tQTHE: E:NGINE:E:R 

. -. 

OCT-NOV-DEC 1975 
.----------------------------------. 

T 1 

7 Reorganization of the Engineers/MAJ James L. Campbell 

13 Le Genie - The French Engineer/LTC Henri C. Aiglon 

14 The Forgotten Engineer Buttons/MAJ Francis Nataluk 

18 Combined Arms Team River Crossing Operations/CPT William F. Greene 

22 Advanced Course Get Involved/MAJ William L. Jones 

24 The BEST Way to Train/CPT Charles C. McCloskey III 

28 Mines in Mechanized Warfare/LTC Joseph Pratt 

30 Platoon Proficiency Training/CPT John J. Connor 

33 The Engineer Soldiers Manual/CPT Robert A. Forma 

36 Bridge Classification Wheel/Dept of Engineering Sciences 

1 Chiefis Briefs/ History 

2 Pipeline/News Items 

4 As We Go to Press/Late News Items 

6 Stop 16/Letters to the Editor 

34 Helping Hands/SG T Jerry Condo 

40 Engineer Potpourri/Engineer Branch 

44 Bridging the Gap /Career Not es 
United States Army 

Engineer School 

Fort BelvoirI Virginia 

Commandant 

MG James A. Johnson 

Assistant Commandant 

BG H. McK. Roper, Jr. 

Editor 

LTC Arthur E. Williams 

Editoria I Board 

MG James A. Johnson 

BG H. McK. Roper, Jr. 

COL Charles J. Osterndorf 

COL John C. Chandler 

COL Glenn C. McChristian 

COL Hugh C. Robinson 

LTC Edward K. Wintz 

LTC Arthur E. Will iams 

CSM Robert G. Cady 

Dr. C. O. Gray 

Production Manager 

John W. Savage, Jr. 

Brevet Major General Andrew A. Humphreys was born in Production Assista nts Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November 2, 1810. His grandfather and SP4 J. Arnold Montgomery father were naval architects, and both became Chief of th e Construc­ Mr. William W. Behring tion Bureau, U.S . Navy. His grandfather designed "Old Ironsides." 

Humphreys entered the United States Military Academy before The Engmeer is an autnor rzeo quarte rl y pu bl ica ­

ti on of the U .S Arm y Eng in eer School. 11 is
 he was seventeen years old and was graduated July 1, 1831. After a pu blish ed to provide fac tua l an d in -deptn IOforma·
 

ti on ot interes-t to all Engineer units. Arncles ,
 short service in the artillery, during which he was engaged in action s	 ph otog r a phs and a r t work of general in 1er esf may be 

submitted for COnsideration to . Ed itor. Th e Engi · against the Seminole Indians in the Florida War, he resigned from	 the neer. U SA Eng ineer Scho ol, Fo r t 8elV'Oir, V Irg inia 

Army, Se ptember 30, 1836, to become a civil engineer. 22060. Views an c opm to....s expressed h er em are not 

necessae itv thos e 01 the Depar tment ot the A.rmy .

Upon the organization of the Corps of Topographical En gineers, he tj se of fund s for pn nt'in g of th is publicaHon ha s been 

approved b y Headquarters . Depar l m ent of the was appointed first lieu tenant, July 7, 1838. Army. J an uar y 1. 1974 

In 1850 Humphreys was directed to make topographic and Subscrip ttons 10 TH E ENG IN E ER ar e a va Habl e hydrographic survey of th e Delta of the Mississippi River. Assisted by th roug h the U SA E S Peroodi cal PUb l ica tion s F und, 

Fo rt Be lvoir . va , 22060. Annu al Ra tes ar e $4.00 for Lieutenant Henry L. Abbot from 1857 to 1861, t he Mississippi River	 dornesu c an d A PO addre sses and $5.00 for overseas 

ad dresses . Survey Report, translated into several lan guages, remains a classic in 

hydraulic literature.	 Engineer Mag••ine Telephone , (703) 664·2838 ­

Aulovon : 354·2838 General Humphreys was a distin guished Civil War Army Corps 

commander. He r eceived br evet rank for gallan t and meritorious 

services at th e Battles of Fredericksburg, Vir ginia, Gettysburg, ABOUT OUR COVER 

Pennsylvania and Sailor' s Creek, Virginia. 

On Augus , 8, 1866, Humphreys was appointed Chief of Engineers A lot ot you haven 't be en pa y ing our f in e publication a ll the aHenl ion it d eserves. In f ac l, many and after thirteen years of service in th at position he retired on June show us Ii tf !e m or e th a n a cursory, page·fann ing

30, 1879. onc e-over . We know. And it hurts. Bu t w e' r e 

swa llowing all tha t. And to sno w there 's no ha rd General Humphreys published Civil War histories, was co-founder	 feelings, we 've offered a nttt e ex tr a service th is 

month - w e1ye pu t all th e r eally eve .catc tu nc of th e National Academy of Sciences, and a member of many learned pic tures and ar tw or k co ntained in th e magazine 

societies. He died at Washington, D.C., De cember 27, 1883. smacxdao on the front c ove r ! So you 're spared an 

.tna t finger -lick ing,' cor ner- cur li n g effort and ou rsl ick ·f or m a t rag is spare d its dog ·ea r ed plight. Is 

eve r ybod y ha pp y ? . Edward B. RusseU 

Curator, US Army Engineer Mus eum 
• PIPELINE. PIR_
 

PERSONNEL ARMOR 

SYSTEM FOR GROUND 

TROOPS (PASGT) 

The combat engineer troops 

clearing a minefield shown in 

the photos above are equipped 

with the new PASGT Helmet 

and body vest. The PASGT 

underwent a concept evaluation test in connection w ith 

Natick Development Center 

and Human Engineering Laboratory with engineer troops at 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia, during 

the summer of 1975. The helmet is of a molded kelvar 

material and comes sized for 

small, medium, and large as 

does the knitted kelvar vest. 

The weight equal to that of the 

M- 1 steel hel met provides for a 

25% increase in ballistic protection. Noteable is the hel ­

met's shock-trauma protection 

capabilities allowing for engineering job site utilization as a 

safety hard hat. 

MER DC ANNOUNC ES
 

J-SIIDS HOTLI NE
 

Is your J-S11 DS giving you 

the protection it should? 

Information on the installation and operation or technica l 

assistance for the Joint-Service 

Interior Intrusion Detection 

System can be obtained on a 24 

hour basis by call ing the 

2 

J -S II DS Hotline, Autovon 

354-2085 or commercial 703· 

664-2085. After hour calls will 

be recorded and promptly responded to the next day. 

This Hotline for J·SIIDS 

users is operated by the system's developers at the U.S. 

Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Center (MERDC), Fort Belvoir, 

Va. 

Initial application of J-SIIDS 

is to provide protection for 

arms rooms aga inst actual or 

attempted intrusion and equipment tampering. 

J-SIIDS consists of a family 

of intrusion, duress, and pilferage sensors; monitoring and 

display equipment; a secure 

data transmission system and 

an aud ible alarm. The system 

was t y pe classified standard 

for use in arms rooms in 1973. 

ENGINEER DINNER 

AN 0 CASTLE BAll 

DATES SET: 

This year's Annual Engineer 

Dinner should be a gala affair. 

The annual dinners date back 

to 1867 when the Essayons Club 

was founded the year after the 

Corps turned over to the Army 

the responsibility for . .. "conducting the Military Academy 

at West Point." 

The dinner is a time for 

engineer officers, active and 

retired, to come together and 

to be brought up to date on the 

state of the Corps . Over the 

past few years it has been held 

in conjunction w ith the Castle 

Ball - the Castle Ball being 

held with the ladies the evening f oll ow ing the Engineer 

Dinner. Both will be held at 

the Fort Belvoir Officers Club, 

the dinner on Friday, 23 April 

and the ball on Saturday, 24 

April 1976. 

Additional information can 

be obtained by writing to the 

109th Annual Engineer Dinner 

Committee, USAES Brigade, 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 or calling Fort Belvoir 664-4300. 

ITSCHNER AWARD 

PREPARATION FOR 

CALENDAR YEAR 1975 

Now is the time to start 

planning and preparing for the 

Itschner Award nominations. 

The Emerson C. Itschner 

Award is awarded by the 

Society of American Military 

Engineers (SAME) to the engi- A : 

neer company which best.) 

symbolizes the character, 

mission and performance of 

the Corps of Engineers. The 

award, presented annually at 

the Engineer Dinner at Ft. 

Belvoir, is named in honor of 

LTG Emerson C. Itschner, a 

former Chief of Engineers and 

past pres ident of the society. 

One of the aims of t he award 

is to promote leadership in 

junior officers and to foster 

"espirit" in company sized 

engineer units. For the purpose of the competition, com ­

pany sized units include all 

engineer numbered and lettered or headquarters corn ­

panies, separate or belonging 

to a battalion, brigade, group 

or larger organization, and 

activated under a TOE/TDA. 

In the past, the award was 

limited to active duty units. In 

1974, the competition was ex ­

panded, providing separate 

awards for both Nationa I 

Guard and Reserve units. 
......INE. PIPELINE.
 

The 1974 winners were as 

fo llows: 

Active Army : Company D, B02d Engr Bn , 

2d Engr GP, Bth u.s. Army, 

Korea. 

Arm y Reserve : Company B, 45Bt h Engr 

Bn (CBT ) , 1st U.S. A r m y 

(Pennsylvania ) . 

Army	 National Guard : Company 0, 

145th Engr Bn, 

Utah National Guard. 

Although the designation of a 

single winner from a field of 

highly qualified finalists is a 

difficult chore at best, the 

Itschner Award Selection Cornmittee would like to see more 

units compete for this award. 

The key to turning out a winner, in addition to having the 

qualifying credentials, is to 

adequately document the unit's 

activities over the course of a 

given calendar year. 

The necessary information 

should be bound in a simple 

three ring folder or loose leaf 

notebook. 

The annual presentation of 

this coveted award provides a 

means of revitalizating the 

competition and renewing the 

challenge. How does your unit 

stand against the others? You 

can find out in 1975. 

ENGINEER OFFICERS 

AND WARRANT 

OFFICERS DIRECTORY 

AVAILABLE 

The Directory of Corps of 

Eng ineers Officers and Warrant Officers (1976 Edition) is 

available for purchase at the 

USAES. Mail order requests 

should be sent to: USAES 

Periodical Publications Fund, 

Office of the Secretary, USAES 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060. Cost is 

$1.00 per copy (covers handling 

and mailing costs). Make 

checks payable to: USAES 

Periodical Publications Fund. 

APPRENTICESHIP 

PROGRAM 

REGISTERED WITH 

DEPARTMENT OF 

LABOR 

On 18 August 1975, the Apprenticeship Standards for 

Mil itary Equipment Operators 

and Mechanics were registered 

with the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Tra ining, U. S. Department of Labor, in a signing 

ceremony at Fort Belvoir. 

Signatories included the US 

Army Eng ineer School Commandant, MG James A. Johnson, and the Associate Manpower Administrator, Bureau 

of Apprenticeship and Training, Mr. Hugh C. Murphy. In 

attendance were the Executive 

Director of the Associated 

General Contractors of America, Mr. James Sprouse, the 

Assistant Commandant, and 

representatives from Department of Labor, Department of 

Army, USAES Staff and participants in the program. Registration culminated five (5) 

years of development effort 

during the period 1970-1975 and 

provides for national recogn iti on of engineer training and 

experience thru the journey. 

man level. These Apprenticeship	 Standards became the 

f irst	 Active Army program 

registered w ith the Depart. 

ment of Labor (DOL). 

Implementing procedures 

and printing of the Standards 

will be published by DA in Jan 

1976.	 Look for Annex D to A R 

350-40. As an inter im , the 

Engineer School (ATSE-TERTM) will cont inue to accept 

applications under AR 350-14. 

For those personnel who are 

registered under this program, 

their records will be turned 

over to DOL when Annex D is 

published and full credit 

granted toward "completion of 

Apprenticeship" in line with 

the registered program. 

FROM THE 

ENGIN EER SCHOOL 

At the request of the Armor 

School, the USAES has developed a simple device for 

armor personnel to evaluate 

bridge capacity. The device 

gives a "go/no-go" answer 

rather than a bridge classification. Four hundred copies of 

the " go/no-go" device have 

been	 forwa rded to the Armor 

School for evaluation. At the 

end of the validation, a Basis of 

Issue Plan will be developed by 

the Army Training Services 

Agency (ATSA) and printing 

will be accomplished by DA in 

accordance with the Basis of 

Issue	 Plan for the armor card. 

The working of the "WhizWheel" is comparatively simple, the mere a lignment of 

three wheels for ( 1) stringer 

spacing, (2) stringer code, and 

(3) the bridge span leng th, w ill 

give the " gO" or "no-go" indication looked for. Instructions 

are imprinted on the card on 

how to obtain the dimensions 

needed. 

Work is underway to expand 

the technique for engineers to 

produce a classification number and is expected to be 

fielded in early FY 77. 

3 
Since we first introduced ourselves in the WinterSpring 1975 issue of this magazine, the Engi~eer

School Learning Resources Center has acquired 

hundreds of new books in many subject areas. Due 

to space limitations we are listing here only a select 

few recent engineering books which may be of 

particular interest to our readers. These books, as 

well as others in such fields as military science, 

internationa I relations, edu cati ana I technology, 

management, and American history, may be borrowed through the interlibrary loan system at your 

closest library facility, or may be mailed directly to 

you. At the end of the loan period the material 

borrowed is returned in the original mailing envelope, using the return address label supplied by 

us. 

We are most anxious to expand our field support 

program, and to that end we earnestly solicit your 

inquiries. We can be reached at AUTOVON 35-425241 

41318, Monday through Thursday 0800-2100, Friday 

0800·1700, and Sunday 1200-2100. Our mailing 

address is: US Army Engineer School, ATTN: 

Field Librarian, Learning Resources Center (Bldg. 

270L Fort Belvoir, VA 22060. 

Baker, Robert F. HANDBOOK OF HIGHWAY 

ENGINEERING. New York: Van Nostrand 

Reinhold Co., 1975. 

Boyd, T. Gardner. METALWORKING (GoodheartWillcox's Build-A-Course Series). South Holland, 

III.: Goodheart-Willcox ce.. 1975. 

Bresler, Boris. REINFORCED CONCRETE ENGiNEERING. VOLUME I, MATERIALS, STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS, SAFETY. New York: 

John Wiley & Sons, lnc., 1974. 

Brown, Walter C. DRAFTING (Goodheart-Willcox's 

Build-A-Course Series) . South Holland, III.: 

Goodheart-Willcox ce.. 1975. 

Cedergren, Harry R. ORAl NAG E OF HIGHWAY 

AND AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS. New York: 

John Wiley & Sons, lnc.. 1974. 

Dent, Joseph B. FUNDAMENTALS OF ENGINEERING GRAPHICS. New York: Macmillan 

Publishing ce.. 1974. 

Doyle, John M. AN INTRODUCTION TO ELECTRICAL WIRING. Reston, Va.: Reston PubIishing ce.. 1975. 

Gerrish, Howard H. ELECTRICITY (GoodheartWillcox's Build-A-Course Series). South Holland, 

III.: Goodheart-Willcox Co., 1975. 

USAES ANNOUNCES 

TASK TRAINING 

PHAMPLETS 

The Engineer School has developed a series of informal 

pamphlets to help junior 

leaders in training squad and 

platoon level ARTE P tasks. 

These pamphlets are designed 

for easy reading and provide 

step-by-step, easy-to-follow 

guidance on how to train 

specific tasks listed in the 

ARTEP. The emphasis is on 

training as a team. 

Since the program is rela ­

tively new, there are only a 

few pamphlets available but 

more are on the drawing 

board. Those that are available are listed on page 101 of e.

1 

the USAES Instructional Material Catalog (USAES Pam 

310-1) along with instructions 

on how to order the pamphlets. 

The following are currently 

available: 

ARTEP TASK
 

NUMBER TITLE
 

4-13 Secure a Work Site 

4·14 Recon Patrol 

5-16 Route Recon 

6-17 Disable a Bridge 

6-18 Crater Roads 

8-8 Layout a Bailey Bridge 

9·2 River Recon 

Soon to come: 

7-5 Breach Minefield 

(Hasty Breach) 

If you don't have a catalog,
 

write to:
 

Director
 

Department of Army Wide Train ing
 

Support
 

US Army Engineer School
 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
 

and we will fill your order and 

send you a catalog at the same e) time. 

Once you have had a chance
 

to look the pamphlets over, we
 

4 
would appreciate your views. 

Your point of contact for errors, omissions, or new ideas is 

Unit Training Branch, Combat 

and Training Developments, at 

AUTOVON 354-3531. The 

mailing address is: 

US Army Eng inee r Schoo l 

AT SE -CTO -DT-TP 

F ort Belvoir. V irginia 22060 

SKILL LEVEL 

DESIGNATION 

CHANGES UNDER 

EPMS 

On 1 Oct 75, MOS 62B, Engineer Equipment Mechanic, became the first MaS, for which 

the US Army Engineer School 

has proponency, to be implemented under the Enlisted 

Personnel Management System (E PMS). This means that 

all personnel with this MOS 

will have their skill level 

designation changed to reflect 

their skill level under E PMS . 

PRESENT MOS'GRADE EPMS MOS 

62BAO E7 62B4 

62B30 E6 62B3 

62B20.62B30 E5 62B 2 

62B20 . 62B30 El-EA 62B1 

Tables of Organization and 

Equipment wi II be changed 

also to reflect the revised skill 

levels. There will no longer be 

a direct correlation between 

sk ill level and the category of 

maintenance as now exists 

(62B20 for organizational level 

and 62B30 for direct and qen ­

era 1 su pport level). Instead, 

the skill level will reflect the 

training and experience required to perform the tasks 

regardless of where (in what 

unit) it is performed . Modification of the training program 

to support the revised MOS 

structure is underway and will 

be implemented this calendar 

year. In the meantime, the 

62B20 course 'at Ft. Leonard 

Wood and the 62B30 course at 

Ft. Belvoir will continue. Individuals graduating from the 

courses will be awarded skill 

level designations to reflect 

their grade level. However, 

personnel records (DA Form 

2-1) of those completing the 

62B30 course will be annotated 

to show course completion. 

MOBILE ASSAULT
 

BRIDGE TRAINING
 

The US Army Engineer 

School is taking the following 

steps in an attempt to alleviate 

MAB problems ident if ied in the 

field, namely i lack of trained 

crewmen and mechanics . 

Mobile Training Teams (MTT) 

are being formed to teach organization maintenance to 

USAR E UR Units . 

A "Mobile Assau It Bridge 

Operator" draft text is in its 

final review and will be published in early 1976. This text 

will present to the individual 

soldier, as well as his supervisor, an analysis of the bridgeman's duties to include his job 

description (both present and 

EPMS revision) and a valid 

task list. The bridgeman will 

be able to see his career development pattern, thus enabling him to map out his 

Army Career. Supervisors will 

be provided with various tips 

on training to include: 

Ski li s De vel opmen1 

Tr a ining Evaluation Gu id e 

Safe ty T ips 

Ba si c Wa1ermanship Prin c iples 

A maintenance manual, entitled Il Ma int enance Tips for 

MAB Platoon Leader." has 

been developed. This text addresses the maintenance items 

to be checked, as well as the 

sequence in which they should 

be checked . 

Coordination has been made 

with MILPERCEN in an attempt to develop a more efficient method of coordinating 

and insuring that qual ified 

MAB maintenance personnel 

graduating from the 612F1 

Course (Mobile Assault 

Bridge/Ferry Maintenance 

Course) actua lIy reach their 

intended unit of assignment. 

To increase the readability of 

MAB texts, the Engineer 

School is introducing "Moe 

MAB" as shown here in his 

basic role of assault crossing. 

Moe will appear periodically 

throughout the MAB publications to pass on tips as well as 

introduce new sections. 

, .' 

- >­

;'c -:.
 

s 
~top ,-....

Sir 

In August 1975 I was a member 

of a group of US Korean War 

veterans who were invited to 

rev isit South Korea . For 

many, this was their first return to Korea since the Korean 

War ; in my case, it had been 13 

years since my last visit. 

Upon my return from Korea I 

tnouq ht perna ps the readers of 

The Engineer would be interested in some observations and 

comments pertaining to Korea 

as a result of the v isit. 

We saw the great progress 

made and being made in their 

economy and were impressed 

that the South Korean people 

were motivated to bu ild their 

country strong - economical ­

ly, educationa lly, and mil itarily. There was ev idence of 

pride, dedication, high morale, 

competence and a constant 

effort of all to improve and 

grow. 

During the six day visit, I 

visited with US Army, Corps, 

Division and Battalion commanders, a ROK Corps commander, and former Korean 

Mi litary commanders of the 

Korean war era . As a result of 

my visit, I came to realize why 

the South Korean, 2d US In ­

fantry Division and other US 

military forces in Korea have a 

high state of training, discipline, and combat readiness. 

The basic reason is MOTI ­

VATION, wh ich is created by 

the proximity and aggressiveness of the North Korean 

government, and its armed 

forces, the closest of which are 

less than 25 air miles from 

Soeul , and within the range of 

enemy rocket artillery. 

Thus a viable and universally 

understood threat to the South 

6 

Korean and US military forces, 

the capital, and the indust r ial 

complex of the Soeul - Inchon 

area provides the motivation, 

unity of purpose, and effort 

which characterizes the South 

Korean government and 

people. Upon return ing home, 

I sense that Americans perceive no exterior military 

threat and consider only the 

threats from within. 

It is reasonable to conclude 

that our own people's differences in threat perception as 

they relate to motivation affect 

t he tra ining readiness of our 

military forces stationed in 

places other than Korea . If the 

US is to ma inta in a high state 

of readiness, military leaders 

must	 provide a high standard 

of commandership/leadership 

to augment the threats facing 

them	 in order to provide the 

necessary MOTIVATION to 

produce superior units. 

In a	 booklet, given to students	 at The Armor and The 

Engineer Schools, containing 

quotes attributed to me, there 

is this section: 

ON
 

MOTIVATION
 

• All your men want to do 

what you want done. When 

they do not, you have fa iled to 

instruct and motivate them. 

• Awards t hat motivate only 

t he top men are of little value 

in ra is ing t he abil ity of a unit. 

It ta kes awards to motivate the 

lower t hi r d to do that. A unit is 

measured by the abil ity of the 

lower third personnel in it to 

carry t heir part of the load . 

• The first step in motivating 

soldiers is to tell them the 

reason why . 

In another section is this 

statemen t : 

• Start off each period of 

instruction or tr aining with two 

statem ents : 

- Tell them what they are 

go ing to learn today. 

- Tel l them why they need 

to	 know it. 

Genera I Bruce C. Clarke, 

USA Retired 

Sir 

Last year I wrote to The 

Engineer requesting a strong 

"what's happening now", approach in the magazine. Your 

Fa II '75 issue is exactly what I 

was referring to . The Engineer Potpourri was exceptionally good. I am looking forward to the next issue. 

John P. Carey 

Ma [or, Corps of Engineers 

Professor of Military Science 

Sir 

On behalf of the cadets and 

cadre of the 1975 Fort Bragg 

ROTC Advanced Camp, 1 wish 

to express my appreciation for 

your thoughtfulness in providing us with copies of The Engineer. 

The cadets enjoyed reading 

The Engineer and it certa inly 

helped t hese future officers increase their know ledge of the 

Army. 

Your thoughtfulness con ­

tributed sign ificantly to the 

profess iona I atmosphere of 

Advanced Camp 75. 

Again, please accept my 

thanks; your attention to th is 

matter is greatly appreciated. 

Ray Brackett 

COL,	 AD 

Public Affairs Officer 
•

e amza Ion 

o t e ee 5
 

MAJ James L Campbell 

Introduction 

The time between wars is th e traditional tim e 

for the US Army to rethink the old th eories and 

strategies: New force str uct ur es are postulated to 

meet new threats and new materiel dev eloped to 

equip the new organizations. Coupled with this 

traditional r ethinking of th e past, the Army is now 

challenged by the all-volunteer Army concept. 

This concept has resulted in smaller, better 

equipped forces that will offset much of th e 

personnel reducti ons by improving the quality of 

the American Forces. 

The Cor ps of Engineers should take this 

oppor tunity to r ethink our combat support me th ­

ods. Th e basic r eason for the engineers existence is 

to enhance the combat power of the combat arms. 

Th e engineers' mission is to enhance th e combat 

power by facilitating ground mov ement of friendly 

forces. Enemy force movements can also be 

impeded by engineers. This gives the net effect of 

aiding the friendly combat power. Other engineer 

missions include providing engineer staff planning 

and ad vice on construction, facilities engineering, 

and any other engineer services required in the 

theater of operations. These missions will shape 

the direction of engineer force structuring in the 

rethinking process. All decisions must be geared 

towards providing a highly responsive, adequately 

equipped engineer force that can provide what is 

required by the tactical commander. The decisions 

made now should be tempered with the mistakes 

th at history contains concerning post war organizations. As the Army has shrunk in size after past 

wars, th e orientation is towards retaining combat 

element s and letting the combat support tail 

shrink. This is the correct wa y to curtail the 

Army's size. The apparent solution for the Corps 

of Engineers is to eliminate or curtail the constr uction forces. This solution prevailed after both th e 

World Wars and the Korean War. While, at the 

time, this solution appears the most cost effective 

and oriented towards achieving maximum combat 

power from the lea st possible expenditure, it is not 

necessarily the most economical solution in the 

long run. This ar ti cle suggests another way that 

th e same funds could be spe nt while providing 

enh anced engineer capability to carry out th e 

combat zone tasks. This "ideal" solution is possible 

and should be considered in designing the engineer 

for ce of th e future. 

The after action reports and other articles 

written at th e conclusion of each major campaign 

or war contain a plethora of data concerning th e 

engineer force problems. Each of the reports 

contain man y platitudes concer ning the engineers' 

role in providing combat support. That speaks 

ver y highly of the engineer combat support in past 

wars. Th ese same reports are laced with accounts 

of the Corps' one big failing . . . lack of combat 

construction support. Each of our wars has 

required a logistical tai1. Yet th e forces to build 

th e depots, hospitals, airfields th at are needed to 

supply our fighting forces have not been fully 

effective. The engineers should consider th e 

re asons for their past inability to provide adequate 

construction equipment and expertise. No one is 

suggesting that combat engineer units be eliminated. This would be folly. Combat engin eers are 

vital to the tactical commander. Another solution 

does exist that will satisfy both of the r equirements of having highly motivated and responsive 

combat en gineers and also having the skills and 

th e equipment necessary to provide the construction needed to supply the tactical commander with 

th e logistics needed to carry out his operational 

plans. 

Before statin g this cost effective way to 

incr ease the combat engineering capabilities while 

retaining construction expertise. it might be best 

to r eview some of the sp ecific facts and deficiencies of the Corps as expressed in several reports 

published aft er several past campaigns and wars. 
From the practical standpoint, the value of 

engineers is rated in terms of their value to the 

tactical commander. This point was not always 

practiced in the Army. For instance, until the 

reorganization of the Army in 1876, the division 

commander did not have clear cut authority over 

where the engineers constructed their fortifications. That reorganization brought the artillery, 

the ordnance and engineer commanders into 

association with the division commander to develop a unified course of action. This action clearly 

made the tactical commander responsible for 

developing the course of combat actions. 

After World War 1. engineer strength dropped 

as did the total Army . A low point was reached in 

1937, when a 175 man engineer company was the 

only engineer unit organic to the division. Prior to 

Pearl Harbor, combat engineering was the preoccupation. A new tactical concept of lean units 

that traveled lightly and rapidly, further focused 

thoughts on combat engineering. But the funds to 

implement the combat engineering doctrine were 

not adequate. Th e necessary equipment to overcome natural and artificial obstacles was not 

present in th e force structure. This lack of combat 

engineering equipment carried over into the start 

of the war. During the prewar years, the 

emphasis upon combat engineering placed a 

premium on light and maneuverable construction 

machinery. The small equipment items did not 

provide adequate construction capability to carry 

out the major construction tasks that were required. The emphasis on combat engineering at the 

expense of the construction capability caused 

future hardship in the mobilization construction 

process in the early part of the war. However, one 

major stride forward had been taken when it was 

recognized that machinery could do more than 

manpower. The percent of the total force that was 

engineer during World War II was less than in 

previous conflicts. 

One important fallacy, believed by the Corps 

prior to World War II, was that if a conflict 

occurred, commercial products such as construction 

equipment could be had for the asking. This was a 

wrong assumption. When the industrial might of 

th e United States was, at last, directed to war 

production, the steel and oth er metals that would 

hav e been used for construction machin ery were 

needed in higher priority items such as tanks, 

ammunition, aircraft and ships. Thus, th e construction machinery took its place in line after the 

high er priority times. The gap between requirements and actual delivery of machinery was 

abridged by procuring used items that were 

pressed into service. 

One of the first engineering tasks, outside the 

US, was in the Southwest Pacific campaigns. The 

.. 

Army was involved in an island hopping campaign 

to steadily advance the bomber line closer to the 

Japanese homeland. This strategy dictated significant airfield construction. The after action reports and histories written about these campaigns 

have many comments about engineer support. The 

engineer combat battalion was "grossly inadequate 

to meet the requirements imposed upon it by the 

tactical and technicological demands arising from 

modern warfare ..." "The mechanization of forces 

had increased the dependence upon engineer 

construction of roads. The movement of all mobile 

equipment is dependent upon approach routes and 

bypasses around obstructions." It was recommended that the engineers be increased to regimental (two battalions) size to handle the tremendous amounts of work required. 

The Southwest Pacific histories also noted that 

"Engineer heavy construction units were always 

insufficient prior to the occupation of Japan." 

"More often than not, engineer units, in insufIicent numbers, were brought in late without the 

heavy construction equipment needed to meet the 

target dates of their high priority construction . . ., missions. 

Airfield construction was not the only major 

task faced by the engineers in the Southwest 

Pacific. "The construction and maintenance of 

roads constituted the principal engineer problem 

on Leyte. Although the more important existing 

roads on the island were initially classed as 

two-way, all-weather roads, they were not properly constructed to carry continuously the heavy 

traffic of modern warfare. "The combat engineers 

devoted almost one hundred percent of their effort 

to road and bridge construction." "It was not 

unusual for an engineer combat battalion to be 

responsible for maintaining 30 to 40 miles of road 

forming the main supply routes for its division. 

These roads were often little more than passable." 

Engineer support in the Southwest Pacific was 

apparently adequate because we achieved our 

objective of "winning the war." It is very hard to 

assess the impact that more adequately equipped 

engineers would have had in enabling better roads 

construction so more supplies could be made 

available to the combat units. Likewise, how much 

faster could th e war have been concluded if 

accelerated airfield construction would have ad ­

vanced the bomber lines faster? 

The Italian Campaign histories had no derogatory comments regarding engineer support of the 

combat operations. The support provided for 

oth er activities, however, was commented upon. 

"Construction was delayed materially due to the 

lack of adequate equipment throughout the campaign. This lack of equipment was alleviated by 

the creation of light equipment companies to 

support combat battalions, by the creation of large 

8 
equipment pools located at major headquarters 

and by the issue of excess equipment to the 

engineer units." This lack of equipment also was 

complicated by the lack of adequately trained 

equipment operators and mechanics. 

Currently, the major threat considered by th e 

Arm y is assumed to be in Western Europe. Over 

thirty years ago, we fought another war over what 

was th en the most highly dev eloped geogr aphy 

and road nets in the world. Th e roads in Europe 

ar e still the densest of potential areas of conflict. 

Man y of the historical comments concerning the 

pr oblems of our engineers in those circumstances 

regarding road maintenance, eq uipment problems 

and organizat ional constraints are st ill apropos. 

While the road nets in Europe ha ve drastically 

increas ed over th e thirty year time interim, so 

have the logistical requirements needed to carry 

out the land and air mobile types of conflict s that 

ar e envisioned. 

Th e Twelfth Army Group , which orchestrated 

a major tactical effort across Europe during the 

war, noted that the "only serious deficiency in th e 

training of engineer units has been in the techniqu e of road repair." "Operations in this theater 

have disclosed th e inad equacy of numbers of heavy 

equi pme nt operators allowed." 

Th e final report of the European Th eater 

Engineer echoed many of th e same comments 

mad e by the Twelfth Army Group Engineer. "The 

most important deficiency noted was a failure to 

maintain the asphalt roads." "The shortage of 

equipme nt necessary for road r epairs was felt 

severely." The personnel problems were noted 

again. "One of the two most ser ious engineer 

problems in ETO and one which had widespread 

and conti nuing effect s on our operations was 

r elated to th e lack of technically skilled sp ecialists, 

both officer and enlisted men , to fill the needs for 

such personnel in staff and troop positions." 

Th e messa ge of World War II engin eer deficiencies shows th at there was a lack of suffi cient heavy 

engineer cons tr uction equipment to provide combat 

support for the mobile warfare concept. Secondly, 

the personn el were not adequately trained or exposed to const r uct ion. even minor comb at construction, to perform ad equately to avoid adverse 

comme nts. 

Th e pr oblems of engineer s upport for tactical 

units is constantly surfacing. Figure 1 provides 

some insight into engineer support of certain 

camp aign s that were studied . It can be noted that 

the r atio of engineer battalion support for each 

division was around 3 per division. This figure 

does not include th e divisional battalion. Historically, we could conclude that four engineer 

battalions were used in the combat zone to support 

each division. Additionally, a number of engineer 

construction units were also in th e COMMZ to 

cons tr uct the massive road networks and logistical 

compl exes needed to supply the combat units. 

Th e Kor ean and Vietnam actions necessitated 

somewhat different en gin eer support. Figure 1 

shows that the ratio of combat engineer support 

was somewhat lower than the 3 corps battalions 

per division that is traditionally ex pected. An 

imp ortant point to note is that 9 of th e 15 

nondivisional engineer units in Korea were construction units. This ind icates the equipment in 

the combat engineer battalions was not sufficient 

to car ry out the construction need ed to support 

th e combat zone units. 

Vietnam was a unique experience for engineers. Signi ficant engineer construction was in 

support of political and nation building goals. 

Sixteen of the 28 nondivisional engineer battalions 

in Vietnam were cons tr uction battalions. Addition ally, all but three of the comba t engineer 

ENGINEER SUPPORT RATIOS 

_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ ---'-A=-.:c1ual Number of Units 

COMMZ Eng ine e r Batta lions 

Gen Svc l Nond iv E ng r Bn Nond iv En gr Ge n Engr Av ia f ioo Thea te r Da te Ar my Corps Div Comba t Cons t Sv c Bn/Div Comba t Cons t Bn 

Recommended Engi neer Support 

Nc no rv 

Eng r 

Nond iv Eng r Nondi v Eng r Bn /O;v COMMZ Bnl Ar my Area Bn/ Cor ps Area in Comba t Con 51 

Comba t Cons t Com ba t Const Zon e Bn 

ETO 1 M ,l'l 45 L\ \' '" \0 296 102 

12'r\ Armv ""p r .b \I 1) " 12' 3.07 Group 

Eur opl:' 

t.cvrc oc t I. 1 00 / IS l 58 ( strnr}i4'ltf" 

L....,...·'l:w. J a n J~ '00 )/

( ,I n1l.loll lJ r"I 

voru. 110 11 M<'ty 44 \0 271 

e 'l Y) r>~ 1(1'" 

'0 ( ,111'\0': 1'01' Apr- 4~ 12 2 66
 

<onM A p r \I
 2S0 II " 6 l u i 6' 12 16 s.se E\<,u n p1c ETO 

1.•1 ' 10 ­

" - ,., $) 

fo. '<'J,-, ,,' l 

9 
battalions were augmented with a light equipment 

company to make them comparable to a construction battalion. The issue of excess equipment to 

these units still was not adequate to supply the 

capability needed to do the required construction. 

Over 650 items of high production construction 

equipment such as dump trucks. large rock 

crushers and rollers were provided in addition to 

the TO&E authorizations to achieve the road 

building program goals. 

Figure 1 not only provides some insight into 

the historical allocation of engineer troops but also 

presents some of the requests and guidelines 

proposed for engineer support by the theater 

engineers. It can be seen that although the job got 

done, the senior engineers recognized that more 

engineer support was required to complete the job 

the combat commander really needed to have done 

to insure that the combat plans were carried out 

as scheduled. In each case, the stated theater 

requirements for engineers always exceeded available engineers. 

History has provided examples to illustrate 

that engineers were deficient in construction 

equipment needed to support combat operations. 

The equipment was scarce because the planners 

thought it could be easily obtained when a war 

started. The personnel that were supposed to 

operate the equipment were not adequately 

trained. This is obvious because the equipment 

was not in the Army. and there was little 

construction training between wars because the 

focus of the army was on the combat engineering 

tasks. Perhaps the most significant observation 

coming out of the war was that a doctrine of 

mobility in combat dictates a vast combat engineering construction effort to support it. When 

one considers the improved air mobility and 

tactical vehicles currently in the Army inventory. 

it is hard to understand why more roads and other 

engineer construction must take place. It must be 

remembered that sooner or later. the tanks and 

helicopters need POL and ammunition. Trucks 

bring these items to the front. The logistical tail 

runs on roads. Not only has the need for highly 

mobile warfare created a need for more engineer 

construction, but the size of a divisions area has 

also increased without a comparable quantum 

jump in engineer support. In the 1944 time frame, 

a division area was approximately 100 square 

miles. Currently. the division area is 625 square 

miles. This is over a six-fold increase in size. This 

six-fold increase in area means a potential six-fold 

increase in road construction and maintenance, 

bridge construction, obstacle construction and 

removal. and the complete variety of engineer 

tasks. While the engineer equipment has become 

more productive, and selected items have been 

added to the engineer battalions, there has not 

been a six-fold increase in the productivity of an 

engineer battalion. 

New Concept 

In 1974, the Army took a major step towards 

bridging the mistakes that history has shown in the 

engineer organization. The Engineer Combat 

Battalion (Heavy) concept was introduced as a new 

engineer unit. The existing engineer construction 

battalions were converted to "heavy" battalions 

and given a whole new mission and training 

concept. These new battalions retain construction 

equipment and have additional small arms, communications equipment, and anti-armor support 

weapons. The mission of this unit emphasizes use 

in the combat zone in the same role as the combat 

engineer battalions. This was a major step 

forward which moved the much needed equipment 

RELATI V E COMBAT CONSTRUCT ION CAPABILITIES*
 

Heavy Bn Heavy Bn Heav y Bn 

Task to (Minus One Co) to 

Combat Bn to Combat Bn One + 1/3 LE 

Barriers 1.07 0.75 1.07 

Roads 2.25 1.50 1.28 

He liports 2.00 1.36 1.50 

Field Forts 1.20 1.18 1.07 

Misc Tasks 1.10 1.50 1.07 

All Tasks** 1.87 1.50 1.07 

*The methodolgy and numbers presented in this f iqure are fully developed in "Construction in the Combat Engineering Role". ESG,
 

Jan 74
 

**Th is row implies. for example. that a heavy battal ion minus a construction company is 50 percent better at combat construction' 

tasks than a combat battalion. 

i 

10 
forward in th e combat zone. The tactical commander can now count on considerably more 

engineer support than was previously available 

from the Corps combat battalion. One of the 

engineers most important asset - specialized 

equipment - is now more responsive and availabl e. 

Now, however, th e engineers are facing the 

challenge s of providing engineer suppor t at the 

minimum cost. There is a powerful temptation to 

be gin eliminating the Engineer Combat Battalions 

(Heavy) from the force structure because they cost 

mor e to maintain in the absolute dollar sense. This 

temptation must be resisted, and the heavy 

battalion should remain - even at the ex pense of 

th e standard combat battalion. 

A recent study carefully evaluated the ability 

of the const r uct ion battalion to fulfill the missions 

of the engineer combat battalions. While this 

study used the construction battalion as the base, 

th e Engineer Combat Battalion (Hea vy ) ha s the 

same major it ems of constr ucti on equipment, so 

th e comparison is still valid. A detailed r equirements matrix was compar ed with equipment 

capa bilit ies. Fi gure 2 compares a heavy battalion 

with a combat battalion in doing all of the 

construction tasks that the combat battalions are 

currently tas ked to do. Th e figure shows that th e 

currently organized heavy battalion has an ability 

to supply the ta cti cal commander with 87 percent 

more combat construction support than the combat 

battalion does. If no costs were in volved, the 

he avy battalions sh ould replace the combat battalions be cause they provide more support for the 

tacti cal comma nder . However, dollars do matter. 

Figure 3 shows the cost of maintaining a 

combat and a heavy battalion in the force st r ucture for one year. Initial procurement costs are 

also shown. Th e heavy battalion costs over 24 

percent more to keep in the force structure than 

th e combat battalion. Although an 87 percent 

increase in construction capability surely merits an 

incr ea sed cost of 24 percent, this rationale is not 

directly applicable in a constrained resource environme nt such as th e Army is currently operating 

in. 

Figure 3 also portrays the alternative of having 

one third of a light equipment company augment a 

combat battalion to give approximately the same 

combat const r ucti on capability as the heavy battalion. It can be seen that a 7 percent increase in 

cap ability would cost 13 percent more, whi ch is 

clearly not economical. So the solution of a ligh t 

equipment company augmentation t o a combat 

battalion is not t he most economical route to 

obtain increased combat construction support. 

Anot he r alt ernative is to us e the reserve forc e 

roundout concept. One of the constr uct ion companies in the heavy battalion could be eliminated 

fr om the active for ce structure and the battalion 

could becom e the parent unit for a r eserve 

company in eve nt of a mobilization. The cost for 

this alternative is also listed in Figure 3. The 

sav ings to the a ct ive for ce structures would be a 

sa vings of nearly 4 percent over t he current 

combat battalion in the force struct ur e and an 

increased ca pability ove r the combat battalion of 

50 percent. This 50 percent increased capabilit y is 

bas ed on th e fact that the roundout company 

might not be rapidly available, so it was not 

included in th e calculation . Wh en the roundou t 

company is fully operational, th e 87 percent 

increas ed cap ability of a normal heavy battalion 

over a combat battalion would be effective. 

It seems clear that one alternative to lower th e 

cost of maintaining t he active eng ineer forc e is to 

take ad vantage of the superior combat constructi on capabilities offered by the heavy battalions 

COST COMPARISON*
 

Costs 

Recurring Non Recurring 

Heav y Bn $15,654,680 

Hea v y Bn M inus D Co ( Bob ta i l Bn ) 11,973,610 

Combat Bn 9,772,707 

Com bat Bn + 1/3 Li ght Equipm ent Co 11,511,100 

Cost Sav i ngs of "Bobta il" v s Combat Bn 

Per cent An n ual Cost Save d " Bobtail " v s Combat Bn 

Per cent A n nua l Cost Sa v ed " Bobta i l" vs Co m ba t Bn + 1/3 LE 

Percent Increase in Ca pabil it y "Bobtail" v s Combat 

Per cent A nnua I Cost Sav ed " Bobtail' VS He avy Bn 

*Cost data obta ined from Force Cost Information System (FCI Sl. Comptroll er of th e Army . Dec 74 , 

$15,501,553 

11,962,823 

12,467,468 

13,8 14,799 

504,645 

4 Per cen t 

13 Per cen t 

50 Per cent 

23 Percent 

Fi gur e 3 

11 
over the combat battalion. The savings of 4 

percent in absolute costs versus an increased 

capability of 50 percent seems to be an alternative 

that should be seriously considered in the days 

ahead. The roundout concept would be in consonance with other activities within the US Army 

and also structured along the lines of other armies 

in the world that rely to a large extent on reserves 

rounding out the total force. It should be recalled 

that the engineers have a high percentage of their 

total force in the reserve structure when compared 

to some other branches of the active Army . 

If a detailed analysis of the roundout concept 

proves feasible, the Corps should make the total 

bridge to this concept and eliminate the current 

Corps combat battalion from the force structure. 

The divisional units should remain essentially as 

they are, but perhaps some selected items of 

equipment could be placed in these units. Succintly stated, this concept seeks the designation of 

only one ty pe of nondivisional engineer battalion. 

i.e., THE Eng-ineer Battalion. Having one battalion 

in the force structure to provide nondivisional 

engineer support increases the engineers main 

resource - equipment - available to the tactical 

commander. THE Engineer Battalion would be the 

only nondivisional engineer battalion, so there 

could be no problem with accepting the fact that 

THE Engineer Battalion provided the support 

needed for combat operations. It would receive 

the same treatment by force planners as the 

current combat battalion does in tooth to tail 

calculations. 

There are many advantages more significant 

than a clearer definition of engineer roles and 

missions, however. The historical examples cited 

document a recurrent lack of training and experience in the many facets of construction and 

engineering needed to construct the more massive 

logistical projects located in the COMMZ. By r etaining the varied MOSs and specialized equipment in the force structure now, peacetime 

training in the use of the construction equipment 

would provide a base of trained people to build 

upon in the event of mobilization. The prospect of 

having readily available, specialized resources 

such as plumbel'S. car pent er s, and electricians 

available in TO&E units during peacetime is an 

attractive proposition to money managers trying 

to stretch the facilities engineer dollars. The 

fallac y of readily obtaining needed construction 

equipment from the civilian industry would not 

apply. Granted that the equipment on hand would 

certainly not satisfy the total requirement for 

construction equipment for a large engagement, 

but there would certainly be more equipment on 

hand than were none to be maintained in the 

active force at all. 

Plan Now for Future Missions 

The time is now at hand to rethink the 

problems of engineer support to the tactical I 

commander. One concept that appears to offer 

some increased capability, coupled with a decreased cost, is the idea of having just one 

engineer battalion. This battaion would be essentially the existing Engineer Combat Battalion 

(Heavy). The concepts of providing more equipment forward in the combat zone and of maintaining equipment and sparse critical skills in the force 

structure during peacetime, certainly merge with 

the lessons that have been demonstrated concerning past engineer support problems. The value of 

clearly placing the engineers in the role of combat 

support is considerable. This is not to imply that 

the vital tasks of logistical construction for the 

COMMZ will be forgotten. The same capability 

will exist in THE Engineer Battalions that currently exists in Engineer Combat Battalions (Heavy) 

which are tasked with providing construction for 

the COMMZ. The added benefits of the one 

battalion idea is that the battalion will be able to 

do tasks in the combat zone as well as their 

existing missions in the COMMZ. 

History again provides us with examples of the 

engineers having to reorganize and re -equip after 

hostilities start in order to accomplish their 

mission. These examples should teach current

force planners that the nucleus of the engineer 

force should be available in the active force 

structure. New organizations should not be developed in time of emergency but rather be 

planned for and developed now, based on the 

lessons of history. THE Engineer Battalion concept 

provides increased combat construction capability, 

decreased cost, and provides potentially available 

personnel for peacetime construction activities. 

THE Engineer Battalion concept should be 

"rethought" now . Reorganize now to make initial 

engineer equipment readily available in future 

combat zones. History points in that direction! 

MAJ James L. Campbell is currently assigned 

to the 8th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division. In his previous assignment with the Engineer Studies Group, Office Chief of Engineers, he 

partic ipat ed in several major studies addressing 

the role and organization of Engineers in the 

Army. 

MAJ Campbell has served as platoon leader and 

company commander in both constru ction and 

combat engineer battalions. MAJ Campbell received a B.S. degree [rom the South Dakota School 

of Mines and a Masters degree from Texas A&M 

University. He is also a graduate of the Engineer 

Officer Advanced Course, Command and Staff 

College and is a Registered Professional Engineer. 

12 
Like many French institutions, the history of 

th e French Engineers dates ba ck to the 18th 

century. More specifically, in 1776, the Engineers 

were reorganized to consititure an integral branch 

of the French Army. Prior to this reorganization 

th e Engineers were not regarded as military 

officers but were considered as technical ad visors 

for fortifications and during siege wars. These 

engineers were trained at the only engineeri ng 

school in France at the time - th e famous Royal 

Military School of Engineers at Mezieres. 

De spi te th ese humble ori gins, th e French 

En gineers have provided many notable leaders. 

For example, Sebastien Vauban , who became a 

Marshal of France, and Major General du Portail, 

who wa s accorded the hon or of being the first 

commandant of th e US Corps of Engineers. 

However, sin ce the above reorganization , th e 

French Engineers have und ergone numerous 

chan ges with r espect to organizati on, training and 

functions. Som e of t he major character istics of th e 

pr es ent En gineer Cor ps ar e as follows: 

• ORGANIZATION AND	 RESPONSIBILITES 

At present, th e strength of the French Corps of 

Engineers is ab out 38,700 men (including 2,500 

officers), this is, about 10% of th e Army, and it 

LTC Henri C. Aiglon 

is organized into two parts: 

L'ARME (i.e., th e units: either comb at or 

mul ti-purpose) with a mission defined ba sically as "t o or ganize and improve the ground 

with the obj ect of facilitating the maneuver of 

fri endly for ces and to r estrict that of the 

enemy. " In gen eral, the missions are similar 

t o those of the US Corps of Engineers with 

th e followin g differences: 

•	 It is not responsible for: 

Top ography (Ar t illery) and Mapping (Service 

Geographie de l'Armee = Army Mapping 

Agen cy). 

Pipeline constructi on (Defense P etrol, Oil and 

Lu brication Agency). 

Smoke Missi on (Ar tillery). 

•	 It is responsible for: 

Flame mission. 

Le SERVICE (Milit ar y Construction) is re ­

sponsible for building and maintaining all 

barracks and facilities, quarters, hospital and 

training areas necessary for the proper func ­

tioning of th e Army, and at times for t he Air 

Force and Navy. How ever, it must be noted 

th at "le SERVICE" is not r esponsible for 

"civil works." 

13 
• COMMAND AND CONTROL: 

At Department of Army level , command and control is divided between: 

The "Inspecteur du Genie" (The Insp ector).
 

This ge ne r al officer and his staff are r esp onsi­


ble for elaborati ng and for mulating the polic y
 

on Engin eer aff airs: doctrine, tactics, equip­


ment, training, combat r eadines s, and so forth ,
 

including t echnical ma tters. He is als o charg­


ed with the insp ection of all Engineer units,
 

organizations and installations. He is t he head
 

of t he Cor ps and is normally a Lieutenant
 

General.
 

Th e "Directeur Centr al du Geni e" (T he Direc­


tor), usu ally a se nior Maj or General, holds the
 

number two position in the Corps. He and his
 

staff are responsible to:
 

The In sp ector for th e impleme ntation of his
 

policies.
 

Th e DA for the manag ement of Engineer
 

per sonnel matters, promotions. and assign­


ments.
 

Below DA level: 

At th e mili tary r egion level (Fr ance is 

divided int o 7 military regions, plus French 

for ces in German y ), we have a "Commander 

and Dir ector of En gineers" and a staff. 

This officer , normally a Brigadier Ge ne r al, 

a nd sometimes a Major General for th e 

more import ant re gions (for example, Military Region 6 in Eastern France) is th e 

Engin eer advisor to t he Commande r of th e 

region, and is the Commander of all Engieers stat ione d in the region (Engineer units 

and districts). 

• L'ARME: (the Units): 

Th ese cons ist s of twenty-t hr ee regim ents. plus 

t he "Br iga de des Sappeurs Porn piers de Paris" 

(Paris Firemen Brigade - 5,000 personnel}, and 

one school located at An gers - equivalent to th e 

US Army Engin eer Sc hool at Fort Belv oir. 

Th e Army Engineer units are or ganized in terms 

of Force Sy st ems. Th ere ar e thr ee different 

types: 

Main Combat Force
 

Territorial Defense Force
 

Overseas Intervention Force
 

Engin eer units are oft en st atione d overseas. and 

th ere are als o Engineer officers and NCOs 

serving as advisors overseas, mainly in Africa. 

Th e characteristic s of th e most importan t units 

assigne d to th e Main Combat Force are: 

At Brigade level: 1 separate Combat Company 

(171 persnnel). 

At Division level: 1 Re giment (749 personnel) 

consisting of: 

Headquarters and Headquarters Company 

1 Equipmen t and Bridging Company 

2 Comb at Companies 

Thus in a Division of 3 Brigades, the Engine ers 

consti tute 1262 personnel. and 5 Combat Companies. All Combat Squads are equipped with th e 

French Combat Engineer Vehicle (CE V). (This is 

a typ e of Ar mored Personnel Carrier wi th a do zer 

bl ad e. a foldable boom, a winch, a 20mm automati c 

gun, and is capable of carrying 10 personnel). Th e 

bridging eq uipme nt consists of the Gillois Amphibious Bridge (named after its French designer) 

whi ch is equivalent to th e Mobil e Assualt Bridge 

- in US te r minology it is kn own as th e Amphibious River Cr ossing Equipment - the AMX 3.0 

AVLB (63 foot spa n, Class 60). Th ere are 8 AVLBs 

and 4 launchers at the Divisional Combat Battalion 

level and 4 AVLBs and 2 launchers per Brigade 

Engineer Comba t Compan y. 

At Cor ps level (2 or 3 Divisions):
 

One Combat Regiment, Corps type (888 per­


so nnel) with 1 HHC and 4 Combat Com ­


parues
 

Tw o Comb at Support Regiments (1352 per­


so nne l ea ch) with 6 Compa nies:
 

1 HRC, 1 Light Equipment Company, 1
 

Fl oating Bridge Company, 1 Transportation
 

Company, 1 Amphibious Bridge Company
 

and 1 Firem en Company.
 

In ot he r words, a Cor ps of 2 Divisions has a
 

t otal of some 7,500 Engineers.
 

Th e other Force Systems consist mainly of:
 

One Comba t Ba ttalion (Airbo rne). Terri­


torial Combat Battalions a nd infrastructure
 

units such as: Railway Battalion and 4 Air­


field Ba ttalions capable of constructing,
 

main tainin g and r ep airing airfields of all
 

types.
 

Equipment: At present, with th e ex ception
 

of some old US bridging equipme nt (Bailey
 

and M4T6) , French Engineers are equippe d
 

with Fren ch designed and built equipment.
 

Th e most famous of these is the Gillois am14 
phibious eq uipme nt consisting of 3 different 

models buil t on the sa me chassis and basic 

mechanical unit : 

Th e ferry: Class 30 or 60 whe n coupled 

Th e amphibious br idge : Class 60 to 100 

Th e self-propelle d bridge (sciss or type 

bridge, 66 foot spa n): Class 30 or 60 when 

coupled. 

• Le SERVICE: (Military Construction:) 

It is under the direct contr ol of the Director 

(Dir ect eur Central). Th e de tail ed contro l of 

building and main tena nce is vested in t he 

"Commande r and Direct or of the E ng ineers" of 

th e military regions (almost eq uivale nt to t he 

US Engineer Divisi ons, for the constr uct ion aspect onl y). Wi th in eve ry military r egion further 

subdiv ision of control is mad e and a typical layout would be: 

Commander and Director of the Engineers 

(Military Region) 

I 

t E ng Ine er U nits Enginee r D istr icts 

Ar(ondlssem en1 de Tr a vau x 

(Engin eer Area ) 

An 'Arrondise ment de Travau x' is similar to an 

Area Engin eer in t he U.S. Ar my Cor ps of E ng inee rs. He is in charge of either a large garr iso n 

tow n or a georgra phic group of smaller mili tary 

install ati ons. 

At the "Com mander an d Dir ector" and at t he 

"D istr ict" level ther e is a technical dep artmen t 

in char ge of the desi gn of new bu ildings and constr uction. Th e ot he r administr at ive departments handle real estate, fina nce and contracts. 

These dep artmen t s ar e r esp onsible to t he 

higher level of t he Engineer cha in of com ma nd and 

to a lar ger t echnical dep artmen t of t he 'Directc ur 

Central" ca lled 'Section Technique Batime nts F or tifications et Travaux (STBFT). The STBFT deals 

with t he evaluation and approval of all new 

impor tant desi gn s submitted by t he militar y 

r eg ion level an d at times pr odu ces design s for 

major por jects. 

Before conc lud ing, it would be ap pro pr ia te to 

men tion another Engi neer sc hool - "the E cole 

Superi eur e du Ge nie" at Versailles . Th is is a 

technical sc hool for officers and non -commissioned 

personnel assigne d to mili tar y cons truction . F or 

example , it offers an 18 month course for youn g 

Engineer Captains (college gr ad uates ) which lead s 

to t he equivalent of a Masters degree in Constr uction. 

• CONCLUSION 

The French En gineers have a lon g and proud 

military en gineer ing tradition in both war and 

peace . Since its inception in 1776, the traditional 

'bl ack and r ed' colors of t he Corps and its Cr est 

- t he steel plat e and helment, have been in the 

for efr on t of major scientific and technical deve lopme nts and have "led t he way" for t he 

Fren ch ar mi es involved in wars all ove r the 

world. 

A bri ef r evi ew of t he r oster of t hose wh o have 

passed through t he r anks of th e Cor ps r eveals 

man y fam ous nam es in French mili tary and 

scientific hist ory. Some of the prominen t figu r es 

and t he ir contr ibutions are: 

MARSHAL VAUBAN: Known as the 'father ' of 

the French E ngi neers, he was a wor ld r enown ed expe rt in both construction and fortification te chniques. 

GENERAL CARNOT: A member of th e Fren ch 

Revoluti onary Committee at the ti me of t he 

Revolution, he was named "th e organize r of 

the vict ory." 

NICOLAS CARNOT: Son of th e ab ove , a mathemati cian and ph ysicis t (t hermody namics ). 

GENERAL BERTHIER: Chief of St aff of Nap oleon 's armies . 

CLAUD E ROUGET de LISLE: Composer of the 

'Ma rs eillaise' - th e National Anthem. 

CHARLES COULOMB: El ec tricity. 

GENERAL PO NCELET: Mathematici an a n d 

physicist. 

MARSHAL JOFFRE: Commander , Alli ed F or ces 

in World War I. 

Now , 199 yea rs after t heir 'refounding ,' the 

motto th e F r ench E ng ine ers - CONSTRU CT 

OFTEN, DESTROY S OMETIMES, SERVE AL ­

W AYS, constantly serves to r emind t he E ngineers 

t ha t as in t he past , so in the future, t hey will 

continue to constitute an integral for ce in t he 

nati on's defens e sys te m . 

A rmy Lieut enan t Colonel Henri C. A iqlon, 

Engineers (FRAN CE ), is presen tly Distri ct Engi· 

neer, Tours , France. He was the French Liaison 

Officer to the US Army Engineer School, Ft. 

Beloior, Virginia from 1972- August 1975, served 

as a combat en gineer in North Vie tnam (1954) and 

Algeria (1.961), and was an instruct or at both the 

Fr ench A rmor S chool and the French Militar y 

Academ y. He is a grad uate of th e French Military 

A cadem y, S t. Cyr and holds the French equivalen t 

of a Mast ers degree in engineering. 

15 
16 

T e g 

Present day officers of the Corps of Engineers 

are very familiar with the currently used "Essayons" button. This button has been definitely 

identified as being used in 1814 and may have been 

used in modified form as early as 1802 when a 

Congressional Act authorized the now familiar 

Corps of Engineers. But what, if any, did the 

Army Engineer officer wear as a uniform button 

prior to 1802? 

Records of the Revolutionary War Period (1775 

to 1783) do not reveal any distinctive type of 

button being worn by the appointed engineer 

officers. Engineers of that period wore either the 

button of their parent state with a state identification or the general service button. The regular 

Continental Army uniform button was either 

white or yellow in color with "USA" on the face. 

In November of 1783, by act of Congress, the 

existing Corps of Engineers was mustered out of 

active military service along with the majority of 

MAJ Francis Nata luk 

FIG I 
en Engineer Buttons
 

the remaining Continental Army. Regular forces 

by June 1784 (including engineers) consisted of 

two small "car etaker" detachments, one 25-man 

group at Fort Pitt and one 55-man group at West 

Point, and one commanding officer. However, in 

the same month, Congress authorized a small 

standing Army. This regular Army consisted of 

eight companies of Infantry and two companies of 

Artillery (no engineers were indicated in the 

organization). 

By 1793, relations between Europe and the 

United States had deteriorated to the point where 

President Washington asked Congress for the 

authority to begin fortification of principal harbors 

along the East Coast. Cong-ress granted this 

request in March 1794, and Washington appointed 

several engineers to supervise these coastal districts and the construction of forts and artillery 

emplacements. The uniform, and specifically its 

buttons, worn by these first "District Engineers" 

is not recorded. It is assumed by military uniform historians that these men wore the ArtilF IG 2 

lerists uniform with some modification to designate them as engineers. 

In May 1794, a Corps of Engineers arm was 

added to the Artillerist Corps and the resultant 

"Corps of Artillerists and Engineers" (USA&E) 

was formed. Initially, these Corps officers wore 

th e then existing Artillery uniform and a button 

(Fig 1) consisting of an eagle facing to the left, 

standing on a field piece which pointed away. This 

button was quickly replaced in the same year. The 

button worn by the USA&E can be found in four 

variations involving the absence or appearance of 

regimental markings above the field piece. Shown 

here is the third variation, inscribed with the 

markings of the 1st REG to set apart the wearer 

from the 2d REG, similarly marked. Of the other 

two Corps of Artillerists and Engineers buttons, 

one had only the USA&E in script below and the 

other was similar to Fig 2 except for the absence 

of the designation "Ist" or "2d" before the word 

Reg't. The second regiment and consequently the 

1st and 2d Regiment identification were authorized in April 1798. 

Buttons of the general design of Fig 2 were 

worn by Engineers until 1802 when the Corps of 

Engineers was separated from the Corps of 

Artillerists. From then until 1814, the records do 

not identify any distinctive buttons on the engineer's uniforms. Uniform historians surmise, because of the small number of affected officers (20), 

these men wore the current Artillery button or 

the older USA&E button. By 1814, the Essayons 

button was being worn by officers at West Point 

Academy as noted by General D. Ramsey. In 1902, 

when the Army adopted regulation buttons, the 

Corps of Engineers alone was allowed to retain the 

distinctive button. It has remained essentially 

unchanged in appearance since 1814. 

Major "Mike" Nataluk is a USAR officer on a 

STEADFAST tour of duty with the US Army 

Engineer School at Fort Bel voir. He has served in 

a number of Engineer units, both active and 

reserve and is a graduate of the Command and 

General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, 

Kansas. His interest in early Engineer history 

came as a follow-on to working with Reserve and 

National Guard units, many of which have lineage 

dating back to Revolutionary and pre-Revolutionary days . 

17 
d 

e 

s · 

o 

Working under the cover of darkness and 

following the philosophy "if they can see you, they 

can kill you", engineers of the 7th Engineer 

Brigade and members of the VII Corps combined 

arms team learned that river crossing operations 

can be conducted successfully and without major 

difficulties. 

In a series of exercises during April 1975. the 

7th Engineer Brigade conducted river crossing 

training and four, 3 day combined arms retrograde 

river crossing FTXs on the Main River near 

Kitzingen, Germany. The exercises provided a 

unique opportunity for engineers and members of 

the combined arms team to practice and develop 

techniques for conducting night river crossing 

operations in hostile environment. While some 

new concepts resulted, many of the lessons 

reaffirmed established techniques and doctrine. 

The objectives of the exercises were threefold; 

one, to allow th e engineers to train with all the 

Corps' float bridge equipment; two, to exercise the 

combined arms team in a situation requiring 

limited daytime movement and a night retrograde 

river crossing; three. to develop experience and 

lessons learned to expand current retrograde river 

crossing doctrine. 

The Admin Portion 

In preparation for the FTX, each of the four 

cor:nbat engineer battalions of the 7th Engineer 

Brigade underwent three days of refresher training with river crossing equipment. The training 

days were long and allowed for both day and night 

training. To prepare for the FTX, each unit made 

maximum use of integrated training and devoted 

its major effort on the heavy bridging - CL 60, 

M4T6, and the M-2 Bailey Bridge. 

Each unit realized early in its training cycle the 

importance of cooperation between "supporter and 

supported." The close coor dinat ion thus fostered 

during the training cycle helped each unit to 

accomplish its FTX missions with minimum delays. 

The FTX Portion 

The FTX was designed to force intense but 

realistic utilization of the entire spectrum of river 

crossing capabilities. The engineers were required 

to support combined arms tactical crossings in 

"real" time based on realistic enemy and friendly 

situations. The bridging and crossing sites available were matched to the actual number of 

vehicles and tactical plans of the crossing area 

commander. Controllers did. however. limit the 

bridging available to that which would normally be 

available to a crossing area in the Corps zone. 

Each scenario was tailored to the specific 

tactical crossing unit. Because the crossing units 

varied from a Pershing artillery battalion, to a 

cavalry squadron. to mechanized infantry. each 

river crossing scenario was tailored to the crossingunit. Each scenario assumed the loss of airsuperiority shortly after the outbreak of hostilities, and each involved a retrograde river crossing. 

Tactical commanders functioned as crossing area 

commanders (CACs) and were required to prepare 

crossing plans for bridging on the first night and 

rafting the second. The rafting operation was 

18 
forced through a withdrawal of heavy bridging to 

the rear plus the proximity of enemy forces. 

Every CAC was supported by a combat engineer 

battalion of the brigade plus float bridging from 

the 565th Engineer Battalion (Composite). In 

addition, each CAC had MP support for traffic 

control, ADA (Chapparal/Vulcans), and smoke 

from a section of a labor service smoke generator 

company. To realistically portray the lack of air 

superiority, the CAC was opposed by high performan ce aircraft and attack Cobras from the 3d 

Combat Assault Bridge. 

Reaction to the Loss of Air Superiority 

Of an the lessons learned, the reaction to the 

loss of air superiority was the most interesting. 

The initial reaction by the engineer units was to 

refrain from any movement or activity whatsoever 

during daylight hours for fear of enemy air attack. 

However, time restraints and pressure to accomplish the mission forced a re-evaluation. As a 

result, work proceeded by limiting vulnerability 

and presenting only small targets (targets which 

the enemy would not risk a million-dollar aircraft 

to destroy). Further, the effectiveness of the 

Chapparal/Vulcan battery against enemy air was 

sufficient to provide increased confidence to all the 

crossing elements and mission work progressed 

with few delays. After the bridge crossings were 

completed the first night, the engineers were 

required to remove the bridge completely or place 

it along the river bank. Each engineer unit elected 

to disperse the bridge; however, the dispersion 

und ertaken was usually insufficient. Due to the 

large bomb load capability of enemy aircraft and 

their ability to bomb at set intervals, the bridge 

parts should have been spread at least 100 meters 

apart and at uneven intervals. Other options were 

to tie sections together and camouflage to represen t an island or beached debris. 

The engineer units soon learned the value of 

clearing the bridge construction site of all unnecessary vehicles. Besides presenting a much smaller 

target, operations were greatly improved by 

reduc ed congestion. In most cases, vehicles returned to the bridge park. An alternate course, 

suggested by the Air Force participants, was to 

park the vehicles in geometric patterns next to a 

village. Infared detection devices would easily 

spot the hot exhausts against the cool background 

of woods, but the image would be indistinquishable 

from the village itself. However, such vehicles had 

to be moved or well camouflaged before daylight. 

Constructing the bridge and conducting the 

crossing under blackout conditions disturbed 

sever al commanders from a safety and operational 

point of view. Their fears were unfounded as all 

four crossings were successfully conducted with 

little lighting. Crane lights and hand-held flashlights were the only lights used to construct the 

heavy bridge and rafts. Light tactical raft and 

footbridges were installed using only covered 

flashlights. As a illustration of the light discipline 

achieved, aggressors who were less than one 

kilometer away were unaware of the light tactical 

raft and footbridge construction. While some 

crane lights were visible from that distance, the 

type activity remained unclear. 

With a smoke generating capability available, 

each unit was quick to request its maximum 

utilization. Unfortunately, administrative restrictions limited the use to one or two hours during 

the morning and evening. The smoke generating 

units capability to "haze" an area proved as 

effective as dense smoke and created better 

construction working conditions within. Smoke, in 

general, has an adverse effect on the Vulcan/ 

Chapparal unit which is dependent on visual 

observation for target detection. Lastly, an interesting observation was made by Air Force representatives concerning the use of smoke and terrain 

analysis. As the valley utilized for the crossing 

was very similar to an adjacent valley, smoke 

could hav e been used solely in the unused valley as 

a deception. Such a deception would have allowed 

th e ADA to operate with unlimited visibility as a 

bonus to the ruse. 

Retrograde River Crossing Doctrine 

Th e exer cise clearly demonstrated that a retrograde river crossing is NOT simply a hasty or 

deliberate assault river crossing in reverse. A 

noticeable distinction arises in the area of command and control, since the crossing area commander (CAC) will change depending on the 

location of t he crossing area on the battlefield. A 

few items should be highlighted: 

• Crossing area forward of the brigade rear 

boundary. Uncertainty as to the specific identity 

of the CAC in a retrograde is thus introduced by 

enemy action and friendly response through 

maneuver, an element missing in the assault river 

crossing. This situation more closely represents 

the current doctrinal approach where the senior 

tactical commander is the logical person to control 

the crossing. To prevent his tactical plan from 

being subordinate to the crossing plan of another 

commander, he must be the CAC. Considering the 

nearness of enemy action, the crossing plan must 

be closely integrated with the tactical plan and the 

placement of crossing area control under one 

commander is paramount. The CAC retains this 

control until the ar ea is cleared of friendly troops 

and removal or destruction of the bridges/rafts is 

complete. Support elements (engineers, MPs, 

ADA, smoke) are in direct support of or attached 

to the CAC during the crossing. 

• Crossing behind the brigade rear boundary. 

19 
Unlike the situation described above, these areas 

will probably undergo several changes in crossing 

units throughout their existance. Furthermore, 

there may be numerous units crossing in both 

directions which mayor may not belong to the 

local senior tactical commander. Therefore, it 

seems that the local senior engineer should be the 

CAC for the duration of the crossing or until the 

crossing area falls within the brigade rear 

boundary. Support elements should thus be attached (MPs, smoke) or in direct support (arty, 

ADA) for the life of the crossing area. This degree 

of permanency allows the CAC to establish a 

crossing area to accommodate multi-sized units 

crossing in both directions. The tactical commander then merely communicates with the engineer CAC when he wants to cross. The actual 

movement must be cleared with the Corps MCC 

(Movement Control Center), but the specific crossing time should remain the preogative of the 

engineer CAC. Location of CAC headquarters and 

radio frequencies must be given wide dissemination to units expected to cross. 

• Location of the CAC. Proper location of the 

CAC and the support element commander, to 

include the engineers, is important for the overall 

control of the crossing area. In general, all CACs 

involved in this series of exercises located their 

CPs at the staging area or near the crossing site. 

During the crossing, most moved to a location 

directly on the river. Since most crossings occurred at one site, this was best. However, this 

would have been unadvisable had more than one 

site been operational. The support commanders 

tended to stay too near their headquarters and 

allow liaison officers to effect the close coordination. In only one case did an engineer commander 

elect to move a jump CP to the same area as the 

CAC. Coordination would have improved had the 

unit possessed sufficient communications equipment to remain in close contact with its own 

subordinate elements. As it was, the overall effect 

was disruptive to control. Therefore, unless the 

engineer is the CAC, movement of the engineer 

and support CPs to the vicinity of the CAC is not 

recommended. 

• Artillery support. Artillery support was 

included in the exercise, but crossing commanders 

failed to include the integration of artillery support in their crossing plans. Artillery support in a 

retrograde crossing is essential, particularly 

during the latter phases of the crossing in the 

brigade sector. Artillery and ground dispensed 

scatterable mines could assist considerably the last 

elements in crossings and could delay the enemy 

while engineers move tactical bridging or destroy 

the remaining bridging and equipment. 

• Communications and electronic warfare (EW) 

During the administrative phase, engineer troops integrated 

CBR with Bailey Bridge construction. 

The exercises proved several firsts, including the first Pershing Missle erector-Iauncher to cross a tactical bridge (7 April 

1975 .) 

20 
The first M·60 Tank crosses a combination M4T6·Class 60 

bridge during the pre-dawn hours. 

Class 60 Raft still plays and important role in vehicular movement. 

considerations. The high number of radios utilized 

during the crossing caused a definite EW problem 

which was never solved during the exercise. The 

concentration and frequency of use was controlled 

somewhat, but not to any large degree. However, 

several actions taken by the units in an attempt to 

reduce emissions were significant. In one case, a 

separate and specific CEOI (communicationselectronics operating instructions) was prepared 

and insured the assignment of all call signs and 

frequencies to all assigned or attached or DS 

elements. Another approach was to utilize listening silence during the crossing. The tactical units 

conceivably could comply with this arrangement. 

but the military police had to sacrifice traffic 

control for fewer emissions. As a result, the MPs 

disregarded the direction and accomplished their 

traffic control mission. A third approach is to 

direct radios to low power sufficient to cover only 

the area of operations. Low powered radios were 

also needed at the raft sites during the hours of 

extreme darkness, as traffic tended to be unevenly 

distributed . A low powered radio at each site, 

controlled centrally by the engineer-in-charge, 

would have contributed significantly to even 

traffic flow. Lastly. the use of wire and field 

phones was never considered due to the large 

number of tracked vehicles and the administrative 

problems of laying wire. The use of wire remains 

a reasonable solution to the problem. particulary 

at rear area crossing sites. 

The exercise was instrumental in emphasing 

the role of the engineer on the combat combined 

arms team in VII Corps. It forced the combined 

arms objective and provided realistic bridge/ 

rafting construction and crossing experience for a 

large number of units, including the "first" Pershing missile erector-launcher to cross a tactical 

bridge. The April Bridge Training Exercise was 

indeed river training - European style, a style to 

be repeated often with new and better equipment 

and concepts. 

Major Wain W. Stowe is presently 5-3, 7th 

Engr Bde. He attended the Command & General 

Staff College in 1974 and has since been assigned 

to Europe. Previously, he was the Operations and 

Training Officer of the brigade . The FTX portion 

of the exercise outlined in the article was authored 

by him. 

Captain William F. Green e is currently S-8, 

565th Engr Bn. He has been in Europe since 1978 

and was responsible for the Administrative portum of the exercise outlined in the article. He has 

authored several articles in other publications 

describing innovative approaches concerning the 

utilization of Class 60 and M4T6 bridges. 

21 
ADVA 

GETS INVO 

MAJ William L. Jones 

For the past year and a half, officers attending the Engineer Officer Advanced Course 

(EOAC) at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia have participated 

in numerous combat-development, doctrine-development, and training-development group seminars for elective credits. The goal of the elective 

program has been to provide meaningful problems 

to expose students to the Combat and Training 

Development (CTD) process and to capitalize on 

the students' past experiences. 

Projects were selected from a list of critical 

sujects being worked on by the resident CTD 

staff. Over 50 projects, running the gamut of the 

CTD mission from conceptual studies for the near 

future to training program design have been 

initiated or completed. All projects are original 

work and only general guidance is provided by 

CTD stan advisors. 

The unstructured format, internal organizational requirements, and problem definition posed 

a challenge and provided a change of pace from the 

usual structured classroom environment. For 

many officers, this was the first opportunity to 

participate in a staff working group where results 

were expected and the work group had to 

collectively detemine what should be done. 

Th e following are a few of the projects the 

EOAC students have worked on: 

22 
CO s ~LVED

Task Analysis of the Construction Battalion: 

The analysis laid much of the ground work for 

what later became a concept for employment of 

the engineer combat battalion (heavy). In addition, it provided the foundation for ARTEP 5-115, 

which was printed as a test document in April. 

Camouflage Move Script -Two scripts were 

written and color TV tapes prepared, published 

and distributed. 

Scenario Oriented Recurring Evaluation 

System (SCORES) Participation: The student 

group was required to make a terrain analysis of a 

specific 100 square kilometer area in a selected 

part of the world. The group found that current 

map products were inadequate. Shortfalls in the 

Army Terrain Intelligence System were surfaced. 

System changes were proposed to reduce the 

problem. 

Engineer Squad Vehicle (Meeh): What vehicle 

can best fill the needs of the mechanized engineer squad? Students examined prototypes and 

the full family of vehicles used. Size, crew 

production, capabilities, and maintenance were 

evaluate d and the group r ecommended the M548. 

Substitution in part for M1l3s is being recommended by the Engineer School based on this 

analysis. 

Universal Brigades and Group Headquarters: 

Now that the construction battalion takes on a 

combat mission, can construction and combat headquarters be made common? If so, what should the 

organization contain'? A student group conducted 

the analysis, briefed the Engineer Center Team, 

and actively participated in the TOE 5-52 and 

5-101 design. Both are currently undergoing 

review. Concurrently, an ARTEP for each headquarters is being developed by USAES to more 

clearly delineate the functions of each headquarters. 

Training Packet Design: There is a need in the 

field for support of ARTEP task training that will 

reduce lesson preparation time and facilitate 

decentralized training by junior leaders. Students 

developed a highly illustrated pamphlet aimed at 

the squad leader including a "Tips to the Trainer" 

section with instruction for the leader in conducting effective and efficient training. The pamphlets 

are printed locally at the Engineer School and are 

available through the Department of Army-Wide 

Training Supprt (DAWTS), USAES, Fort 

Belvoir, VA. 22060. 

Winterization of Civilian Construction Equipment (CCE): What modifications in equipment or 

procedures will best support units employing CCE 

in artie regions such as Alaska? Student research of civilian practices revealed in many cases 

that training or cold weather procedures combined 

with minor equipment modification often were 

more cost effective than more complex equipment 

modifications. Results will be staffed and programmed into future procurement actions. 

Engineer Sets, Kits and Outfits: How 

adequate are engineer tool sets? What changes 

need to be made in procedures to routinely 

modernize components? Students recommended 

significant changes in procedures for review of sets 

kits and outfits (SKO) to TRADOC. Subsequently 

the Logistics Center developed and sent to various 

schools a comprehensive list of SKO s for review 

and comments. The majority of the student 

recommendations are expected to be adapted in 

new procedures being written now. 

The above samples show the range, depth and 

utility of the EOAC seminars. Different groups 

receive different exposure, but collectively they 

gain an appreciation of the complex problem of 

enhancing the Army in the field. The fresh ideas 

and challenging- attitudes of the EOAC students 

provide positive stimulus to the CTD community, 

and, above all, bring to bear on this problem the 

perspective of the company leader. The students 

also learn what CTD does and how the service 

school model works, thus better understanding 

how change can be accomplished. Further, students learn how to work within non-structured 

peer groups with only general direction and 

ultimately deliver a formal decision breifing. 

Major William L. Jon es is curr en tly Chief of 

Regulatory Functions, Baltimore Engineer District, Baltimore, Maryland. He is a graduate of 

Norwich and Missouri Universities and of the 

Engineer Officer Advanced Course. He has served 

as a Com bat Engineer Company Commander and 

as a Battalion Exe cutive Officer in both Germany 

and Vietnam. His last assignment was as Chief of 

Unit Training for ARTEPS, Doctrine and Training 

Dev elopments Division, USAES, Ft . Belvoir, Virginia. 

23 
The 

BEST 

Way to
 

Train 

"\ 

r 

r 

CPT Charles C. McCloskey III 

The basic fighting engineer unit in the United 

Stat es Army is the combat engineer battalion. A 

combat engineer battalion is organic to every 

Army division, present in Army corps, and found 

in theater armies. The value of the combat 

engineer battalion to today's Army is proved not 

only by this inclusion in division, corps, and army 

TO&Es, but by the fighting combat engineer 

heritage and outstanding combat engineer performance record in past American wars. The basic 

pr emise is that an effec tive Army must hav e 

combat engine er s. Th e corollary is then that the 

comba t engineers must also be effect ive. To be 

effective they must be well trained. 

In today's Army, how should this be done? 

Rec ent years have seen the Department of the 

Army promote decen tralized training; intended or 

not, the training load was put squarely on the 

shoulders of th e compan y commande r. The Army 

in t he field was told that the company commander, 

because he is so close to his unit, can best 

determine th e training needs of his men, can best 

plan training, can best execute tr aining, and can 

24 
best evaluate training. Although these statements 

have much validity, they gloss over three very 

important facts: 

•	 The company commander has many other mandatory demands on his time which limit the time 

he can devote to planning and executing training. 

•	 The battalion commander bears primary responsibility for his command's combat readiness, 

training being a major if not the most important 

factor in this readiness. 

•	 A full-time battalion staff, particularly the S-3 

section, exists to serve the company and battalion commanders. 

So while not diminishing the primary importance of the company commander's role and 

judgment, means do exist within the combat 

engineer battalion to assist him in training his unit 

better than he could do it by himself, namely the 

experience and guidance of the battalion commander and the expertise and time of the battalion 

staff. 

An Army cliche which is probably said. in a 

negative way. several thousand times a day is 

"reinventing the wheel." Before continuing, it 

should be stated that the training system proposed 

here is not novel or pioneering. But rather than 

"reinventing the wheel," more correctly it gets 

back to fundamentals. Under this system, tasks 

outlined for commanders and staffs in FM 101-5, 

"Staff Organization and Procedure, " and similar 

doctrinal publications are done by the personnel 

designated to do them. The company commander 

is not forced to do everything himself. And the 

guidance found in TC 25-5-1, "Training Management: An Overview," is followed. The battalion 

commander functions as the training manager for 

his battalion. 

Definition 

The BEST way to train a combat engineer 

battalion is a Battalion-administered, Economic, 

Systematic, Testing Program. This program is 

formulated by the battalion commander and staff, 

developed and directed by the battalion operations 

section, and implemented by company personnel 

and the battalion staff. The BEST program 

economizes on company time, leaving the company 

commander free to set priorities among conflicting 

missions while insuring him that his unit will be 

periodically tested on its ability to perform basic 

individual and combat engineer missions. The 

BEST program is systematic, built on a cyclical 

time frame and progressing in scope from the 

individual level to squad, platoon, and company. 

The BEST program is a testing program which 

evaluates each element of the command on its 

ability to accomplish its mission and provides the 

battalion and company commanders alike feedback 

on training- strengths and weaknesses. 

How To Implement The BEST Program 

The first step in implementing the BEST 

program is to allocate time. A training cycle must 

be selected - say 6, 12, or 18 months, or whatever 

the battalion commander feels is appropriate. 

Having selected the cycle, it is next divided into 

four phases: individual. squad, platoon, and company. Next, specific time periods at the end of 

each phase are set aside for testing, scheduling 

around known future requirements. 

The second step is for the battalion commander 

to determine the training needs for each phase. He 

meets with the battalion S-3 and together a 

determination of needs is made based on: 

•	 Wartime mission requirements; 

•	 Army training requirements as specified in 

FMs, TMs, ARTEP 5-35, command directed 

training, and other appropriate training references; 

•	 Special mission requirements; and 

• The	 battalion commander's evaluation of the 

training status of the battalion. 

The cyclical training program has now been 

blocked out, and the training needs identified. 

They are published and distributed to company 

commanders and the battalion staff for use in their 

planning. 

The next step is to plan each test. The 

planning should begin at the conclusion of the 

previous phase's testing or earlier. The scope of 

the test is developed - how many missions. how 

long, what support will be required, the type and 

number of training sites. Then coordination is 

done, primarily in the S-3 section. to bring the 

concept to reality. 

Out of this work comes a letter of instructions 

(LOI) to company commanders and the battalion 

staff. The LOr gives details, requirements. and 

time schedules of the test. Assignments as test 

site evaluators are distributed evenly among all 

line units, with the battalion staff supporting as 

necessary. 

The detailed planning of each test station. to 

include lesson plan, scenario, and score sheet, is 

done by the evaluator and monitored by the S-3 

section. This is significant because it not only 

greatly expands the capability of the battalion to 

conduct a comphrehensive test; it also broadens the 

military education and experience of all evaluators 

by charging them with the development and 

execution of a test. 

What is the company commander doing in the 

meantime? He is setting priorities among all 

assigned tasks and accomplishing them in the best 

manner possible. He is training his company in 

25 
accordance with the battalion commander's guidance and based on his own assessment of the 

company's training needs. In the back of his mind 

he knows that company training must have a high 

priority so that the company is ready for the test 

which comes at the end of the phase. 

The next step is execution, the taking of the 

test by individuals or units. Test progress is 

monitored by the battalion commander and his 

staff. Results are collected and tabulated by the 

S-3 section and high scoring individuals and units 

are recognized and rewarded. A side benefit of 

the testing is that it often turns out to be the best 

training the individual or unit has had during the 

phase, for conflicting priorities often prevent 

training in certain subjects during the phase. 

The final step is evaluation. Both the test 

results and the test are studied to determine the 

training status of the tested units and the effectiveness of the test. Recommended improvements 

for training of units are passed on to the company 

commanders for incorporation into their training 

programs; recommended improvements for testing 

go back to the S-3 for incorporation into future 

tests. 

Why The BEST Program? 

What makes the BEST program better than 

fully decentralized (company controlled) training? 

There ar e many reasons. 

First, the battalion commander best understands the battalion's mission. He, better than 

anyone else in the battalion, knows what particular missions his units must be capable of performing. He knows, for example, whether it is more 

important to concentrate on bridging. demolitions, 

reconnaissance, or infantry tactics and the relative 

weights to assign to each. Thus he can tailor 

training for combat readiness better than the 

company commander. 

Second, the battalion commander has a better 

grasp of the total training situation. He knows 

what conflicting missions - such as construction 

projects, major field problems, and guard commitments - are expected and can schedule the 

testing around them. The company commander 

frequently cannot do this and the consequence for 

him is cancelled company training. 

Third, the battalion commander, through his 

staff, has better access to the resources essential 

to good training. These include training areas, 

training ammunition, special equipment (such as 

bridging, assault boats, or cranes), and support 

personnel (such as equipment operators, special 

skills personnel, and other military units). The 

staff has this access as part of their normal duties 

and it is far more economical for one staff section 

to gather training resources than four or five 

company commanders. 

Fourth, the staff can devote the time necessary 

to develop sound, thorough, and meaningful tests. 

Compared to the company commander, the S-3 

section has far fewer competing time demands and 

thus can stay with the BEST program from 

beginning to end without interruption. This, too. 

economizes on company commanders' time. 

Other factors which are significant in recommending the BEST program are: 

• Training	 standards can be set and enforced 

uniformly throughout the battalion; 

•	 The majority of the coordination is done at the 

battalion level; 

• The maximum	 number of units receive at least 

the minimum essential training; 

• The company commander is still free to	 train his 

unit as necessary - only four training weeks of 

a yearly cycle are set aside for testing. 

Alternatives 

Major alternatives to the BEST program are 

fully decentralized training (training planned and 

executed strictly at company level) and committee 

training (training conducted by selected individuals detached from their normal duties in 

order to plan and execute training for the 

battalion). 

In favor of fully decentralized training is the 

fact that the company commander best knows the 

current status of his unit and can tailor training to 

counter its weaknesses and exploit its strengths. 

Also, fully decentralized training promotes selfeducation by chain of command members. Further, 

fully decentralized training must be employed in 

certain situations such as separate combat engineer companies and widely dispersed companies 

within battalions. 

On the other hand, companies do not have easy 

access to all resources necessary for good training; 

they lack the training expertise and experience 

found in the battalion staff; and they do not have 

the overall picture of the mission requirements of 

the battalion. 

Committee training has the advantages of 

providing well-planned, well-rehearsed training for 

all units of the battalion. It, too, removes much of 

the training burden from the company. Also , it 

allows the battalion commander to set and enforce 

standards of training throughout the battalion. 

The major disadvantage of the committee 

system is that it disrupts the chain of command by 

taking key personnel (platoon leaders, platoon 

sergeants, squad leaders, and section leaders) out 

of their normal jobs for extended periods of time 

and thus renders and company chain of command 

less than fully effective. 

) Of course, in certain situations, the committee 

system is the best possible system. The best 

examples of this are basic training, advanced 

26 
individual training (AIT), and initial unit training 

after activation. In these cases, however, t he 

training is accomplished prior to the individual or 

unit having an operational mission. 

Case Study - The 237th Combat Engineer 

Battalion 

Does the BEST program work? Indeed it does . 

The 237th Combat Engineer Battalion, a VII Corps 

unit belonging to the 7th Engineer Brigade and 

stationed in Heilbronn, Germany, has been using 

this system since October 1973 with outstanding 

results. 

In 1973, the battalion commander of the 237th 

was faced with the problem of keeping his 

battalion combat ready while simultaneously having all troop barracks and t he dining facility 

rehabilitated, accomplishing many construction 

projects for the community, performing security 

missions at ammunition supply points, and participating in several brigade and high er directed 

projects, programs, and field problems. Company 

commanders routinely saw their well-prepared 

training schedules go out the window with last 

minute priority changes and crash projects. The 

only way the battalion commander could systematically accomplish all assigned missions and 

maintain combat readiness was through a wellplanned tr aining program which took into account 

the other r equirements levi ed on the battalion. 

This th en was the impetus for t he BEST program. 

The initial cycle was set as the calendar year. 

The year was divided into phases as follows: 

.Jan-Feb - Individual 

Mar-Apr - Squad 

May·Jul - Platoon 

Auq-Dec - Company 

The longer phase for company t esting allowed 

for slippage in the other phases. Training guidance 

and goals were est ablished and the program was 

published and distributed to all units. 

Individual, squad, and platoon te sting were all 

accomplished with outstanding results. Company 

testing was combined with REFORGER 74, a 

major U.S. Army Europe exercise, and likewise 

produced outstanding results. An almost tangible 

change came over the battalion as combat readiness and morale picked up. The chain of command 

was strength ened , and the company commander s 

were better able to set t heir priorities and train 

th eir companies. 

Minor problems in implementation the first 

year were in dev eloping the te sts, securing 

necessary training areas and waterways, and 

scheduling ar ound large construction projects. 

Unfortunately, all units did not receiv e all the 

testing because of higher priorities on some 

construction. 

Planning for the 1975 BEST program began in 

fall 1974 with the formulation of revised testing 

concepts and goals and the submission of proposed 

dates for testing. The program wa~ again published, this time with better information on 

training facilities and resources available, training 

standards, and well-defined training goals. 

The succeeding battalion commander modified 

the testing program to incorporate the lessons 

learned of the previous year and to reflect his 

assessment of the battalion's state of readiness to 

accomplish its assigned missions. With the experience of 1974, test results in 1975 improved 

dramatically. Competition among participants was 

keen, morale continued to rise, and the combat 

readiness of the battalion steadily improved. 

Results of the BEST program in the 237th 

Combat Engineer Battalion based on almost two 

years of experience are as follows: 

• Continual combat readiness	 appropriate to the 

assigned wartime mission. 

• Excellent	 testing programs which provided for 

at least a minimum standard of training. 

• Increased individual and unit skills. 

•	 Increased staff and section competence through 

realistic support. 

• Accomplishment	 of other assigned missions 

without disruption of the training schedule. 

• Recognition of outstanding individuals and units. 

• Identification of areas of training weakness. 

The BEST program is a viable means to 

achieve and maintain combat readiness in a 

combat engineer battalion. It is based on a 

plann ed training cycle, divided into phases, and 

integrated with the ba ttalion's other missions and 

r equirements. It is administered primarily by the 

battalion S-3 and executed by personnel of the 

companies and the battalion staff. It allows the 

battalion commander to bring his experience and 

knowl edge to bear on the tr aining of the battalion 

and it allows the battalion staff to effectively 

assist. 

Remember, the basic engineer fighting unit is 

the combat engineer battalion. To keep these 

battalions and thus the Army combat ready, BEST 

is best! 

Captain Charles C. McCloskey III was the 

Operations Officer of th e 237th Engineer Battalion 

(Combat ) from 1973 to 1975. He is a USMA 

graduat e and obtained an MS degree in Civil 

Engineering from Cornell University in 1971. He 

commanded a com bat engineer company in Korea, 

served as an aviator in Viet Nam, and was a 

Resident Engine er in the Baltimore District. He is 

a graduate of th e Engineer Officer Advanced 

Course and is a registered professional engineer in 

Virginia. Captain McClosk ey is presently assigned 

as Assistant S-3, 7th Engineer Brigade. 

27 
Throughout the history of mechanized warfare, 

landmines have played a significant role in assisiting a numericlly inferior force to fight an effective 

battle. Mines are the primary means of creating 

artificial obstacles in the battle area and are a key 

component in the combat capability of the Combined Arms Team. The key function of mines is to 

enhance the effects of friendly fire by disrupting 

and inhibiting an enemy force . The development 

of optically-guided antitank missiles has further 

increased the requirement for and the potential 

effectiveness of minefields. The TOW or 

DRAGON tracker must remain "locked on target" 

for a definite period during missile flight, thereby 

increasing the need for an obstacle such as a minefield to delay the tank in the "window." The 

minefield; therefore, must not be considered in isolation, but viewed in concert with other weapon 

systems and its ability to improve the effectiveness of the Combined Arms Team. 

The procedures and organizations for employing conventional mines have not changed significantly since World War II. Generally, mining has 

been an engineer function, assisted by the other 

combat arms. Tactical units at the company or 

troop level have capabilities for hasty protective 

mining for close-in unit defense. Larger scale 

mining is normally planned and directed at brigade 

or division levels and usually consists of a series of 

small-point minefields around craters and tactical 

minefields hundreds of meters wide. However, 

this large scale use of conventional mines requires 

extensive expenditures of manpower, creates a 

significant logistical burden and must be planned 

and emplaced well before the battle develops and 

the enemy commits his forces. 

The introduction of the family of scatterable 

mines (FASCAM) will produce significant changes 

in mining procedures and U.S . mine capabilities 

and should eliminate or reduce many of the 

problem areas indicated above. Throughout the 

F ASCAM development program, a primary objective has been to identify and develop a variety of 

delivery means for scatterable, self-destructing 

(SD) mines which permits the widest application of 

combat power enhancement. 

28 
The XM128 Ground Vehicle Dispensed Mine 

System (GVDMS) and the M-56 HelicopterDelivered System are being developed to provide 

a rapid means of mining in friendly areas to 

strengthen defensive positions and deny key 

avenues of approach. These systems will provide 

a rapid method of emplacing the pre-planned 

minefield in friendly territory, using a mine with a 

long self-destruct period (e.g., greater than 24 

hours). The GVDMS mines are approximately a 

fifth th e size of the M-15 and will be packaged to 

simplify loading and handling. 

The Artillery-Dilivered Mine System, XM718/ 

741, is being developed to provide an indirect fire 

means for emplacing mine s dynamically in response to enemy movement. The mine round will 

be fired by the standard 155mm Howitzer ranges 

up to 17km. Artillery-delivered mines offer a 

significant increase in mining capability and flexibility to the maneuver commander; however, competition for artillery tubes and the firing rate limit 

the number of mines which can be emplaced in a 

shor t period of time. 

To provide a very rapid, short-range, indirect 

delivery system, a mine round is being developed 

for use in the rocket launcher of the Surface 

Launched Unit, Fuel Air Explosive (SULFAE) 

counterrnine system. This rocket system will be 

capable of delivering 700 to 800 mines a range of 

three to five kilometers in less than a minute. 

It will be assigned to the divisional engineer 

battalion with a required capability of delivering a 

minefield within 10 minutes. In order to be this 

responsive, the combat engineer company supporting the brigade will employ the system. 

These systems will be augmented by U.S. Air 

Force Tactical Air-delivered mines for interdiction 

mining and close support of ground forces . 

Dynamically-delivered mines will have a variety of self-destruct times ranging from a few hours 

(artillery, rocket) to several days (artillery, Tac 

Air). 

Minefields, both conventional and self-destructing , are a part of the overall concept of the 

operation and are the tactical planning responsibility of the G-3 or S-3 of the appropriate 

headquarters. The engineer supporting this unit 

will normally undertake the detailed planning and 

act as advisor to the commander for mine warfare. 

The introduction of the family of scatterable mines 

will create significant changes in operating procedures. The engineer will remain the primary 

planner, but the mines may be delivered to the 

battle area and emplaced by a variety of delivery 

means allocated to non-engineer units. 

While this will greatly increase the mining 

capability available to the tactical commander, it 

will create operational problems in the allocation 

of delivery assets, and control of the mined areas 

through marking, reporting and recording. During normal operational testing a variety of employment procedures will be evaluated to detemine the 

most efficient method for each system. Conventional minefields will still be marked by barbedwire fences . Since scatterable mines self-destruct, 

less permanent means of marking should be 

adequate. The XM133 Rapidly emplaced Minefield 

Marking System is being developed for the 

purpose of marking minefields emplaced by the 

Ground Vehicle and the M-56 Mine Systems. 

Mines delivered into hostile or disputed territory 

by artillery, rocket or Tac Air will not be marked. 

but the mined area will be recorded at division or 

brigade headquarters on the operations map. 

This information will be provided to lower levels 

as appropriate. 

It is evident from testing performed by the 

Scenario Oriented Recurring Evaluation System 

(SCORES) and gaming done in support of antiarmor doctrine that scatteable mines arc adding a 

very significant new dimension to mechanized warfare. All combat engineer leaders must be prepared to fully exploit this dimension and improve the 

effectiveness of the Combined Arms Team in 

"winning the first battle." 

LTC Joseph Pratt is assigned as th e TRADOC 

Mine/Countermine Coordinator, Concepts and 

Studies Division, DC/CTD, USAES, Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia. He has undergraduate degrees in Chemical and Civil Engineering from Clarkson College 

and The Unive rsity of Missouri at Rolla; and an 

MS (System Science) from Michigan State Universi ty. He is a graduate of the Engineer Officer 

Advanced Course and the Armed Forces Staff 

College. He has served as Company Commander 

and S-3 in com bat engineer battalions in Korea. 

USAREUR, and RVN," and as a R edeployment 

Plans Officer in USAR V. 

29 
'j) 

Captain John J. Connor 

PROFICIENCY AT THE CUTTING EDGE was J"', 

th e t heme of a r ecent letter on training issued by j) 

General Bernard W. Rogers, FORSCOM Commander . The le tter directed that this theme be the 

central thrust of all training during FY 76. In 

response to his training guidelines, the 39th Eng-ineer Battalion (Combat) se t out to determine the 

profi ciency of its line platoons by conducting a 

series of six 8-hour graded practical exercises 

based on ARTEP 5-35. 

The exercises were completely tactical throughout, and th e platoon leaders were graded in 

several areas which included leadership,' work 

force organization and technical proficiency. 

Reference material was allowed. Six areas were 

chosen for testing: Bridging, Rigging, Field Fortification s, Demolitions, and Tactics, plus a "Composite Station" which included Communi cations, 

Maintenance, and eight other subject s. 

The six stations were directed by members of 

the battalion staff, with support personn el from 

the Headquarters Company. Unit commanders 

had no activ e role, but kep t busy observing and 

discussing t heir platoons' performance with the 

graders . 

Prior to t he star t of th e exercise, the Battalion 

Commander summed up what he hoped PPT 

would accomplish: "When we evaluate the r esults, 

it will allow us to ta ilor the training of each 

platoon to stre ngthen its weak ar eas. We can then 

30 
run a seco nd cycle to pr ovide much keener 

competitio n among th e platoons." 

Of course, the format used by the 39th can be 

modified to accornodate oth er units' needs and 

local training facilities, but her e is a look at PPT as 

condu cted by the "BLUE BULLS." 

STATION 1- BRIDGING. Here the platoon 

leader was faced with three ta sks. First he had to 

design a timber tre stle bridge, including the 

substr uct ur e; se cond he had to construct it; and 

third. he had to layou t and constr uct a Bailey 

Brid ge across a dry gap. The station also intregrated camouflage, sec urit y and NBC training into 

the exercise . 

The timber t restle bridge was a Class 50, single 

lane with three bents. It was to be constructed 

with na tive deck and posts , cut stringers, caps and 

sills. At this station, work force organization was 

the key grading factor. 

STATION 2 - RIGGING. The purpose of this 

station was to make the platoon leader "think 

rig ging." Th e cent ral project was the erection of 

shears on both sides of a pond, with a high line to 

ferry eq uipment and personnel acr oss. Each 

pla toon accomplished the mission differently. 

Sever al minor tasks were also given , and it was 

her e th at the stre ngths or weakn esses of a platoon 

became evident. The utilization of manpower and 

material in an efficien t manner to accomplish 

multiple mission s simultaneoulsy was perhaps th e 

most valu able lesson learned. 

STATION 3 - FIELD FORTIFICATIONS. 

At this station, the platoon was r equired to 

accomplish 18 separate missions related to de fensive operations, su ch as mine counter-mine ope ra ­

tions, emplace ments, camouflage, fences, ADM 

and barrier s. The platoon leaders were give n little 

specific guidance from the station orc and were 

expected to choose the best types of and locations 

for effective obsta cles. Th ese multiple tasks again 

strained the chain of command and spotligh ted 

the squad leaders and assistant squad leaders. 

When asked what he th ough t of this station, 

one soldier said he "liked the var iety of missions." 

His platoon lead er might not have shared tha t 

senti ment! 

STATION 4 - DEMOLITIONS. Both inert 

and live demol ition problems were assigned in a 

scenario which requir ed the platoon to den y 

ene my access to a road net. Camouflage and 

r econnaissance were also grad ed. The first major 

task was to calculate and place inert demolitions for 

a 100 meter abatis. This allowed for maximum 

utilization of personnel. Several minor tas ks were 

also assigned, including ones employing inert 

shaped charges and cratering changes. A fuel 

ta nker also had to be rigged for destruction. The 

final mission called for th e platoon to use live 

explosives to destroy a timber trestle bridge. 

31 
The demonstrated profiency in demolition techniques was uniformly good, but all platoons 

showed their lack of practice with live explosives 

by a much slower work rate than with the inert 

material. 

STATION 5 - TACTICS. For most of the 

platoons, this was a form of adventure training, as 

it marked th e first time many of the soldiers had 

flown in a helicopter. The stated objective of this 

station was to determine if the platoons are 

combat ready. It also gave the Battalion's Aviation Section some very beneficial training. In spite 

of some unseasonably cold evenings, most of the 

soldiers interviewed agreed that this was one of 

the most enjoyable stations. 

ST ATION 6 - COMPOSITE. The station was 

conducted in two distinct phases, with two different objectives. The morning phase tested the 

platoon's organization and its capability to accomplish multiple tasks. The afternoon phase was 

designed to evaluate platoon readiness. Overall, 

the platoon was tested and graded in eleven 

categories: reconnaissance, work site security, 

target folders, NBC, adjustment of artillery fire, 

mine detector opeations, vehicle maintenance, 

communications, vehicle recovery, property 

accountability and physical fitness. 

An undelaying philosophy, at all six stations. 

was to permit the problem to take its own course 

as directed by the platoon leader. Flexibility was 

the key element; none looked for one school 

solution, but rather for feasible, workable solution s. 

J2 

Three days after completion of the last round, a 

critique was held during which each station orc 

summed up common deficiencies and briefed the 

Battalion Commander. Company Commanders 

were given a written critique from each station for 

each of their platoons. 1\ 

Ea ch station was scored with an equal value of ) 

100 points. When the six stations were tallied, the 

total scores were very close, whereas the scores at 

the individual stations showed a wider variance. 

In fact, the platoon with the highest overall point 

total actually scored lowest on one station. These 

results seemed to confirm the PPT had accomplished its prime objective, namely, identifying areas 

need additional {raining. 

One Lieutenant, whose platoon scored high, 

stated, "There were a lot of things we didn't know. 

Some of my Squad Leaders have never been 

assigned some of the tasks before". His platoon 

sergeant agreed and added, "The privates have 

learned a lot and their leaders should have too. 

Some of the squad leaders haven't done some of 

these things in a while and have found that they've 

forgotten a few things." 

One private was less introspective; he simply 

said, "It's been a lot of fun." 

A 1972 EOAC Graduat e, Captain Conner is 

pr esently serving as the 5-2 and Information 

Officer for the 39th Engineer Battalion, (Combat) , 

Fort Devens. Massachus etts. He has also r eceived 

his B5 in Geology from Boston College. 
CPT Robert A. Formo 

The Soldiers Manual is a new training manual, 

being developed by the Engineer School, which 

provides guidance for the administration and 

evaluation of training for a given MOS. It also 

provides a uniform training base for each MOS so 

that the soldier will receive the same instruction 

for each skill level, whether the instruction is 

through institutional (such as Advanced Individual 

Training) or extension (such as unit/on-the-job) 

training. The manual contains all the MOS related 

information a soldier will need to know to perform 

his duties or will tell the soldier exactly where to 

look up the information in current Technical or 

Fi eld Manuals or other related sources. 

The Soldiers Manual for Engineer proponent 

MOSs is very similar to those being developed by 

other Schools. For example it: 

• Belongs to the individual soldier. 

• Is written in the second person to give the 

manual a personal flavor. 

• Clearly defines the soldier's responsibilities, 

MaS duties, and shows the actions he must 

complete to be eligible for promotion. 

• Defines the minimum acceptable standards 

of performance for each task the soldier is 

responsible to perform. 

• Lists references for each task the soldier 

must perform. 

• Establishes conditions under which the 

soldi er must be able to perform his critical tasks. 

• Describes standards the soldier must achieve 

to pass his/her Skill Qualification Test (SQT). 

The En gineer Soldiers Manual will serve a 

variety of different functions: 

• The manual provides an accurate and 

realistic job and task analysis for each MOS. 

• It provides a record of the soldier's performance which can be evaluated by each Commander if the need arises. 

• It supersedes the requirement for MOS test 

study guides. since all the material listed in the 

study guide will be incorporated into this manual. 

As shown above, the Soldiers Manual will have 

a great impact on training the individual soldier in 

his MaS, whether that training will be in a formal 

school, on-the-job training, or by self-study. 

!he Engineer School is currently working on 

var ious formats for Engineer Soldiers Manuals. 

One such format can be seen in SM 5-81E (Draft). 

This is the draft Soldiers Manual for the Illustrator (MOS 81E) . In September 1975, this draft was 

sent, worldwide. to 250 selected Illustrators 

asking them for comments. ' 

Another draft manual win be published and 

distributed very shortly. This manual will contain 

the tasks in which the Mobile Assault Bridge 

Operator must perform to successfully operate the 

MAB. 

When published in a final format, Soldiers 

Manuals will be distributed in accordance with DA 

Form 12-12, Section III. The first finalized Engineer Soldiers Manual will be on the Combat 

Engineer Career Management Field and is expected to be distributed in FY 1977. 

. Captain Robert A. Formo is a Project Officer 

with the Individual Training Branch, Training 

Programs Division, Deputy Commandant for Combat and Training Developments. US Army Engineer School, Fort Belvoir, Va. He holds a B.S. 

degree from the University of Minnesota and is a 

graduate of the Engineer Officer Advanced 

Course. He served with the 656th Engineer Bn 

(~OPO); Facil.ities Engineer Directorate, Long 

Binh Depot, VIetnam; and the Engineer Advisory 

Division, MACV. 

33 
A Helping Hands Story
 

TRADINGBA
 

SP EC-4 Dan iel Blubaugh , 23, Br ink hav en, Ohio and brother, 

Ron ald )' 24 of Danv ill e, Oh io, m an a hose d uring 

firefigh t ing tra in in g on a t ypical w eekend drill of the 569th 

E ngineer DetaCh m ent , 16th Engineer Brigade, Shreve, Oh io . 

Th e Ohio A r my Na tiona l Gua rd uni t is th e on l y OAR NG 

firefig h ti ng un it. I t is on ly onw of a hand ful in th e nation . 

F iref ig hter -guardsmen show the ir st uff whi le manning on e of 

th e f ire tr ucks of the 5694t h En g in eer Det ach m ent , 16th 

E ng ine er Brigade, Oh io Army National Guard . The acti on 

ta kes pl ace [ust ou ts id e th e unit 's hom eto wn, Sh r ev e, Ohio. 

SGT Jerry Condo 

They have traded band ages for fire buckets. 

Th e members of the 5694th Engineer Detachmen t, 512th Engineer Battalion, 16th Engineer 

Brigade, Ohio Ar my National Guard, are now fire ­

fighters. Th e big cha nge came June 1, 1974 when 

the 686th Medical Co. (ambulance) was r eor ganized 

as the 5694t h Engin eer Detachment. Since that 

time, t he unit, whi ch is located at Shreve, Ohio. has 

give n up 36 ambulance tr ucks and has been 

acquiring fire trucks . 

For the 2 officers and 58 enliste d men (t her e 

are no women ) of t he 5694th, the change over has 

mea nt learning a new trade, complete with fir e 

helm ets, hose, and big boots. It's some thing new 

- and fairly unique. Th e National Guard Bureau 

reports that the 5694th is one of only 5 Ar my 

34 
AGES FOR FIRE BUCKET
 

National Guard firefighting units in the nation. 

Two of them are located in South Carolina, one in 

Idaho, and one just form ed in Montana. 

The unit was at annual training at Ft. Sam 

Houston, Texas in May 1974 when word was 

r eceiv ed that a different job was awaiting the 

troops when they got back. The men were not too 

happy. Subsequently, however, th e mood of the 

Guardsmen changed as they learned more and 

mor e about th eir new rol e. 

Seve ra] of th e guardsmen found t hat firefighting is "more interesting" and found the annual 

training stimulating. 

Th e 5694th went to Chanute Fi eld, Ill. in two 

se ctions in July and August to learn about fire ­

fighting from th e U.S. Air Force which operates a 

fire school t here. Th e men were taught how to 

fight structural fir es, aviation fires and chemical 

fire s, among other thin gs. 

Brig. Gen. Jean G. Peltier, commander of the 

16th Engineer Brigade which has headquarters in 

Columbus, Ohio, shares the en thusiasm of the 

5694th about the annual training and the unit's 

mission. He stated that a firefigh ting unit is an 

ideal type of organization for dynamic training 

because the work is all "hands on." 

Firefighting, while new to the 5694th, was old 

hal to some to the Guardsmen in the unit. One 

First Sergeant, for instance, has been a member of 

the Shreve Volunteer Fire Department for 22 

years and the captain, commanding officer of the 

5694th, is a 13-year veteran of the Wayne, Ohio 

Volunteer Fire Department. There are also others 

in the Shreve-based unit who ar e affiliated with 

volunt eer fire companies. 

The equipment th e unit is drawing is top 

of the line. All told, the unit will receive more 

than $177,048 in rolling stock when all is delivered. 

The 5694th has re ceived two brush fire vehicles, 

four pumpers, and t hr ee water trucks. The size of 

the equipment poses a problem for the Shreve 

Guardsmen. Th e armory has no place to hou se the 

fire trucks, and as a re sul t, th e Ohio National 

Guard has had to st ore them in nearby Wooster, 

Ohio. 

A visit to Shreve and the 5694th during a 

r ecen t weekend drill found the citizen-soldiers 

busy learning fir efighting - and enjoying it. A 

few hundred yards below the armory the Guardsmen were drawing water from a small creek using 

two of their new fire trucks. As the pressure shot 

up and water sprayed out, Guardsmen manned th e 

hoses and trained th e hose on targets in the creek. 

It wa s noisy, exc it ing work. The fir e trucks looked 

much like any vehicle in a typical small-town fire 

department - except th e vehicles were olive drab 

in color . 

Th e First Sergeant admits his Guardsmen are 

not yet as good as a volunteer fire department, bu t 

adds that th ey're progressing fast in th eir training. 

Despite th e fact that the unit has been r eorganized 

only about 18 months, 49 out of th e 59 enlisted 

personnel ar e MOS qualified . 

Reception has been good in the Shreve area for 

th e medic-turned-Guardsmen. The 5694th is 108 

percent overstrength, according to Ist SGT 

Peebles. The unit draws personnel from a wide 

area in north centr al Ohio. Because of that, some 

of the Guardsmen spend overnight Saturday on a 

drill weekend rather than drive to and from home. 

It is not unusual for the Shreve-based unit 

members to see horse-drawn vehicles go past the 

armory. Shreve is located in the midst of Amish 

country in Ohio. 

The Shreve unit has had a long, colorful history 

and is no stranger to reorganization. Sin ce 

organized in 1919 in the Ohio National Guard as 

Company H, 3d Infantry, the unit has seen several 

redesignations and reorganizations through the 

years. Prior to being the 686th Medical Company, 

th e Shreve unit was known as "Battalion Reconnaissance, Mortar Davy Crockett and Anti-Tank 

Platoons, and Battalion Medical Section, Headquarters Company, 2d Battalion, 145th Infantry. " 

SGT J erry Condo is the inf ormation NCO for 

th e 16th Engine er Brigade, Ohio Army National 

Guard. SGT Condo is a City Hall reporter for the 

Columbus , Ohio Citizen-Journal newspaper in civilian lif e. He lives in McArthur, Ohio. 

35 
Bridge classification has traditionally been a 

difficult and time-consuming ta sk. It is also one of 

t he most important tasks undertaken by the 

military engineer . Yet, little has been done in 

re cent year s to simplify or shorten t he pr esent 

cumbers ome and complicated classificatio n pro ­

cedure - that is, until now. 

The Fixed Bridges Branch, US Army En gineer 

School, has recently completed development of a 

device that should revolutionize bri dge classification. The new device. called the "Hasty Bridge 

Classification Wheel," is a simple, pocket -sized, 

easy-to-use, circular calcula tor which can, in 

seconds, classify a steel or timber bridge - based 

on stringer size, spacing, and length . The device is 

not intend ed to repl ace t he analytical classification • 

procedures. Instead, it augments th em by assisting the soldier in t he field when the need for haste 

overrides th e increased accuracy gained by mor e 

t hrough analytical classi fication proce dur es. 

Example Problem : Determine the tracked vehicle class of the following bridge. 

~/ ,,-y'..( 1..r- ------ 
 

j"
 

-t//

L Span 2-50' 

1XI 

cross sect ion span 1 

Stringer size : 10x18 

Stringer codes : 5.52 [i] ~_ ~~ Stringer spacing: 4' - 10" 

Class : 27 (lower of 27 & 44) l 58" .J l lO 1/8" I 

cro ss section sp an 2 

I Stringer size: 21WF 73 I 1_ r:, Stringer code : 15.0 

Stringer spacing : 4' - 10" 

Class : 22

58" j l 8'14" t 

F inal Bridge Class: 22 

36 
The convenience of th e Hasty Bridge Classification Wheel (I-IBCW) is easily seen when compar ­

d to th e classific ation procedures outlined in FM 

-34 (the simplest an alytical classification method) . 

FM 5-34 H BC W 

Nu mber 01 Steps 17 4 

Recon M ea su re ments Requir ed 6 4 

Charts Used 4 1 

Gra ph s Us ed 3 o 

Cal cul at ions 12 o 

Arit hmet ic Op eration s 20 o 

T im e Requi r ed ( m in u te s ) 30 2 

One must keep in mind that the HBCW utilizes 

certain assumptions which limit its use. The most 

notable of these ar e: 

•	 Device can only be used on timber or steel simply supported bridges (or spans). 

•	 Final classification is for one-way traffic. 

•	 Class ification is for tracked vehicles only . (It 

should be noted that from spans of app roximately 14-60 ft, tracked vehicle bridge class 

would be the limiting case. This restriction will 

be remo ved in the final version of the device). 

•	 Brid ge deck is assumed adequate for all tracked 

vehicular traffic. 

As far as accur acy is concerned, the HBCW is 

ge nerally accurate to wit hin 5% of the act ual 

bridge class as determined by detailed analytical 

proc edures. in many cases more accurate than the 

FM 5-34 proc edure. 

- -- ----- - ------... 

; 

I 

I 

'\ 0 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

- -- ­ oc:r ----- ---

o _==­ C'I - -- ...-----_. 

,I 

I 

! 

+, 

/

} 

I 

I 

I 

------- -- - f'J 

----- .-

\ 

----.- - ---

37 
A copy of the I-IBCW is provided for cutting 

out and assembling. Th e Fixed Bridges Branch, 

US Army Engineer School, is interest ed in any 

comments, observa tions. or suggestions on the 

device or ways to imp rove it. The device has been 

analytically tested and upon completion of its field 

testing. may eventually be adopted as a bridge 

classification tool. 

A similar device, "Ar mor Br idge Classification 

Wheel," was produced at Fort Belvoir for the US 

Arm y Armor School and is currently undergoing 

field testing by the Armor cornmunity. 

Please address commen ts to: 

F ix ed Brid ge Bran ch , DIE S
 

US Army Eng in eer Schoo l
 

Fort Belvoir, V A 22060
 

jo

Bra

int 

Th

nch

e 

e

, 

ffort 

classification 

Engin

by 

eer 

p

D

erson

esign 

whee

nel 

Di

l 

from 

vision

was d

, 

F

e

Dep

ixed 

veloped 

t of EngtBridg

as a nee

r

the fi

entl

ring S

y 

eld wi

undergo

cien

thin th

ce, 

ing 

USAES

e 

te

nex

sts 

t 

a

, 

nd 

thr

Ft

ee 

is 

. B

ex

month

elvoir

pected t

. 

s. 

It 

o 

is 

be in 

curIF ANy 

.x ) R;\ . 

l OOL 

to Ob t .ai n t he fol l owi ng 

IMPORTANT P .A.RT THE BRI OCE I S DA.' 1AGEn OR EXCES SI VELY 

9.2. &1. ur Pl TO usr nus A..~I) CALL YOUR 

~EE uxrr. 

i nform.alion fo r e ..c h Spa n o t r.he b r ad ge : 

Sc r tngllt' Dt lliQns 10n !O. ~ea ~\J r e b 

e s t i nc h f o r t lm'oer arrd 1/8 Ind . 

b.	 St r r nge r Spac1 n}il; . 't eee urr- c r-nt.er t o 

ne a r e s t l neh . 

6. el t c Cn e n ea r­ Spa n Le og rb . '1~..1.!';U TC fr om e e n t e r o f 

t o r s ee e L, po r r en c c n t e r oi support co u e s r e s t; l/ 2 ft . c e n t e r to che NOT...: I f de c k i s l e s s r h .an 6 i nc h a s; th i ck, e nsur e 

vc t u c I s- t r ead r ad e s ov e r s r rt rw e r 

)<7wnll W II ' . 

J7'o'o't 'i~ 11" )7' , 

JOWf JOC 10 ' · ,.., j4Wf I9.. )t, l) 

)6.WF 181 "', 36"",r I JO '0', '1 36Wf 160 " "

Tim bor 

b· d Codes 

6 ,.\ 2' 

0 ""\ " 6 ,,10 

6 ..18 

~n

8 .1 .. 

Ihl6. 

a..te 

MO 

lh 22 

a..

10 ..10 

10 ..12 

10..\ 04. 

):,.· I~

10,.18 

l(h ,20 

Hh2 2 

12.0 1 , 47 

14 . 0 2. on 1l>, O 2 , 6 2 

l 8 . 0 .1.3 1 I (j, 1 . 9 6 

i s . 1 2:, t17 

:21 . 3 3 ,'- 9 

24 . 0 i+. 2 26 . , 5 , 4 5 

29 . 3 6 .&0 

31 . a 7 ,8 5 

1 & , 7 l , iO 

?O, O 2 . 45 

2 3. ) ] • .110 

2t. 7 4. 31; 

3 0 .0 5.5 2 B . 6. 61 

36. , 1 e.25 

e, '- -;-;:,;- _"- r- i ~~'" ;U St eel 14 11C 16 -. 0 ' II) . b 

"'1l~
 

16w r .. 16'. 1
 

IAw f(" 16 8 ' .
 ][J 

,"'-", 40 , 0 al 

lhl2 2... 0 2.,4

I H , O It . :!] 

12.. 32 .0 5. 2 3 12. 1.. 

12. 11; 35 . (> 6 .6 2 

li-'iO - o, » e• La u n 4 !o. 0 ~o

aenoe 

H Jeo 

Url f J6 

1..'-'t fl~

14 11) .. 

'IW fIJ~

211112 

' lwr7"1 

21'o1'1o'r u 

2'lw'"O 

~r"'.., 2OWf 1J . 

18w ft-O 

181M 

18w f H 

181&0 

aw so

IS

\ 8 WFl ij 

16w f 130 as-, ,, " l6'.....f4 0 \6 ] 16 WH.5(l l) Ib t s{} 16 6 J6 w f10 1 " av-, I I ' , 16 )¢ 15' , 7 

..uW F1Q6 ,)J ' , \1 ' , 

U~.

6W~ Il I S' . II ', T1 mbe r ))W f1 ;,) n', IS ' , 16 16> 15 ' , 6' , a . 9 0 b. d CD ~e _ _ _ ))w fl ..1 )~ ', II ', L b-..j S', 1;.6' n ....r l)() n 11 . 6 11 ' 1 I / ..i " '. 8 . 0 15.....f ;o) II', H . " zoo U . IA n .7 J. I ~' U l56 Il S', '. ~9' &. 11 )I'.... J I 11 ' , U U3 B S' . S,Il 7 14 .1 6 ~" 3

» ,"11 1' " JO , -o -. I ..a. « 1.73 H Wf l Ol 1~ 11 ' , " 5 ." 1 ,'20 '1&. 7 9 , 54 JOW' 116 1:) ' , 1 1400 10( • 5' , J . U1Wfl06 '" 10 HI SI 5', t'i.S7 1.. .·,2'1 1 ,3 I I.S

)OWf1 7') " I I '. '.....,.. Sf. 0 1 s. 7 ,,''., I.o ro l( t ::'. 1 7 i7"wFl)" 1 17 , 11 ' . te-u 42 ,7 6 , 16 1..157 1A 6 5. ~C

2J\',fIO) n ;6_ 18 itS . a a. e3 \ ' , 10 lot I '" 1.4 s-, !'...1i\ '2'1'W F9J. 1~ , 16·1 0 5 3,, 3 10 .9 '0 x \ AWF:l" 6' , ' ,il "l 

6W"I ~7 5 8 .7 U , }: 1::", II' , I..(Wf30 lJ ' , 6', 4 ,I d 16.. 1 , • 16").1. 59 . 1 IS, , ' ..WF9 .. 9 ro vrv n ' , 11' . 11 . 2 s, 9 't I ~W 9 16 -1 8 S" . C I) ' . S' . S .oQ 1(w;loo ,

" . IC-:1C ,!;q , O 12.3 IJ 1)5 Il 5 3. 7" , .. lI X) ,. , p . , ! " 1&..22 5~. '"r.be r 1) 14 \ u-. y , v, so " 5~ 9 1 7 ,7 }o 1,2' . 6 ' , 10. sa 18...' . 

a~s 12 8 ~, 2l,2 1. 1£0 I '" .~ 2. 29 2W 27 0 '1 1 . 3 8, ,.- 2'9.0 1:. 75 

160 ) 7 . -, :... 1 

12I H 11·, ..-. e, of) 

:; ;" :: 47 .7 5, eli. ''''' S!L O a. JOll 

le o; ro-. . ' , '. '3a no I 1""'F76 11 11 e , '33 C,9 . !; i o, , 

owr 2~ 11)' , s-. s, Ii : '.0 9 1 J , 6 

IO IJ.() 10 0 " . (" J ._.._- IOtH :o 

, , " , " " 23' , II ', 

23' , B " , 

I

" 11 ' . 11 ' . 

z-,

1" . 

1 , >1 ' , 8 

11 a -. 10 I '. i e. ts 

" r-, 

Xl e l Lo 

19 ' , II'. 2:7 • 

:J 

I ll ' , J .... .. 18 ' , ~. ; ;., 

I J . v " ", 9 . '; 9 

" e 8. 

'

17 

.' . II' . L2 .8 

,

J ,	 t" rln~e t:lass tf lC dtl.On (.li!;d ur~.

t o e.H e n. dg. .rLng r:ode on Clut e.r v ht' e l. 

b .	 8.t.ltiHe llliddl e wh eel un l Ll ( h e ste", ) s €. dnf,c T 

s,pa ctng i s a lined vtth !C . 

c.	 ftota(' t he- i lln Qr \o:h{' .o? l utlt ll chc s re('l 

sp an lang t h of h~ bnJge- J. l1 n

•...I t.h t h fll p.a l\ on tr.:,," 'lli,l.! le l,..l)c e l . 

d.	 n('rerrnlfl~ bridge rl ,, { r om 

·oIilldo..... 

1C 10 a-, ; . .....
 IQwf 21 9 ". 5' · c..I )
 

ICo'o' F.=,9 9' , q ' , v. "I
 

911~ ~' A', ; . n
 9 t 5O 7 4 , : ; 

:l ~: t: I I rv.'fH } ' , ,,". 1.bo

l.. __:L j 

&.	 T HTlbe r n. c}.a :l:i i.f i c.olt t on pr oc..:.Jur{' . 

<' a.'~L ( h e b rtJge iT, Er.CCClt c!.WC C '.d .t h rnel1ur c- out l ~cl 1n p:tra j . Us £ t be: s t n 

.;;ode-, ti:n'be-r ':'" llg.e 3'pa d lll:i . J.nd t imber 

sp.'tn 1I:I'Igt. h . 

h .	 Re c:l Ds :t l f v , uS l.ng t h e !.c l,;ond sl: r!oger co de 

~'t", 1.£ It (' o::: t c a l (\JS f' r: e~ ri n~ l"r

.:lIC ll'~ ,JlI d s t"ce l <ip a n l e n eth ) . 

Co	 . The k .....l: r l.he a bCl\.·C" l,). ::les Is 

hp fJ.I Hll b'r i dge c.lass , 

? TOCe ­

nger 

61.8 78 - " AG - F't Bel VOIr 

38 
I..... .) 

u 

+ 

Class 

Cut out and assemble as shown below: '0 

n Thumb 

'"" Tack 

USAE5 TEST EDITION 

THIS TRAINING AID IS NOT FOR FIELD USE 

+ 

Developed br Flied Bndils Brinth 

DIES , USAES 

Hasty Bridge Classification 

Wheel, Tracked Vehicles 

0d) 

Secure 

with 

Rubber 

Eraser 

Center point must match up exactly with center point on large wheel. 

39 
Current Status - Foreign Area Officer Specia Ity 

In November 1974, the Foreign Area Officer (FAO) Specialty Program came to an end and FAO 

became one of the Officer Personnel Management System (OPMS) advanced entry specialties. As 

has been the case in all specialties, much analysis and study has been, and continues to be made to 

more precisely define position, personnel, and training requirements . The following relevant 

statistics will serve as a base for further discuss ions . 

GRADE 

COL LTC MAJ CPT TOTAL 

Total FAO Positions 204 344 261 262 1,071 

Total Army FAO Officers 35 677 945 655 2,312 

Total EN F AO Offi cers 1 66 71 60 198 

A rapid comparison of positions and officers reveals a major shortage problem at the rank of 

Colonel while other ranks are adequately f i lied with personnel . Shortage of FAO qual ified colonels is 

being alleviated to some extent by "out of specialty" assignments and grade substitutions. An 

additional problem, not obvious from statistics, stems from the fact that many of the officers 

identified above are designated as Foreign Area specialists, but are not yet trained assets . Th is 

presents a major professional development challenge. The bright spot in the overall picture is the 

fact that we now have FAO requ irements well defined and personnel have been identified for 

training and repetitive utilization. Intensive management is particularly essential in FAO because 

of the heavy colonel requirements. While it would be ideal to designate sufficient officers in each 

grade to insure a steady flow to the grade of colonel and maintain a 50% utilization rate (ie: 2 

officers for each position), this solution would create undue stress elsewhere in the system. While it 

is fully realized that the training required for FAO is more time consuming and extensive than for 

most other specialties and while every effort will be made to develop the most capable and qual ified 

officers, it must be clearly stated that the FAO specialty designation is not an automatic ticket to 

lengthy schooling and training . The perception that the training package which included the FAO 

Course at the Institute of Military Assistance, Graduate School, language tra ining, and in-country 

training, that was associated with the Foreign Area Officer Special Career Program is to be 

provided to all officers designated in this specialty is incorrect. It must be understood that 20% of 

the FAO positions are "area unspecified" positions which reduces the tra ining requirement for 

officers filling these positions . Also, the requirement that an officer's overall manner of 

performance be in the upper 1/3 in comparison with his contemporaries applies to all graduate 

studies, including FAO related schooling . Additionally, maximum utilization will be made of 

previcusly tra ined assets so as to avoid unnecessary retraining or duplicative type assignments. 

The timing or sequencing of FAO related training raises many questions. Basically, FAO officers 

should begin training as soon after des ignation as is possible and in some cases selected officers may 

begin training prior to the designation process . Delays in formal training will most commonly be 

related to the non-ava ilability of the officer (I .e. committed to other assignments), requirements for 

further experience and development in the primary specialty or a low manner of performance which 

would make costly training and unrated time prior to 04 promotion unwise both from the standpoint 

of the Army and the individual. As to the sequence of training, almost any order is acceptable as 

long as language training is closely followed by a utilization opportunity . The training of each FAO 

officer will be carefully planned and coordinated between the appropriate OPD Division and the 

individual officer. Each officer is enjoined to improve his qualifications through self-study whenever 

the opportunity presents itself. 

Officers who have yet to reach the alternate specialty designation point, but who are interested 

in the FAO specialty can enhance their chances by insuring that all FAO related qualifications are 

40 
made known to their career division and also that they have a Defense Language Aptitude Test 

(DLAT) score recorded on their Officer Record Brief (ORB). 

Th is specialty combines effectively with almost any other specialty and offers an excellent 

career in peacetime as well as wartime. A wide variety of assignments ranging from military 

assistance and advisory duties to psychological operations assignments to strategic intelligence and 

attache functions are available in this field . The repetitive use of trained personnel in these 

assignments will create better qualified personnel and enhance cost effective operations. While the 

statistics shown above do not reflect an exceptionally large number of Engineer officers 

participating in FAa, the specialty combination of Engineer (21) and FAa (48) is deemed very 

acceptable and any interested officer should carefully consider the opportunities and challenges 

presented by such a combination . 

Project Manager Development Program (PMDP) 

The PMDP was established for the professional development of officers pursuing a career in 

manag ing the acquisition of major defense systems. Unlike an OPMS specialty, which is a distinct 

grouping of similar positions in wh ich officers receive professional development, the PMDP 

encompasses a variety of positions in a number of specialties. Chapter 30, DA Pamphlet 600-3, 

currently under revision, prescribes the policies and procedures for the identification and 

management of officers in the PMDP. 

The purpose of the PMDP is to identify and develop qualified commissioned officers to support 

future requirements for project managers and other senior officers within materiel acquisition 

activities in the Department of Defense. The PMDP is applicable to all commissioned officers 

serving in the grade of captain through colonel on active duty except officers of the Judge Advocate 

General's Corps , Chaplains and the Army Medical Department. Potential project managers will 

receive development in materiel acquisition related functions , namely, Research and Development, 

Procurement, and General Logistics; development in sk ills related to a particular type of materiel, 

such as m issiles, armaments, or munitions; and development in basic management skills, such as 

program planning and control, needed by all project managers. This concept of professional 

development is referred to as interspecialty development. For most officers in the PMDP, the 

application of this concept will entail them spending most of the remainder of their career in 

program related duties. In practice, interspecialty development builds on an officer's qualifications 

in his primary and alternate specialties and provides the opportunity for the potential project 

manager to round out his background through assignments to developmental positions and 

appropriate schooling . 

The eligibility criteria for participating in the PMDP are: 

• Completed six years Active Federal Service. 

• Posses specialty related to project manager functions (i.e., Research and Development, 

Procurement, a technically oriented specialty such as C-E Engineering, one of the materiel 

management specialties, Comptroller, ADP or OR SA) or have project manager related 

experience. 

• Have a military education appropriate to grade and length of service. 

• For civil schooling have a Bachelor's degree with discipline in Business, Engineering, 

Physical Science, or have any Bachelor's degree if officer has project manager related 

experience. 

• By manner of performance have demonstrated high level of intelligence, initiative, 

imagination, judgement and potential for project manager development (to grade of colonel) . 

• Indicate desire to participate. 

41 
• Have six years Active Federal Service remaining. 

An officer who meets the above criteria may apply for participating in the program by 

submitting a letter of application. The appl icant's immediate military superior will indorse the 

application and forward it directly to HQDA (DAPC-OPF- D), 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, Virginia 

22332. The current status of the PMDP and the participation of Engineer officers in the program is 

indicated below: 

GRADE 

COL LTC MAJ CPT TOTAL 

Desired Strength 202 342 459 280 1,283 

Current Army Wide Strength 2 160 159 41 362 

Current EN Br Participating 0 8 17 4 29 

Many Engineer officers possess the unique skills outlined in the eligibility criteria and may well 

consider this program as they plan career objectives. The importance of th is program to the 

efficient operation of the Army cannot be over emphasized. All officers with experience, train ing or 

interest in participating in this growing effort are urged to submit an application for consideration. 

Contracting Officer 

If you have served in an assignment within the OCE family and have been awarded the 

"Contracting Officer Certificate" (DD Form 1539), we have made provisions for this to be reflected 

in the data printed on the Officer Record Brief. Knowledge of this qualification will materially assist 

the assignment desk officer in assignment management and will provide an identification of officers 

required in crisis situations. If you possess this certification, send your assignment officer a copy. 

Assignments 

With personnel management fully under OPMS, the assignment of officers within the primary/ 

alternate specialty framework requires several actions by each officer to insure we and you are able 

to effectively develop you professionally, meet your preferences, and, above all, support the mission 

of the Army. Officers who have already received alternate specialty designation (or who have not 

yet been designated) and desire to be considered for an assignment within that field should make 

your desires known a minimum of twelve months prior to your date of availability for reassignment. 

Officers eligible for overseas assignments will be screened nine months prior to reassignments and 

officers returning from overseas or moving within CONUS will be considered approximately six 

months prior to availability date. With requirements to program so far in advance it is most 

important for those going on an unaccompanied overseas tour or to short duration courses (e.g. 

EOAC) that you pay considerable attention to the succeeding assignments. Of course, one way to 

insure that your preferences are always documented is to maintain an up-to-date preference 

statement is your Career Management Individual File. 

42 
Current Locations of Active Engineer Battalions 

Considerable changes have occurred in Engineer Battalion designation and location - here is an 

update. 

NOTE : 

CONUS • Re·d eslg nat ed as "Com bat (Heavy)" 

• Un its activa ted during F Y 76 

1st Engineer Battalion, 1st Inf Div Fort Riley, Kansas 

- 3rd Engineer Battalion, 24th Inf orv Fort Stewart, Georgia 

4th Engineer Battalion, 4th Inf Div (M) Fort Carson, Colorado 

5th Engineer Battalion (Combat) Fort Leonard Wood, MO 

- 7th Eng ineer Battalion. 5th In! Div (M) Fort Pol, Louisiana 

8th Eng in eer Battalion, 1st Cav Div Fort Hood, Texas 

11th Engineer Battalion (Combat) Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

-13th Engineer Battal ion, 7th Inf Div Fort Ord, California 

14th Eng ineer Ba ttal ion (Combat) Fort ore, California 

15th Engine er Battal ion, 9th Inf Div Fort Lewis, Wash ington 

17th En g ineer Batta lion. 2nd Armd Div Fort Hood. Texas 

- 19th Engineer Battalion (Com bat) Fort Know. Kentucky 

20th Engineer Batta lion (Combat) Fort Campbell, Kentucky 

27th Engin eer Ba tta l ion (Com bat ) (A bn) Fort Bragg, North Carolina 

30th Engineer Battalion (Base) (Tope) Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

34th Engineer Battal ion (Const r uction ) " Fort Riley, Kansas 

39th Engineer Battal ion (Combat) Fort Devens, Massachusetts 

43rd En g ineer Battalion (Construction)" Fort Benning, Georgia 

46th En g in eer Ba ttal ion (Cons t r uction)" Fort Rucker, Alabama 

52nd Engineer Ballalion (Construction)" For t Carson, Colorado 

62nd Eng in eer Battal ion (Const r ucti on )" Fort Hood, Texas 

76th Engineer Battalion (Construction) " Fort Meade, Maryland 

92nd Eng ineer Battalion (Const r uc ti on )" Fort Stewart. Georg ia 

-299th Eng ineer Battalion (Com bat) Fort Sill. Oklahoma 

307th Engineer Battalion. 82nd Abn Div Fort Bragg. North Carolina 

326th Engineer Battal ion , 101st Ambl D iv Fort Campbell , Kentucky 

548th Engineer Battalion (Construction) " Fort Bragg, North Carolina 

-588th Engineer Battal ion (Combat) For t Gordon. Georgia 

864th Engineer Battalion (Construction)" Fort Lewis, Washington 

NOTE : EUROPE (GERMANY) .. Re.d esigna ted as " Com bat (He av y )" 

9th En g ine er Battalion (Combat) 237th Engineer Battalion (Combat) 

lOth Engineer Battal ion, 3rd Inf Div 249th Engineer Batta l ion (Const r ucti on) " 

12th Engineer Batta lion, 8th Inf Div 293r d Engineer Batta lion (Construction)" 

16th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armd D iv 317th Eng in eer Batta lion (Com bat) 

23rd Engineer Battal ion, 3rd Armd Div 547th Engineer Battal in (Combat) 

54th En g ineer Battalion (Com bat ) 549t h Engineer Batta lion (Ser vice) 

78th Engin eer Battal ion (Com bat) 559th Eng in eer Battalion (Ser v ice) 

79th Engin eer Battal ion (Const r uc ti on ) " 563rd Engineer Batta lion (Ser vice) 

82nd Engineer Battal in (Com bat) 565th Eng ineer Ba ttal ion (Ser vice) 

94th Engineer Battalion (Const ruct ion)" 649th Engineer Battalion (Tope) 

HAWAII NOTE :

• R e-deslq nateo as " Com ba t (Heav y )" 

65th Engineer Battalion, 25th Inf Div Schofield Barracks, Hawa ii 

84th Engineer Battal in (Constr ucti on) " Schofield Barracks, Hawa ii 

652nd Engineer Battalion (Topo) Ford Island, Hawaii 

NOTE : KOREA fI Re -des ignated as " Com ba t (H eav y )" 

2nd Engineer Battalion, 2nd Inf Div Camp Casey, Korea 

44th Engineer Battalion (Construction)" Camp Mercer, Korea 

802nd Engineer Battalion (Construction)" Camp Humphreys, Korea 

43 
AVIATION TO BECOME OPMS SPECIALTY 

As a result of recommendations made in a detailed ODCSPER study of the Army's aviation 

management system , the addition of Aviation to the list of specialties under OPMS has been 

approved. 

Originally, Aviation had not been designated as a separately managed specialty because of the 

relatively low number of aviator positions at the LTC and COL level and because aviation skills were 

identified as integral to 35 of the 47 approved OPMS specialties. However, the Aviation Career 

Incentive Act of 1974 and projected aviator strength imblances severely impacted on the planning for 

aviator professional development under the "aviation as skill" concept i the demands of the 

legislation to gain optimum return on aviator training investments restricted many aviator 

management options under consideration at the time. 

The new Aviation specialty concept - scheduled for implementation in early 1976 - will be 

keyed to meeting field grade aviator requirements . The main features of the concept include the 

following : 

• Aviation will become an advanced entry specialty designated in an officer's eighth year of 

service. 

• Aviators w ill be trained and assigned based upon their basic entry specialty. 

• In the future, only officers from Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery, Air Defense Artillery, 

Engineer, Signal Corps, Transportation Corps, and Military Intell igence branches may receive flight 

training. 

• Officers will enter flight school between their 24th and 60th months of commissioned service, 

except for those in the Aviation Materiel Management specialty who will attend upon completion of 

the Transportation Officer Basic Course. 

NEW INVOLUNTARY RETRAINING/RECLASSIFICATION PROGRAM 

Armywide overages of noncommissioned officers in a number of Combat Support and Combat 

Service Support MOSs and critical shortages in the Combat Arms field have led to a new program 

for retraining and reclassifying career soldiers into Combat Arms MOSs . The program is intended 

to satisfy two major needs of the Army: to balance the enlisted MOS/grade structure, and to 

increase Combat Arms strengths to fill the requirements of a 16-Division Force. 

To meet these goals, MI LPE RCEN's Enl isted Personnel Directorate (E PO) is screening the 

records of enlisted sold iers in MOSs that are overstrength Armywide. Physical profiles, Enlisted 

Evaluation Scores, status of enlistment or reenlistment bonuses (Le., not receiving EBs , VRBs, 

SR Bs), and the soldier's potential to qualify and compete in another MOS are some of the factors 

EPO will consider before selecting a soldier for involuntary reclassification from an overstrength 

skill into the Combat Arms field. 

Upon selection, the soldier will be retrained formally and reclassified into an appropriate 

Infantry, Armor, Combat Engineer, Field Artillery, or Air Defense Artillery PMOS. His former skill 

will then be designated as his SMOS, and he will be required to mainta in proficiency in the new 

PMOS. 

In itial classes of approximately 30 soldiers each will begin retraining for MOSs 82C (Artillery 

Surveyor) and 13E (Field Artillery Cannon Operat!ons) at Ft. Sill, OK, and MOS 13B (Field Artillery 

Crewman) at Ft. Hood, TX, in January 1976. After completing the courses, soldiers will rema in on 

station for at least one year to gain additional skills, knowledge and experience in their new MOSs. 

All soldiers involuntary reclassified into the Combat Arms field will be notified by personal 

letters which explain the program and stress that selection is neither based on substandard 

44 
performance nor punitive action. A special letter will be included in each soldier's Official Military 

Personnel File (and 201 " Field" File for E-5sl to indicate to future Promotion Selection Boards that 

the involuntary reclassification action should not be viewed as adverse, and that without exception, 

only those soldiers who have records of satisfactory performance are being selected for the 

program. 

All involuntary reclassifications into Combat Arms MOSs are dictated by the needs of the Army. 

MILPERCEN will reconsider only those soldiers who for cogent military reasons (l.e., physical 

disqualification) forward within 14 days of receipt of notification the required documents supporting 

requests for deletion from the program . 

EMERGENCY LEAVE POLICY REVISED 

New gUidance expanding current policies under which emergency leave and administrative 

absence may be authorized was recently incorporated into AR 630-5 and implemented by a 

MILPERCEN message. 

Effective 17 November 1975, conditions under which service members may take emergency 

leave have been broadened to include emergency situations involving an immediate family member 

of the service member's spouse . Prior to this change, soldiers were only authorized emergency 

leave in connection with an emergency involving the service member's immediate family. 

Immediate family members include parents, brothers, sisters, children, persons in loco parentis, or 

the sole surviving blood relative. 

.. A new paragraph {6-10dl has also been added to the " Leave, Passes, Administrative Absence, 

.., and Public Holidays" regulation allowing dependents of service members to travel "space-available" on DOD owned or operated aircraft in conjunction with a bona fide family emergency in 

accordance with DOD Regulation 4515 .13-R provided they possess written authorization. 

A final change to the emergency leave section (Chapter 6) of the regulation involves military 

personnel assigned to the Military Assistance Program (MAP) who are stationed in areas not 

serviced by scheduled Military Airlift Command (MAC) flights. In the future, soldiers travelling on 

emergency leave wi II only be authorized transportation on DOD owned or operated aircraft to an 

from a location where MAC transportation can be acquired. In the past, commercial transportation 

to a MAC-serviced area was also authorized at government expense. 

Conditions under which an adm inistrative absence may be taken have also been broadened in 

the regulation . In addition to meetings sponsored by recognized professional legal/ecclesiastical 

societies and organizations, an administrative absence may be taken for attendance at meetings 

sponsored by recognized non-federal techn ical, scientific, and professional medical organizations. 

In order to qual ify, the meetings must be of a nature which does not require the approval of the 

Secretary of the Army and must bear a direct relationship to the service member's professional 

background or primary duties while clearly enhancing the individual's value to the Army. 

Further details of the policy changes to AR 630-5 are contained in the implementing 

MILPERCEN message 17172DZ November 1975. 

SPECIAL FORCES VACANCIES 

Positions are currently open in Special Forces units for volunteers in MOSs 05B (Radio 

Operator), 128 (Com bat Eng ineer), and 91 B (Medical Specialist). 

Selected soldiers in these MOSs will be Airborne and Special Forces trained before they report to 

their Special Forces units in Panama, Germany, Korea, Thailand, or Forts Bragg, NC, or Devens, 

MA . 

Soldiers interested in a Special Forces assignment should submit a volunteer request in 

accordance with Chapter 12 of AR 614-200 through channels to the Commander; US Army Military 

Personnel Center; ATTN : DAPC- EPK-S; 2461 Eisenhower Avenue ; Alexandria, VA 22331. 

45 
'. ;~ --: ': :~' -,

~.{ '- :.'~ .;,;<-:,,:..• ,:; ;, :. -.

.:- ~: {' 1:- Y.'J: ' .

we; J . AUl . . ( >;'J ; ': ~· ;' ': :: ::' :.: r. .;

..'. .:.. ~::: ·; :,: :: . -.: . ; -: ~. \:

-·',·.1.

'.:'"

"'."

WE ARE LOOKING

FOR PEOPLE WHO

LIKE TO DRAW.. .... OR WRITE.... 

OR TAKE PICTURES.

IF YOU ARE ONE

OF THESE PEOPLE,

HELP US OUT.

WHY NOT SEN?

AN ARTICLE OF

GENERAL INTEREST

TO: EDITOR

THE ENGINEER

USAES

FORT BELVOIR,

VIRGINIA 22 0 60