the engineer 

FALL 1972 VOLUME 2 NUMBER 3 

2 Pipeline/News Items 

4 Dn~ineer Inter..uiew/MA J Kalph B. Hill, 

CPT Milton Hwnter 

2 0 An Exercise in Bridging Understanding/ 

Engineer Stag 

12 Stop-16/Lette,t.s to the Editor. 

13 A Sub Fo.r* The BailezjIMAJ Ralph B. Hill 

11 M4T6 Goes Under;CPT David E. Peixotto 

18 An Assessment Of Ou?' Bridgi'ng Futu~e/ 

Engineer Sta8 

21 This "Ribbon" Floats/LTC Cliflo.rld C. Lussier, Jr. 

25 Crossing Tirne's B~*idges/Eny i.r~se~ Stag 

31 A Monument A'Buil&ifig/MAJ Je~rg M. Lowrance 

34 Dynamic T-r*aining/Enginew Stag 

36' Bridging The Gup/Career Notes 

DEPARTMENTS: Chief's Brie fs/Pipeli.ne//Stop-16' 

Dgnarnic Tr.air~ing/B?.,idgi.rzg The Gap 
When Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Rochefontaine retired from the 

Army in 1798, President John Adams appointed Colonel Henry Burbeck 

~ef Engineer and Commandant of the Corps of Artillerists and Engi- fi ss at West Point. Burbeck thus became the fifth Chief Engineer of 

U.S. Army, a position he held until legislation in 1802 divided the 

Corps into two new organizations-the Corps of Engineers and the 

Regiment of Artillerists. Burbeck remained with the latter as its Chief. 

Henry Burbeck was born on June 8, 1754 at Boston, Massachusetts. 

With the growing discontent of the colonists with home rule from 

England, Burbeck joined the Continental Army, serving in 1775 as a 

Lieutenant of Artillery under Colonel Richard Gridley, the Army's first 

Chief Engineer and Artillery Commander. He remained in the Artillery 

Corps under General Knox, with Washington's Army, until the Yorktown Campaign. Thereafter, his command remained in the north to 

defend Hudson Highlands, and had the signal honor of marching into 

New York when the British evacuated that city at the close of the war. 

Burbeck was honorably discharged in 1784, but was reappointed a 

Captain of Artillery to command Castle Williams in Boston Harborhis father's old command before the Revolution. Later he commanded 

Springfield Arsenal in 1787 and West Point in 1789. Shortly after 

serving as Chief of Artillery under General Wayne in 1792, he was 

assigned the task of building Fort Recovery in the Northwest. 

After succeeding Rochefontaine as Chief Engineer and Commandant 

of the Corps of Artillerists in 1798, Burbeck was also Chief of the 

Eastern Department of the Army, and played an active role in establishing the Military Academy at West Point. He became the Chief of the 

Artillery Corps in 1802, a position he held until he retired in 1815. ' Zolonel Burbeck died on October 2, 1848 at New London, 

Connecticut. e 

U.S. Army Engineer School 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Commandant 

MG Robert R. Ploger 

Assistant Commandanf 

BG Richard 1. Harris 

Deputy Assistant 

Commandant 

COL Charles A. McLeod 

Secretary 

LTC Robert 1. Crosby 

Editor 

Robert G. McClintic 

Executive Editor 

CPT Dennis F. Pierman 

Contributing Editor 

William T. Spriegel 

Art Director 

John W. Savage, Jr. 

The Engineer is an authorized quarterly 

publication of the U.S. Army Engineer 

School. It is published to provide factual 

and in-depth information of interest to 

all Engineer units. Articles, photographs 

and art work of general interest may be 

submitted for consideration to: Editor, The Engineer, USA Engineer School, Fort 

Belvoir, Virginia 22060. Views and opinions expressed herein are not necessarily 

those of the Department of the Army. 

Use of funds for printing of this publ~cation has been approved by Headquarters, 

Department of the Army, July 11, 1969. 

Subscriptions to THE ENGINEER magazine are available through the Superintendent of Documents, W. S. Government 

Printing Office, Washington. D.C. 20402. 

Annual rates are $1.50 for mailing to a 

domestic or APO address and $2.00 for 

mailing to a foreign address, Individual copies of the magazine are 50$ each. 

Checks should be made payable to the 

Superintendent of Documents. 

ABOUT THE COVER 

Art Director John W. Savage, Jr., paints various scenes 

that depict a representative 

collection of bridging events 

that are essential to the mission of the Engineer. They 

vividly point up one of the 

Corps' major contributions to 

the total mobility of the U.S. 

Army. 
CORPS ESTABLISHES enveloped soil laycr (MESL), has surface layer was placed in one opDISTRICT TO AID been developed at the Waterways eration using an asphalt distributor 

FLOOD VICTIMS Experiment Station for application fitted with a simple laying yoke for 

by a small crew in minimal time unrolling the fabric, a random fiber 

A new U. S. Army Corps of Engineers District has been established 

in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to direct recovery and rcconstruction 

work in the Susquehanna River 

Basin which was hard hit by Hurricane Agnes. 

Headed by Colonel John F. 

McElhenny, the new Susquehanna 

Engineer District will take over all 

post-Agnes emergency work within 

the basin. 

Debris removal, repairs to flood 

control structures and the reconstruction of public buildings, water 

supply and scwage facilities arc 

some of the tasks they will perform. 

The Susquehanna District also 

will prepare sites for thousands of 

mobile homes which will provide 

temporary housing for flood victims. 

ENGINEERS TEST 

NEW ROAD 

CONSTRUCTION 

A radical departure from conventional road construction methods is 

gaining prominence with test programs at the U.S. Army Engineer 

Waterways Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg, Mississippi, and at Fort 

Hood, Texas. 

Thc process, called membrane 

with minimal equipment. A crew of 

12 with a scanty truckload of materials and little equipment, in fact, 

has laid a one-half-mile, two-lane 

MESL road in less than a week. 

The process is based on the principle that the soil itself will support 

military cargo vehicle traffic if 

moisture is sealed off. The only construction materials arc plastic mcmbrane, fabric, asphalt and native 

soil. The construction technique is 

simple-wrapping native soil between membranes which are joined 

and sealed along the edges to form 

a waterproof encapsulated soil system. 

A main road at Fort Hood, Texas, 

was built using thc MESL method. 

Equipment removed the soil which 

was to be used to form the foundation layer and a grader was employed to smooth the subgrade surface. Polyethylene sheets, each 32 

by 100 feet, were spread by hand 

on the subgradc and front-end loaders placed the soil on the lower 

membrane. A grader spread the soil, 

leaving the lower membrane edges 

exposed for bonding with the upper 

mcmbrane to be added later. ' 

After careful compacting, the soil 

was given a light spray coating of 

rapid setting emulsified asphalt. The 

polypropylene material that comes 

in rolls 15% feet wide by 350 feet 

long, each roll weighing less than 

200 pounds. Since all of the materials are flexible, going around bends 

and up and down hills presents n 

problems. AAfter bonding the upper a1 

lower membranes with the edges to 

be buried later as shoulders, a final 

application of asphalt was laid on 

the polypropylene, a material that 

can absorb asphalt 270 times its 

own weight. The surface was then 

blotted with sand and the MESL 

was ready to serve as the base 

course. The asphalt-treated fabric 

became the pavement surface on 

that secondary road. On a more 

heavily traveled primary road designated to support the traffic of both 

civilian and military vehicles, a twoinch surface of hot-mix asphalt 

pavement would have been laid over 

the MESL. 

Building of the test road at Fort 

Hood is another goal met in a research program started several years 

ago at the Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station to provide 

the military with a construction technique when aggregates required fi 

conventional roadbuilding metho< 

were not available. Lack of mate- 
rials for roads in Southeast Asia, 

particularly in the Mekong Delta, 

influenced the Chief of Engineers to 

seek another method. The MESL 

road system offers a solution, while 

cutting work, cost and time. 

USARPAC HOLDS 

FACILITIES ENGR 

~'USTRUCTION 

U. S. Army facilities engineers 

from Hawaii, Vietnam, and Thailand, have begun attending a series 

of U. S. Army, Pacific Facilities 

Engineers Management Courses. 

Thc first 10-day course, held at 

Fort IIeRussy, Hawaii, was designed 

to improve the understanding of 

facility engineering management 

practices by supervisors at the middle management level. 

The immediate purpose of the 

course, which graduated 42 facilities 

engineers, was to upgrade the technical and professional training and 

management skills of the students. 

They received 54 hours of instruction in environmental pollution 

abatement, management and administration, maintenance and repair, 

and management of facilities engineering contracts. 

Courses were also to be held in 

rea and Okinawa. It was ex- .c" cted that 125 students would re- \ 

c'eive instruction from the three 

courses. 

84th ENGINEERS barest of tools to some 400 with a 

ARE CITED vast array of equipment. They are 

BY ADMIRER working on projects on both Oahu 

and Hawaii. 

The 84th Engineer Battalion 

(Construction) at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, recently received a 

plaque displaying a beat up, rusty, 

toy bulldozer from an important 

admirer. 

Major General Thomas W. 

Mellen, former commander of the 

U. S. Army, Hawaii, presented the 

plaque in appreciation of the unit's 

service to the command since its 

activation on January 31, 1972. 

In just nine months of duty in 

Hawaii, the 84th has grown from a 

handful of soldiers without even the 

The inscription on the plaque 

from General Mellen, who has been 

reassigned to Thailand, reads: "To 

the officers and men of the 84th 

Engineer Battalion (Construction) 

with respect, admiration, and 

thanks. Activated at Schofield Barracks on January 31, 1972, as the 

577th Engineer Battalion (Construction) with three officers and 

11 men and no equipment, the 

battalion has. performed with great 

skill and energy under trying conditions. You are truly the 'Do It Yourself' battalion." 

Lieutenant Colonel Norman 0. Gates, Commander of the 84th Engineer Battalion (Construction), seems delighted as he reads the inscription on the plaque presented to the unit 

by Major General Thomas W. Mellen (left) former commander' of the U.S. Army, Hawaii. 
with 

and 

Milton Hunter 

With the advent upon the military bridging scene of two innovations slated for incorporation into 

the U. S. Army's inventory within 

the relatively near future--and 

amid some speculation that the 

Medium Girder Bridge and the 

Ribbon Bridge might eventually 

replace current standard item equipment in that inventory-the engineer felt compelled to interview personnel with first-hand 

knowledge about these two bridges. 

We were fortunate. 

Major Ralph R. Hill, Royal Engineers, is the British Exchange 

Officer currently serving at the U. S. 

Army Engineer School at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and has acquired 

considerable experience with the 

Medium Girder Bridge through 

past assignments. He has been stationed at the Engineer School since 

March, 1971, and is now Chief of 

the Field Engineering and Bridging 

Division, Department of Applied 

Engineering. 

Commissioned into the Royal Engineers from the Royal Military 

Academy at Sandhurst in 1953, the 

major holds a Master of Arts degree in Mechanical Engineering 

from the University of Canbridge 

and is a graduate of the British 

Army Staff College at Camberley. 

Ma.jor Hill has served In various 

un-its, on occasior! as second in 

command., and as a troop commander. He has also been assigned 

duty as a member of the Royal Engineer Combat Development Staff. 

As a member of the Ribbon 

Bridge Field Test Board, Captain 

Milton Hunter, Corps of Engineers, 

U. S. Army, is singularly qualified 

to discuss that piece of bridging 

equipment. He is a Distinguished 

Military Graduate of Washington 

State University's ROTC Program, 

and holds a Bachelor of Architectural Engineering degree from that 

institution. Formerly an instructor 

in the Bridging Branch, Field Engineering Division of the Department of Applied Engineering at-, 

Engineer School, Captain ~u' 

has served with the 937th Enginer~ 

Group (Combat) in Vietnam, and 

the 339th Engineer Battalion (Construction) at Port Lewis, Washington. He has just recently returned 

from duty with the Baltimore and 

Susquehanna Engineer Districts 

where he assisted in Disaster Recovery Operations necessitated by 

the havoc caused by Hurricane 
in Pennsylvania. Captain 

- is a career officer and is curattending the Engineer Officer Advanced Course at the En.- 

gineer School. 

Major Hill was interviewed first. 

ENGR: Major Hill, could you 

give us a brief description of the 

Medium Girder Bridge (MGB) and 

some insight into its capabilities? 

HILL: The MGB is a deck-type 

equipment bridge using aluminum 

alloy components, which Carl be assembled very rapidly by a platoon 

sized force of engineers, without 

cranes, in a variety of spans up to 

160 feet, including a 100-foot span 

capable of carrying a Class 60 

tank. 

ENGR: What prompted the development of the MGB with the 

Railey already the standard tactical 

fixed bridge in both British and 

U. S. Army inventories? 

6 LL: The Bailey has not been a -lard tactical fixed bridge in the 

Army for many years now, 

although we do still have stocks 

for use in world-wide emergencies. 

We replaced the extra-widened 

Bailey (wider than the M2 version 

used by the U. S. Army) with a 

similar, heavier and stronger bridge 

called the Heavy Girder Bridge 

(FGR) in the early fifties. However, 

both the Bailey and HGB take too 

much time, manpower and logistical 

effort for requirements imposed by 

fast, mobile, modern warfare. The 

infantry and armor are just not 

prepared to wait while the engineers 

take hours to build their bridges. 

ENGR: Do you think the MGR 

will totally replace the Bailey M2 

Panel Bridge? If so, when? 

HILL: You're asking me to stick 

my neck out-and, perhaps uowisely, I will. No, J don't think it 

will totally replace the Bailey. 'The 

dB is a brilliant design, but it p. -30 specialized to fill the many 

,es of the Bailey-it's also too 

evpensive. Although the MGB is 

nlclre cost-effective than the Bailey 

in the conditions for which it was 

designed, this does not apply when 

speed, lightness and logistics savings are less important. I cannot see 

the MGB being used by engineers 

as "long term" temporary replacement bridges in civil emergencies 

(except when life is at stake), for 

special structure in large construction tasks, or even for T,OC (line 

of communication) bridging in war. 

The special capabilities of the MGB 

are just not required in these situations, so why pay the extra costs? 

Also, MGB just hasn't got the 

flexibility of Bailey although, admittedly, the ingenuity of military 

engineers wil! undoubtedly change 

that in due course. Besides, both 

the Rritish and U. S. Armies still 

have large stocks of Bailey, which 

has a long life, to use up. 

ENGR: noes the MGR have any 

distinct advantages over the Bailey? 

If so, whpt are they? Also, cotlld 

you point up any disadvantages? 

HILL: Well, I've already mentioned 

some of these-the advantages are 

speed of assembly, and savings in 

manpower and logistics. The disadvantages are a comparative lack 

of flexibility (e.g, special uses, 

longer spans) and straightforward 

cost. However, the latter is not true 

in the tactica! context when costs of 

vehicles rrlanpower and logistics are 

included. 

ENGR: The MGB was designed 

around new materials with weight 

reduction and minimal assembly 

time in mind. What is the weight 

differential between a 100-foot 

Class 60 MGR and a similar Bailey 

mit? 

HILL: A 100-foot, Class 60 MGB 

weighs 19.7 tons, compared with 

over 60 tons for the comparable 

Bailey. 

ENGR: Money is always a factor 

in introducing non-expendable items 

with a long-inventory life into the 

system. How does the expense of 

a unit of MGR compare to a unit 

of Bailey? 

HILL: As 1 have already indicated, 

this comparison is difficult to make. 

You should really include costs of 

vehic!es and ancillary equipmentand many other factors have to be 

considered. The MGB will probably be cheaper to maintain, but 

repairs may be more costly. How 

do you cost the manpower savings 

and tirne saved in a military context? T fee! sure that the MGB can 

produce a cheaper answer to the 

problems for which it was designed, 

but in many cases the Bailey cannot 

even be compared. For example, 

there is no way to produce a 100- 

foot Class 60 bridge in one hour 

using Baileys, and this has been 

done on several occasions using 

MGB. However, it is interesting 

to note that one set of MGB, which 

will provide one 160-foot double 

story bridge capable of carrying a 

Class 16 load will cost between 

$200,000 and $250,000 as compared to $42,000 for one set of M2 

Ba.i!ey which will produce one 130- 

foot double-doub!e bridge capable 

of carrying a Class 18 load. The 

Bailey set needs 25 bridge vehicles 

or tral!ers, whereas the MGB set 

can be carried on 12 bridge vehicles 

or trailers. 

ENGRr How long do you think 

Tt wiyl take before the MGR is 

acttlallly introduced &to the Ln- 
ventory of U. S. Army Engineer 

units? Will it be exactly the same 

as the British version? 

HILL: If the bridge is accepted, 

which seems likely, I understand 

that the first sets would come into 

service in the next year or two. It 

is not yet known whether the 

bridge would be manufactured in 

the United Kingdom or the United 

States under license. However, even 

if made here, I would expect it to be 

substantially the same as the British 

version. 

ENGR: Could you sum up the 

total effect the MGB will have on 

the bridging capabilities of our 

Army Corps of Engineers? 

HILL: This will depend on how 

much is procured, and to whom 

it is distributed. I think the combat 

engineer will greatly appreciate his 

new ability to provide a 100-foot 

bridge rapidly wherever the combat 

arms want it. The combat arms are 

going to be impressed too! 

ENGR: The MGB reportedly incorporates new materials and design to reduce weight and speed 

assembly. Can you , identify such 

materials and explain the new design features? 

HILL: The bridge is made of an 

aluminum-zinc-magnesium alloy, 

which was specially developed by 

the Military Vehicles and Engineering Establishment (MVEE) at 

Christ Church, England. These are 

the people who, under Sir Donald 

Bailey, developed the Bailey Bridge. 

The greatly improved strength of 

this metal alloy for its light weight, 

made possible the design of the 

fabricated boxes which form the 

girders of the bridge. The strength 

of these girders is achieved without 

the overall depth of the Bailey 

Bridge panel-type girder, and thus 

the MGB is a deck-type bridge 

rather than a through-girder type 

like the Bailey. Also the bridge is 

much stronger in twisting and does 

not require end-posts, base plates 

or grillages, because the ends of the 

girders can just rest on the ground. 

This greatly shortens assembly time, 

and also means the bridge can be 

built on sloping sites without timeconsuming preparation of bank 

seats. The whole key to these time 

and labor-saving factors lies in the 

novel guidance system which enables pins to be inserted by hand 

and the avoidance of grillages and 

site preparation plus the ability to 

offload pallets quickly. 

ENGR: We know that a cablereinforcement kit has been produced for use with the Bailey 

Bridge, which reduces the assembly 

work supposedly by more than a 

third. Is a similar kit contemplated 

for the MGB? 

HILL: Yes, but this is some way 

from being finalized. The MGB is 

probably not quite as well-suited 

for this modification as was the 

Bailey. MVEE(C) has developed a 

trestle-type pier for the MGB which 

will enable it to span longer gaps at 

a higher load-classification, and this 

is now entering service with the 

British Army. The cable-reinforcement kit which is being developed 

by MERDC (U. S. Army Mobility 

Equipment Research and Development Center) is really a means of 

lengthening the span-crossing capability of the MGB rather than 

ducing assembly work, and s fl fers an alternative to the tr&4- 

piers. 

ENGR: How long do you think 

the MGB will remain in our inventory before a suitable improved replacement is developed? 

HILL: Developing bridges takes a 

long time. The experts on both sides 

of the Atlantic never stop working 

on new ideas, of course, but as far 

as I can see, the MGB will take 

us well into the eighties. There are 

ideas of longer AVLB's, but these 

are only on the drawing board, 

whereas the MGB exists now, and 

has been well and truly proven. 

The biggest hope for the future, as 

I see it, is the helicopter-emplaced 

bridge, and this depends on newer, 

bigger helicopters as much as on 

stronger, lighter bridges. There are 

ideas of pneumatic bridges and 

rigid foams, of course, but these are 

some way off. I think the M* 

together with the MAB and 

Ribbon Bridge should see us 

through to the mid-1980's. 

ENGR: Captain Hunter, it is our 

understanding that you were the 

assistant project.officer for the Ribbon Bridge Service Test that was 

recently conducted in the State of 

Washington. What was the purpose 

of the test and what specifically 

was involved in your job? 

HUNTER: Yes, that's correct. I was 

attached to the Ribbon Bridge Field 

Test Board that was sent to the 

State of Washington to conduct the 

Service Test. The test staff was 

from the US Army Armor and Engineer Board located at Fort Knox, 

Kentucky. The test was conducted 

to determine the feasibility of the 

Ribbon Bridge for military use. My 

specific job was to assist the Project 

Officer, Major (now Lieute 

Colonel) 

in the execution 

Norman 

of the 

H. 

Service 

MorrisL 94 1 LO., 

to evaluate the proposed methods 
mployment and to conduct river 

ing operations consistent with 

it5 ent bridging doctrines as taught 

by the U. S. Army Engineer School 

here at Fort Belvoir. I was also 

responsible for gathering data in 

the field during the bridging missions. 

ENGR: We've heard the name 

'Ribbon Bridge' but this title doesn't 

really tell us what type of bridge 

it is or why the bridge was so 

named. Could you explain? 

HUNTER: Surely. The Ribbon 

Bridge is a sectionalized floating 

bridge made principally of aluminum. Each module of the bridge 

can be rapidly connected to another 

to form a bridge or continuous 'ribbon' across a river. The bridge 

sections are of two types and are 

called bays. There is an inner bay 

and a ramp bay. Each bay is 22 

feet long and consists of four sections called pontons. When the 

ge bays are unfolded, there 4-j .wo to each side of the road- 

)' containing a four-foot walkway. 

The ramp bay differs in that it is 

tapered on one end (shore end) to 

provide a bridge approach on the 

river banks. The ramps are hydraulically operated by a hand 

pump for ramp articulation to accommodate various bank angles. 

Each bay is individually transported, launched, and retrieved on 

our standard 5-ton bridge trucks 

which have a modified chassis for 

handling the ribbon bridge. When 

the bay is launched, it automatically 

unfolds in the water and the pontons 

lock together in the unfolded position. Prior to retrieval, the controls 

are disengaged and as the bay is 

pulled out of the water, the pontons 

come together and automatically 

lock in the folded position as the 

bay is pulled onto the truck. When 

see the bays connected toYr, forming a bridge across the 

, ,,, you see one solid strip that 

someone cleverly compared to 

stretching a piece of ribbon across 

the river. Thus the name "ribbon 

bridge." 

ENGR: We understand that the 

Ribbon is almost a carbon copy of 

the Soviet Union's ribbon-type 

bridge. Is this true? 

HUNTER: Not entirely. The Russian\ have a similar bridge that 

operates in a similar manner. It's 

called the 'PMP' Bridge and from 

my limited knowledge of it, they've 

had it for sometime, maybe as far 

back as 1961. I can't say that I 

have much more information than 

that about that bridge. 

ENGR: That's very interesting. Do 

you think your testing gave the 

Army sufficient information to decide whether or not it could use 

such a bridge? 

HUNTER: Yes, I do. In fact, the 

Ribbon Bridge is now a "standard 

A" item and will soon be in the 

hands of our troop units. We conducted 100 bridge missions, crossing the bridge thousands of times 

with a mixed density of vehicles 

that would normally use this bridge 

in a tactical situation, and I'm convinced that it proked itself each 

time. During the tcst, we were 

able to observe the bridge used for 

rafting or bridging, in various stream 

velocities, day and night, and in 

various extremes of weather. It was 

easy to see the distinct advantages 

of this bridge over any of our present floating bridges in the system. 

ENGR: Did you observe any significant problems with the Ribbon 

Bridge during the test? 

HUNTER: There were some problems with the bridge and its carrier 

that were resolved during the test. 

Field models that will go to troop 

units will have these problem areas 

corrected. One problem was the 

hydraulic cylinders and the ramp 

pump. The articulation time on the 

ramp, to accommodate various bank 

angles, was too slow. In addition, 

the ramp angle was limited to the 

range of 13-15 degrees maximum 

when crossing the AVLB (Armored 

Vehicle Launch Bridge) because of 

the position of the outriggers on the 

carrier. The outriggers will puncture 

the deck if the angle of the ramp is 

any steeper. The ramp pumping system was improved to provide better 

ramp articulation. Another problem was the smooth roadway surface. The nonskid paint initially 

used was completely worn after a 

very small number of crossings and 

the roadway became a safety hazard 

in inclement weather. The roadway 

decking was changed to provide a 

more durable surface with better 

traction characteristics. A third 

problem area was the welded seams 

on the bridge bays which showed 

cracks after repeated use. This problem was the result of poor connection of the exterior membrane of 

the bridge bay as well as poor welding. Both problems were resolved 

through use of a better membrane 

connection procedure and positive 

welds with good quality control. 

Basically, this means a better way 

of connecting the membrane to the 

structural mcmbers and using a 

different type of weld. Other significant problems were associated 

with the modified portion of the 

transporter. First. the operator 

would have a tendency to bring the 
bridge bay in too close to the 

A-frame type boom on the rear of 

the bridge truck during retrieval. 

This often resulted in damage to 

patches (controls) on the bridge bay 

itself. This was corrected by increasing the length of the boom which 

was found to be too short, and providing a guide on the boom to properly position the bridge bay during 

retrieval. Finally, the rollcrs would 

freeze up during cold weather, or 

jam due to dirt being trapped in the 

roller housing; and the vertical tiedowns used to secukc the folded 

bays to the transporter (bridge 

truck) during travel would loosen 

during travel. The roller housing 

was modified to prevent freezing the 

rollers; two sets of rollers were 

eliminated; and a better tie-down 

system was designed. 

ENGR: Do you think the Ribbon 

Rridge is going to be a maintenance 

burden for field commanders? 

HUNTER: Personally, no. There 

are so few functional components 

that I think it will be easier to maintain this bridge, and for a longer 

period of time, before parts have to 

be replaced. 

ENGR: There are rumors that the 

Ribbon Rridge is expected to replace the M4T6 Floating Bridge. If 

this is the case, how does operating 

costs of the Ribbon compare to 

those of the M4T6? 

HUNTER: I'm sure that the Ribbon 

Bridge will play a significant role in 

our future river crossing operations. 

Whether it rcplaces M4T6 in part, 

or completely, will have to be decided at the DA (Department of 

Army) Icvel. Since our test involved 

the prototype, I can't give a cost 

comparison to you. 

ENGR: Will the Ribbon ever be 

used in tactical situations in place of 

the Mobile Assault Bridge? 

HUNTER: No doubt it can be, but 

this will depend on several conditions in any one tactical situation. 

These variables might include 

availability of either bridge, density 

of vehicles crossing the river, and 

duration of time that the bridge will 

be required, just to mention a few. 

ENGR: Can you give us a "ballpark" estimate as to how soon and 

in what numbers the Ribbon Bridge 

will show up in the Army's inventory? 

HUNTER: I would probably expect 

to see the Ribbon Bridge in the field 

by 1975, but I couldn't say in what 

numbers. 

ENGR: What impact on training 

requirements of personnel will the 

Ribbon Bridge have-compared to 

that af employing M4T6? 

HUNTER: I tend to feel that the 

simplicity involved with employing 

the Ribbon Bridge will make it possible to train personnel at the unit 

level and relieve service schools to 

a great degree. This means that a 

good OJT (on-the-job-training) program at the unit level is important 

for effective training. The rapid emplacement capability will also give 

the unit commander more opportunities to improve the unit's training 

exercises as a whole. 

ENGR: How did the troops who 

tested the Ribbon Bridge respond lo 

it? 

HUNTER: We had quite a mixture 

of opinions on the Ribbon Bridge 

because of some peculiarities 

existedon this particular test

bridge test was conducted us,.., 

members of the P8th Engineer Company (Panel Bridge), which is a separate company attached to the 864th 

Engineer Battalion (Construction) 

located at Fort Lewis, Washington. 

The company was augmented with 

sufficient personnel to perform a 

float bridge company mission. Although many of the men recognized 

the simplicity of employing the Ribbon, I felt that the noncommissioned 

officers who had been in several 

type bridge units, as well as the enlisted personnel who had previously 

worked with the M4T6, recognized 

the tremendous difference of working with the Ribbon Bridge. One of 

the most memorable pair of comments that I heard during testing 

was from one NCO who had just 

come to the unit from an M4T6 

Company and, after observing a 

bridging operation, 

and said, "Is that all there is 

Sir3"-and one enlisted man , 

had just finished AIT (advanced individual training) at Fort Leonard 

Wood said, "Sir, this sure beats 

'humping' that balk with the 

M4T6!!" 

ENGR: Do you think the Army 

needs both the Mobile Assault 

Bridge and the Ribbon Bridge? 

HUNTER: Yes, 1 do. Both bridges 

have distinct characteristics and 

capabilities that could easily dictate 

which bridge should be used in a 

given tactical situation, but the 

other important point is that we're 

giving our bridge units the flexibility 

and high degree of mobility that 

they're going to need to support our 

ground combat forces in river crossing operations in the future. 

ENGR: What significant differences did you note in the characteristics and capabilities of the Ribbon 

Bridge and 

HUNTER: The 

our standard 

most significant 

M4T 9 

1 

ference between Ribbon and M4T6 
is the number of components each 

requires to assemble a bridge of the 

e length. I would tend to say P reasonable proportion of parts 

J-lb to one: M4T6 to Ribbon. In 

terms of construction time, I'd say 

that the Ribbon has an assembly 

rate at least five times faster than 

that of M4T6, with bay replacement 

just as fast. Some other notable observations were: The easy passage 

of debris under the Ribbon contrasted to it hanging up between the 

pneumatic floats of M4T6; a greater 

load-carrying capacity in higher 

currents without additional reinforcements; permanent or short term 

anchorage can be used; and, finally, 

the Ribbon lends itself to a greater 

degree of flexibility in bridge construction as well as rafting. 

ENGR: The Ribbon represents an 

interesting and practical departure 

from the M4T6. Were the Russians 

the original designers of this bridge? 

HUNTER: Yes, I believe that they 

were the first to develop this concept 

Fdging . '3,GR: Do any other countries 

\I'.ber than Russia and the United 

States have a Ribbon-type bridge in 

their inventory as standard equipment? 

HUNTER: Not to my knowledge. 

However, several of our allies have 

displayed some interest in the Ribbon Bridge. 

ENGR: Do you think the Ribbon 

Bridge is worth the money and effort 

that it will take to get it into production and in our standard inventory? 

HUNTER: Yes, very much so. I 

firmly believe that the introduction 

of the Ribbon Bridge will enhance 

troop training, increase our mobility 

in future river crossing operations, 

and provide much more flexibility in 

bridging. 

ENGR: The Ribbon Bridge is to 

be one of our tactical bridges. Aren't 

there too many components for it to 

be practical in a combat situation? 

HUNTER: Negative. As I stated 

earlier, there's a tremendous reduction of components on the Ribbon 

Bridge which actually increases the 

Ribbon's desireability for useage in 

combat situations; especially where 

time is a vital factor in conducting 

a successful operation. 

ENGR: Could you give us a brief 

summation of what this new bridge 

will mean to the U.S. Army and the 

Corps of Engineers? 

HUNTER: Yes. I think that the 

Ribbon Bridge will become a very 

important item of equipment in the 

Army's inventory. It will add that 

element of speed to our tactical operations that can be a very influencing factor in modern warfare. Further, it will assist the Army in being 

able to highly mobilize its combat 

forces. As to the Corps, bridge units 

will develop a new image by becoming "self-sustaining." They will have 

that added di'mension to their mission; that is, employ the bridge that 

they transport, maintain and provide technical assistance for its use. 

Training will become more professional without requiring excessively 

long field exercises; thus, becoming 

more meaningful. The Ribbon 

Bridge will, undoubtedly, offer all 

Engineer Officers that employ it 

quite a challenge. It's an excellent 

bridge and it has possibilities for 

employment in future river crossing 

operations that will only be limited 

by the bridge commander's imagination. 
6.h; E nglneer troops from four North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (NATO) member nations have a " ,. -i better understanding of the capabilities of each other's R k- combat bridges and rafts these days. (.+C*, i i . *""; -- ' *.__A- It all happened earlier this year when engineer 

soldiers from Germany, France, Canada, and the United 

- -- . - . States participated in a week-long exercise called 

-7 

, .. I CETEX 72. Hosted by the 7th Engineer Brigade I-. 

1 3 1 (Combat) of the VII U. S. Army Corps, headquartered ue- ‘. --- in Kornwestheim, Germany, the scenario required the -, - 4 *,--- . troops to get a feet-in-the-mud, hands-on-equipment look at each other's combat bridges and equipment. 

- , .. It was ea5ier for the soldiers to understand their 

-\ -d respective roles in the exercise than why the operation \- -. -/* was named CETEX 72. But it was not all that difficult. - I 

I c CETEX 72 is an acronym with another acronym inside 

<- - . V.b .., -.. it. CETEX stands for CENTAG Engineer Training 

?*$?-- .L 7p 'T~ *2+.u&.7F *,-k+ A - &a$-% -;>A .P' Exercise and CENTAG stands for NATO's Central ? b , Army Group. The 72, of course, stands for the year .. . .-. j the event took place. 

The reason for the exercise, according to 7th Br &; 

planners, was to get the NATO engineer troops togei: 

for a "feel" of the overall bridging picture in Europe. 

They selected the Main River below Schweinfurt, 

- Germany as the site for the exercise. 

Engineer troops from Germany, France, and the 

. ..- . .- .. U. S. set up their equipment at eight different sites along --a - i ---L 

- -. - the Main to teach each other how to erect their particular bridge or raft. 1 c . ..- *+.&;*- L-- - "\--" ...2- --. The two U. S. sites were manned by instructors from 

g.i. +, , - .; h*?.~. '?".a - - -. . ,;. -. .-1 .. .. the 563rd and 565th Engineer Battalions. The other 

six sites were manned by the German and French engineers. Then, in the days that followed, contingents of 

German, French, Canadian, and U. S. engineers visited 

, - each site in round-robin sequence to be briefed on a -9 . f 2 . ' - .-. _IC&--- _ a p.:. +-&.+,: +*. & 

1 *-" -- we- Y 

. r": 
ENGINEER STAFF 

particular bridge or raft. 

The 2nd German Corps engineers instructed on how 

to erect their Medium Girder Festbruecke. And the 

3rd German Corps and the German Territorial Southern 

Command taught how to erect the Hohlplatte and 

Hohlplatte raft. France's 2nd Corps engineers gave 

instruction on the intricacies of the Class 60 Bridge. ' ' ' 

Members of the 38th Bridge Company of the 563rd 

instructed in the use of the Bailey Bridge and troops of 

the 502nd Engineer Company of the 565th taught how 

to erect the M4T6 Float Bridge. Some of the M4T6 .,T :. .., . .... - . - .. .. . .^ .- ... *.->..r-.::- ,:*. -.. ... . .~. . .. -. ..... . . . ~. -- .C'.<" ,.;. - . .-_ _ instruction also centered on the Class 60 load. - :-' - -- ,-. 

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

.,:. . .. -. . .. ~ ..: -&.- -*..*.-&. .; :<. .- - . - -. Highlight of the exercise was the show put on by 7- .C.F - ..i . - - . - .. -.- : . , .-+ --..-- - i-..: - -- , '. , . -. . -- . --. - -....w2:'z -, the assault bridge companies of the NATO-member - 

nations from France, Germany, and the U. S. 

Thc mission of each company was to put a bridge 

across the Main as rapidly as possiblc. They put up 

their bridges in a hurry. First, the Frcnch mobilc 

Gillois Bridge vehicles churned into thc water and 

roduccd a bridge in slightly lcss than 30 minutes. Thc 

j.!'illois relies on preparatory lateral ponton inflation 

ff'@ 

.f,ior buoyancy. Next came thc Germans with their mobilc 

M2 Bridge. It took them slightly more than 30 minutes 

to get their bridge in place. Like the Hohlplatte, the 

M2 uses its aluminum construction around a hollow 

deck for buoyance and requires no cxtcnsive preparation 

before entering the water. 

The U. S. was represented by Echo Company, 10th 

Engineer Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division. And Echo 

did a job. Its members put their bridge together in 

about 13 minutes-less than half the time it took the 

Frcnch and German companies to put up their bridges. 

One expert said that the key to the U. S. victory was 

simply disciplined tight control and quick reaction- -z " *-- "*r- , 

2 rv% I mc-kFP' - 

engineer bridging musts. e 

~~~ , *P$+R-- 

J -n ,-:+ -.-- --p~--r 

& 6 
Because STOP 26, our "letters to 

the editor" department is new this 

issue, many of the comments reflect 

views about articles in our earliest 

issues. The editors encourage timely, 

spirited response and constructive 

criticism about the engineer and 

its contents. 

BLEAH BLEAH BLACKBIRD 

Sir/I am working as a Legal 

Aide with the Corps of Engineers this Summer, which is 

whyIhappenedtocomeacross 

the Summer issue of your 

magazine. I was, to say the 

least, dismayed by your article !'Bye Bye Blackbirds. " 

Ihavenever seenamore blatant example ofthe application to an ecological problem of that mentality which 

cannot conceive of any interference with man's efforts to denude the landscape. To set forth as a 

tremendous accomplishment 

the following result quoted 

from your article is maddening, and extremely sad and 

pitiable : 

"Only charred stumps 

and a few largertrees remained in their once 

highly-wooded home. " 

It is my fervent hope that 

the 952nd Engineer Company 

will fade from the memory of 

man before the trees they 

destroyed do. 

ROY R. ROBERTSON, JR 

WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 

THE BLACK HAT 

Sir/Having been a tactical 

officer and later a Company 

Commander in the Officer 

Candidate Regiment at Fort 

Belvoir, I feel qualified 

to reflect on some of the 

comments in an article entitled "Grossing Out Delta 

Company" by Specialist 5 

Hugh Id. Gildea. There is another side to the coin. 

As the author stated, the 

Engineer Officer Candijate 

School was implemented to 

provide officers forthe expanding Army and the increasing needs in Vietnam. 

Based upon my experience as 

both a combat engineer and 

infantry company commander, 

I can say that the prevailingconditioninvietnamdid 

exert a tremendous degree of 

both physical and psychological pressure onanofficer and that the OCS program 

was designed to duplicate 

these pressures as much as 

possible. 

The vices or llplagues'l 

that SP5 Gildea described 

were real ; however, not as 

concentrated as one might 

expect after readinghis article. The author asks why 

there was no guidance given 

to the candidates so they 

could cope with these problems. The answer is found by 

examining the OCS program. 

It was designed to develop 

maturity and self -reliance 

whichhelpedtheyoung officers deal with the problems 

mentioned. The program was 

geared to the standards and 

needs ofthe Army ofthe late 

601s, not the VOLAR Army of 

the future. The day-to-day 

activities containedagreat 

deal of harassment, but how 

else could a young second 

lieutenant learn to func- n 

tioninthe dailysituations 

that would confront him in 

the real world? 

I can't believe that SP5 

Gildea would have voluntarily commenced mental training for Vietnam in lieu of 

waiting in the "tac shackn 

or shininghis brass. Shined 

brass, boots, etc., instill 

a high degree of standards 

and self-respect in the potential officer. 

Not onlySp5Gildeabutalmost every candidate found 

fault withhis OCStraining. 

For example, the candidates 

consideredthe covetedthree 

day pass a poor stimulusfor achievement. The EO~ 

cadre, however, had the re4 

sponsibility to develop and 

maintain the highest degree 

of proficiency and standards in the candidates to 

insure graduation of qualified second lieutenants. 

In summary, I think the 

authorf s comments were made 

based upon his frustration 

in failure. I cannot begrudge him, for at least he 

tried. But what is needed 

now is a look toward the future for improvement and innovation, not an attitude of 

stacking arms. 

CPT JOHN L. NEWELL 

UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO 

Response to Sp.5 Gildea's article 

has been overwhelming and, for the 

most part consistent with the "establishment" point of view promoted b~p x 

CPT Newell. The editors wonder 

this is an accurate reflection of p 

to Engineer OCS. 

8) vailing opinion among those exposecr 
It- x=q

- 

-4 - I 

L - 

.I 

S ir Donald Bailey designed his famous bridge, the 

Bailey, in 1936. It is still around-and during 

those 36 years it has been in operation, the Bailey has 

been used all over the world by allied Armies in all 1, 

sorts of situations. This must make the Bailey one of 

/ the most versatile pieces of engineer equipment ever - \\ 

designed. Evidence of the bridge's usefulness can be m- -7 

seen from Singapore to Saigon via Sicily-all places \ 

where for want of a bridge a battle could have been lost. r - 

The U. S. Army still has large stocks of Bailey bridging and these will continue to be used in peacetime or in I__. 

1 

ncombat for many years to come. Nevertheless, indispensable though it may be as a standby bridge, the - 

Bailey is too demanding of time, manpower, and 

logistics efforts to provide the solution to the tactical -r 

- 

Pbridging requirement in the combat zone. While the 

Mobile Assault Bridge and the Ribbon Bridge are 7 

answers to part of the tactical bridging requirement, 

because they provide two flexible and rapid ways of 

crossing water gaps with floating equipment, there 

-v 

remains a need for an equally efficient means of 7 

crossing gaps where floating equipment cannot be used. 

The 100-foot gap is crucial for the military. At least ,p '1; percent of all the gaps combat units encounter are 

.?JO feet wide or less. In Western Europe the percentage Major Ralph B. Hill 

is much higher-nearly 90 percent. 
The photos on these two pages point up 

versatility of the new MGB. In the picture 

above, soldiers boom the bridge forward on 

the construction rollers. In photo at left, soldiers 

add top panel to the double story bridge. Be- $tYa aC low, a soldier guider an M-60 tank across a 

W , -I completed double story bridge. In the photo at 

1 the top of page 15, the landing roller is in 

place to receive the launching nose. The photo I 

-+ 1 (lower right) shows the launching nose being *a. * , . removed after the bridge was pushed across 

I the gap by an M-60 tank. 
if'\. -. .-. .. . ,., ~ h.* ??p - I 

- *- -- ..* ,. -.r - " -d .% , 1 - . . 

'I' 'I 
It was to meet this requirement that the Military 

Vehicles and Engineering Establishment (MVEE) , 

Christ Church, England, set to work and came up with 

the Medium Girder Bridge (MGB) for the British 

Army. In fact, the Royal Engineers have been using 

the MGB for the past 18 months. Their combat engineer 

units have been delighted with the ease with which the 

bridge copes with difficult sites-the ability to almost 

literally throw it across a gap in periods of time that 

formerly were an impossibility. 

Now the U. S. Army has taken a major interest in 

the MGB and has been running tests on two sets. The 

U. S. Army Armor and Engineer Board at Fort Knox, 

Kentucky, has just completed a "military potential" 

test of one set. The U. S. Army Mobility and Equipment Research and Development Center at Fort 

Belvoir, Virginia, is still testing the other set. Although 

there are no test results yet, it is expected that the 

U. S. Army will soon begin procuring the bridge as a 

replacement for the Bailey. 

The key to the success of the MGB is the use of specially developed aluminum alloys which are far lighter 

and much stronger than materials previously used in 

bridging equipment. Such an alloy will allow for the 

use of totally different design concepts. This will result 

in a bridge which is simpler and lighter with fewer 

components. 

The refined design of the MGB will enable 24 men 

to install a 100-foot bridge capable of carrying a Class 

60 load in less than an hour. A 30-foot MGB of the 

same load capacity can be built by eight men in less 

than 20 minutes. 

A two-girder, deck-type bridge, the MGB can be 

built either in single or double story configuration. The 

single story bridge has only six components while the 

double story, which has deeper girders, consists of 

eleven. 

The MGB has special pallets that were designed 

to permit rapid offloading of parts from their transport. 

These pallets enable the components to withstand any 

shock and strain that could be absorbed during the handling process from storage to destination. No cranes are 

needed in the handling of these components. 

It is interesting to note that all MGBs are launched 

undecked with a simple, easily assembled single-girder 

launching nose, over roller beams that are supported 

on uncomplicated building frames. This is important 

because the bases can be individually adjusted for 

height to allow for irregular ground. Then, too, t 

feature, combined with the lack of bridge grillages a 

base plates, 

necessary and 

makes 

saves 

site 

a lot 

preparation almost 

of time and effort. 

always un- 

@I 

MGB designers have now developed a trestle-type 

pier that is similar in concept to the one used for the 

U. S. Army's M4T6 fixed span bridge. 

The MVEE at Christ Church enjoys good relationship and close harmony with MERDC at Fort Belvoir. 

MERDC, for example, is designing a cable reinforcement kit for the MGB that is quite similar to the one 

it recently developed for the Bailey Bridge. Experts say 

it is likely that the U. S. Army eventually will add one 

or both of these devices to its bridging equipment inventory. This, of course, would enable U. S. military engineer units to use the MGB in making gap crossings of 

more than 100 feet wide for class 60 loads. 

MVEE has made considerable progress since it succeeded the British Research and Development establishment which actually developed and produced the Bailey 

Bridge under the leadership of Sir Donald Bailey. 

It is understood that the U. S. Army will probably 

accept the MGB as a standard engineer bridging item 

sometime this fall. Following acceptance, the MGB will 

begin to replace the Bailey in U. S. engineer tactical 

units as early as Fiscal Year 1974. This event will ma 

the beginning of the end of an era during which 4 Y 

Bailey Bridge probably has served the U. S. and mar,, 

other armies better than any other bridge in history. 

May the MGB prove to be a worthy successor. e 

Major Ralph B. Hill, Royal Engineers, is the British 

Exchange Oficer with the U. S. Army Engineer School 

at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The major, who has been 

stationed at the school since March, 1971, is Chief of 

The Field Engineering and Bridging Division in the 

Department of Applied Engineering. Commissioned 

into the Royal Engineers from the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst in 1953, he hdds a Master of Arts 

degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University 

of Cambridge and is a graduate of the British Army 

Stafl College at Camberley. After serving in units as 

a troop commander and second in command on several 

occasions, Major Hill commanded a Field Squadron in 

Germany during his last tour of duty. He also has 

served as a staff oficer on the Royal Engineer Combat 

Development Staff. 
Captain David E. Peixotto 

H ow far back does your memory take you? Can you 

remember World War 11, .the Korean War, or the 

war in Vietnam? If you do remember any of these wars, 

you must remember the Rhine River in Germany, the 

Imjin River in Korea, or the Mekong River in Vietnam. 

What these rivers all have in common is that, at one 

time, each was bridged by U. S. Army engineers using 

the M4T6 Floating Bridge. Fix that memory in your 

mind. You may never again see the long, graceful line 

of black pontons connecting two grecn shores lined 

with scores of our exhausted engineers. 

The M4T6 Float Bridge reminds one of the old 

soldier who never dies but merely fades away. In this 

case, the antiquated M4T6 Float Bridge is not sinking 

rapidly but it is slowly going under. An improved 

version of the float concept soon will replace the M4T6 

loat Bridge in the inventory of the Amy engineer 

 ridge units. This "Improved Float Bridge" is more 

commonly called the Ribbon Bridge (see "This Ribbon 

Floats" beginning on page 21). A comparison of the 

physical characteristics, capabilities, and required assembly efforts of the two float bridges will demonstrate 

the understatement in the use of the word "improved" 

in labeling the Ribbon Bridge. 

Both the M4T6 and the Ribbon are float bridges but 

there the similarity ends. Each set of the M4T6 has 

688 separate parts that must be hand-assembled to give 

it an effectitve length of 141 feet. The Ribbon Bridge, 

on the other hand, has 12 parts per set which gives it 

an effective length of 290 feet. It takes nine modified 

five-ton trucks to carry the M4T6 while the Ribbon 

Bridge is transported on 12. 

The capabilities of the two float bridges vary as much 

as the physical characteristics- 

* The M4T6 can cross Class 45 tracked vehicles 

in a current velocity of eight feet per second. 

The Ribbon can cross Class 60 tracked vehicles 

in a current velocity of eight feet per second. This is 

the heaviest load that can be found in a combat division. 

The M4T6 can cross Class 61 tracked vehicles in 

The Ribbon can cross Class 80 tracked vehicles 

The M4T6 must have an external anchorage system to keep it from being swept away by the river 

current. 

The Ribbon Bridge may be held in place solely 

by bridge boats in currents up to eight feet per second 

while crossing a Class 60 vehicle. 

* The M4T6 can carry tracked vehicle Class 45 

loads when it is assembled as a raft in the normal fivefloat configuration with a river current of 10 feet per 

second. 

The Ribbon can carry tracked vehicle Class 60 

loads when it is assembled as a raft in the normal fivefloat configuration with a river current of 10 feet per 

second. 

Perhaps the most startling comparison of the two 

float-type bridges is in the time it takes to assemble 

them and in the effort that is required to get the job 

done. Try using a bridge length of 300 feet as a comparative vehicle. This is the approximate length of two 

sets of M4T6 Floating Bridge or one set of the Ribbon 

Bridge. It would take the services of two combat engineer companies (384 men) plus three float bridge platoons (60 men) four hours to assemble the bridge. The 

Ribbon Bridge can be assembled in less than an hour 

by one float bridge company (60 men). 

When the Ribbon Bridge finally reaches the production stage and gets in the hands of the user, there will 

be a great savings in time and manpower. The M4T6 

has done its job but changing requirements in an era 

that stresses greater mobility in future warfare dictates 

that a change is in order. The new bridge, the Ribbon, 

will exhibit superior physical characteristics, load bearing capabilities, and required assembly efforts. 

The M4T6 Floating Bridge may be going under but 

it still will be etched in the memories of the engineers 

who assembled it and relied on it for countless successful river crossing operations long after the Ribbon 

Bridge becomes just another household word in the 

vocabulary of the float bridge companies throughout 

the Corps. e 

Captain David E. Peixotto ir attending the Engineer 

Officer Advanced Course at Fort Relvoir, Virginia. A 

1967 graduate of the United Stater Military Academy 

at Weit Point, he has served a tour of duty UJ company 

comn~ander of an Engineer unit in Vietnam. 
I hTFT\pm\pp J , r ll 'I 'rprmm~rli(r [I 

I d i t v v ENGINEER STAFF 

I 7 

Military bridging has been a low-priority item in 

tile research and development scheme of the U.S. 

Army for many years now, taking a backseat to smarter 

bullets, main battle tanks ad the like. The portion of 

the research dollar remaining after assaults by sophisticated weapons systems is hardly enouglz to cover the 

olive drab paint used to camouflage the British and 

Soviet contributions to our inventory of life-sized 

erector sets. 

The U. S. Army, because of these research and development priorities, has adapted and adopted Sir 

Donald's Bailey and Medium Girder and Ivan's own 

Ribbon Bridges, the latter "reverse engineered" from 

an item in the Soviet inventory. This is not to say, 

however, that these bridges do not just happen to he 

the most sophisticated and thoroughl~l proven types 

available, or that the U. S. Army Combat Developments Command Engineer Agency (USACDCEA) has 

a better idea waiting in the wings. 

But have we got ideas-ideas like the one below, 

detailed by the Engineer School's Ofice of Doctrine 

and Training Development at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, in 

a letter to CDCEA. Let's follow that idea from its 

inception through its first series of hurdles. 

"The purpose of this letter is to propose that your 

agency initiate action that will produce a ilew family 

of tactical bridging timed with the introduction of the 

Heavy Lift Helicopter. 

It is suggested that this family supplement and 

eventually replace the Ribbon Bridge and Medium 

Girder Bridge, and that it should have the 

characteristics: 

Designed primarily for transport, 

removal by the Heavy Lift Helicopter. 
Desirably capable of transport, emplacement and .. (@ nova1 by the CH54 Skycrane. 

Capable of transport by rail, sea, air and highway, 

in disassembled configuration. 

Capable of erection and removal by crane, when 

helicopters are not available. 

Capable of carrying future main battle tanks over 

dry spans up to fifty meters and in floating configurations of various lengths. 

Have a maximum of parts interchangeable between 

floating and fixed-span versions. 

"It is suggested that bridge components be stocked 

only in bridge parks at Army or Corps supply points 

as Class IV items, and not be organic equipment or 

individual units. Bridges could then be pre-assembled 

in several configurations based on stream and gap characteristics in the area of operation and into loads close 

to the 224 ton capacity of the proposed HLH. 

When a bridge is needed, an emplacement crew 

can be flown in by helicopter, with equipment for site 

preparation and bridge erection boats as required. A 

small assembly crew at the bridge park would prepare 

the bridge for helicopter lift to the site. 

"Advantages are foreseen as: 

Greatly reduced reaction time. 

Avoidance of traffic and ambush problems enroute 

fhite. 

.'e Elimination of dedicated wheeled transport, and 

associated needs for drivers, fuel and maintenance 

support. 

Ability to pre-assemble bridges for specific sites 

when offensive operations are planned, enhancing the 

element of surprise. 

Peacetime disaster-relief capability that no civil 

authority could provide. 

Disadvantages would include: 

Dependence upon helicopter support, undoubtedly 

critical in operational areas. 

Vulnerability of helicopters to enemy fire enroute. 

"The advantages seem to outweigh the disadvantages. 

This future family of bridging is feasible and development should begin without delay. Such a concept should 

be fully considered so that future engineers will have 

for once, equipment that is not a generation behind the 

times." 

The Engineer Agency response was prepared with 

a characteristic thoroughness: 

"A new family of tactical bridging timed with the 

introduction of the Heavy Lift Helicopter is a concept 

which, as proposed, has several salient features which 

'11 be evaluated and studied. These are being examined (0 in three on-going studies. 

-- "The Engineer Agency is currently involved in several bridging studies. These studies will address and 

consider many aspects, to include those which are proposed in the HLH-oriented family concept. The results 

of these studies should lead to a family of bridging and 

doctrine to provide future engineers the best possible 

methods of accomplishing their bridging mission. 

"At the present time there is a possible requirement 

for a tactical bridge capable of being emplaced and 

returned by helicopter. It is highly speculative that this 

requirement necessitates development of an entire 

family of such dedicated bridges. 

"All means which allow for rapid employment of 

tactical bridging should be investigated; however, dedication of an entire family of bridging, geared to the 

Heavy Lift Helicopter appears too restrictive and would 

surely meet with the official disapproval of Combat 

Developments Command and Department of the Army. 

"The matter of economics plays the heavy role in 

this picture because bridging by definition is a nonexpendable item with a long inventory life. And the 

Army is committed in that sense to the Medium Girder 

and Ribbon Bridges which will remain in the inventory 

into the '80's and beyond. 

"Development of the Heavy Lift Helicopter, although 

its capabilities are considerable and exciting, will produce an item whose availability to the engineer is 

inversely proportional to its cost, its maintenance requirements and the number of its other basic logistics 

missions. This availability factor, because the HLH 

is the key constant in the proposal, must be carefully 

considered. An alternative and more practical solution 

might be a more versatile bridge designed for transport 

and erection by tracked, wheeled and aerial platforms. 

"Recent bridge emplacement tests as part of the joint 

helicopter trials being conducted in England have confirmed that while short bridges could generally be emplaced speedily and accurately by helicopter, emplacement by night was not predictable. In addition, the external bridge load significantly affects the performance 

of the aircraft. 

The trials also disclosed that fins attached to the 

bridges will be necessary to reduce the mean areodynamic load when the aircraft is in forward flipht. A 

considerable amount of money and researcl~ efiort is 

required to solve these problems. 

"The way the total bridge picture looks right now, it 

is apparent that there is a need for three basic types of 

bridges for 1980 and beyond. The first is an armosed 

vehicular launched bridge type to maintain momentum 

in the attack. In addition, a tactical bridge for both wet 

and dry spans is needed beyond the capabilities of the 

AVLB. Currently, this is handled by both the Mobile 

Assault Bridge and the Ribbon Bridge for the wet gap 

requiring floating equipage, and by the Bailey and the 

Medium Girder where span length permits over wet and 
dry gaps. The third type is the Line of Communication 

(LOC) type of semi-permanent bridging. 

"Although some of the bridges in or about to be 

added to the Army inventory are certainly innovative 

and adequate, there are concepts being developed presently that merit serious consideration. For example, the 

German "ASB" concept has attractive possibilities and, 

if successfully developed. could combine the needs of 

the AVLB, the MAR and the Ribbon Bridge into one 

concept that is cheaper, quicker to erect and less costly 

in manpower resources. It would permit a bridge unit 

to haul, maintain, erect and disassemble without assistance or augmentation. 

"Bridging operations cannot be viewed in isolation 

or as a specialized operation. They should become routine maneuvers for all the combat arms and should be 

examined in the context of the overall land combat system. In that sense, although airmobility is an essential 

factor, bridging must be oriented around ground transport and emplacement. 

"A tactical bridge such as the M6B for short, dry gap 

application, while a significant improvement over the 

M2 Bailey, still falls short of all that is desired. It is 

hand erectable, but it is expensive. It is fine for short 

gaps but will have to rely on the cable reinforcing kit 

for gaps approaching 160 feet that cannot be abbreviated by a pier and a multiple span. Additionally, it 

does not appear to be helicopter transportable in any 

meaningful lengths. 

"Our doctrine will have to be re-examined. While we 

now classify bridging as either assault, tactical or LOC, 

it is hoped that there will be a consolidation down to 

two types-perhaps just tactical and support. The tactical might include the AVLB, the MAB and the Ribbon 

Bridge for floating equipage requirements and the 

Bailey and MGB for limited wet and dry spans. There 

seems to be no good reason why an improved M6B 

type of bridge couldn't also fill the support or LOC 

requirement if procurement and erection costs do not 

prove prohibitive. 

The ideas and potential variations on the proposed 

concepts are end1e.r~ and exciting-and endorsed by the 

British counter-part of CDCEA, the Military Vehicles 

and Engineering Establishment at Christ Church, England. 

The Britixhers in response to the Heavy Lift Helicopter family proposal, say: 

"The relationship of helicopter emplacement of 

bridges to the conventional methods of bridging is much 

the same as that of swimming armored vehicles to the 

Sappers bridges and ferries; that is to say, there is a very 

definite role for both of them but both the helicopter 

emplaced bridge and the swimming armored vehicle 

are essentially opportunity weapons, whereas the conventional bridging in both cases is the normal me; 

of crossing. 

"The rationale for this statement is three-fold. Fi ,I3 , 

it is very hard to believe that there will ever be enough 

large capacity helicopters, even in the USA, to cover 

all the bridging requirements. Second, we believe there 

will always be some sites which will defeat helicopter 

emplacement of bridges. Third, it is doubtful if we will 

ever, and certainly not for a very long time, be able 

to undertake the work under all weather conditions by 

day and by night. I 

"On the other side of the coin, the capability of 

helicopter emplacement of bridges is a most valuable 

additional method of getting the bridges there very 

fast, and we should study all its implications. Therefore, all aspects of the basic concept except the suggestion that this family of bridges should be for helicopter emplacement exclusively, have merit. 

"The United Kingdom has been doing quite a lot of 

work recently to study scientifically the problem of 

flying these bridges. 

It has already been determined that very worthwhile 

lengths of our new bridging equipment can be carried 

with existing helicopters. There are, sadly, no current 1 

plans for a future United Kingdom Medium Lift Heli- / 

copter. I, 

"It is important that current and future bridgeP ' b 

corporate any necessary features to enable them tc 

helicopter emplaced and that the necessary procedures 

and air clearances are established. Another most important requirement is that the technique is studied 

tactically as well as technically. 

"A specifically designed bridge would have to be 

lighter in weight (possibly at considerable cost) and 

would also probably be constructed in larger sections. 

It would undoubtedly be interesting to have a comprehensive study to establish the parameters which would 

govern such a bridge and then to compare these in detail with more conventional designs. It is fairly certain 

that, in fact, a compromise which will not sacrifice very 

much in either the conventional or helicopter-carried 

role can be achieved." e r 

We encourage the exchange of ideas as illustrated above. It is this sort of stimulation that 

our R&D people need to develop and refine 

doctrine and attractive concepts hidden in the 

field. With new emphasis on bridging in the 

R&D budget, ideas introduced into an open 

forum such as "the engineer" may soon give 

our own bridge experts the wherewithal1 to 

thrust us into the developments! limelig/~t. 

So eat your heart out, Donald Bailey. We'r; / I 

on the way! I 
T he U.S. Army has long needed an improved floating bridge system that would increase its capability to rapidly cross non-fordable wet gaps. 

It is a well-known fact that the current military float 

bridge equipment in the engineer inventory, with the 

exception of the Mobile Assault Bridge/Ferry (MAB), 

oes not provide the speed of assembly that is a "must" 

(#ef uirement to enhance the mobility of today's rapidly -?oving ground forces. 

To alleviate this problem, (the Army has developed 

a bridge that can be emplaced at least five times faster 

and with fewer personnel than our present float bridge 

equipment. The bridge that can do all these thingsthe Ribbon Bridge-has come through the pre-production tests with flying colors. So, with the testing out 

of the way, the Army's newest military floating bridge 

is almost in the hands of the engineers. 

The service test, last of the pre-production series, 

was completed early this year. This test, which was 

conducted under the direction of the U. S. Army Armor 

and Engineer Board from Fort Knox, Kentucky, was 

carried out over a period of some five and one-half 

months in Washington State. The fast water portion L of the testing was conducted on the Skagit River in 

the vicinity of Lyman, Washington, some 125 miles 

north of Seattle. There the stream velocities were recorded ,at more than eight feet per second. The stillwater portion, to test the bridge's ruggedness and durability was carried out on Lake Sequalitchew at Fort 

Lewis, Washington. Many agencies conducted engineering tests before the service test to establish the structural 

dequacy of the equipment and the feasibility of the 

bon bridge concept. Q In the case of the Ribbon Bridge, the service test 

was conducted by the Armor and Engineer Board and 

Lieutenant Colonel Clifford C. Lussier, Jr. 

the support was provided by the 18th Engineer ComI i 

I 

pany (Panel Bridge) of the 864th Engineer Battalion I 

(Construction) at Fort Lewis. To enable the unit to 

test all characteristics of the Ribbon Bridge, the 18th ! 

Engineer Company was augmented with power boat 

operators, vehicle repairman, engineer equipment repairmen, and medical personnel. The 3rd Armored 

Cavalry Regiment of Fort Lewis provided the tracked 

vehicles and personnel that were needed to perform the 

required trafficking on the assembled bridge. 

The service-type test, of course, helps the Army 

determine whether a new piece of equipment is "suitable" prior to being type classified as standard. In addition, this test is conducted to determine the degree that 

the system and its complete maintenance package meet 

the characteristics described in the appropriate requirements document. Scientific methodology is employed, 

and, insofar as possible, a realistic tactical environment 

is maintained through the use of military personnel 

representative of those who will operate and maintain 

the equipment in the field. 

Since the fast water portion of the test was conducted 

on the Skagit River, complete field facilities were estab- I 

lished at the site. Maintenance facilities up to and 1 

including direct support, and billeting and messing 1 

arrangements for more than 150 personnel were set 

up on Army-leased land. 

Test operations on the Skagit began more than a 

I 

year ago to obtain the data that was required to de- . termine the reliability, durability, and functional suitability of the Ribbon Bridge system. During these tests, 

the Ribbon Bridge system was emplaced through 100 

erection and disassembly cycles and subjected to a total 

of 29,077 vehicular crossings. Included in the latter 

total were 5,963 Class 60 crossings. 


The Ribbon Bridge performed exceptionally well 

under all test conditions. Some of the more important 

test results included- 

@ Swift bridge erection-Engineers achieved a construction rate of 550 feet per hour in a stream velocity 

of 6.2 feet per second. 

Reduced manpower-It took only 53 engineers 

39 minutes to erect 357 feet of bridge, including 

anchorage. 

Conventional anchorage unnecessary-Only transporters and bridge erection boats were used to anchor 

357 feet of bridge in a stream velocity of 8.0 feet 

per-second when crossing Class 60 vehicles. 

Rafting capability-Engineers were able to raft 

with Class 60 loads in stream velocities up to 6.4 feet 

per second. 

Air transportable-Ramp and interior bays were 

successfully transported, launched, and retrieved by 

a CH-47B helicopter. 

The Ribbon Bridge is a Class 60 tactical floating 

bridge system consisting of three major elementsinterior bays, ramp bays, and transporters. The interior 

bay consists of a four-ponton, folding module with the 

necessary locks and hinges that enable it to be transported in a folded configuration and to unfold flat to 

form a 22-foot section of bridge. 

The ramp bay also is composed of a four-ponton, 

folding module. This bay has tapered pontons and has 

a 6Y2-foot approach ramp hinged to the thin end. In 

addition, the ramp bay contains an adjustable hydraulic 

cylinder which allows the ramp to be articulated. This 

joint provides a range of angles up to 20 degrees between the ramp and interior bays to meet varying conditions at river banks. The ramp bay provides a total 

length of about 25 feet of bridging. The transporter 

used in the service test was an M139A1 truck modified 

to provide a unit for transporting, launching, and retrieving the bridge bays. (For future models an M812 

series chassis will be used as a transporter.) A hydraulic-powered boom and winch provide the means 

for moving the bays on and off the transporter. Rollers 

support the bays during on and off loading and locks 

secure the bays to the transporter during travel. Each 

transporter carries a single bay. 

When folded for transport, the single interior bay is 

22.5 feet long, 10.7 feet, wide, and 7.7 feet high. When 

unfolded for installation in the bridge, each floating 

interior bay is 22 feet long (effective bridge length), 

26.5 feet wide ( 13.6-foot roadway), and 3.5 feet deep. 

The weight of each interior bay is approximately 11,000 

pounds or 500 pounds per foot of bridge. When folded, 

the ramp bay is 18.4 feet long, 9.8 feet wide and 7.8 

feet high. When unfolded, the ramp bay is 25.3 feet 

long including the ramp approach which is 26.5 feet 

wide and 2.4 feet in depth. The weight of each ra 

bay is approximately 10,000 pounds. -'l 

w/ A Ribbon Bridge can be erected swiftly. The transporters are backed to the water's edge; and, as the 

vehicle stops, the bridge elements are released and roll 

off directly into the stream where they unfold and are 

secured in this condition. Then, the elements are pinconnected to form the required bridge span along the 

shore. It is then swung across the stream using bridge 

erection boats to maneuver and anchor the assembled 

bridge. The bridge can be held in place in a moving 

stream without anchorage through the use of transporters and bridge erection boats. A conventional system can be used when the conditions of the period of 

emplacement of the bridge justify it. 

This Ribbon Bridge is actually the American version 

of the PMP Ribbon-type Bridge now being used successfully by the Soviet Union. During the 1960's the 

USSR developed and deployed the Ribbon-type Bridge 

that consists of integral float-deck elements connected 

longitudinally to form a continuous floating roadway. 

The MPM demonstrated erection speeds up to 10 times 

as fast as comparable U. S. float spans and a crew size 

half as large. 

Now, the U. S. has its own Ribbon-type Bridge and, 

as with all newly developed items, there are some bu 

remaining to be resolved. Fabrication techniques m 4- 

be employed to minimize weld failures, and the in, 

proved transporter must be checked out. Weighed 

against the capabilities, the defects appear minimal. 

For the first time, an engineer float bridge company 

can, without support, transport and erect a float bridge 

-and do it in minutes instead of hours. When fielded 

the Ribbon Bridge will substantially increase the engineer's capability to span wet gaps and will ensure that 

we keep our tactical ground forces on the m0ve.e 

Lieutenant Colonel Clifford C. Lussier, Jr., is presently assigned to the Armor and Engineer Board at 

Fort Knox, Kentucky. He holds a Bachelor's Degree 

in Management and Economics and is a graduate of the 

Engineer Oficer Candidate School and the Oficer Advanced Course at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The colonel 

has served with engineer construction battalions in 

CONUS, Europe, and on group staffs during two tours 

in the Republic of Vietnam. 
\ d. S. Army bridging is beginning to take on a svelte, 

new shape, tailored to meet the rapidly changing needs 

of our military requirements on the ground in the 

years just ahead. 

The new bridging equipment, which is expected to 

give the Army much greater mobility than in the past, 

has been a long time coming, according to Engineer 

experts. They claim that for many years now, the Army 

has been developing exotic new weapons, vehicles, and 

equipment, while its bridging requirements have been 

neglected. 

It is no secret that success in battle usually stems 

from superiority in mobility and its employment for 

effective maneuver. An Army, of course, needs many 

,I different capabilities if it is to have total mobility. One 

of those capabilities-an Army's ability to cross dry 

gaps and rivers during combat has more often than not 

7 determined its success or failure. Bridging, or the lack 

of it, has had decided effects on the outcome of many 1 history military conflicts. 

I It is to this end that the U. S. Army has again begun ' taking a closer look at its bridging capability and beefup the requirements. Time has almost stood still 

. S. Army bridging through three wars. For exthe Bailey Bridge, named after its British de- 

, signer, Sir Donald Bailey, was adopted by the U. S. 

Army during World War 11. Throughout the "big I 

war" it was the principle tactical fixed bridge of the 

allied armies. The Bailey has continued to be the 

bridging workhorse for the U. S. Army in two subsequent wars-Korea and Vietnam. 

Today, though, it looks like the days the Bailey will 

remain in the U. S. Army inventory as a tactical 

bridge are numbered. It is expected to give way to 

another British designed, developed, and produced 

bridge-the Medium Girder Bridge. Also, a new Improved Float Bridge called the Ribbon is expected to 

supplen~ent and eventually replace another World War 

I1 relic-the M4T6 Floating Bridge. Actually six new 

bridges are programmed to give the U. S. Army a . sleek, "erector set-like" gap crossing capability second 

to none. They are- 1 

Mobile Floating Assault BridgeIFerry (MAB) 1 

Description: The MAB consists of three major components-~ transporter and two types of bridge sections. The transporter, which serves as a self-powered 

vehicle on land and a self-powered boat in the water, 

can carry either type of bridge section. The interior bay 

bridge superstructure forms a center section of bridge 

or ferry roadway while the end bay bridge superstructure provides a hydraulically adjustable ramp or end 
section to form a roadway from the river bank to the 

MAB deck roadway. Amphibious MAB units can travel 

overland at speeds up to 40 mph and enter the water 

directly from the approach march. Upon entering the 

water, the power is transferred from the wheels to the 

marine propulsion unit and the wheels are hydraulically 

retracted upward into wheel wells. When the MAB is 

afloat in the water, the superstructures are raised and 

rotated to the bridging position and successive units 

are joined to form either a bridge or a ferry capable of 

carrying 60 ton Class 60 loads. 

Status: The first MAB's (riveted aluminum hull construction) were type classified Standard A in October, 

1969 and issued to Army units in Europe. Since then, 

however, the MAB's transporter, hydraulic, and electrical systems have been improved, tested and approved 

for production by 'the Department of the Army. A 

multiyear quantity procurement of the welded hull 

MAB (in lieu of riveted construction) is now being 

accomplished. This procurement will result in the fielding of 184 new MABs during Calendar Years 1972, 

1973, and 1974. 

Item Replaced: The MAB provides a more rapid 

means of tactical floating bridge and ferry deployment 

and operations in the Class 60 capacity range. It replaces the French designed, German manufactured Amphibious River Crossing Equipment (A RCE) and supplements the World War 11 M4T6 bridge. 

Lightweight Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge, 

Class 60, 60 Foot Span 

zes the new, high-strength 7,000 series of aluminum 

alloys. This lightweight bridge weighs approximai \ ' 

14,000 pounds as compared to 29,000 pounds for . J' 

current standard AVLB. The bridge is launched and 

retrieved by the standard M60A1 launcher. It is intended that it will have essentially the same performance 

characteristics as the current standard. It is also intended that the sections of this lightweight 60-foot span 

bridge become the end ramp sections of a follow-on 

90-foot span AVLB. 

Status: A contract has been awarded for a second 

generation bridge. The U. S. Army's Mobility and 

Equipment Research and Development Center at Fort 

Belvoir, Virginia, was preparing to test it as the 

engineer went to press. 

Item Replaced: Eventually this second generation 

bridge will replace the current standard 60-foot span 

AVLB. 

Medium Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge 

(M-AVLB) 

Description: The M-AVLB is a hydraulically operated, single-folding bridge that is designed for multicellular box beam construction with an orthotropic truss 

web panel deck in high strength, weldable aluminum 

alloy. The bridge consists of four tapered ramp sections 

which are pin-connected through a non-eccentric (twocenter) hinge to form two treadways. Horizontal @*\ ) 7 vertical bracing join the treadways to form a compi 

bridge. The bridge is folded and unfolded through the 

operation of a hydraulically controlled three link mechanism. The bridge is 63 feet long, I0 feet, 8 inches 

Description: The Army has tested a first generation wide, and provides a 10-foot roadway, 2 feet 6 inches 

unit and it shows great promise for a successful bridge. deep. The estimated weight of the bridge is 7,500 

The bridge, which is all-welded type construction, util- pounds. The M-AVLB is being developed for transport 

,- 
arid deployrr~ent by the currently standard M5.51 (Sherian) tank arid will support Class 30 colubat loads over (0- I upr up to 60 feet. It will he lrrunched fronz either end 

witllorrt exposure of per;ronnel, in less than two n~irilites 

and retrieved frot?~ either end in less than I0 r?ririute.c. 

Status: T~lpe Classification 4th Quarter, FY 1977. 

90-Foot Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge 

(AVLB) 

Description: The 90-foot AVLB is a hydraulicallj~ 

operated, douhle-faldir~g bridge with orthotropic plate 

rlc.ck and spcice frame truss structure in high-strength, 

weldable alut?~inurn alloy. The bridge cor~sists of four 

tapered rump panels and two center panels which are 

pin-connectecl through a non-eccentric (double-ccntered) hinyc to fort)^ two treadways. Horizontal and vertical bracing join the treadwaj,~ to complete the bridge. 

A new folding nnd ui?folding system using two h!- 

clraulic cylinders eliniinates the conventional qltudrunt 

and cable .\j.stern used on the present 60-foot hridge. 

The bridge-95 feet long and 13 feet, 4 inches wideprovides a I2-foot, 6 inch rocrdway, 3 feet deep. The 

estimated weight of the bridge is 19,000 pounds. The 

extended span A VLB is being developed for transpor t 

and deployment by the currently standard M-60 

Launclier and will support divisional cot?~/?at loads 

(C1a.s.r 60) over gaps up fo 90 feet. It will be launched 

om either end, witl~orrt exposure of personnel, in less 

five minutes and retrieved from either end in less 

f/7an 10 minutes. 

Status: Type Classification 4th Quarter, FY 1977. 

Improved Float Bridge (Ribbon Bridge) 

Description: Tile Ribbon Bridge, an At?rerican version of tllp PMP Ribbon-type Bridge now being used 

succes.sful1~ by the Soviet Union, consists of integral 

float-tfeck eler?~ents connected lon,qituditially to forrn u 

continuous floating rocrclway. 7'herc are two basic 

bridge elerne~its, interior ant1 rump bays, and a compar~ion tran.rporter, wl~ich also serves to luunclz atirl 

retrieve individual hays. Folder1 for transport the ~ingle 

interior bay is 22 '/2 feet long, 10-feet, 6 inches wide, and 

7 feet, 7 indles higl~. When ~orfoldctl for installation in 

the i;rirlge, each flouting interior bay will be 22 feet 

/on!: (eflective brid~qe letlgtl~) 26% feet wide, (13-foot, 

6 inch roadway) and 3 feet, 8 inches deep at its bows 

cind 29 iric/~es deep at tile roadwuy. Folded for transport, the single ramp bay is I8 feet, 7 inches long, 10 

feet, 2 inches wide, and 7 feet, 7 inches high. When 

~ci~folderl each end haj~ is 18 feet, 4 inches long and has 

a 6-foot, 5-inch approacl~ ranlp l~ir~gecl to the roczdway 

sections. Its roadway i.r 29 it~c11e.r cleep at the bridge 

end nncl tapers to 1.5 inches at the .shore end. The configrrratiori is the .rume as the irlterior bay, except for 

an acijrrstable joint at the interior />cry connection and 

tile tapered end section. Controlleri by two I~ydraulic 

cylinders, the joitlt provides a zclro degree to 20 degree 

rangc of angles hetween the ramp and bank to adjust 

auto~?~uticull~~ to the variety of conditioils that exist at 

river banks. The weight is apyroxir)ratrly 500 pounds 

per foot of hridge. The Ribbon Britlgc will be transported on a modified M812 truck c11assi.s in the folded 
condition. The transporters will be backed to the water's 

edge; and, as the vehicle stops, the bridge elements will 

be released and will roll off directly into the water where 

they will unfold and he secured in his condition. (The 

elements will then be pin-connected to form the required bridge span along the shore and then swung 

across the stream u~ing bridge erection boats to maneuver and anchor the assembled bridge, or it can be constructed hy u~ing the method of successive bays or 

rafts.) This hridge will be capable of construction at a 

rate of 22 feet per minute to cross Class 60 vehicles 

over streams with currents up to 8 feet per second. 

Status: Type Classification Date4th Quarter FY 

1972 

Item Replaced: Supplements M4T6 and Class 60s 

1 Flouting Bridge. I Medium Girder Bridge (MGB) 

I Description: The British MGB is an aluminum alloy 

structure capable of spanning gaps up to I00 feet. 

Longer gaps may be spanned using the intermediate 

supports every 86 feet. There are three primary components-the upper girder, the lower girder, and the 

deck panel. Girders are six feet long and the deck 

punel is about I0 feet long. The bridge may 

be ussembled in either a single (30-foot Class 60) or 

double story (100-foot Class 60) configuratiorz. The 

construction crew is comprised of 24 men and a noncommissioned oficer. Work crews normally consist of 

four men carrying a maximum weight of 370 pounds. 

All panels are self-aligning. The site preparation is 

minimal as the bridge is capable of construction on the 

ground with slopes not to exceed one-in-ten both longitudinally and laterally. Bridge parts are carried as 

palletized loads, 7,800 pounds maximum, for rapid 

unloading and easy movements by ground or air. 

Status: Two sets were delivered to the U.S. Army in 

FY 1972 so it could make engineering and service tests 

and determine the feasibility of extending the MGB's 

Class 60 capability for spans over 100 feet. 

The introduction of these new bridges into the Army's 

system is bound to produce positive results. Changing 

technology and doctrine has forced the Army to replace 

much of its antiquated bridging equipment. 

Looking back, military leaders as early as the Civil 

War fully realized the advantages of being able to 

quickly surmount physical obstacles and consequently 

have carried a bridging capability as an integral p? 

of their armies. The importance of military bridging I) 

indicated both by the emphasis our former great leaders- 7 

have placed on it, and by its effect tin combat. 
The Federal Army, for example, was supplied with 

wooden bridging materials and equipage to use in its 

operations during the Civil War. The crossing of the 

James River by General U. S. Grant was an outstanding lesson of Civil War engineering. The crossing proved 

to be one of the key factors that enabled General Grant 

to cut off the flow of supplies to General Robert E. Lee, 

forcing the Confederate Army to abandon Richmond 

and Petersburg. It took the Union Army only five hours 

and 50 minutes to assemble approximately 2,200 feet 

of bridge for the crossing. 

The Union Army also had its own floating bridging 

during the Civil War. It was simple but effective. Pneumatic pontons were made of India-rubber cloth, inflated by a special bellows, and transported by horse 

and wagon. Each ponton consisted of three cylinders, 

20 feet long and shaped at the ends like a canoe. These 

supported a roadway 11 feet, 8 inches wide, which was 

considered "sufficient for ordinary purposes." Holes 

in the cylinders were mended by rubber cloth patches, 

which the pontonier sergeants were supposed to carry 

in their pockets at all times, and a cement made of im- / :, ovised ingredients. ?Y Time almost stood still for U. S. Army bridging 

equipment from the Civil War to World War I. Much 

of that old float bridge equipment of the Civil War was 

still employed by American Expeditionary Force engineers during WWI. At the same time, the Germans had 

a floating bridge which utilized metal pontlsns. It was 

the forerunner of similar bridges of today. 

The floating bridge, which is of utmost importance 

to military operations, really came into its own during 

WWII when metal pontons and pneumatic float-type 

bridges were developed in order to carry heavy loads 

across such formidable rivers as the Volturno in Italy 

and the Rhine in Germany. 

Chief among the pneumatic float bridges was the M2 

Steel Treadway which crossed victorious Allied Armies 

over many of Europe's rivers. Some of the floating 

treadways were more than 1,000 feet long. Floating 

bridge equipage also was used extensively in Korea and 

Vietnam. 

Float and fixed bridges, which complement each other 

during military river crossing operations, proved their 

importance to organized military operations as far 

back in history as 600 B. C. when Herodotus, a historian, wrote about a bridge across the Euphrates River 

to the city of Babylonia. According to Herodotus, the 

queen planned to have an artificial lake built upstream 

from the city. So, the engineer decided that while the 
lake was being filled, and the stream was dry, he could 

construct 100 stone piers for the proposed timber bridge 

that would be erected across the water bed. It was 

noted that as an extra precaution against invaders. the 

bridge's flooring could be removed at night. Not bad 

thinking for thosc days. 

First mention of the use of the floating bridgc in 

military operations was a 100 years later. The Persian 

Emperor Darius introduced this revolutionary gambit 

back in 500 B. C. He used an expedient floating bridge 

to cross the Bosphorus and latcr the Danube with 

700,000 men. Although Darius' attack on European 

Scythia was not successful, the bridge was instrumental 

in aiding his retreat from the Scythians and the Greeks. 

Later, after Darius died, his son, Xerxes, attacked the 

enemy again by using a similar type of bridge. He successfully crossed 3,500,000 men over the Hellespont 

in seven days and nights. 

Alexander the Great used both fixed and float bridges 

to fulfill his military operations. One of his most famous 

fixed bridges was the one he had his engineers build 

across the narrow arm of the sea that lay between the 

coast of Syria and the strongly fortified island city of 

Tyre about 330 B. C. The channel was a mile and onehalf wide and the causeway was constructed by driving 

rows of piles and filling between the piles with earth 

and stone, using logs and brush along the outer piling 

to retain the material in place. His Army destroyed an 

entire city and a forest to procure the materials for the 

construction of this bridge. The causeway was 200 feet 

wide and had defense towers at regular intervals. When 

the roadway was nearly completed, the defenders of 

Tyre sent out a ship carrying bitumen and other inflammable material, rammed it into the side of the 

causeway, set it afire and tipped naptha and oil off the 

yardarm. The causeway was so damaged that it was 

never completed. Even so, Alexander, built a new, 

wider, and more fortified causeway from another point 

and captured thc city. The entire effort took seven 

months. The causeway was gradually widened and 

strengthened later and rcmained a permanent isthmus 

connecting the city to the mainland. Alexander also 

included a ponton train as an integral part of his army, 

and by using easily transportable half-pontons that 

could be joined together at the stern, he assembled 

many floating bridges during the course of his campaigns. All of these bridges proved more successful than 

the older type of land causeway which he used against 

Tyre. 

Hannibal should have lcarned something about bridging from Alexander but he did not. He did not include 

ponton trains in his army and had to rely on large 

expedient rafts of his river crossing operations. History 

records that it was the destruction of a bridge that prevented Hannibal from capturing Rome. 

Of all the great military leaders, Caesar was pro 

ably the first general to have a distinct Corps of Eng 

neers with trained officers and men. He is credited with ] 

introducing the timber trestle bridge. He is said to have 

built this type of bridge somewhere near Bonn wherc 

the river is 25 feet deep, 1,500 feet wide, and has a 

four mile pcr hour current. The bridge was a series 

of pile bents, each bent consisted of two pairs of piles, 

I 

each pair being timbers 18 inches square, well fastened 

by cross pieces, the timbers parallel and two feet apart. 

The pairs of piles were driven by use of a pile driver, 

each pair inclined toward the centerline of the bridge 

and the pairs were 40 feet apart-presumably at the 

waterline. A cross-beam, 20 inches square, its ends 

passing between the piles of the pairs and fastened to 

make the bent secure, rested upon the uppermost transoms. Longitudinal beams, planking, and earth finished 

the surface. For additional strength against the current, 

piles were driven down stream and braced against the 

bents. Upstream from each bent, a cluster of piles were 

driven to serve as pier fenders. The construction of 

Caesar's bridge, including the timber cutting, took 10 

days. 

Napoleon was ano'ther field general who saw the 

necessity for good military bridging in battle. He made 

sure that his engineers were well supplied with ponto d@it equipage and other military bridging materials. Durin~ 

his war with Emperor Charles of Austria in 1809, 

Napoleon built two ponton bridges across the Danube 

connecting the shores with an island in the middle of 

the river from which he launched attacks against the 

mainland. 

It is obvious from this brief and sketchy history of 

bridging feats that tlze military engineer has striven to 

design bridges with greater capacity, tran.rportability, 

and ease of assembly from the earliest wooden rafts or 

boats and earth bridges to the most recently developed 

pneumatic, steel, and aluminum bridges. Modern heavy 

equipment has made possible the handling of heavier 

and larger sections which facilitate longer hridgcs using 

fewer parts than was formerly possible. Thus, with 

each new development in bridge material, the great 

rivers of the world have become less of an obstcicle to 

the advance of modern armies. 

But there still is a major haunting yue.vtion regarding 

the future of bridging in he U. S. Army. When will our 

own bridging experts develop a bridge that is entirely 

of U. S. concept and design? T/7e Hussia11.s already arc 

testing arz underwater bridge. So, about all that is left 

is ail air cushion-type bridge. Will that be the bridge of 

the 21st century? If so, will it bear our stamp-U. ,y 

all the way, from state-of-the-art lo production? Ok~r.. yT time will tell. 

The Editor 
Am ERCSP-STR UCTURED FOR SUPPOR T 

Major Jerry M. Lowrance 

T he "One-Army Concept" is no longer just a figment 

of the imagination at the U. S. Army Engineer at 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The concept is now a reality. 

Although the Corps of Engineers has always looked 

upon the Reserve Components as vital to the "total" 

Army picture, there has been a tendency to forget about 

their role in the Defense posture of this nation until all 

the "marbles" are up for grabs. 

Engineer planners have had contingency plans for 

many years that call for the bulk of the combat support 

and combat service support engineer units which would 

be needed in the event of a national emergency to come 

from the Reserve Components. 

In keeping with the Army Chief of Staff's policy of 

support and recognition of the Reserve Components 

mission within the Army establishment, the Chief of 

Engineers has had a long-standing program whereby 

members of the staff make annual visits to observe Reserve Component training. The Chief is continually 

encouraging mutual support between Active Army and 

Reserve Component engineer units. 

The USAES, based on the desires and policy of the 

chain-of-command, has placed support of Reserve 

Components high on its list of priorities in the months 

. , just ahead. Both USAES and Fort Belvoir have chalked 

: up a fair amount of support for the Reserve Corn- > ., v 

- - ponents each year. For instance, the yearly support in 

the past has included individual and unit training at ',-'*: the post; support of U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) .5 

schools at their home stations and Annual Training of 

.. .- . selected USAR schools at the "Home of the Engineers." -' '.;--.+ 

*-:'n . .: Also, Belvoir has prepared and issued some 148,000 

pieces of instructional material each year to Reserve 4 

. 4 Component units. This is in addition to supporting the 

6,800 Reserve Component students that have been en- r. + - - rolled in the school's Correspondence Course Program 

through the years. The Correspondence program in- . ,*! -,$? cludes the Engineer Officer Basic and Advanced I ,*m , &; Courses, the Noncommissioned Officer Courses, various 

\ * t'; Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) Courses, and 

I - the Professional Engineer Preparatory Course. /+& 
When the stated national policy revealed that a high 

reliance would be placed on the Reserve Components 

in any future missions and commitments of our strategic 

forces, the USAES needed to make few changes in its 

current support program to get on the bandwagon. And 

when the chain of command from the Secretary of Defense on down, began placing heavy emphasis on Reserve Component training, the USAES was able to take 

this ncw requirement in stride. 

Does this mean that USAES is going to rest on its 

past laurels? No it does not. It simply means that the 

USAES has a strong base upon which a better structure 

of support may be built for the Reserve Components. 

This structure is expected to reflect the efforts of the 

USAES staff, faculty, students and members of the 

Reserve Components when current plans are implemented this fiscal year. 

Since the beginning of 1972, the stones in the structure have begun to stack up and it is taking the form 

of a monument dedicated to USAES support of the 

Reserve Components program. One of the larger stones, 

for example, would have to be credited to the two 

weeks of training that was given this past May to the 

officers and "noncoms" of the 105th Engineer Battalion 

of the North Carolina National Guard. Its parent unit, 

the 20th Infantry Division (Mech), is spread out 

through both North Carolina and Georgia. 

At the USAES, the 105th received the "full bore" 

treatment-training that included complete current doctrine and practice of engineers in combat support of 

tactical units. The instruction began with a refresher 

on current offensive and defensive tactics by the Combined Arms Division of the Department of Military 

Science. This was in keeping with the theory that en ' 

neers must know what the tactical commander is doiPlt 

if they are to provide the best possible support to 11) ." 

operations. Then, the instruction shifted to what the 

engineers are expected to do to support these tactics. 

The Combat Support Branch handled this instruction 

that covered all facets of engineer support in combat 

operations. Heavy emphasis also was placed on the 

engineer's role in river crossing operations and barrier 

planning. 

After the "how-to-do-it" was absorbed by the students from the 105th, the Department of Applied Engineering exposed them to the tactical equipment that is 

available to handle any eventuality. There was instruction in mine warfare, demolitions, tactical bridging, and 

field engineering. Nothing was left to chance and when 

the students from the 105th departed Fort Belvoir, they 

felt-to a man-that they had gained up-to-date knowledge that would help them better support the 30th 

Infantry Division in any future role. 

The former Department of Topography (renamed 

the Defcnse Mapping School on July 1 ), also has contributed some big stones for the structure of the monument. Enlisted personnel from six Reserve Component 

Engineer Topographic Units have received MOS instruction that includes Platemaker, Multiplex 

Compiler, Senior Topographic Instrument Repairm 

Offset Pressman, Intelligence Terrain Analyst, and 

Analyst. Also, officers of those units have received instruction in such chosen fields as Geographer, Geologist, Hydrologist, Utility Engineer, Highway Engineer, 

and Soils Engineer. 

Most of the students in the aforementioned programs 

received the same instruction and, in some cases, were 

in the same classes as their Active Army counterparts. 

This way both A~ctive Army and Reserve Components 

personnel were given the opportunity to exchange 

knowledge and views and gain a renewed respect arid 

confidence in the important part each play in atta.ining 

the common goals of "One Army." 

Resident instructors have not given all the instruction 

at the USAES. Four USAR schools, the 20'7'7th from 

Cleveland, the 2074th from Loui.sville> the 209 1 tb from 

Scranton, Pennsylvania, and the 1154th from Jamaica, 

New York, handled the instruction of Phase VI of the 

Engineer Officer Advanced Course. The four USAR 

schools presented Phase VI in four two-week periods. 

Phase VI, which actually kicked off the summer training 

program at USAES, also had 369 officers from the R-cserve Components enrolled as students. 

struction, 

Although 

it did 

the 

support the 

TJSAES did 

USAR 

not present, 

instructors by 

the actual pb i 3 ;:I

viding classroon~s in Humphrey Hal!, Lessor? Refererl 

Files, and Training Aids for each subject-Geoloy.. 
Soils, Drainage, and Pavements. Also Department of 

ineering Science instructors assisted their USAR @ ,~ol counterparts in preparing for their classes. This . .!:hange of ideas and methods between the two groups 

provided still another opportunity for both to recognize 

mutual goals and to work together toward accomplishing them, 

Although the stones have been stacking up regularly, 

the monument is far from completion, according to 

the Assistant Commandant of USAES, Brigadier General Richard L. Harris. The general is not satisfied with 

resting on past accomplishments but wants to continue 

to march. He has displayed a keen interest in Reserve 

Components and the support they receive from the 

USAES. His interest also was evident to Colonel Irving 

Atlas, Commandant - of the 2091 Scranton USAR 

School. In his Report of Annual Training to First Army, 

the colonel said, "This unit has been conducting Annual 

Training To'l~rs since 1952. This unit has never received 

the benefits of intense and repeated interest in the 

mission as has been given by Brigadier General Richard 

L. Harris, Assistant Commandant, U. S. Army Engineer 

School, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. This extreme interest 

and desire to be of service was felt throughout the cornmand and made this unit's Annual Training period in 

1972 the most rewarding ever." 

General Harris is providing some stones himself. He 

:je sure that beginning this fiscal year the Expanded 13. .-serve Components Support Program is a part of the 

overall Engineer School Operating plan. The purpose 

of the Expanded Reserve Components Support Program is to improve resident assistance and to extend 

the assistance to the troops in the field. The program 

calls for continued resident support, the development 

and issue of training materials to support unit instruction, and the use of Mobile Training Teams to help the 

Reserve Components stay abreast of new developments 

in doctrine and equipment. 

Responsibility for the Expanded Reserve Components Support Program has been. given to the Department of Nonresident I~struction. However, all departments of the USAES will have an opportunity to 

contribute to the program. Major Matthew J. Jones, Jr., 

has been named the USAES Reserve Components Support Officer and will operate the nerve center. 

The initia! stage of the new program will require 

coordination with the Chief of Reserve Components at 

Department of the Army, Conti~lental Army Command, 

the CONUS Armies, and the eight major Engineer 

Commands and Brigades of the Reserve Components 

to determine the types of assistance that will be required 

the USAES. Then priorities will be set for the 0 ti.,\rements. The assistance could be resident-stuk.yk:s attending instruction at the USAES. It could be 

r!.or!.-resident-IJSAES develops training materials for 

issue both to instructors and students in the field. It 

could be field assistance-where mobile training teams 

actually move out and present their instruction in the 

field. It also could be liaison-the exchange of ideas, 

requirements and assets between the USAES, other 

service schools, major installations, and major Reserve 

Components Engineer Units. 

The second stage of the program is geared to satisfy 

the requirements identified in the first stage in the 

priority set by the Reserve Components Support Officer. 

General Harris has stressed that all assets of the USAES 

will be employed to satisfy these requirements. However, most of the requirements can be satisfied simply 

by providing necessary instructional material to the 

units. 

Great care is expected to be taken to insure that the 

USAR schools are not bypassed. They will be utilized 

to the fullest extent in meeting the requirements of the 

units in the field. 

The bulk of both the resident and field instruction 

given by members of the USAES will be performed 

under the supervision of the Core Mobile Training 

Team. This team will consist of the Reserve Components Support Officer and two "noncom" instructors. 

The Core MTT will become expert in the top two or 

three subjects on the priority list. Members of the 

USAES staff and facility will be required to augment 

the team's participation in other areas. Also students 

at the USAES will have an opportunity to augment the 

Core MTT instruction. For example, students of the 

2nd Engineer Noncommissioned Oficer Advances 

Courses presented two days of demolition training to 

the Demolition Specialists of the 121st Engineer Battalion of the Maryland Na.tiona1 Guard during annual 

training at Camp A. P. Hill last June. 

There is a saying at the USAES that its monument 

of support to the Reserve Components could one day 

be as high as Mount O!ympus if the stones keep stockpiling, The stones representing the implementation of 

new methods may soon outnumber the ones that were 

used to lay the foundation of the monument-continued 

trzditional support. 

Today, questions directed at a. member of the USAES 

concerning the "'One-Army Concept" draw a blank 

stare. Personnel who were around when it was a "concept" are long gone. In other words, at the USAES, 

"one-Army" is really a reality. 

MAJOR Jerry M. Lowrance is presently Chief, Reserve Components and ROTC Division, Department of 

Nonresident Instruction, US44ES. He is a graduate of 

Texas A & M University. His prior assignments include 

instructorship at the USAES, and troop duty with the 

12th Engineer Battalion in Europe and the 65th Engineer Battalion in the Republic of Vietnam. 
T he Engineer Dynamic Training Council at Fort 

Belvoir, Virginia, our own professional variation on 

the Army-wide Board for Dynamic Training recently 

constituted at Fort Benning, Georgia, has been active 

since its inception in late 1971 studying small unit 

training. The Council began its work by conducting a 

local survey of 400 officers, warrant officers and noncommissioned officers to identify problem areas common to their experience and therefore pertinent to units 

in the field. Using the results of the survey as a point 

of departure, the Council developed a questionaire for 

distribution to select units worldwide and began collecting and refining data to reinforce survey findings. 

In the interim, while the Council has been awaiting 

the return of outstanding questionaires, Army Training 

Plan (ATP) 5-35T has been drafted for testing in the 

Engineer Combat Battalion in both Active and Reserve/National Guard configurations. It is designed to 

fill in the gaps left in the Army's training and testing 

system where the cyclic annual training scheme is concerned. 

Units in the field have been screening training ideas 

and forwarding some interesting examples of homegrown dynamic training in response to the questionaires. 

The Engineer Command, U.S. Army Europe, has 

responded with the following: 

Assign combat engineer units an increased construction role under the supervision of the Director of 

Facilities Engineers. 

Encourage an increase in civic/domestic action 

projects through decentralization of approval authority. 

0 Assign U. S. construction units to work shoulder 

to shoulder with civilian labor to help increase skill 

levels. 

Provide concurrent training with aviation units 

that have a heavy lift capability for bridge construction 

in addition to troop lift capability for engineer reconnaissance, demolition projects, clearing landing zones, 

etc. 

Use competitive training with side-by-side construction of different types of tactical bridging. 

Promote truck ROAD-E-0's to develop proficiency 

in handling, loading, unloading, towing, backing. driving, of general purpose vehicles and engineer equipment. 

Use a group marksmanship concept in place of 

standard individual markmanship training to develop 

teamwork. 

Increase the use of non-divisional engineer units 

in a general support role during divisional field training 

exercises. 

Use construction units for repair and rehabilitation of troop and family housing facilities. 

There also was individual response to the questionaire from the United States Army Engineer School, 

the 18th Engineer Brigade, the 147th Engineer Battalion, the 844th and 871st Engineer Battalions and 

several overseas headquarters. Some of those personal 

contributors include : 

-Captain E. M. Harris of the 18th Engineer Brigade, who suggested that engineer units assist in improving their local environments through ecology 

oriented clean-up projects; 

-First Sergeant J. W. Wisnewski, 113th Engin 

Battalion, who wants to combine engineer missions \ /"? combat arms operations. The troops will be able to sc, 

the end product of their labors put to practical use 

instead of having to tear down that item in the manner 

of the usual post-mortem drill. 

-Colonel W. R. Hylander, who proposes that competition between combat and combat support troops be 

encouraged by, let's say, having the engineers build a 

tank obstacle and challenging a tank unit to break 

through. 

--Sergeant First Class C. R. Watts of the 147th 

Engineer Battalion, who suggests week-long squad 

missions led by Squad Leaders to cultivate teamwork 

and promote leadership skills in engineer reconnaissance, orienteering, and demolitions. 

-Lieutenant Colonel R. H. Carver of USARAL, 

who would use VOLAR and other funds to hire technically qualified instructors to work with and train personnel in engineer hard skills, an idea used successfully 

by the 808th Engineer Battalion. 

-Lieutenant Colonel J. W. Martin of I11 Corps, 

Fort Hood, Texas, who wants to arrange with local 

contractors for visits at their work sites and on-the-job 

discussion of the latest construction techniques. 

-Captain R. R. Gentry of 871st Engineer Battal' 

Austin, Texas, who will substitute more team sport m, /,i the standard Army physical fitness program. 

-Others have suggested additionally that reserve 
component units replace active units on on-going projects for the Summer training period, and that road 

rallies for drivers of organic vehicles be encouraged as 

driving and map reading exercises. 

One unit, the 52nd Engineer Battalion at Fort Carson, Colorado, described what it is already doing in the 

civic/domestic action area and on post support projects 

to give some meaning to training: 

-Construction of an outdoor recreation area for the 

Colorado School for the Dcaf and Blind, including the 

hauling of fifty thousand cubic yards of fill, preparation 

of drainage structures, designing and installing an underground sprinkler system and laying out a two hundred 

meter athletic track. 

-Construction of a two hundred foot-long earthfill dam. 

-Construction of athletic facilities, including a base- 

! field and basketball, volleyball and tennis courts, 9 'a local church. 

-Repair of Boys Club camp facilities. 

-Construction of cubicles within troop barracks 

through the use of VOLAR funds. 

A high point of Dynamic Training activity has been 

experienced with ATP 5-35T which was introduced 

by Colonel W. R. Hylander in the Summer issue of 

the engineer. The colonel, who is Director of the 

Office of Doctrine and Training Development at the 

U. S. Army Engineer School and also head "honcho" 

of the Engineer Dynamic Training Council, explains 

that the response to ATP 5-35T has been heavy. He 

encourages additional response and promises that all 

requests will be filled, explaining that the concept is 

felt to provide better and more up-to-date information 

than is presently available in other engineer training 

publications. 

The engineer training questionaire itself, designed to 

help identify problem areas that have become barriers 

to development of innovative training programs, provides some preliminary insight into attitudes in the 

field. And some people, it would seem, are not happy 

with the training status quo. 

Many company and field grade officers, from both 

;:ye and reserve component units, complain that the c r-present training inspector from a higher headquarters does little more than promote eyewash. They 

wonder what ever happened to emphasis on a better, 

more rewarding training experience for the troops. In 

fact, many of those same officers rated the small unit 

type of training at prestigious institutions such as thc 

Military Academy at West Point and othcr service 

schools poor, with too much emphasis on the same kind 

of theatrics. To say the least, a majority of those rcsponding indicated that they did not rate their current 

training programs as "dynamic." 

Serious problems seem to be thosc endless requirements for non-mission support to higher headquarters 

and that old pain-in-the-neck personnel turbulcncc. 

Lack of sufficient time to conduct meaningful training 

and rigidly mandatory training programs arc additional 

gripes. Unavailability or inadequacy of training facilities, surprisingly, has not been cited as consistently as 

might be expected, except in response from Europc and 

Korea. 

Many active and reserve units had interests in common. For example, many expressed a desire for a 

consumable materials allowance earmarked for training purposes. All seem interested in increased participation in civic/domestic action type projects. 

Testing. of course, was an issue in itself, with nearly 

20 percent of the respondents indicating that thcy had 

never participated in a unit test or exercise, nor had 

most of them seen company, platoon or squad tests 

anywhcre outside of the European theater. 

Construction units in particular seemed to have been 

particularly neglected in the testing area. They simply 

had not been tested with the same frequency or in the 

same circumstances as had combat and other type 

engineer units. 

What has been presented in the preceding paragraphs is only a progress report from your friendly 

neighborhood Dynamic Training Council. Final results 

and conclusions drawn from the survey and questionairc will follow in a forthcoming issue of the engineer. 

In the meantime, the Council needs your help. Send 

in an accounting of your pet training peeves and suggestions. There has to be a "better idea" out there 

somewhere. 

Write to the Engineer Dynamic Training Council, 

U. S. Army Engineer School, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

22060. e 
WHITE HOUSE FELLOWS 

73-74 PROGRAM ANNOUNCED 

THE WHITE HOUSE FELLOW PROGRAM offers a unique career opportunity for a young person between 

the ages of 23 and 36 years. Each year the President's Commission on White House Fellows selects approximately 

15-20 individuals from industry and the military to serve for a one year period as special assistants on the 

White House staff or with cabinet officers. These gifted and highly motivated young Americans gain some 

firsthand experience in the process of governing the Nation and a sense of personal involvement in the leadership 

of society. Since the program began in 1965, nine Army officers have been chosen as White House Fellows. 

Personnel desiring to participate in this program must first request permission (through channels) to corfipete, in 

accordance with AR 621-7, "Acceptance of Fellowships, Scholarships, or Grants," July 1, 1969. Given HQ DA 

approval, individuals should submit their White House Fellows application directly to the Commission on 

White House Fellows, The White House, Washington, D. C. 20500. Official application forms and full 

particulars may be obtained by writing to the Commission. The deadline for submission of applications for the 

1973-1974 program is 15 December 15, 1972. Final selection of the winners will be made in May, 1973. 

The year long (1973-1974) Fellowship begins in September, 1973. Interested Army personnel are encouraged 

to submit their "request to compete" to DA early in the fall of 1972. t-? 

/ 

DA PUBLISHES 

CHANGES IN FLIGHT 

TRAINING PREREQUISITES 

OPO DA HAS ANNOUNCED that a new edition of AR 61 1-110, "Selection and Training of Army Aviation 

Officers," has been published and distributed to the field with an effective date of 1 August 1972. Pending revision 

of Operating Instructions 61 1-1 10( 1 ), interested personnel should be aware of two significant changes in the 

prerequisites for flight training-(1) applicants now need only be a high school graduate or the equivalent but 

preferably have two or more years of college; and (2), graduates of the AROTC Flight Training Program 

may be entered into flight training under Class 2 medical fitness standards otzly if applying prior to completing 36 

months of AFCS-later applicants must meet Class 1A standards. 

ARMY ESTABLISHES 

WARRANTS' INTERMEDIATE 

COURSE FOR MOS 621A 

A MAINTENANCE WARRANT OFFICER Intermediate Course, comparable to an officer's advanced course, 

was established recently through the combined efforts of the U. S. Army Engineer School and the U. S. 

Army Ordnance School. The course is conducted in two phases. The first, approximately 11 weeks in duration, 

consists of general military subjects and is taught at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland, to both Engineer 

and Ordnance Warrant Officers. The second phase lasts for approximately five weeks for MOS 621A, and consists 

of engineer technical subjects taught at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Since the entire course is less than 20 weeks 

duration, it must be funded as TDY from local training funds. All officers eligible to attend were considered if%), 

light of their manner of performance, potential value to the Army, education and type of assignments in ./ 

which the individual had served. 
SPECIAL MAG OR MISSION 

ASSIGNMENTS AVAILABLE 

FOR QUALIFIED PERSONNEL 

SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS with one of the Army's Military Assistance Advisory Groups, or Missions require 

a real and practical sense of respons~bility, capability and initiative. Such requisites apply also to duty 

with an International or Joint Headquarters, and to service at any of the Department of the Army or Department 

of Defense Staff Agencies. Qualifications for these assignments are set forth in Tables 11-2 and 11-3 in 

AR 614-200. If you are interested and qualified, OPO DA will welcome your application. See your Commanding 

Officer for D.4 Form 2250 (Application or Nomination for Special Assignment). OPO advises that special 

requisitions are filled by elisible applicants who apply for special assignments, and by the selection of personnel 

for screening under the provisions of AR 614-200. The applications (DA Form 2250) are ~naintained on 

file at L)A for one year, or until requirements exist that the individual may be applied against. 

OPO NEEDS INFORMATION 

tpR NEW CORPS DIRECTORY 

20 DA REPORTS that it is once again time to compile the Corps of Engineers Officer Directory. For 

those of you who are Professional Engineers or an Engineer In Training and want your qualifications to appear 

in that new directory, you should check your personnel officer to insure that proper annotation is made on your 

DA Form 66. Engiricer Branch, OPO, advises they have received many calls asking that this information 

appear, but they cannot make the change without a properly prepared report of change submitted by a personnel 

office through appropriate channels. 

COMMANDER'S UPDATE 

PACKET IS NOW 

AVAILABLE FROM USAES 

FEW WOIJLD DENY THAT assumption of command imposes certain responsibilities. and that the larger 

the comnia~ld the greater are those responsibilities. Those of you who may be in line for such assignnients have 

probably given considerable thought to the amount of time you will have to devote to becoming current on 

various subjects with which you would want to be familiar before taking command of a battalion, a group or a 

brigade. If you feel a bit rusty after that last staff assignment and want to reorient your thinking, the "Commander's Update Packet" may well be your answer. The Engineer School's Department of Nonresident Instruction. 

in the best interest of those who are unable to make it to Fort Belvoir for instruction-or in this case, the 

commander's orientation-has put together a packet of instructional material designed to assist the 

prospective commander in preparing for his command assignment. The temptation to make the packet completely 

comprehensive or all-inclusive was deliberately avoided to keep the material within manageable proportions. 

A loose leaf binder format was used to facilitate possible changes, additions or deletions as new information 

becomes available. Some "nice to have" material has been omitted, but the packet is concise, easily read 

nd includes a wealth of informative material on subjects which occupy most commanders in the early stages of k: ,ir assignment. If you are on orders to take command of a battalion or higher unit and would like to obtain , .h2ommander's Update Packet," forward your request to Commandant, U. S. Army Engineer School, ATTN; 

DNRI, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060. 
\ 

I 

4,' 

It is believed that military bridges existed in A, prehistoric times. Why? 

Because neolithic man 

had sharpened stone implements with which he 

could fell trees as far 

back as 15,000 B. C. The 

first bridge, per se, was 

probably a tree he felled 

to cross a ravine or river 

that held up the capture t or destruction of a village. Some neolithic man 

became the first military 

I engineer by felling a tree 

or employing the use of 

vines to surmount the obstacle that was holding 

up the advance of his 

party. To get a better insight on bridging through 

the years, read "Crossing 

Time's Bridges," begin- , ning on page 25. 

-E 1 - fl* .', ';. 

.-- - p. . %/ 

' , -I 

6,. '! 

, I 

; 

a y,-- , -. ;k;g.$ .- 

. - s 1 I' - .;, 3 %T?c,A. ,L . - I 

/ . .,,> 3 '- ., C,; .. -, . '+ ' %. - I 

. 5' 7.. - , 

2 f 

L$ d\ 

?, .6' I