

also interoperates with the IFB and the German float-bridge

system, but at reduced MLC ratings.

Bridging the Gap –

Modernizing Army Bridge Units

By Lieutenant Colonel Andrew DiMarco

Improved Ribbon Bridge in Iraq
April-June 2004 Engineer 21

While dimensionally similar to the older IFB, the IRB is a

new design with internal and external enhancements. Both the

ramp and interior bays feature an aluminum strong-back forging

to increase load-carrying capability, and the IRB ramp bay—

 Has a contiguous ramp end, thus eliminating the IFB’s

throw ramps.

 Incorporates a hydraulic pump that uses a biodegradable

fluid.

 Can reach bank heights of more than 2.5 meters, providing

access and egress improvements over the IFB.

 Has a deck width of 4.5 meters, allowing two-way traffic for

smaller vehicles for the first time.

The IRB is externally transportable by CH-47 Chinook and

CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters and internally transportable by

C-130 aircraft when partially dismantled. The IRB can use the

existing anchorage system from supplementary sets for longterm placement.

The IRB program is in full-rate production after having

achieved type classification standard and a full materiel release

during May/June 2003. The Program Manager for Bridging fielded

126 IRB bays to the 74th, 502d, and 814th Multirole Bridge

Companies before they deployed to Southwest Asia. These units

successfully used the IRB system throughout Iraq.

Dry Support Bridge

The M18 DSB system brings a revolutionary change to

the MRBC. The DSB relies on a mechanical system to

significantly reduce soldier effort and improve

operational capability to the force. The DSB replaces the

medium girder bridge (MGB), while doubling the gap-crossing

capability of each MRBC. It is intended to fill all 40-meter-orless, dry-gap bridging roles from the brigade rear to the

communication zone ports in a variety of tactical situations.

Each MRBC is authorized four DSB systems, each

consisting of a PLS-based launch vehicle and a modular bridge

that can span gaps up to 40 meters. A crew of eight soldiers

can transport the entire system and deploy a 40-meter bridge

in 90 minutes or less. Bridge loads are modular and palletized

onto seven flatracks that are transported via organic CBTs

and PLS trailers. Soldiers can also construct two shorter

bridges, up to 22 and 28 meters long respectively, from each

DSB system.

The M18 DSB system is composed of two subsystems, the

M1975 launcher vehicle and the M19 DSB. The M1975 uses a

hydraulically operated launch system integrated onto a

standard PLS chassis and a set of launch beams that is carried

as a separate palletized load. A launch beam is cantilevered

over the gap that supports the bridge as it is built and projected

across the gap. The labor required to emplace and remove the

bridge is significantly reduced by the use of an integrated,

materiel-handling crane, as well as by the ability of CBTs to

maneuver the palletized bridge loads around the construction

site easily.

The M19 DSB is a modular, all-aluminum bridge. Although

some of the components seem similar in design to the MGB,

the number of components has been drastically reduced and

the bridge is a new design. A 40-meter bridge consists of 2

ramp modules, 5 parallel modules, 2 end beams, 20 approach

ramps, and 24 bridge pins. Each module has curbs and drivers’

aids integrated into it, and modules fold up onto themselves

for transportation. The bridge has a 4.3-meter roadway and

supports MLC 80T/110W. The bridge is also fielded with a

new anchorage system for longer-term use. To further reduce

labor requirements, the anchorage system features an onboard

pneumatic hammer, which is powered via standard connections

to the launcher vehicle or organic CBTs.

The DSB program transitioned into full-rate production in

May 2003 and attained full materiel release in June 2003. The

Program Manager for Bridging fielded four DSB systems to

the 74th Multirole Bridge Company in February 2003 just before

its deployment to Southwest Asia, and the system successfully

supported operations there.

Summary

Additional information on the IRB and DSB systems, as

well as other systems managed by the Program

Manager for Bridging, can be found at the Army

Knowledge Collaboration Center or at <http://peocscss.

tacom.army.mil/pmbridging.htm.>

Lieutenant Colonel DiMarco is the Acting Product

Manager for the Unit of Action Reconnaissance, Surveillance,

and Command and Control Vehicles within the Program

Management Office, Unit of Action. His past assignments

include Assistant Project Manager for the Dry Support Bridge

System; Department of the Army Systems Coordinator for the

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics,

and Technology; and company commander, 62d Engineer

Battalion. A graduate of the Army Command and General

Staff College, Lieutenant Colonel DiMarco is Program

Management Level III-certified and holds a master’s in systems

acquisition management.

Dry Support Bridge
22 Engineer April-June 2004

The observer-controller/trainer (OC/T) noncommissioned officers (NCOs) are the backbone of theU.S. Army’s Active Component (AC)/Reserve

Component (RC) program. Responsible for the training,

mobilization, and deployment of RC units, these NCOs are the

silent heroes who ensure that nothing but highly trained

soldiers augment and replace AC units on the frontline.

The combat readiness and successful performance of

RC units on the battlefield directly reflect the OC/T’s

enormous impact on their readiness. The OC/T’s

firsthand involvement in RC training directly supports

the FORSCOM mission and has enhanced the Army’s

capability to fight and defeat the enemy around the

world.

An OC/T, by definition, is a soldier tasked to

provide administrative control, evaluate task

performance, and give constructive feedback to

participants during a training exercise. In reality, NCOs

serving as OC/Ts are responsible for far more than

teaching, coaching, and mentoring RC soldiers.

Tasked with training, mobilizing, and deploying units

to augment the U.S. Army on the battlefield, the OC/T

NCOs are at the heart of the AC/RC program.

The vast majority of the AC forces are deployed

around the globe in support of combat, peacekeeping,

and humanitarian missions. RC forces play a critical

role in homeland security and support military

operations overseas. Federalized RC units support and

replace AC elements on the ground with their equipment,

technical/tactical competence, and motivated soldiers eager

to execute their missions. These RC units are a combat multiplier

to the AC and a critical asset to the U.S. Army.

In 1992, after the first Gulf War, Congress mandated a

FORSCOM training program requiring that AC OC/Ts be

By Captain Maycros I. Baez

“United States Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) mobilizes, trains, prepares for deployment, and deploys units required

to expand the Army to meet commander in chief (CINC) requirements. When directed, FORSCOM demobilizes units no

longer needed to meet war or other national emergency requirements.”

—FORSCOM/ARNG/USAR Regulation 350-2,

Reserve Component Training

NCOs Train the Force NCOs Train the Force

An AC NCO conducts an after-action review with Charlie Company, 682d Engineer Battalion.
April-June 2004 Engineer 23

assigned to the training support brigades (TSBs) to monitor

and train RC units and ensure their combat readiness. The

OC/T’s ultimate goal in this arduous backstage work is the

TSB commander’s certification of the unit as combat-ready

and the certainty that the trained unit will magnify combat

power on the front line.

The OC/Ts are the strongest link between the AC and RC,

so only the best candidates are chosen for this duty. The

NCOs serving in these positions are considered the most

proficient and qualified soldiers within their duty military

occupational specialty (MOS). The NCOs should be branchcertified with modified table of organization and equipment

(MTOE) leadership for 18-24 months to be selected. Sergeants

first class who have successfully served in MTOE units as

platoon sergeants, operations sergeants, and in many cases

as first sergeants, are the NCOs typically assigned to this

3-year duty. These NCOs possess a wealth of knowledge and

experience and quickly become an invaluable asset to the RC

units they support. Doctrinally sound, proven leaders and

professional soldiers, OC/Ts are the most effective tools to

sustain and maintain the combat readiness of RC units.

Once selected, OC/Ts undergo a series of certifications

before conducting hands-on instruction with RC units. The

TSBs also follow a training plan to maintain their OC/Ts’

proficiency at training, coaching, and mentoring soldiers.

Annual training requirements ensure that the OC/Ts are experts

on the latest doctrinal developments and the most modern

equipment. Aside from the primary responsibility with the RC,

OC/Ts are routinely tasked to augment the combat training

centers and conduct training/certification exercises for AC

units on MOS-specific training. Their expertise, experience,

and professionalism make these NCOs the most efficient and

versatile training tool FORSCOM has to accomplish its RC

mission. In contrast with combat training center observercontrollers (OCs), OC/Ts in TSBs provide continuous coverage

for their assigned units. They are involved in each step, from

the home-station planning and preparation phases to the

execution and after-action reviews after the training event, as

well as the planning and execution of follow-on training

indicated by shortfalls in the initial training event.

This habitual relationship with specific RC units is imperative, ensuring maximum training effectiveness during the

inactive duty training (IDT) conducted one weekend a month.

The RC units have limited training opportunities to attain their

expected proficiency level, so the unit assistors and the

OC/Ts must orchestrate training events to ensure that they

are effective and meet the unit’s training needs during the

2- or 3-day IDT period. The average unit only has 39 days a

year to train and prepare for its wartime mission. Nevertheless,

the soldiers of these units are expected to perform and accomplish their mission whenever called into action. RC units

understand their responsibility on the battlefield and recognize

the importance of maintaining their personnel and equipment

readiness at all times, so they count on their assigned OC/T

for training support and oversight. Every training opportunity

must meet the time restriction and the commander’s intent and

provide the desired training effect and valuable feedback to

the unit.

Dedicated NCOs serving as OC/Ts often go above and

beyond requirements when conducting hands-on training.

They are the primary trainers and subject matter experts on

tactics and the employment of military equipment. Sergeants

first class who would traditionally train platoon-sized elements,

train companies and their staffs. OC/Ts are typically

responsible for three to five RC companies. Their scope of

responsibility includes, but is not limited to, oversight on—

 Training.

 Mobilization.

An OC/T evaluates a Minnesota Army National Guard soldier during engineer

qualification tables before deployment to Kosovo.
24 Engineer April-June 2004

The lines between mechanized and combat heavy

engineer capabilities blurred during Operation Iraqi

Freedom. Throughout the planning stages and the

conflict, Army engineers played an important role in the

success of the mission. Augmenting mechanized engineers

with combat heavy capabilities during the operation assured

the mobility of the 3d Infantry Division (3ID) in its movement

to Baghdad.

During postconflict operations, mechanized and combat

heavy engineers were instrumental in maintaining the peace

while performing key life-support missions. Mechanized and

combat heavy engineer leaders proved that different capabilities work best when they augment each other. The result is

maximum success in accomplishing any mission.

In preparing for Operation Iraqi Freedom, Bravo Company,

94th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy), detached from its

parent unit and fell under the operational control of the 317th

Engineer Battalion (Mechanized) to augment the engineer

mission of 3d Brigade Combat Team (3BCT), 3ID. The company

colocated in a 317th assembly area and integrated into that

unit’s operational tempo. For 15 days before the start of

hostilities, Bravo Company planned, trained, prepared, and

task-organized with the 317th, attaching teams to mechanized

companies to augment their mobility missions. The primary

mission for the combat heavy engineers in the movement north

was to provide assured mobility to 3ID with the capabilities

supplied by construction engineer equipment. The mechanized

engineers supported Bravo Company with security and

logistics while moving across the battlefield.

Bravo Company had three primary missions while under

operational control of the 317th in the attack north: airfield

damage repair, bridge embankment preparation over the

Euphrates River, and survivability position construction. In

each case, the mechanized engineers of the 317th secured the

designated area of operation and access routes while the

combat heavy engineers of Bravo Company followed closely

behind, executing the construction mission once on-site.

Integrating the construction capability of a combat heavy

company into the mission of a mechanized engineer battalion

to provide mobility to a brigade combat team proved to be a

success. The combat heavy capability opened options to the

mechanized battalion by providing contingency mobility in

the event of greater resistance from Iraqi forces. Even though

resistance during the initial phases of conflict was minimal,

contingency plans were in place to use combat heavy

equipment if necessary to ensure the unimpeded movement

of 3BCT.

Versatility is key when discussing engineer capabilities.

Although there are many facets of the Engineer Regiment, all

engineer units are expected to be able to execute all engineer

missions. This can be difficult. The structure of the Regiment

is such that mechanized engineers rarely perform construction

missions, while construction engineers seldom perform

mobility and countermobility missions. Working together made

each unit stronger in supporting overall mission

accomplishment.

Even though capabilities play a large role in the versatility

of an engineer unit, the versatility of leaders at all levels can

be even more critical. Leaders must understand the mechanized

Integrating Mechanized

and Combat Heavy Engineer Capabilities

By Captain James Beaulieu
Elemen ts of Bravo Company, 94th Engineer Battalion, line 

up with the 317th Engineer Battalion and other units for 

an attack. 

and combat heavy capabilities to be successful throughout 

all phases of conflict. This can be witnessed in Bravo Company 

and the 94th Engineer Battalion, where the company 

commander, operations officer, battalion executive officer, and 

battalion commander all had mechanized engineer 

backgrounds. The ability to understand the mechanized 

engineer mission and how to implement combat heavy 

capabilities is one that all engineer leaders should possess, 

but it only comes with experience and training. Rarely do junior 

officers leading a combat heavy platoon perform or understand 

the missions executed by a mechanized platoon leader. It is 

also rare for a mechanized platoon leader to understand the 

capabilities of a combat heavy platoon. This familiarity only 

comes with time, as officers gain rank and variety in 

assignments. It is the leaders who know how to execute both 

types of engineering who are truly valuable and ean accompli sh 

every mission . 

Whether mechanized and combat heavy engineer units one 

day become integrated or rema in permanently separated is a 

question asked throughout the engineer community. It appears 

that both units can greatly benefit from each othe r, providing 

a broad capability that could not be used when the units are 

separated. Time and again, when there is an important mission 

involving engineers, the executing unit is not solely 

mechanized or heavy, but a mixture of both . It seems that in 

any successful mission, engineers of all types have collaborated. This trend will only increase as more people realize 

the valu e of engineers' versatility. W 

Captain Beaulieu is att ending the Engineer Captain 's 

Career Course at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Previous 

assignments include executive office r ofBravo Company, 94th 

Engineer Battalion; construction platoon leader with Alpha 

Company, 94th Eng ineer Battalion; and asphalt platoon 

leader with Headquarters and Support Company, 94th 

Engineer Battalion. He holds a bachelor 'sfro m the University 

ofMassa chusetts and is pursuing a master's in engineering 

management fr om the University ofMissouri-Rolla. 

( "NCOs Train the Force," continued from page 23) 

•	 Certification and qualification on weapons systems. 

• Overall equipment readiness. 

OCffs also help senior leadership face challenges and solve 

problems that might interfere with mission accomplishment. 

The OCffs assigned to 1st Battalion (Training Support) 

(Engineer), 345th Regiment (If345th), at Fort Jackson , South 

Carolina, are responsible for twelve RC engineer battalion s and 

detachments in the southeastern United States. As part of the 

5th Brigade, 87th Division (Training Support), these NCOs are 

fully engaged in the training, mobilization, deployment, and 

redeployment of units supporting operations around the globe . 

The 1I345th has had a direct impact on operations such as Iraqi 

Freedom and Enduring Freedom and the Kosovo Force (KFOR) 

peacekeeping mission. These engineer units range from combat 

mechanized and corps wheeled engineer battalions to firefighting 

detachments.The OOTsface a challenge as each of the supported 

units ha s different training needs and missions on the 

battlefields around the world. 

NCOs serving as OC/Ts are subject matter experts in their 

MOSs, top-notch trainers, and role models to the RC units 

they support. Instructors at the Observer-ControllerAcademy 

at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California, state 

that OCs must­

•	 BE-professional , technically and tactically proficient, and 

the example. 

•	 KNOW-the unit, the rules of engagement (ROE), and the 

standards. 

•	 DO-provide observations, show cause and effect, and 

facilitate learning through the after-action review process 

by providing purpose and direction. 

The OCff NCOs are the backbone of the U.S. Army's 

AC/RC program. The combat readiness and successful performance of RC units on the battlefield directly reflect the 

OCfT's enormous impact on their training. The OCfT's 

firsthand involvement in RC training directly supports the 

FORSCOM mission and has enhanced the Army's capability 

to fight and defeat the enemy around the world. 

Endnote -


FORSCOMfARNGfUSAR Regulation 350-2, Reserve 

Component Training, 27 October, 1999, Chapter 1, Reserve 

Component (RC) Training Mission, Paragraph 1-1, page 3. 

W 

Captain Baez is an OCfT team chief with the 1I345th 

Regiment (Training Support) (Engine er). His previous 

assignments include the 536th Engineer Battalion (Combat) 

(Heavy) in the Republic ofPanama, 8th Army in the Republic 

of Korea, 84th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy) in 

Hawaii, and Fort Jackson, South Carolina. He holds a 

bachelor's in industrial management from the University of 

Puerto Rico and is a graduate of the Engineer Officer 

Advanced Course. 

Ap ril-June 2004	 Engineer 25 
26 Engineer April-June 2004

The Tikrit River Bridge project began on 13 October

2003. Another bridge across the Tigris River was

needed to facilitate civilian traffic flow while the main

bridge in Tikrit closed for reconstruction. Several engineer

specialties worked closely on the project, each being responsible for a different role to complete the mission.

The task organization for the mission was made up of a

platoon of combat engineers, a combat support equipment

(CSE) platoon, and a bridge platoon. Bravo Company, 5th

Engineer Battalion, would provide security and work with

the CSE platoon, from the 229th Engineer Company (CSE),

to emplace force protection measures. The CSE platoon

was to construct a 150-meter causeway with erosion control

measures and assist with force protection. Bridge crewmen

from the 74th Multirole Bridge Company would erect and

launch a 350-meter double-single Mabey-Johnson float

bridge.

The Tikrit River Bridge

By First Sergeant Gary Fioretti

Soldiers from the 74th

Multirole Bridge

Company use a crane

from the 14th Engineer

Battalion to install

bays at the MabeyJohnson bridge.
April-June 2004 Engineer 27

Force protection and security were the priorities for the

sappers and the CSE platoon. The sappers hit the ground

first from an assault float raft and immediately began to

sweep, clear, and secure the land. Once security was

established, the CSE platoon—with Class IV supplies—went

to work immediately. The two elements worked together to

emplace triple-standard concertina wire around the jobsite

perimeter. The CSE platoon built earth berms around the

area, as well as several equipment parks inside the perimeter,

to protect equipment and personnel from small arms fire.

Raised M-113 armored personnel carrier fighting positions,

protected by berms around both sides and the front, were

constructed for clear fields of fire above the earth walls. The

last step of force protection for the platoon was to build mortar

bunkers and Hesco® bastion guard towers.

Once force protection measures were completed, the

causeway was built to facilitate the emplacement of the bridge.

The causeway required more than 2,100 truckloads of fill,

which was obtained within the perimeter. The fill was spread

and compacted, and a 1-inch layer of soil stabilizer was

emplaced and geotextile stretched from the headwall to the

upstream side of the bank to control erosion. Concrete blocks

were stacked atop each other with both layers folded slightly

in between, and the roadway was lifted, graded, and

compacted in preparation for asphalt that would be laid by

Iraqi contractors. The nearshore preparation was contracted

as well. The Iraqi scope of work included stripping away

existing concrete from the levee wall and asphalt from the

road. An excavator, loader, and compactor were used to create

a slope to accommodate the end span of the bridge.

The bridge, which would accommodate traffic and remain

in place for up to a year, was put together with cranes, forklifts,

and excavators. Piers were built by locking together 20- and

40-foot pontoons, on top of which were welded I-beams and

winch trays for anchorage.

Bays were constructed in mass quantities to expedite the

overall construction. Each bay consisted of four panels, a

transom, vertical and sway braces, vertical and top brace

frames, steel decking, and curbing. After each span was

completed, it was pushed off the rollers and onto the floating

pier or pontoon and bolted into place. Then bridge erection

boats pushed the spans into place and bridge crewmen pinned

each span junction together.

The Tikrit River Bridge was a joint effort. Iraqi contractors

and locally hired civilians were an integral part of the project,

with Iraqis contributing in several areas: asphalt, nearshore

preparation, welding, road repair and widening, and even

force protection. This project was a true representation of

the U.S. Army helping Iraqis rebuild Iraq.

First Sergeant Fioretti is with Charlie Company, 14th

Engineer Battalion, Fort Lewis, Washington. He is currently

deployed as part of the 555th Engineer Group, 4th Infantry

Division.

Photos by First Sergeant Gary Fioretti.

Hesco bastions topped with sandbags form a bunker and guard tower.
28 Engineer April-June 2004

You can smell the decaying banana skins underfoot as

they mingle with the fuel and exhaust fumes. Iraqi

men and boys, some no more than 10 years old, shout

“mister, mister, one dollar” as they shove bundles of bananas

and soda cans toward you. Yet another crossing of the Al

Muthana Bridge that we helped replace on the Tigris River to

improve the flow of traffic into Baghdad. There must be

seventy or eighty cars jockeying for a position at the front of

the traffic. Normally, there would be two lanes, but somehow it

has grown to four and must merge into one to cross the bridge.

Horns blow and hands wave as people shout at each other,

most assuredly not words of greeting or well wishes.

Another patrol, searching the streets for improvised explosive

devices (IEDs), comes to a close. But first we have to make it back

to our base camp, and lately the last mile has become even more

dangerous, once with an attack on one of our own—our

commander. As we make the last turn onto our island sanctuary,

we all lighten the mood with sarcastic comments, and the same

one or two guys provide our comic relief.

We clear our weapons and head back to our rooms, where

we download our equipment and grab a cold bottle of water.

Junior leaders verify that all equipment is serviceable and

stored neatly, while we think about the time our next mission

begins and what we will do to relax for an hour before we go

back to work. The married guys head for the cyber café, hoping

for an e-mail from their loved ones or, more importantly, that

they will catch that loved one online in a chat room. Some

make their way to the telephones to call home. Even more seek

some solitude while they become consumed with PlayStation

or GameBoy. This is their break from the reality of being away

from the family, friends, comforts, and freedoms that they have

all sacrificed to help bring freedom to the Iraqi people.

By Sergeant First Class Ray Deering

Soldiers guard a power plant in northern Baghdad.
April-June 2004 Engineer 29

I head to the operations center to check in with the

commander and first sergeant. They didn’t go along on this

patrol, but they are just making their way through the doors as

they return from checking on a school. We discuss the heat

and how it’s nice that the intense climate we suffered through

during the past few months has passed. There is a lighthearted

atmosphere as everyone is silently thankful that we have gone

out into the sector and safely returned one more time. We

discuss future missions, plan the rest of the day, and bring up

the truly important question: What time is mail being picked

up?

There is a bond here that no one can ever explain and that

is never talked about. It overcomes the differences between

rank, background, experience, and personal opinion of one

another’s personality. It is the appreciation for the guy beside

you and what he contributes and brings to the table during

this time of hardship—our generation’s War on Terrorism. We

complain about who may or may not be doing what, whose

turn it is to perform a mission or task, why more effort has

apparently been put into a plan for sporting activities than

was put into the plan for an upcoming mission involving

multiple units. But it is done in our own group—our leadership

team.

When we are together as this leadership team, we feel that

we can handle any problem that comes our way, because we

are in harmony when it comes to the mission. Yet we agree to

disagree among ourselves, debate issues back and forth, and

jibe and harass one another constantly. It is our way of relieving

the pressure of the situation, to ensure that we stay focused

in front of our men. It is our way of getting our secret fears out

into the open, but without losing face or displaying weakness.

We use each other for that, so we can lead our men with the

effort and professionalism they deserve.

I wonder if the soldiers know we do it, but does it really

matter if they know that or not? They look at us as we step in

front of them and present a plan for a mission as if this is going

to be the one mission that will break the back of the resistance

in Iraq and lead the way to our returning home. We have to try

to convince them that it is the best plan that has ever been

conjured up in a military mind, though we constantly search

our own minds and our past experiences for the things we may

have forgotten, the things we have to inject to ensure that our

soldiers stay motivated, stay professional, and stay alive. None

of us can afford to miss doing something that we should have

known to do. These men deserve our best, and so do their

loved ones.

So we finish our discussions, throw away our empty water

bottles, and head back to our small units, our platoons, and

our men. We put that brave face back on, because for their

sake we can’t afford to have a bad day. We close our minds to

our families for a few more hours as we go about the business

of briefing tomorrow’s mission, ensuring that the guard roster

is straight. We deal with the concerns that a troop might have

about his wife and what she may be doing with their bank

account, and we talk to the guy whose wife is due to deliver

their first child next month and when he’ll get to go home to

see his newborn.

We ensure that our equipment is ready, our weapons are

clean, and our plan is foolproof—at least in our eyes. Then we

take a few minutes for ourselves, go for a run, lift a few weights,

or see if we can borrow a movie that we haven’t already seen

half a dozen times. But we know that soon we can lie down,

and with that comes our own private thoughts about our loved

ones, our kids, and our parents. And we know that when the

morning comes, it’s one day closer to getting back to them

and one more trip back across our bridge, one more whiff of

those banana skins, one more cry of “mister, mister, one dollar.”

In the back of our minds, we realize that we have experienced

the greatest honor a soldier can ever have—leading troops in

combat on a day with no casualties.

Sergeant First Class Deering deployed to Baghdad, Iraq,

with Bravo Company, 16th Engineer Battalion, “Ready First

Combat Team,” 1st Armored Division, on 9 May 2003. He

led a combat engineer platoon as a platoon sergeant until

17 November 2003, when he returned to the United States

after 61⁄2 years in Europe, including a tour in Kosovo as

platoon sergeant. His previous assignments include the

Combat Maneuver Training Center, 5th Engineer Battalion,

and 12th Engineer Battalion during Operation Desert Storm.

Soldiers clear routes to prevent IED attacks.
30 Engineer April-June 2004

Regimental Awards

Major General R.L. Van Antwerp

Commandant, U.S. Army Engineer School

Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers

Chief of Engineers

Each year, we recognize the best engineer company,

lieutenant, noncommissioned officer, and enlisted

soldier—in each of the components—for outstanding contributions and service to our Regiment and

Army. Every engineer unit in the Regiment can submit the

name and achievements of its best of the best to compete in

these distinguished award competitions. Only the finest

engineer companies and soldiers are selected as recipients

of these awards. The soldiers will carry throughout their

careers the distinction and recognition of being the Engineer

Branch’s best and brightest soldiers and leaders. Following

are the results of the 2003 selection boards for the Itschner

and Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Awards,

the Sturgis Medal, and the Van Autreve Award:

Active Component

Itschner Award: Alpha Company, 11th Engineer Battalion

(Combat), 3d Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Georgia.

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Award:

First Lieutenant Kristin Graham, Headquarters and

Headquarters Company, 14th Engineer Battalion (Corps)

(Wheeled), Fort Lewis, Washington.

Sturgis Medal: Sergeant First Class Matthew Outten,

Alpha Company, 54th Engineer Battalion (Corps)

(Mechanized), Warner Barracks, Germany.

Van Autreve Award: Specialist Clifton Hall, Charlie

Company, 864th Engineer Battalion (Corps) (Mechanized),

Special Troops Battalion, Fort Richardson, Alaska.

U.S. Army Reserve

Itschner Award: Alpha Company, 244th Engineer

Battalion (Combat) (Heavy), Boulder, Colorado.

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly)

Award: First Lieutenant William R. Zinkgraf, Charlie

Company, 489th Engineer Battalion, Harrison, Arkansas.

Sturgis Medal: Staff Sergeant David F. Schofield,

Detachment 6, Alpha Company, 249th Engineer Battalion

(Prime Power), Fort Lewis, Washington.

Van Autreve Award: Specialist Adam R. Simon, Bravo

Company, 489th Engineer Battalion, Harrison, Arkansas.

Army National Guard

Itschner Award: Charlie Company, 1457th Engineer

Battalion (Combat), Spanish Fork, Utah.

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly)

Award: First Lieutenant Mark L. Topp, Alpha Company,

142d Engineer Battalion (Heavy), Wahpeton, North

Dakota.

Sturgis Medal: Sergeant First Class David J. Varelas,

Bravo Company, 14th Engineer Battalion (Combat), Fort

Lewis, Washington.

Van Autreve Award: Specialist Kelly R. Goehring, Bravo

Company, 142d Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy),

Wahpeton, North Dakota.

All of the nominees represented their major commands

with the highest professionalism and dedication to the

Engineer Corps’s vision and deserve our highest praise.

The award recipients were recognized at ENFORCE 2004,

26-30 April, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.
April-June 2004 Engineer 31

There is a process in the Army that was established to

help soldiers get needed commercial items fielded in a

short period of time. The Soldier Enhancement Program

(SEP) was congressionally approved in 1989, initially for the

“foot soldier,” but revised in 1992 to include all soldiers. The

objective of the SEP is to increase the lethality, survivability,

mobility, command and control, and sustainability of the soldier

through an accelerated acquisition process to get lighter, more

lethal weapons and improved “soldier items” into the hands

of soldiers quicker. SEP recommendations from soldiers and

their commanders are highly encouraged. Participation by

soldiers and their commands enhances the credibility of the

program and ensures that SEP dollars are focused where they

will do the most good.

Proposals go to the SEP Council, which convenes quarterly.

To qualify for a SEP project, a proposal must be—

 An item that will be worn, carried, or consumed by

individuals in a tactical environment.

 A nondevelopmental item that is now commercially

available, off-the-shelf.

 An item soldiers are buying with their own money to make

life better in the field.

Upon approval by the SEP Council, the proposal will be

assigned to one of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) proponent schools to develop a tailored

capability development document (CDD) for the item, and the

CDD will be approved by that school’s commandant to expedite

the process. For some items, such as other government agency

items or items in the General Services Administration catalog,

a CDD may not be required.

 The SEP is not an incentive awards program. No monetary

awards are given for proposals that are adopted for use and

that result in savings to the government.

Current programs in various stages of the SEP process

include the following:

 Rapid wall-breaching kit

 XM102 reloadable hand grenade

 M9 pistol rail

 Blast-protection footwear

 Enhanced fuel bar

 Electric stun device

 Petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) handler gloves

 Family of metal detectors

 Semiautomatic sniper system

 Close combat mission capability kit

 Close quarters battle kit

 Modular accessory shotgun

 Family of suppressors

 Integrated laser white-light pointer

 12-gauge extended-range nonlethal round

 XM104 nonlethal bursting hand grenade

 Fuel handler coveralls

 Future handgun system

 Military operations in urban terrain lifeline

 Maxillofacial shield

SEP proposals can be submitted through the automated

process at <http://peosoldier.army.mil>. Proposal forms can be

obtained by e-mailing Sergeant Major Thomas House or Mr. Ken

Sutton at the TRADOC System Manager-Soldier office at Fort

Benning, Georgia, at <houset@benning.army.mil> or <suttonk

@benning.army.mil> or calling DSN 835-1189/6047/3327 or

commercial (706) 545-1189/6047/3327 or mailing—

Mr. Ken Sutton

6751 Constitution Loop

Building 4, Room 632

Fort Benning, Georgia 31905

The Assistant TRADOC System Manager-Soldier at Fort

Knox, Kentucky, can also provide information and SEP proposal

forms. E-mail Lieutenant Colonel Craig Carson at <craig.

carson@knox.army.mil> or Mr. Larry T. Hasty at

larry.hasty@knox.army.mil or call DSN 464-3662/3519 or

commercial (502) 624-3662/3519.

Sergeant Major House is the TRADOC Systems Manager-Soldier

sergeant major, Fort Benning, Georgia.

Mr. Hasty is the deputy and senior technical advisor to the

Assistant TRADOC Systems Manager-Soldier at the U.S. Army

Armor Center, Fort Knox, Kentucky.

Soldier Enhancement Program

By Sergeant Major Thomas House and Mr. Larry T. Hasty

An article entitled “Wearing Synthetic Fiber Underwear Under

the Nomex CVC Uniform,” (Engineer, October-December 2003,

page 37) contained National Stock Numbers (NSNs) for obsolete

combat vehicle crewman gloves. The recommended replacements

are “Gloves, flyers, summer (green)*,” or “Gloves, mounted

crewman,” with the following NSNs and sizes:

Gloves, flyers, summer (green)

8415-01-482-8417 4

8415-01-040-2012 5

8415-01-040-1453 6

8415-01-029-0109 7

8415-01-029-0111 8

8415-01-029-0112 9

8415-01-029-0113 10

8415-01-029-0116 11

8415-01-482-8420 12

Gloves, mounted crewman

8415-01-446-9247 5

8415-01-446-9248 6

8415-01-446-9252 7

8415-01-446-9253 8

8415-01-446-9254 9

8415-01-446-9255 10

8415-01-446-9259 11

* Other colors may be available.

Correction
32 Engineer April-June 2004

By Captain Christopher S. Cooper

Logistical Base

Support for the Polish

Multinational Division

The chief of engineers for the Polish Multinational

Division (MND) faced challenges when he and his

advanced party entered the Operation Iraqi Freedom

theater in late July 2003. The MND headquarters at Camp Babil,

controlled by 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary

Force, was scheduled to receive more than 12,000 soldiers

from more than 16 countries in three weeks. There was not

enough room for everyone at Camp Babil, next to the ancient

city of Babylon, and historical covenants prevented further

expansion of the base. Furthermore, the closest logistical

center was more than 250 kilometers to the south in an area

not even within their sector.

To alleviate their space and logistical problems, the Polish

MND decided to use a 10-acre compound along the Shatt Al

Hillah, a stream 7 kilometers away on the outskirts of the city

of Al Hillah. The site was a former Iraqi youth training center

that focused on mobile bridging operations. Unfortunately,

other than the natural border of the river to the west, a wall

that bordered the street to the east, and civilian residences to

the south, there were no force protection measures in place.

Complicating matters, 20 billets, 10 administrative buildings,

and several burned-out Iraqi mobile bridging pieces stood

where the planned logistical base was to go. The Polish MND

needed help, so it turned to Coalition Joint Task Force-7 for

engineering support.

The 265th Engineer Group, a Georgia National Guard unit

currently in control of the southern Iraqi sector with four

battalions, received the call. After a reconnaissance of Al Hillah,

the 265th developed a joint mission with U.S. Army engineers;

MND forces; Kellogg, Brown and Root, the support services

contractor; and local Iraqi labor to assist the Polish division.

Kellogg, Brown and Root—with an Iraqi contractor—

focused on establishing the southern gate and berm, preparing

the fuel and ammunition supply points, and refurbishing the

buildings. U.S. Army engineers were responsible for

demolishing the former Iraqi billets and administrative

buildings, then constructing a protective berm surrounded by

a triple-standard concertina wire fence. For that mission, the

265th selected a company (-) consisting of an equipment

support platoon and a platoon of combat engineers from the

1092d Engineer Battalion, a West Virginia National Guard unit.

The Polish MND supported them with Romanian engineers

and equipment, as well as Hungarian soldiers to provide

security. Local Iraqi workers assisted as laborers.

The mission had three phases: reduce the 30 buildings to

rubble; construct the berm; and concurrently, train and

supervise the Iraqi laborers. In addition, combat engineers

would sweep the area for unexploded ordnance and supplement

the Hungarian security force.

Engineers use a bulldozer to

push debris into a protective

berm around the logistical

base.
The first night after the mission began, a mortar attack

dropped eleven 60-millimeter shells on the site. No one was

injured and no equipment was damaged, but the need for force

protection became acutely obvious.

An immediate problem was the extremely high water table.

Next to the river, it was as close as 6 inches to the surface, so

very little fill material was available for berm construction.

Leaders decided to use rubble from the building demolition

and several of the destroyed mobile bridges as fill material for

most of the berm.

Rubble from demolition projects was reused to construct

force protection berms.

April-June 2004 Engineer 33

Demolition of the buildings progressed rapidly. However,

loading the rubble into dump trucks and transporting it to the

berm for fill material was hard on the equipment. The Iraqi

buildings were constructed with a lot of rebar that wreaked

havoc on tires. In one day alone, the support platoon’s vehicles

had 15 punctures. Their maintenance element performed

admirably, establishing a close relationship with the maintenance shop at Camp Babil for replacement parts.

The Iraqi laborers quickly learned fence installation and

kept pace with the berm construction. The Polish commander

inspected the work one week into the mission and said that he

now felt more comfortable bringing his forces into the area. He

mentioned that stories about the mortar attack had been printed

in the Polish press. When reporters asked what he was doing

about the situation, he responded, “The U.S. Army engineers

are currently solving the force protection issue for the MND

forces.” After 15 days on the ground, the mission was complete.

Captain Cooper is a member of the U.S. Army Reserves.

He served as a combat engineer platoon leader and as a

battle captain for the 265th Engineer Group during

Operation Iraqi Freedom. At the time this article was written,

he was the Polish MND liaison officer. He holds bachelors’

in journalism and education and a master’s in education. In

civilian life, he is a teacher.

The Engineer Writer’s Guide

Engineer is a professional-development bulletin

designed to provide a forum for exchanging information

and ideas within the Army engineer community. We

include articles by and about officers, enlisted soldiers,

warrant officers, Department of the Army civilian

employees, and others. Writers may discuss training,

current operations and exercises, doctrine, equipment,

history, personal viewpoints, or other areas of general

interest to engineers. Articles may share good ideas and

lessons learned or explore better ways of doing things.

Articles should be concise, straightforward, and in the

active voice. If they contain attributable information or

quotations not referenced in the text, provide appropriate

endnotes. Text length should not exceed 2,000 words

(about eight double-spaced pages). Shorter after-actiontype articles and reviews of books on engineer topics are

also welcome.

Include photos (with captions) and/or line diagrams

that illustrate information in the article. Please do not

include illustrations or photos in the text; instead, send

each of them as a separate file. Do not embed photos in

PowerPoint®. If illustrations are in PowerPoint, avoid

excessive use of color and shading. Save digital images

at a resolution no lower than 200 dpi. Images copied

from a Web site must be accompanied by copyright

permission.

Provide a short paragraph that summarizes the content

of the article. Also include a short biography, including

your full name, rank, current unit, and job title; a list of

your past assignments, experience, and education; your

mailing address; and a fax number and commercial

daytime telephone number.

Include a statement with your article from your local

security office that the information contained in the article

is unclassified, nonsensitive, and releasable to the public.

Not only is Engineer distributed to military units worldwide,

it is also available for sale by the Government Printing

Office.

We cannot guarantee that we will publish all submitted

articles. They are accepted for publication only after

thorough review. If we plan to use your article in an

upcoming issue, we will notify you. Therefore it is important

to keep us informed of changes in your e-mail address or

telephone number. All articles accepted for publication are

subject to grammatical and structural changes as well as

editing for style.

Send submissions by e-mail to <engineer@wood.

army.mil> or send a 3 1/2-inch disk in Microsoft Word, along

with a double-spaced copy of the manuscript, to: Editor,

Engineer Professional Bulletin, 320 MANSCEN Loop, Suite

210, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8929.

Note: Please indicate if your manuscript is being

considered for publication elsewhere. Due to the limited

space per issue, we do not print articles that have been

accepted for publication by other Army professional

bulletins.
34 Engineer April-June 2004

National Training Center

(NTC)

Force-on-Force Convoy STX Lane

By Captain Christopher Kuhn

During a recent rotation at NTC, the Sidewinder team organized and conducted several situational training exercise (STX)

lanes. One of those included a convoy lane that trained units

on the dangers currently encountered on a daily basis by

convoys deployed for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi

Freedom. These notes address the setup of the lane so that

units can train this critical task at home station.

Plan the Training

The first step is planning the training and allocating a suitable training area to conduct the training. The convoy route

should be long enough to allow each event on the lane to

occur independently of each other, as well as allow for retraining on certain events. The lane is designed for a companysized element and consists of a unit receiving a fragmentary

order (FRAGO) to conduct a mounted tactical road march along

a specified route. The convoy commander will conduct troopleading procedures (TLP), issue a movement order, and command and control the convoy along the designated route.

The convoy will encounter various contacts along the route,

to include a civil disturbance, a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG)

attack, an improvised explosive device (IED), and a near ambush. For the STX lane, the Opposing Force (OPFOR) and

observer-controllers (OCs) must be identified. The following

resources are required:

 OPFOR truck: 1

 Simulated RPGs: 2

 Civilian vehicles: 3

 Injured civilian on the battlefield (COB) moulage kits: 3

 Simulated man (SimMan): 1

 IED (inert): 1

 Daisy-chained IED: 1

 COBs (wedding party): 14

 Paramilitary (RPG ambush): 3

 Explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) personnel: 2

 Detainee (anti-U.S.) COBs: 3

 Suspect (possibly anti-U.S.) COBs: 3

 Paramilitary snipers: 2

 OCs: 4

 Route: Approximately 30 kilometers

Train and Certify Leaders

The training objectives for the lane for the OCs, OPFOR,

and unit leaders should be to—

 Prepare for combat.

 Conduct a tactical road march.

 React to a civil disturbance.

 React to actions on contact.

 Treat and evacuate casualties.

 Call for medical evacuation.

 Perform recovery operations.

 Conduct consolidation and reorganization.

Recon the Site

The OCs and OPFOR should conduct a joint reconnaissance of the route to determine the locations of the events,

rehearsal areas, and after-action review (AAR) location.

Issue the Plan

The unit should receive the FRAGO at least one day before

the scheduled lane execution. This will allow the convoy commander and the unit to conduct their TLP, precombat checks

(PCCs), precombat inspections (PCIs), and rehearsals.

Rehearse the Lane

It is important for the OCs and OPFOR to conduct a rehearsal of the execution of the lane. Each event on the route

should be rehearsed, to include movement to the training area,

emplacement of OPFOR forces and IEDs, contact with the training unit, and criteria for disengagement. Unit rehearsals could

focus on reactions to contact, casualty evacuation (CASEVAC),

and movement techniques.

Execute the Lane

The lane begins when the convoy commander receives the

FRAGO. The unit then begins TLP, rehearsals, and production of its movement order. The unit will have a set start point

time, which allows the lane officer in charge (OIC) to ensure

that the lane events are set up and ready for execution as the

unit moves along the route. The figure on page 35 shows an

example of a lane layout. Communication is critical between

the event sites and the lane OIC. One OC should move with

the convoy to give the event sites advanced notice that the

convoy is approaching.

For this particular lane, the Sidewinder team emplaced four

events for the convoy:

 A civil disturbance, consisting of a family wedding party

shooting celebratory fire in the air.

 An inert IED placed along the convoy route.
April-June 2004 Engineer 35

 An RPG ambush.

 A staged car wreck, consisting of a daisy-chained IED and

sniper ambush.

Based on unit reactions, OCs assessed the number and type

of casualties. If aircraft were available, the unit requested air

CASEVAC for the wounded. If none were available, the unit conducted nonstandard CASEVAC. Additionally, the Sidewinder

team used a SimMan, a 190-pound mannequin—connected to

a laptop computer—that can simulate the actions of a live

human being with any type of injury. It is a great tool for

providing immediate feedback to a medic or combat lifesaver.

Conduct an AAR

OCs conducted the AAR at the release point of the route.

An AAR could also be conducted after each event if the unit

did not achieve the desired objective.

Retrain

Any event could be reset at another location along the

route if the unit failed to react properly during any of the

events. To do this, the route must allow enough time for the

event to be repositioned without impacting the unit’s movement. Additionally, the unit can stop, conduct an AAR, and

retrain a particular event before continuing along the route.

Summary

The lane allowed the convoys to train on different forms of

contact, as well as land navigation, CASEVAC, recovery operations, and consolidation and reorganization activities. This

ensured that the units were adequately trained before executing the convoy live-fire exercise that is also available at NTC.

POC is CPT Christopher Kuhn (SW12), (760) 380-7051 or

DSN 470-7051, e-mail <sw12@irwin.army.mil>.

Convoy Lane Organization

During Vietnam, combat service (CS) and combat service

support (CSS) units established “gun trucks” to protect the

vital shipment of supplies from Vietcong ambushes along Highway 19, the only major hard-surfaced highway that led from

Qui Nhon to An Khe. Rather than equip and train CS/CSS

units with dedicated firepower to ensure self-sufficient security for the moving pieces of our pre-Operations Enduring

Freedom and Iraqi Freedom CS/CSS force structure, the Army

anticipated and trained for a linear battlefield where CS/CSS

units would be secure from high-intensity threats based on

their location on the battlefield.

The 507th Maintenance Company served as a report card

for the Army in the well-published accounts of the events that

led to the paramilitary ambush of the unit near the eastern part

of Nasiriyah, Iraq, on 23 March 2003. The paramilitary ambush

resulted in the deaths of eleven U.S. soldiers and the apprehension of an additional seven soldiers.

Establish a Training Strategy

In response, NTC has established a training strategy for

CS/CSS to train units to account for the 360-degree threat that

makes up the contemporary operating environments (COEs)

of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Figure 1

shows the full spectrum of the COE at NTC. The capstone

event of this strategy during an NTC rotation is the convoy

live-fire exercise.

CSS units are required to analyze intelligence reports and

the military aspects of terrain and conduct direct-fire planning

and rehearsals for actions on contact as critical components

of the troop-leading procedures (TLP) for convoys. As units

execute their convoy operations, they must react to paramilitary threats that include improvised explosive devices (IEDs)

and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) through effective directfire control. Additionally, units execute casualty evacuation

(CASEVAC) and control as part of their actions on contact.

Civil Disturbance

(Family Wedding Party)

Celebratory Fire

IED

(Call in EOD)

RPG Far

Ambush Staged Car Wreck/

Combination Near Ambush

 • Daisy-Chained IED

 • React to Sniper

CASEVAC (UH-60)

Recovery Operations

CASEVAC Event D

CASEVAC From Combination

Near Ambush (Daisy-Chained

IED Sniper) Soldier:

 • 4 x Injured Soldiers

 • 1 x Simulation Maneuver

 • 1 x Killed In Action Soldier

 • 3 x Injured Civilians

By Captain Timothy R. Vail

Convoy Live-Fire Exercise

Figure 1. NTC Full-Spectrum COE
36 Engineer April-June 2004

This live-fire scenario gives individual soldiers greater confidence in their weapons proficiency, small-unit leaders confidence in their control of direct and indirect fires, and platoon

leaders confidence in conducting the critical aspects of the

TLP that are required for CS/CSS units to maneuver throughout the COE. Recommended training objectives for convoy

commanders and vehicle commanders, as well as home station training strategies to prepare units for a convoy live-fire

exercise, are as follows:

Convoy Commanders

 Take advantage of terrain analysis route planning tools to

identify terrain-based fire control measures and areas vulnerable to IED/RPG ambushes.

 Organize unit formations and vehicle orders of march to

mass fires upon contact and employ the best weapons for

the target.

 Ensure that well-established battle drills exist for—

√ Actions on contact (all eight forms).

√ En route vehicle jump plans.

√ Vehicle self-recovery plans (allocation and distribution

of tow bars).

√ Casualty treatment and collection.

√ Calls for fire.

 Include terrain- and enemy-based fire control measures in

the movement plan.

 Establish and rehearse a direct-fire plan:

√ Establish and disseminate direct-fire control measures

to all soldiers (enemy locations, target reference points,

fire patterns).

√ Assign sectors of fire integrated with unit formations

and weapons systems location.

√ Disseminate well-established weapons control status

and weapons safety posture.

 Integrate and rehearse indirect-fire support.

Vehicle Commanders

 Ensure that all weapons systems are assigned sectors of

fire with clearly defined engagement criteria.

 Develop cross-leveling and reloading procedures for each

weapon system.

 Issue vehicle orders, ensuring that threat, route, fire control measures, and contingencies are briefed to the crew

and passengers.

 Actively control fires from their vehicle platforms.

 Know the surface danger zones (SDZs) for each weapon

system on the vehicle and the sectors of fire for the other

vehicles in the convoy to prevent fratricide. Figure 2 is an

example of the NTC convoy live-fire SDZ.

Home Station Training Strategy

 Units can train convoy operations in preparation for NTC

and Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom at

their home stations.

 Installations that have the Engagement Skills Trainer 2000

can support CS/CSS units with collective fire direction and

control tasks.

 Units can request short-range training ammunition and bolt

adapters from their ammunition managers in order to fire

the ammunition that will reduce SDZs of weapons systems

to use multiuse ranges and develop their own convoy livefire gunnery exercises.

 Units can conduct leader training on TerraBase/MicroDEM

route analysis tools that will train leaders on identifying

potential target reference points and ambush locations.

Conduct the Exercise

Following are some prerequisites for conducting a convoy

live-fire exercise at NTC, as well as some suggested events to

enhance training at NTC and the home station.

 Ensure that all firers participating in convoy live-fire events

are qualified on their assigned weapon and have conducted

stationary familiarization fires from their vehicles.

 Use limiting stakes for troops firing from passenger areas

of vehicles.

 Use sandbags to enhance troop areas to increase stability

of individual weapon systems.

 Ensure that each vehicle has a safety who can maintain

visibility on all weapons.

 Ensure that vehicle safeties can maintain constant communication and monitor and supervise the execution of

the proper weapons safety postures and direct-fire

engagements.

 Conduct blank-fire dry runs before executing the live fire.

Figure 2. NTC Convoy Live-Fire SDZ

Convoy Live-Fire SDZ

Convoy Live-Fire SDZ
 Consider adding simulated IEDs, vehicular mobility kills,

and CASEVACs to advanced convoy live-fire exercises.

 Allot time for vehicle safeties to conduct after-action reviews (AARs), as well as comprehensive AARs for the

convoy as a whole.

 Use a video as much as possible to evaluate fire commands,

engagement techniques, fire distribution, and command

and control.

Figure 3 shows the target layout for a convoy live-fire exercise.

Summary

Due to the ever-changing COE and the dangers currently

faced during Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom for even the simplest convoys, units must train on all

aspects of convoy operations. NTC provides that training in a

live-fire scenario for all CS/CSS units. Units will be prepared

for the most dangerous situations by training in realistic conditions at home station as well as at NTC.

POC is CPT Timothy R. Vail (SW03A), (760) 380-5151 or

DSN 470-5151, e-mail <sidewinder03a@irwin.army.mil>.

April-June 2004 Engineer 37

Geospatial Teams

By Sergeant First Class Gregory T. Alston

NTC is undergoing a tremendous change that makes up

the contemporary operating environment (COE). New urban

areas have been built to address and identify the challenge

that today’s soldier might encounter in deployments for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. In the past,

units have looked at urban areas as obstacles and have chosen to bypass them. However, this paradigm no longer

applies.

During stability operations and support operations (SOSO),

units must enter towns to conduct cordon-and-search or attack missions, establish checkpoints within population centers, or conduct raids on possible paramilitary camps in and

around towns. Commanders require that terrain experts

(geospatial analysts) conduct thorough analyses of the terrain surrounding population centers as well as analyze the

urban terrain enabling commanders to “see the terrain.”

In October 2003, the first military occupational speciality

(MOS) 21U40 geospatial analyst (formerly MOS 81T topographic analyst and MOS 81Q terrain analyst) team trainer

arrived at NTC. This is the first time in the history of NTC that

a geospatial analyst observer-controller has been on permanent staff in the Operations Group.

Geospatial Team Trends

Most brigades or units of action (UA) deploy to NTC with

a four-soldier geospatial team. Based on observations over

the past six months, there are trends that units with these

teams must address in order to better take advantage of this

capability:

Trend No. 1: Modified combined obstacle overlays

(MCOOs) are inadequate.

Recommendation: Use the Digital Topographic Support

System (DTSS) to build and update the MCOO and use in

predeployment training at the home station. Subordinate units

must then provide feedback (bottom-up refinement) to

geospatial teams based on observations “on the ground” so

that the MCOO is continually updated and more accurate for

the planning of future operations. Figure 1 is a sample of a

MCOO developed on a DTSS by a rotational unit.

Trend No. 2: Brigade combat team (BCT) and UA staffs

lack an understanding of geospatial team capabilities.

Figure 3. NTC Convoy Live-Fire Target Layout

Figure 1. Modified Combined Obstacle Overlay
38 Engineer April-June 2004

Recommendation: Incorporate geospatial teams into BCT/

UA training as soon as possible at home station before deployment. This will allow the team to participate in as many

planning processes as possible, enabling the staffs to recognize their capabilities and integrate them more fully. Figure 2 is

an example of the geospatial team capabilities.

Trend No. 3: BCTs and UAs have no standard operating

procedures (SOPs) for “by-mission-type” terrain products.

Recommendation: Develop SOPs so that geospatial teams

know exactly what products they must produce for certain

mission types. Figure 3 provides a list of terrain products for

the SOSO missions alluded to earlier in these notes.

Figure 2. Capabilities of Geospatial Analysis Teams

Figure 3. Geospatial Team SOP for SOSO Missions

Figure 5. Overhead Imagery of Urban Terrain Displaying

Layout of Infrastructure

Summary

With the ever-changing COE, it is more critical now than

ever that geospatial teams are trained and capable of enabling

commanders and staffs to see the terrain. Through proper training on the DTSS, integration with brigade and UA staffs, and

development of SOPs, geospatial teams can provide relevant

input into SOSO or combat operations.

POC is SFC Gregory T. Alston (SW03C), (760) 380-7040 or

DSN 470-7040, e-mail <sw03c@irwin.army.mil>.

Planning

 Integration into intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB) – MCOO, line-of-sight/

perspective views from templated enemy locations, route visibility plots to identify key

terrain, and written analysis of the area of operation.

 Course of action (COA) development – Identification of COAs based on effects of weather

and terrain; improvement of COA sketches to enable the commander to visualize the

terrain.

 COA analysis – Support to wargaming through refined products from mission analysis;

enemy line-of-sight/weapons range analysis from templated enemy locations; line of sight

for BCT/UA collection assets, line-of-sight/weapons range analysis for friendly weapons

systems.

Preparation

 Continued refinement of products – made available to subordinate units for their planning

processes.

 Rehearsals – geospatial products such as blowups for terrain model/sketch map

rehearsals.

Execution

 Imagery maps – for all subordinate commanders to fight from for their respective areas

of operation, allowing them to “see the terrain.”

 “On-the-spot” geospatial analysis – for the battle staff in the BCT/UA command post,

allowing them to make recommendations to the commander on the ground.

Raid on Paramilitary Camps

 Overhead imagery to identify infiltration routes into the camps (see Figure 4).

 Perspective views of the proposed routes.

 Line-of-sight analysis from the enemy and friendly force locations.

 Line-of-sight analysis for Long Range Advanced Scout Surveillance System (LRAS3).

Cordon and Search/Knock/Attack

 Overhead imagery to identify routes into towns/cities.

 Perspective views of critical terrain surrounding towns/cities.

 Town layout and identification of key buildings (see Figure 5).

MSR Reconnaissance and Clearance

 MCOO (see Figure 1, page 37).

 Overhead imagery to clearly identify all routes connected to main supply routes (MSRs).

 Route visibility plots focusing on defile areas along the MSRs (see Figure 6).

 Gap-crossing products.

Miscellaneous

 Subterranean infrastructure (caves and tunnels).

 Water and electrical lines.

Figure 4. Perspective View of Terrain Surrounding

Paramilitary Camp

Figure 6. Route/Visibility Plot Along MSRs
April-June 2004 Engineer 39

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, is the home of the Army’s

Engineer, Military Police, and Chemical Branches, and

it is also home to a championship rugby side (team).

The Fort Leonard Wood Rugby Football Club—the

Marauders—is the 2003 Missouri Rugby Football Union

Division III Champion, and on 14 -15 May, the club became

the Western Region runner-up. The Marauders have earned

the Missouri Rugby Football Union a No. 2 seed in next year’s

Western Region Division Championship Tournament.

These are outstanding accomplishments for a military side.

The Marauders are one of the smallest (in weight) and most

mature (in player age) clubs in Missouri and definitely the

smallest and oldest club with a large portion of first-time players

in the Western Region Division III Tournament. In short, the

club is old and slow, but also young (inexperienced) and skinny.

Despite this, it went on to win in Division III and played in one

of only seven regional championship matches in the nation.

The club’s success comes from technique, teamwork, and a

large dose of heart.

The Fort Leonard Wood international community contributes greatly to the club’s success by assisting with the

development of techniques, thorough up-to-date drills, and

practices. There are Australian, New Zealand, British,

Canadian, and American players, as well as family members

and supporters of the side. The club’s president is a British

colonel who has played on the English National 7s. Last year’s

vice president was a British military police major, and the club’s

on-field captains in the Western Region Division championship

game were a major from Australia and a warrant officer from

New Zealand. In short, the club is a minicoalition that puts

aside national and personal differences to share sweat, pain,

and blood in the middle of Missouri.

The team is living proof that joint and allied interdependence is, in the micro, a reality. Both the American and

international players, as well as the coaches, have put aside

branch and service baggage to attain a higher goal. The team

is truly a combined arms outfit, with engineer, military police,

chemical, medical, aviation, and judge advocate (No, he is not

The Marauders:

A Small-Scale Joint and

Multinational Operation

By Major Ted Read

2003 Missouri Rugby Football Union Division III Champions
40 Engineer April-June 2004

on retainer!) soldiers on the rolls. The

team is also joint—with Army, Marine,

and Coast Guard members. The team

relies on everyone’s blended backgrounds to ensure success.

Nothing in America can be done

without community support. The midMissouri area has contributed greatly to

the club in both financial and moral

support. The club has sponsors and

supporters from Rolla in the east,

Springfield in the west, Lake Ozark in the

north, and St. Robert in the south. All of

the players, coaches, and family members

send a heartfelt “thank you” to the

community for all it does, not only for the

club but for all soldiers in general.

The greatest attribute of the team is its heart and spirit.

One of our members—a 60-year-old man who has battled throat

cancer—puts every ounce of his energy into the time he is on

the pitch (field). When he steps onto the pitch, it completely

changes the complexion of the games. No pain is felt by the

Fort Leonard Wood side, because he feels more pain walking

up the stairs than the rest of the club does after a three-match

(game) day. To commemorate this “fire,” the club has created

an award that bears his name—the “heart” award. You can see

the award in the club’s trophy case on the second floor of

Lincoln Hall, at the Maneuver Support Center, Fort Leonard

Wood.

The magnitude of this award can be seen in this year’s

recipient. Early in the season, one of the players was in a terrible automobile accident that he miraculously survived.

However, he was told that he would not get out of the hospital

for months and would probably never walk again. But he

surprised everyone 6 weeks later when he willed himself, his

body, and his walker across a quarter mile of uneven terrain to

be on the sideline at an away game in St. Louis. Three months

later, he walked completely unassisted to watch the club’s last

home match. Three weeks after that, the Army could not keep

him away from his job teaching soldiers how to fight, win, and

survive to fight again on the battlefield. The club’s players

and supporters have nothing but admiration for these two

phenomenal people. They are an inspiration to all of us.

Even though the club is old, inexperienced, small, and from

a patchwork of disciplines and nationalities, it has a reputation

of being tough, gritty, aggressive, and team-driven. It also has

a reputation of being a well-rounded side where no grudges

are kept and both sides meet afterward for an outstanding

meal (from one of our sponsors) and a drink or two to ensure

that the brotherhood of rugby (players, supporters, and family)

lives on. The key to this positive reputation in the rugby and

Ozark communities is heart. Heart comes in all shapes and

sizes and in all nationalities. Fort Leonard

Wood has that heart, which comes from

the community—civilian and military,

international and American—and it has a

tough and disciplined rugby club to

prove it.

Major Read is an instructor/writer in

the Department of Instruction, U.S. Army

Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood,

Missouri. He was previously an engineer

observer/controller at the Combat

Maneuver Training Center, Hohenfels,

Germany, and commanded Charlie

Company, 9th Engineer Battalion, 1st

Infantry Division, in Schweinfurt,

Germany. He has deployed to operations

in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans, and

Afghanistan.

Phase Play Against a Galveston Team

2004 Western Region Runner-Up Team
April-June 2004 Engineer 41

Environmental Compliance Officer Course

Twenty-five officers and noncommissioned officers

(NCOs) of the 2d Infantry Division attended the first

Environmental Compliance Officer (ECO) Course on

the Korean Peninsula from 3-7 May at Camp Casey. Personnel

from the Directorate of Environmental Integration at Fort

Leonard Wood, Missouri, assisted the training management

NCO with the development and instruction of this 40-hour

Korea-specific course. Students learned to conduct environmental awareness training, perform self-assessments and

environmental risk assessments, and coordinate with the

installation environmental staff for assistance. Members of

the Area 1 Environmental Office, Camp Casey Safety Office,

HAZMART (handles hazardous materials disposition), Korea

Regional Office (KORO) (U.S. Army), Center for Health Promotion

and Preventive Medicine (CHPPM), 8th Army, provided briefings

on their respective programs that relate to the environment. Army

Regulation 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement,

states that commanders will appoint and train ECOs at appropriate

levels to ensure compliance with environmental regulations. The

Directorate of Environmental Integration can help installations

develop an ECO course or other environmental training needs.

For more information, contact Mr. Mike Walker at (573) 563-4119

or <walkerm@wood.army.mil> .

Is the Flag “Backwards”

on Soldiers’ Sleeves?

By Ms. Lisa Burgess

Why do American soldierswear the U.S.

flag insignia “backwards”

on the right shoulder of

their utility uniforms, with

the canton (the rectangle

with the stars) on the

observer’s right? It’s a

question that soldiers hear

frequently as they travel

through civilian airports or

talk to members of other

services. And it does look “wrong” because U.S. federal code

calls for the canton always to be positioned to the left.

The soldiers aren’t wrong, however, and neither are their

tailors. The Army has two authorized flag patches, one to be

worn on the left shoulder, with the canton facing left, and

another “reverse field” patch worn on the right shoulder, with

the canton facing right. The two different orientations are

mandated because Army regulations call for the flag “to be

worn so that to observers, it looks as if the flag is flying against

a breeze.”

What does a stiff wind have to do with this custom? The rule

is a nod to the U.S. Army’s early history, when wars were fought

as a series of carefully choreographed battles, with two armies

meeting on a field, clashing head-on until one side emerged

victorious. In those battles, infantry and mounted cavalry units

would always designate one soldier as “standard bearer” to carry

the colors into the fight. As the standard bearer charged, his rapid

forward movement would cause the flag to stream back. And

since the Stars and Stripes is mounted with the canton next to the

pole, that section would always be forward.

So if a soldier were charging into battle, the flag would

give the appearance of forward motion. When worn on

the right shoulder, the flag

only appears to be backwards. And that’s why soldiers wear the flag patches on

the right shoulder backwards. Because retreat in

battle, as any soldier will tell

you, is not the Army way.

Ms. Burgess began her

career in journalism in 1985 after graduating from the

University of Chicago. She joined the Pentagon press pool

in 1989, covering national defense topics for a variety of

publications before joining Stars and Stripes in 2001. Ms.

Burgess has a master’s in national security strategy from the

National War College and has twice been named as a Freedom

Forum Fellow.

(Note: A variation of this article was printed in the 28

February 2004 European edition of Stars and Stripes.)

(Note: A change to Army Regulation 670-1, Wear and

Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia, dated 5 September

2003, instructs all soldiers, regardless of deployment status,

to permanently wear the U.S. flag insignia on utility uniforms.

This includes battle dress uniforms [BDUs], desert BDUs

[DBDUs], maternity BDUs, cold weather coats, air crew BDUs,

and combat vehicle crewman [CVC] uniforms and jackets [cold

weather]. The mandatory wear date is 1 October 2005.)