By Order of the Secretary of the Army:

MARK A. MILLEY

General, United States Army

Chief of Staff

Official:

U.S. Army Engineer School

(573) 563-8080/DSN 676-8080

COMMANDANT

BG James H. Raymer 

563-6192

<james.h.raymer.mil@mail.mil>

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

COL Kevin S. Brown

563-6192

<kevin.s.brown28.mil@mail.mil>

DEPUTY COMMANDANT

Mr. James R. Rowan

563-8080

<james.r.rowan4.civ@mail.mil>

REGIMENTAL COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR

CSM Bradley J. Houston

563-8060

<bradley.j.houston.mil@mail.mil>

REGIMENTAL CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER

CWO5 John F. Fobish

563-4088

<john.fobish.mil@mail.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–USAR

COL Kenneth Z. Jennings

563-8045

<kenneth.z.jennings.mil@mail.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–ARNG

LTC Bryan M. Carr

563-8046

<bryan.m.carr4.mil@mail.mil>

CHIEF OF STAFF

LTC William C. Hannan

563-7116

<william.c.hannan2.mil@mail.mil>

COMMANDER, 1ST ENGINEER BRIGADE

COL Martin Dale Snider 

596-0224, DSN 581-0224

<martin.d.snider.mil@mail.mil>

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND LEADER DEVELOPMENT

LTC H.W. Hugh Darville 

563-4093

<h.w.darville.mil@mail.mil>

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION

Mr. Robert F. Danner

563-2845

<robert.f.danner.civ@mail.mil>

COUNTER EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS CENTER

COL Charles G. Phillips

563-8142

<charles.g.phillips.mil@mail.mil>

ASSURED MOBILITY BRANCH, MSCoE CDID, RDD

LTC Larry J. Lyle Jr.

563-5055

<larry.j.lyle.mil@mail.mil>

ENGINEER DOCTRINE, MSCoE CDID, CODDD

LTC Matthew Y. McCulley

563-2717

<matthew.y.mcculley.mil@mail.mil>

ORGANIZATION BRANCH, MSCoE CDID, CODDD

LTC Leonard B. Scott IV

563-6282

<leonard.b.scott.mil@mail.mil>

Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is published three times 

a year by the U.S. Army Engineer School and the Maneuver 

Support Center of Excellence G-37 Publications, Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri. 

Articles to be considered for publication are due

1 December, 1 April, and 1 August. Send submissions

by e-mail to <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.engineer

@mail.mil>. Due to regulatory requirements and the limited 

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

been published elsewhere.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Engineer 

Professional Bulletin, 14010 MSCoE Loop, Building 3201, 

Suite 2661, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473-8702.

CORRESPONDENCE, letters to the editor, manuscripts, photographs, official unit requests to receive copies, and unit address changes should be sent to Engineer

at the preceding address. Telephone: (573) 563-4137, 

DSN 676-4137; e-mail: <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx

.engineer@mail.mil>; Web site:<http://www.wood.army.mil

/engrmag/>.

DISCLAIMER: Engineer presents professional information designed to keep U.S. military and civilian engineers 

informed of current and emerging developments within their 

areas of expertise for the purpose of enhancing their professional development. Views expressed are those of the 

authors and not those of the Department of Defense or its 

elements. The contents do not necessarily reflect official 

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

items constitutes neither affirmation of their accuracy nor 

product endorsement. Engineer reserves the right to edit 

material submitted for publication.

CONTENT is not copyrighted. Material may be reprinted 

if credit is given to Engineer and the author.

OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION is targeted to all engineer 

and engineer-related units.

PERSONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS are available for $24.00 

($33.60 foreign) per year by contacting the U.S. Government Publishing Office, P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, MO 

63197-9000.ADDRESS CHANGES for personal subscriptions should be sent to the U.S. Government Publlishing 

Office at the above address.

GERALD B. O’KEEFE

Administrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army

1634002
MANAGING EDITOR

Diana K. Dean

EDITOR

Rick Brunk

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Jennifer Morgan

Editorial Assistant

Cynthia S. Fuller

COMMANDANT

Brigadier General James H. Raymer

Volume 47 PB 5-17-1 Headquarters, Department of the Army January–April 2017

U.S. ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

January–April 2017 Engineer 1

FEATURES

06 Engineering the Perfect Cup of Coffee: The Army Engineer Partnership

With Starbucks Through the Training With Industry Program

	 By Chief Warrant Officer Two Michael L. Mears

09 Training With Industry: A Noncommissioned Officer Perspective

By Staff Sergeant Michael Ethridge

10 Disciplined Disobedience: Army Chief of Staff Highlights Ethics of 

Command 

 By Captain Jonathan L. Duran

12 Are You Ready for the Net Zero Logistics Base Camp?

 By Lieutenant Colonel James R. Lockridge II

16 Training Task Force Engineers for the Operation Inherent Resolve 

Advise-and-Assist Mission Set

By Major Randy M. Schultz

20 The Modern Army Bridger

By Captain Garrett A. Dean

24 Body, Mind, and Spirit: Soldier Fitness—The Beginning

By Colonel Martin Dale Snider, Lieutenant Colonel Charles B. Gray, and

	 Lieutenant Colonel Michael D. Helton

30 ISR-I: Your Chance to Be Heard

By First Lieutenant Shaun J. Levandoski

32 Homeland Operations: Army Warfighter Challenge No. 6

By Mr. Tony W. Sexton

34 Effective Task Force Integration: Lessons Learned From the National

Training Center

 By Lieutenant Colonel Brian P. Hallberg

40 Ready To Respond: The 911th Technical Rescue Engineer Company 

Offers Unique Assignments

 By First Lieutenant Michael A. Connors

46 Desert Construction

By Captain Jeffrey R. Walton

49 Revolutionizing Surveying Capabilities: Unlocking New Potential With 

the Global Positioning System 

By Mr. George H. Ohanian and Dr. Christina M. Bates

54 The Teaching Philosophy of the Engineer Regiment

 By Staff Sergeant Eric T. Bailey

57 Engineer Brigades Continue to Execute the Army Total Force Policy

 By First Lieutenant Timothy A. Cope and Chief Warrant Officer Three

Stephen A. Ahrens

ENGINEE

The Professional Bulletin of Army EngineersR

Front cover: Soldiers drive M1A2 Abrams Main Battle 

Tanks and M2A3 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles 

across the Imjin River on a floating bridge assembled by 

the 74th Multirole Bridge Company, 62d Engineer Battalion, 36th Engineer Brigade, as part of a 4-day, combined 

arms river-crossing exercise in South Korea in April 

2016. (U.S. Army photo)

Back cover: U.S. Army photos

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

By Brigadier General 

James H. Raymer

04 Lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major

Bradley J. Houston

05 Show the Way

By Chief Warrant Officer Five

	 John F. Fobish

29 Engineer Writer’s Guide

37 CTC Corner: The National Training Center: 

New and Improved

By Lieutenant Colonel Robert A. Hilliard

38 CTC Corner: The Engineer Company 

Commander’s Role During the Defense

By Captain Gregory D. Bascomb II,

Captain Anthony C. Funkhouser Jr., and 

Captain Scott E. King

39 CTC Corner: The Brigade Engineer 

Battalion Role at the Joint Readiness

Training Center

By Lieutenant Colonel Michael R.

	 Biankowski, Jr.

53 Book Review: The Guns at Last Light: 

The War in Western Europe, 1944–1945

Reviewed by Colonel Martin Dale Snider

60 GPO Order Form

61 Engineers’ Creed

43 Photos From the Field

44 Engineer Doctrine Update

52 Book Review: Caliphate: The History of an Idea

Reviewed by Captain Dale C. Braxton
 

2 Engineer January–April 2017

Clear the Way

Brigadier General James H. Raymer 

Commandant, U.S. Army Engineer School

W

hile I serve as the commandant of the Engineer School at 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, 

I continuously observe lieutenants, captains, and lieutenant colonels attending the Basic Officer Leader Course, 

the Captains Career Course, and the 

Precommand Course, respectively. I 

often think about what should be added 

to, or removed from, the programs of 

instruction to better educate and train 

these officers for future armed con t. 

Therein lies the ever-present military 

problem: How can we accurately envision the real future of armed 

at least something close to reality? 

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine

Command (TRADOC) Pamphlet (Pam)

525-3-1, The , 

identifies five characteristics of the future operating 

environment: 

■ Increased velocity and momentum of human interaction 

and events.

■ Potential for overmatch.

■ Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

■ Spread of advanced cyberspace and counterspace capabilities.

■ Demographics and operations among populations, in 

cities, and in complex terrain.1

While these characteristics are useful for imagining 

potential scenarios, we still need to delve deeper into our 

future thinking to account for the impacts of terrain and 

weather, to distinguish between what is and is not physically possible, to guard against personal and institutional 

bias in our estimate of the situation, and to avoid assumptions about ourselves and our potential adversaries that 

are not necessary or valid.

Past and present military thinkers have cautioned 

us against thinking in envisioning future war. 

The Polish banker Jean de Bloch noted the resistance of 

contemporary officers to thinking clearly

about the future of war in his 1901

essay, “The Wars of the Future,” stating, “The steadfastness with which the

military caste clings to the memory of a

state of things which has already passed

away is pathetic and honorable. Unfortunately, it is also costly and dangerous.”

2

 Senior officers have noted fallacies in the military thinking within their

armies. British Army Brigadier R. G. S.

Bidwell noted the David and Goliath,

, chess, bloodless operation, and fallacies.3

 U.S. 

Army Lieutenant General Herbert R.

McMaster identified the , Zero 

Dark 30, -

, and RSVP fallacies.4 It is not the 

purpose of this column to define these

conceptual fallacies, but rather to emphasize that they 

affect leaders of otherwise professional armies who become 

complacent about the study of, and on, the future 

of war and instead fall back on personal, organizational, 

and institutional experience as the template for the future.

One recent observation by a serious military thinker has 

weighed on my mind for several years due to its potential 

application to the U.S. Army as the Army emerges from 

Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom and 

enters into potential with a peer adversary. In his 

study of the 2006 Lebanon War, Matt M. Matthews quotes 

Israeli general and military theorist Shimon Naveh on the 

mindset of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) entering the 

“The point is, the IDF fell in love with what it was 

doing with the Palestinians. In fact, it became addictive. 

You know when you fight a war against a rival who’s by all 

means inferior to you, you may lose a guy here or there, but 

you’re in total control. It’s nice; you can pretend that you 

fight the war, and yet it’s not really a dangerous war. . . . I 

remember talking to five brigade commanders. . . . I asked 

them if they had an idea . . . what it meant to go into battle 

against a Syrian division? Did they have in mind what a 

“No matter how much we might wish for a ‘war to end all wars,’ as

our grandparents and great-grandparents did 100 years ago, one 

thing that we can state with certainty about the future is that American Soldiers will find themselves on a battlefield somewhere.”
 

January–April 2017 Engineer 3

barrage of 10 Syrian artillery battalions 

looked like?”5

Likewise, when I read Dr. Phillip 

A. Karber’s personal observations from 

the ongoing in Eastern Ukraine, 

I found his concluding comments on 

technology and tactics to be foreboding:

There is no single technological “silUkrainian War that ushered in a new 

areas, this experience underscores the tried and true wisd

already 

know by instinct—the Main Battle Tank 

is not dead, light infantry and light 

in droves, top attack is the 

way to go for anti-tank defense. But in 

are also warning 

signs of a new level of battlefield transparency that, crossfertilized with the fire intensity of area and synergized with augurs radical change in 

the wind, and it is an “ill wind that blows” on those who 

ignore its warning.6

I could lay out more examples; but this is a short column, so let’s cut to the chase: Are we biased to regard the 

ongoing missions in Afghanistan and Iraq as the only likely 

scenarios for combat operations, or do we think that the 

decisive-action training environment scenarios as executed 

by the opposing forces at the combat training centers accurately demonstrate the combat capabilities—such as indirect fire—of potential adversaries such as the Russians and 

North Koreans? These are questions that can reenergize 

each of us as professionals to continue to study, 

and challenge each other in the debate about the nature of 

future war. No matter how much we might wish for a “war to 

end all wars,” as our grandparents and great-grandparents 

did 100 years ago, one thing that we can state with certainty about the future is that American Soldiers will find 

themselves on a battlefield somewhere.

Endnotes:

1TRADOC Pam 525-3-1, The Concept: Win 

, 31 October 2014.

2Jean de Bloch, “The Wars of the Future,” The -

rary Review, September 1901, p. 305. Reprinted in Jean de 

Bloch: Selected Articles, U.S. Army Command and General 

Staff College, Combat Studies Institute, July 1993.

3R. G. S. Bidwell, “The Five Fallacies: Some Thoughts on 

British Military Thinking,” Royal United Services Institute 

Journal, Volume 112, Issue 645, February 1967, p. 54.

4Herbert R. McMaster, “Continuity and Change: The Army 

Operating Concept and Clear Thinking About Future War,” 

Military Review, March–April 2015, pp.12–14.

5Matt M. Matthews, “We Were Caught Unprepared: 

The 2006 Hezbollah-Israeli War,” The Long War Series– 

Occasional Paper 26, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, 

Combat Studies Institute Press, 2008, p. 63.

6Phillip A. Karber, “Lessons Learned from the RussoUkrainian War–Personal Observations (Draft),” The Potomac 

Foundation, 8 July 2015.

Private David Raymer (grandfather of Brigadier General Raymer) of Company L, 332d Infantry Regiment, after World War I.
 

Lead the Way

Command Sergeant Major Bradley J. Houston 

Regimental Command Sergeant Major

4 Engineer January–April 2017

G

reetings! With 2016 behind 

us, I would like to use this 

article to highlight a number 

 of accomplishments in the personnel 

domain of DOTMLPF-P—doctrine, 

organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities, and policy. The Engineer Personnel Development Office (EPDO) team 

at the U.S. Army Engineer School had 

a very busy year executing many of the 

initiatives necessary to move the Engineer Regiment forward in a fiscally 

austere environment.

The first major task that the EPDO 

team took on was the updating of engineer career maps and Department 

of the Army (DA) Pamphlet (Pam) 

600-25, U.S. 

Officer Professional Guide.

1

 Both of these 

products required lots of heavy lifting due to the size and 

complexity of Career Management Field (CMF) 12 (Engineer). The updated career maps were approved in March 

2016 and uploaded to the Army Career Tracker portal.2 To 

ensure that career maps and DA Pam 600-25 are updated 

together, this is the only place where the career maps are 

displayed. This eliminates the possibility that contradictory guidance is sent to engineer Soldiers or to a centralized selection board panel.

In April 2016, we received authorization for enlisted 

engineer Soldiers to wear the Essayons buttons on their 

service/dress and mess uniform jackets as an optional 

purchase item. This initiative was originally the idea 

of Command Sergeant Major Robert J. Wells during 

his tenure as the Engineer School command sergeant 

major; unfortunately, the idea was not supported at that 

time. EPDO, sensing an appetite for change in all things 

related to uniforms, brought this initiative to my attention and pushed the packet forward for approval. The 

approval will be incorporated into the next update to DA 

Pam 670-1, Guide to the Wear and Appearance of 

.

3

 This authorization supports our 

efforts to enhance esprit de corps and pride across the 

Engineer Regiment.

In conjunction with the release of centralized promotion board results throughout the year, the EPDO team 

conducts a deliberate records review of those selected for 

promotion. The team then publishes

the board analysis to the field, using

multiple delivery methods. Soldiers

who are serious about managing their

own careers can holistically use the

career maps, DA Pam 600-25, and the

promotion board analysis to ensure

that they are doing the right things to

get ahead.

In September 2016, the command 

sergeant major of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command was briefed

on a proposal to realign command sergeant major and sergeant major professional development proficiency codes

to allow for better talent management.

CMF 12 had inadvertently created an

inverted pyramid within the staff sergeant major population that made true

talent management impossible. We discovered that we had 

more positions for staff sergeants major with Additional 

Skill Identifier 7S (primary level sergeant major) than for 

those with Additional Skill Identifier 6S (initial-level sergeant major). This created an inverted pyramid that saw 

many U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy graduates go 

straight to the 7S level upon graduation. This did two things 

to the cohort: It accelerated the opportunity to work at the 

nominative sergeant major level without common rules for 

everyone, and it did not allow new sergeants major to build 

the requisite skills and knowledge at the initial level. We 

are hopeful that the newly aligned professional development proficiency codes will be on fiscal year 2018 

modified tables of organization and equipment.

Finally, we sent draft DA Pam 600-25 updates to the U.S. 

Army Training and Doctrine Command Assistant Chief of 

Staff for Personnel for review and concurrence. This culminated a 10-month endeavor to ensure that it aligns with 

engineer career maps and to give credit to NCOs who were 

doing what senior leaders said was important. The draft 

highlights several initiatives. It—

■ Clearly defines “key and developmental” opportunities.

■ Codifies qualifying time at 18 months.

■ Gives credit for rated service at the next higher rank. 

Upon its approval, we will send multiple messages to the 

field and post the document on the Army Career Tracker 

(continued on page 5)
January–April 2017 Engineer 5

Chief Warrant Officer Five John F. Fobish

Regimental Chief Warrant Officer 

Show the Way 

G

reetings all! As I write this, I 

hope that you all enjoyed the 

holiday season and that you 

made wonderful memories with Family 

and friends. These are exciting times 

all across the Army and the Engineer 

Regiment. We continue to make progress in efforts to position members of 

our cohort to successfully execute their 

technical expertise and to provide 

added value to their commanders as 

they support maneuver commanders 

today and into Force 2025 and Beyond.

This progress is being accomplished 

through our credentialing and certification program efforts and our strong 

partnerships with several industry 

leaders in the areas of construction 

engineering and geospatial engineering. There are outstanding Training With Industry (TWI) opportunities 

for construction engineering technicians (Military Occupational Specialty [MOS] 120A) with the Starbucks®

 Corporation and for geospatial engineering technicians (MOS 

125D) with the Environmental Systems Research Institute 

and the Harris CorporationTM in its Environment for Visualizing Images (ENVITM) software program. In this issue, 

I want to highlight the partnership that we have with 

the Starbucks Corporation and this year’s TWI participant. The current Engineer Regiment TWI Fellow, Chief 

Warrant Officer Two Michael L. Mears, is assigned to the 

Starbucks Corporate Architecture Department in Seattle, 

Washington. His article on page 6 will give some insight 

into the program and describe his experiences. 

Chief Warrant Officer Two Mears is 

a construction engineering technician

who has been in the Army for more than

16 years. He holds a master’s degree

from the University of Oklahoma, a

project management professional certification, and Leadership in EnergyEfficient Design Green Associate credentials. He is currently completing

an electrical engineering program

through Arizona State University. He

has served in prime power and vertical

construction units, as the commander

of a survey and design detachment,

and in an engineer brigade. His

follow-on assignment will be at the

U.S. Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, as an instructor.

Please read his article.

It is expected that this partnership with private industry will yield a positive technical impact on our cohort by 

providing experiences and opportunities that will deepen 

our technical expertise and help participants become agile, 

adaptive, and innovative as they solve the complex problems they face in the area of construction engineering. I am 

confident that this partnership will be a lasting one that 

proves to be of great benefit to the Engineer Regiment and 

the Starbucks Corporation. 

Until next time, please be safe and continue to do great 

things as the Engineer Regiment’s technical experts.

Essayons.

portal so that it can be used in conjunction with the career 

maps that are already there.

As shown, it has been an exciting, busy, and productive 

year within the personnel domain of DOTMLPF-P. I ask 

that senior leaders make sure that they are well versed 

on these changes and that they educate their engineer 

Soldiers on the impact they will have on upward mobility. 

I would also like to personally thank the Engineer School 

EPDO team for all of its efforts in driving change forward 

on behalf of the Engineer Regiment. Until next time,

Essayons!

Endnotes:

1DA Pam 600-25, U.S. Officer Pro11 September 2015.

2Army Career Tracker, <https://actnow.army.mil/>, 

accessed on 10 January 2017.

3DA Pam 670-1, Guide 

1 July 2015.
6 Engineer January–April 2017

B

efore detailing the immense opportunities involved 

with the Training With Industry (TWI) Program, let’s 

address the elephant in the room. Why should the 

Starbucks® Corporation be chosen for an engineering TWI 

Program? It is a coffee company, but it is also much more. 

The premise of the TWI Program is to leverage the successes 

and best practices of a civilian corporation or government 

agency while simultaneously drawing parallels between the 

host organization and the military. While these similarities do not always seem obvious, the program requires the 

ability to step outside of the engineering comfort zone and 

military structure and evaluate the corporation down to the 

process level. It is easy to qualify and quantify the training leveraged with companies like Caterpillar®

 Incorporated 

because they train students on familiar pieces of equipment. 

While training on how to make an awesome latte is not one 

of the desired outputs of the program with Starbucks, there 

is so much more that Starbucks has to offer. 

I

n fiscal year 2016, the Starbucks Corporation built 

a large number of new, company-owned stores and it 

shows no signs of slowing down construction in fiscal 

year 2017. Such a vast amount of global construction requires 

deliberate processes and keen levels of project management 

and construction management skills. A typical Starbucks 

construction manager is responsible for a large portfolio of projects during a fiscal year. Every Starbucks store 

is a snowflake; each store is different from the next. That 

requires heavy involvement from a construction manager to 

deliver design intent while also keeping the general contractors on track and staying within the prescribed budget. Each 

skill set required by a construction manager at Starbucks 

can be translated to a function in Army construction. The 

greatest learning points are how to effectively manage all 

aspects of a construction project across a vast portfolio of 

simultaneous projects dispersed across a vast region. Again, 

because of the nature of the work streams, the key takeaways are not always tangible tools that translate perfectly 

into Army functions. The takeaways are manifested in process evaluations and process improvements. Construction 

management, much like the Starbucks Corporation itself, is 

about people and the ability to influence them. Many times, 

that influence comes from a platform that lacks authority. 

This is a common theme at Starbucks and in the project 

management realm as a whole. 

T

he ability to influence without authority is arguably one the greatest learning points while working at Starbucks. The Army hierarchy of command 

structures makes it relatively simple to develop a new 

policy or program, brief it to the decision-making authority, and implement it upon approval. Once a commander 

says, “yes,” subordinate commands execute. Conversely, the 

Starbucks leadership structure is vastly different. Removing the military structure from a project management role 

requires employees to elevate their ability to market and 

sell the importance of their particular projects. Starbucks 

does not have an overarching playbook or standard operating procedure for the way things are done. Even if a program manager decided to roll out a new program, there is no 

single method of writing a policy change and ensuring that 

it is instantaneously obeyed. Because of this nuance of the 

business, cross-functional collaboration is the key to project 

management in a corporation such as Starbucks. Mutual 

consent and buy-in by all stakeholders are required to effectively implement new projects and program strategies. The 

By Chief Warrant Officer Two Michael L. Mears
January–April 2017 Engineer 7

type of collaboration required is vastly different

from that seen in the military. Rank plays

an immense role in a Soldier’s level of participation on a cross-functional team.

When the commander tells a Soldier

to go, the Soldier goes. At Starbucks, 

job position and pay grade are only 

a small factor in the level of an 

individual’s participation in a project. Project management at Starbucks requires a degree of finesse 

and interpersonal skills that can be 

lacking in many military personnel. 

Sustainability

S

ustainable building is a fundamental component of Starbucks construction. The Starbucks High-Performance

Build Team, a team within the Corporate Architecture 

Section, has developed a volume build program with the 

U.S. Green Building Counsel. By the end of calendar year 

2016, Starbucks had more than 1,200 Leadership in Energy 

Efficient Design (LEED®)-certified, company-owned stores. 

Sustainability is important to the Starbucks culture. The 

company is deeply focused on social awareness and environmental sustainability. The green-build approach is also 

proving to be economically sound as well. Sustainable building takes into account the life cycle costs of a product and 

the total cost of ownership. This approach allows for the 

evaluation of the product from cradle to grave. Many costs 

are negated when evaluating a product, based on the lowest-cost product that meets the immediate need. Sustainable life cycle assessments evaluate the costs to produce, 

transport, install, and dispose of a product across the projected life span. When evaluating the total cost of ownership 

through a product’s life cycle, green-building can produce 

cost savings of 2 to 5 percent. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is another key contributor to high-volume, LEEDcertified buildings in the green-build environment. With the 

construction world leaning more and more toward sustainable building, it makes sense for two of the top U.S. organizations to learn from each other. Furthermore, sustainable 

building reinforces the Department of Defense operational 

energy strategy by emphasizing the importance of sourcing 

renewable energy.

B

efore my arrival in Seattle, the Starbucks military 

recruiting manager evaluated my resume and communicated with store development directors to find 

the best position for me. Based on my construction management experience and project management professional credentials, I was assigned to a design and construction services 

team as a senior project manager. My primary role began to 

evolve once my electrical design experience became apparent. I was immediately thrust into the Standards Stewardship Team that manages all Starbucks design standards for 

new stores. My skill set provided the core corporate architecture team with a missing facet.

I

now manage a project to optimize the installation of energy 

management systems in all 

new Starbucks stores in the United 

States and Canada. The project 

is focused on decentralizing the 

installation vendor requirements 

and moving to a nimble model that 

gives construction managers flexibility in using multiple options for

installation vendors. The project team

is a cross-functional group that includes

construction, design, standards, and vendor relations. The work streams include

updated design standards, detailed construction drawings, and process reevaluations. I started the project in 

August and am currently piloting the program in the Pacific 

Northwest regional construction office to validate assumptions and new processes. Once the pilot phase is complete, 

I will roll out the new process nationwide, which will affect 

more than 460 new stores over the next year. As part of the 

standards of design work streams, I worked with the vendor engineer to develop updated detail drawings that will 

be included in all U.S. and Canadian new-store construction drawings. A gap had been identified in the construction field scope documents used by general contractors, and 

the updated design details filled that gap. Drawings that 

I developed will live on in the construction drawings of 

newly constructed Starbucks stores in the United States and 

Canada. I also provided updates to the Starbucks mechanical and electrical design specifications, which provide guidelines for all construction drawings. As a bridging solution to 

fill a knowledge gap between an experienced manufacturing 

vendor and inexperienced field contractors, I published an 

energy management systems technical support installation 

guide for general contractors. This guide is published on the 

Starbucks Store Development Resource Center for access by 

field partners and contractors.

T

he LEED team requested an evaluation of a mechanical and electrical design tool that it used to determine 

the impact of new programs on a store’s mechanical 

and electrical systems. In the evaluation, I discovered major 

electrical calculation errors and numerous logic errors. 

I developed a new tool that is focused on the base store 

design from a purely electrical design standpoint. Once 

I demonstrated how the new tool functions, the senior manager of the LEED team wanted to use the tool as part of the 

real estate negotiations process to determine what electrical 

service a landlord needs to provide before construction. The 

tool was valuable to the standards stewardship committee 

as a means to evaluate new equipment and to determine 
8 Engineer January–April 2017

ways it would affect the overall electrical demand of the 

existing service. The tool is currently available on the Starbucks Store Development Resource Center and is used by 

standards stewardship, facilities, and real estate partners.

T

ankless water heaters are an exceptional means 

of leveraging energy savings throughout the life 

cycle of a facility. Since Starbucks is a continuousimprovement organization, I was asked to prepare a cost 

analysis to input to a business plan focused on shifting from 

traditional storage tank water heaters to a tankless solution. On the surface, this seems like a simple business case. 

A typical gas water heater has an energy factor of 0.67, and 

new, high-efficiency gas tankless options offer energy factors 

as good as 0.96. However, jurisdictional health code requirements for retail food providers require the precise delivery 

of specific temperatures in a given time for certain fixtures. 

That requires multiple point-of-use heating solutions for 

critical supply locations, coupled with a centralized tankless 

solution for all noncritical components. The cost analysis 

takes into account a higher material cost for initial construction. However, the total cost of ownership is much lower 

because of energy savings realized over the depreciable 

life of the water heater. This particular project has allowed 

me to learn and explore a drastically different approach to 

design than typically experienced in troop construction.

L

EED professional credentials are mutually beneficial for the Starbucks Corporation and the Engineer 

Regiment. Design and Construction Services funded 

my LEED credentialing examination, and that practice 

might be continued for future participants. Starbucks also 

exposes the participant to real project work in the greenbuild environment. This allows a deeper understanding of 

sustainable building practices in a high-volume application. The experience and certification leveraged during this 

program enhances a participant’s ability to step into a sustainable building role with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and to be an active participant in the conversation of 

green building.

Starbucks has partnered with Arizona State University 

to provide educational benefits to its partners. The university offers a wide array of online degree programs that 

can be taken in conjunction with the TWI Program. Conversations about the potential for a small scholarship for 

TWI participants are underway with the corporate veteran 

recruiting team. Arizona State University now offers three 

quintessential degrees for construction engineering technicians (Military Occupational Specialty 120A):

■ Bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering.

■ Bachelor of science degree in construction management.

■ Master of science degree in construction management.

The programs are offered completely online, and the electrical engineering program is accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Incorporated.

Conclusion

A

TWI position with the Starbucks Corporation offers 

an exceptional opportunity for a construction engi- 

.neering technician to leverage real-world applications of project management, construction management, 

facilities management, and design. On the surface, it may 

seem that Starbucks is merely a coffee company. However, 

the store development process is riddled with parallel processes that would benefit any Army engineer. The design 

and construction processes at Starbucks are extremely fastpaced, which makes it difficult to jump in and understand 

the company systems and processes. The TWI Program at 

Starbucks is not only beneficial and rewarding, but also an 

eye-opening experience into construction and project management outside of standard military applications.

Chief Warrant Officer Two Mears is a construction engineering technician who has been in the for than 16 years. 

He holds a degree the University of a 

project professional certification, and LEED Green 

Associate credentials. He is an electrical engineering through Arizona State University. Upon -

tion of his TWI fellowship, his follow-on will be as 

an instructor at the U.S. Engineer School, Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri. 

“The [TWI] Program requires the ability to step outside 

of the engineering comfort zone and military structure 

and evaluate the corporation down to the process level.”
January–April 2017 Engineer 9

of the company instructor accreditation program for certified dealer instructors and demonstrator-instructors. The 

accreditation program is equivalent to the Army Foundation Instructor Facilitator Course, with the addition of two 

advanced courses. Exposure to the industry programs promotes the personal and professional growth of the TWI participant. The Caterpillar courses enable NCOs to enhance 

their supervisory and managerial skills while saving the 

Army money, since the corporation pays for travel and lodging. The experience will allow NCOs to transition into their 

follow-on assignments with a basic knowledge of their duty 

description, which will minimize the learning curve. 

T

he TWI experience with Caterpillar demonstrates the 

company goal of working directly with its client base. 

Although Caterpillar already has notable visibility 

among suppliers of Army equipment, the TWI Program 

enhances its presence in the Army engineer community. 

This type of relationship helps industry personnel to better 

understand the role of an NCO in the Army engineering field 

and help NCOs learn industry practices. It allows both to 

learn differences in jargon and cultures while acknowledging the depth of each other’s perspective. As a former Army 

instructor, I was able to share my experience with the way 

the Army trains students, which helped broaden the civilian 

understanding of Army training operations. This interaction 

allows Caterpillar developers to provide a better end product 

to the Army and to the commercial customer.

T

his platform will give NCOs the opportunity to integrate Army techniques into Caterpillar corporate culture and, in return, bring some Caterpillar methods 

of operations back to the Army. The chance to work directly 

with a private company will give NCOs the opportunity to 

develop a network outside of the military. Working in the 

Army for years, an equipment operator’s depth of knowledge 

is limited to military standards, which are not always consistent with civilian standards. Many Caterpillar employees 

have more than 15 to 20 years of experience in a given area. 

Fortunately, I was able to operate industrial equipment 

daily while being critiqued to improve my performance. 

Such critiques helped me improve my supervisory skills

By Staff Sergeant Michael Ethridge

I

n 2015, the Engineer Regiment extended the Training 

With Industry (TWI) Program and appointed its first 

noncommissioned officer (NCO) equipment operator to 

the broadening assignment. The experience and training are 

not typically available within the NCO Professional Development System. 

The TWI Program offers a broad exposure to managerial 

practices and industry procedures in corporate America by 

assigning military participants to work closely with civilian 

counterparts. The program consists of a 1-year assignment 

with a selected industry partner followed by a 2-year assignment at the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri. 

As a horizontal construction engineer (Military Occupational Specialty 12N), I was selected to participate in the 

TWI Program and assigned to work with the Defense and 

Federal Products section of Caterpillar, Incorporated®, at its 

Mossville, Illinois, facility. The plan called for me to work in 

each of the company’s specialized groups at the Caterpillar 

Edwards Learning and Demonstration Center from August 

2015 to September 2016. 

S

ince the recent reduction in Army deployments, the 

TWI Program has allowed each component to broaden 

the development of its senior NCOs by enabling them 

to work in their chosen field at minimal cost to the Army. 

Any cost associated with the program is incurred by the private corporation. The price for a course provided by Caterpillar ranges from $1,000 to $1,500 per person. The U.S. Army 

Human Resources Command reviews the amount to ensure 

that it remains within the legal limits of acceptable payments from nongovernment sources for expenses incurred 

while in an official capacity.

As part of the program, I traveled to Arizona to attend 

the corporation’s annual Certified Dealer Instructor Conference, which included sessions presented by product application specialists for Caterpillar’s major product groups. 

During the conference, I had the opportunity to operate 

the latest track-type tractor and use its integrated technology, which improves operator ability to complete a project close to finishing grade. In addition to the conference, 

I completed three 40-hour instructor courses that are part 

(continued on page 15)
10 Engineer January–April 2017

D

isciplined disobedience that accomplishes the commander’s intent should not be ignored; but at times, 

should be expected from a professional subordinate. 

Army Chief of Staff General Mark A. Milley, speaking at the 

2016 Association of the U.S. Army Annual Meeting and Exposition, said that Soldiers should have “the willingness to disobey specific orders.”1

 This embodies the idea that Army professionals must be willing to do what it takes, ethically and 

legally, to win battles and wars. The idea of the Army Chief 

of Staff supporting any level of disobedience to orders and 

choosing not to support all the tenets of unified land operations highlights the complex relationship between military 

law and customs on one hand and winning the Nation’s wars 

on the other. General Milley’s message supports the unified 

land operations tenets of integration, adaptability, lethality, and depth, but not that of synchronization. 

By understanding the framework of the tenets and recognizing that current ground conditions are probably different 

from what is perceived at the tactical operations center, we 

see that synchronization transforms to coordinated, disciplined initiative.

Fighting and winning the Nation’s wars are the main 

purposes of all branches of the military. Unity of effort is 

an overarching idea under which every military action is 

supposed to fit, but it must be fundamentally examined to 

understand what it means. Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Operations, defines unified action as “a comprehensive approach 

that synchronizes, coordinates and, when appropriate, integrates military operations with the activities of other governmental and NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] to 

achieve unity of effort.”2 Unified action drives each branch’s 

principles to unify its diverse capabilities to achieve unity 

of effort. The Army doctrinal perspective is that unity of 

effort is achieved through the unified land operation tenets 

of flexibility, integration, adaptability, lethality, depth, 

and synchronization. 

By Captain Jonathan L. Duran
January–April 2017 Engineer 11

In General Milley’s speech, he described the battlefield 

of the future and how Soldiers must anticipate situations in 

which subordinates cannot contact their headquarters due 

to enemy jamming and hacking. General Milley maintains 

that Soldiers and leaders in such situations must be willing 

to disobey some orders. Future conditions will require decentralized execution and the exercise of mutual trust within 

the team. In his book, The Mission, the Men, and Me, Pete 

Blaber sums up this idea in the lesson of always “listen[ing] 

to the guy on the ground.”3 Naturally, this results in more 

control for the commander on the ground than the overall 

commander, thus transforming a specifically synchronized 

plan into coordinated, disciplined initiative.

Due to the developing situation, the tenet of synchronization may become impossible to achieve and the ground commander might have to disobey orders to be successful. This 

characteristic should be expected from professional subordinates, who must remain focused on achieving the commander’s intent at all times. The prudent risk accepted by the 

commander is not limited to physical injury. It recognizes 

that some degree of control could be exchanged for a better 

opportunity for mission success. Just as mission variables 

change the chosen course of action, the physical battlefield 

of the future will drive the Army to learn and force its publications to evolve. The evolution of Army tactics, techniques, 

and procedures is constant and necessary for the U.S. Army 

to lead the world.

Although the evolution of tactics, techniques, and procedures is practical, Army Doctrine Publication 3-0, Unified 

Land Operations, defines synchronization as “the arrangement of military actions in time, space, and purpose to produce maximum relative combat power at a decisive place 

and time.”4 How Soldiers, weapon systems, and equipment 

are arrayed on the battlefield at a given time must be mutually supportive to achieve the commander’s desired end 

state. Synchronization is crucial for combined arms operations and is paramount during the fundamental functions 

of breaching operations: suppression, obscuration, securing, 

reduction, and assault. All offensive characteristics hinge on 

the organization and efficiency of breaching efforts to accomplish the mission and gather mass on the objective. 

Synchronization is pivotal in all operations, cementing its 

place as a unified land operations tenet. However, realizing 

that synchronization is crucial for any mission, the environment that General Milley described is one of volatile mission variables. This may require professionals to disobey 

outdated orders, exercise disciplined initiative, and shift 

planned synchronization to coordinated execution from initiatives. No battle in the American Revolutionary War was 

ever completely synchronized, but goals were always coordinated to ensure unity of effort. This is why there are redundancies throughout every operation, from dual priming and 

initiating explosives to the succession of command. For this 

reason, leaders always plan for logistical coordination, not 

synchronization.

For every idealized plan of execution, there is an execution that suffers from an idealized plan. General George S. 

Patton Jr.’s maxim that “A good plan, violently executed 

now, is better than a perfect plan executed next week,”5

epitomizes the need for coordinated, disciplined initiatives 

rather than synchronized efforts. Although General Milley’s 

statement reinforces most unified land operation tenets, it 

does not validate the tenet of synchronization—nor should 

it, since no plan survives contact with reality.

Endnotes:

1Sydney J. Freedberg, “Miserable, Disobedient and Victorious: Gen. Milley’s Future US Soldier,” 5 October 2016, 

<http:breakingdefense.com>, accessed on 9 January 2017.

2Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Operations, 11 August 2011.

3Pete Blaber, The Mission, the Men, and Me: Lessons 

Delta Force , Berkley Caliber, New York 

City, New York, 2 December 2008.

4Army Doctrine Publication 3-0, Unified Land Operations, 

10 October 2011.

5The Official Web site of General George S. Patton Jr., 

<http://www.generalpatton.com/quotes/>, accessed on 9 January 2017.

Captain Duran is a student in the Engineer Captains Career 

Course at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. His previous assignA, 29th Engineer Battalion, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. He is a graduate of the 

U.S. School, the U.S. 

the U.S. and the Sapper Leader Course. 

Captain Duran holds a bachelor of science degree in -

“The Army doctrinal perspective is that unity of effort is 

integration, adaptability, lethality, depth, and synchronization.”
12 Engineer January–April 2017

I

n the fall of 2005, Company E and the rest of 2d Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, was tasked with denying 

improvised explosive device emplacement along a section of Iraqi Highway 1 outside Tikrit that was frequently 

attacked by enemy forces. There were 27 improvised explosive device attacks in October in our area of operations 

and another 15 that were prevented. The attacks nearly 

shut down the main supply route that was responsible for 

all materiel going from Baghdad to Mosul. In one night, 

20-vehicle U.S. military convoys passed our location every 

15 minutes, carrying supplies to forward operating bases 

north of our position. Since that night, I have wondered if 

there was a way to reduce the U.S. logistics tail so that the 

Army could focus more on its mission and less on resupply. 

According to an Army estimate from fiscal year 2008, the 

approximate average annual load allocation, by volume, for 

in-theater convoys for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom was— 

■ 50 percent fuel.

■ 20 percent water.

■ 30 percent other.

What if the U.S. military did not need fuel or water deliveries? How could this be achieved? Could the military reduce 

its logistics tail by 70 percent? Could hundreds of lives be 

saved in the next war if such large shipments of fuel and 

water were not required? 

“High fuel use imposes risks to the mission and to each of us. In fact, nearly 80 percent of ground supply movements 

are composed of fuel, and we have lost many lives delivering fuel to bases around Afghanistan.”

—General David H. Petraeus1

By Lieutenant Colonel James R. Lockridge II

This solar panel array allowed a 60-kilowatt generator to be turned off.
January–April 2017 Engineer 13

Energy security is paramount to mission success. America has the most technologically advanced military in the 

world, but its technology requires energy. Soldiers now read 

maps from electronic tablets, not pieces of paper. They navigate with digital trackers instead of compasses. They communicate with encrypted systems that require high energy 

loads to operate and to keep cool. The list of items that 

require energy includes—

■ Unmanned aerial vehicles.

■ Weapon systems.

■ Air conditioning and heating for tents.

■ Security lighting.

■ Detection systems.

■ Indoor lighting.

■ Personal electronic devices.

The military requirement for energy is not disappearing 

and will probably actually increase. Does this necessarily 

equate to more fuel deliveries, or is there a better way?

From 2012 to 2015, the Office of the Command Engineer 

for U.S. Special Operations Command, Africa, developed a 

net zero logistics base camp model to reduce or eliminate 

the military logistics tail in Africa. With a limited budget, 

no logistics unit on the continent for support, and the likelihood that its logistics lines would be cut or compromised 

at any time, the command needed to devise a new way of 

doing business. A fuel delivery to a deployed special operations team illustrates the problem. A pickup truck carrying 

two 55-gallon drums arrived with fuel that the team desperately needed to power its generators so that they could 

work, communicate, and operate air conditioning systems, 

allowing them to rest during times of intense heat. The 

delivery driver had been on the road for 3 days and had been 

stopped by numerous groups of outlaws or corrupt local officials, all of whom siphoned off part of the fuel supply. By 

the time he arrived, he had the equivalent of only one full 

barrel of fuel. Thieves could have taken more of the fuel, or 

the driver could have been killed or captured along the way. 

The team’s energy supply was at risk, which put the mission 

itself at risk. Deploying more Service members to secure 

the logistics routes or paying to have fuel own in would be 

cost-prohibitive and might have caused the mission to 

be cancelled. 

I

n the spring of 2015, U.S. Special Operations Command, Africa, conducted its annual Flintlock Exercise in N’Djamena, Chad. To prepare for the exercise, 

a team of 30 U.S. Navy Seabees from Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14 set up a temporary encampment to 

support U.S. forces for the exercise. The camp would later 

be used to house a special operations team while training 

Chadian partner forces. With Boko Haram fighters actively 

engaging with America’s partners from Niger, Chad, and 

Cameroon, the logistics tail needed to be eliminated or operations would be at risk of being forced to halt. With support 

from the Army Rapid Equipping Force, U.S. forces secured 

Resupply Cycle
14 Engineer January–April 2017

two portable solar panel systems and energy-efficient tents. 

The highly energy-efficient tent set, known as a , 

requires 50 percent less energy to cool than the tents from 

the Seabee unit stockpiles. Even with these tents, hundreds of gallons of fuel were needed daily to run generators, 

primarily to cool the tents as daily temperatures typically 

exceeded 110 degrees. Seabee electricians began working on 

ways to cut energy demands.

T

he peak power demand of the base was 120 kilowatts, but inefficient spot generation was supplying 

240 kilowatts. Establishing a miniature power grid 

immediately resulted in savings of more than 200 gallons 

of fuel per day, or more than 80,000 gallons per year. It also 

allowed two 60-kilowatt generators to be turned off, making them available for redundancy. Next, two solar panel 

systems were set up. All the required batteries and inverters were included in the kits. Once the panels were set up 

and plugged in, they started charging the batteries, which 

supplied power to the camp. The panels provided 60 kilowatts, allowing another 60-kilowatt generator to be turned 

off. Total savings then equaled 330 gallons of fuel per day, or 

120,450 gallons per year. 

After reducing fuel consumption by 75 percent, engineers 

looked elsewhere for cuts to the logistics tail. Could trash 

pickup be eliminated? Was there a way to provide even more 

energy and reduce fuel demand even further? We started 

with water. 

Drinking water. If reliance on bottled water were eliminated, the logistics tail could be substantially reduced, 

while force protection was increased. It cost less than 

$10,000 to have a contractor dig a well, eliminating the 

need for bulk water delivery. A water purifier was shipped 

in to provide clean, safe water for showers without the danger of bacterial infections. Next to arrive at the temporary 

camp was a water distiller of the sort used by U.S. embassies in Africa to provide clean drinking water. The total 

cost for clean drinking water, including the well, water 

purifier, and water distiller, was less than $60,000. Water 

delivery and bottled water had been costing $30,000 per 

month, so the camp began saving money in 60 days. The 

savings will amount to $360,000 over the next year. Combine that with $500,000 in fuel savings, and the savings 

add up quickly for a small, temporary camp that serves 

fewer than 50 personnel. Besides the financial savings, 

the camp now has secure water resources, providing the 

option to continue the mission even if the logistics tail is 

compromised. Another benefit is the ability to provide clean 

drinking water to partner nation forces at almost no added 

cost. In a country where clean drinking water is scarce and 

water-borne illness is a leading cause of death among children, this capability helps build credibility and buy-in with 

the local population. 

Wastewater. Engineers turned to private industry to 

solve the problem of wastewater. Over the past 2 years, 

they worked with private companies to develop a portable 

treatment facility. In October 2014, a facility that allows 

the camp to fully treat gray and black water and discharge 

that meets U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

standards for sewage discharge was purchased. American 

forces are now able to discharge their wastewater outside 

the camp without the cost or security concerns of having a 

truck arrive daily to remove the wastewater. The 

is a higher quality than the river that borders the city of 

N’Djamena. Potential future uses of this discharge range 

from supporting agriculture to watering livestock to quickly 

reprocessing into clean drinking water. 

Wind. By 2017, Kenya will receive 15 percent of its 

total power from wind energy systems. In the United 

States, wind energy is approaching almost 4 percent of all energy produced. This technology is the 

fastest-growing renewable energy system in the world. It 

is time to find a way to harness wind energy with portable 

systems that can be easily employed in field conditions. A 

system, which could produce 50 kilowatts of power, is currently being tested. That much power is enough to turn off 

the last generator at the camp in N’Djamena, allowing it to 

be completely fuel-independent. 

Energy efficiency. Another way to reduce energy 

requirements would be to make use of facilities that were 

more energy efficient. Building in Africa is not only expensive; it is almost impossible due to new construction funding limitations. The camp needed a facility with solid walls 

that would increase energy efficiency and allow that last 

generator to be turned off. What we discovered was remarkable. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been testing 

compressed-earth technology and recently released designs 

that are safe and provide substantial ballistic protection. 

The cost of a compressed-earth brick machine is less than 

$50,000, and the materials used by the machine are the 

earth that surrounds a camp site, plus reinforcing steel. 

Replacing tents with new, compressed-earth block structures would increase energy efficiency by 100 percent, 

reduce the energy requirement by another 60 kilowatts, and 

allow the last generator to be turned off. Earlier, this article 

discussed the benefit of providing clean drinking water to 

the local populace. Similar benefits to training the local 

populace to use the machine to make bricks for U.S. forces 

would be realized; the local populace could be paid to use 

the bricks to build facilities at a fraction of the cost of traditional structures. The machine could then be given to the 

people. This approach could win over the population, reduce 

the logistics tail, and create quality encampments for U.S. 

Service members.

Trash disposal. Seventy-five percent of the trash at 

the N’Djamena base camp consisted of plastic water bottles 

or packaging from meals, ready to eat. With the introduction of a clean drinking system, the plastic-bottle problem 
January–April 2017 Engineer 15

was eliminated. The next question was whether the rest 

of the trash could be burned and turned into energy. Private industry and the Department of Defense Operational 

Energy Program are working on systems to reduce energy 

across the force. The “Joint Waste-to-Energy Group” reports 

to the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs and is looking for ways to 

convert waste to energy. While small-scale, waste-to-energy 

incinerators are not coming onto the market soon, heat from 

the incinerators could save energy by providing hot water 

and heat on cold desert nights. By simply running a water 

line next to the incinerator, water could be heated without 

turning on a generator or gas-fired heater. 

Conclusion

I

t is clear that U.S. forces are ready for the net zero base 

camp model. While the products and techniques may 

vary, the ideology of net zero works everywhere. It is 

time to eliminate or reduce the logistics tail. In a budgetconstrained environment where we face an ever-growing 

global threat network that can exist anywhere, we must find 

a way to become financially responsible and reduce our vulnerabilities. The costs savings are significant. In our model 

with only 50 personnel, we produced a savings of almost 

$1 million per year in fuel and the elimination of bottled 

water, wastewater, water delivery, and waste removal. This 

model would not have been feasible immediately after the 

United States invaded Iraq in 2003; but by 2004, it could 

have been used in almost every location. Using a savings 

of $1 million per 50 Soldiers as a baseline, it is possible to 

conservatively estimate a savings of more than $2 billion 

(and the lives of hundreds of Soldiers) per year through 

the implementation of a net zero base camp model. Add in 

the years 2005–2009, and savings approach the $10 billion 

mark, based on applying the net zero logistics model to only 

100,000 of the Service members who were on the ground at 

any time between the years 2005 to 2009.

We need to secure energy and water resources in a volatile environment. More importantly, we must never repeat 

the logistical demands created during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, which resulted in 

hundreds of casualties. The number of convoys bringing fuel 

and water was too high and too expensive and represented 

an unwise decision in regard to safeguarding our most precious resource—the Service members of the U.S. military. 

Are you ready for the net zero base camp model?

Endnote:

1David H. Petraeus, Memorandum to U.S. Forces– 

Afghanistan, 7 June 2011.

Lieutenant Colonel Lockridge serves as Chief of Construction 

for U.S. He previously served -

neer for U.S. Special Operations He holds 

a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering The Citadel and 

degree in business University. He is 

also a graduate of the U.S. Marine Corps Expeditionary Warfare School.

by changing the way I managed the use of equipment 

and techniques during projects. The knowledge gained 

from the TWI Program will help NCO participants apply 

a new level of performance in the field of engineering. 

Furthermore, by networking with civilian professionals, 

NCOs will establish a direct connection to the commercial 

industry. From the start of the assignment, the Caterpillar 

staff ensured that I was part of the team by including me in 

all events and meetings. Between training sessions, there 

were countless opportunities to talk with clients, which 

gave insights into ways to start and maintain a small business after a career with the Army. This program will help 

guide NCOs to further their studies and experience in the 

realm of technology.

T

he expansion of the TWI Program to enlisted members is a significant step toward the broadening 

opportunities that will enhance the career of an 

NCO. As the first NCO to pilot the program, I helped make 

some adjustments to the program. First, I outlined possible objectives to help future NCO participants understand 

what to expect from the TWI experience. Next, I identified baseline courses, such as the Six Sigma certifications 

and Caterpillar’s Instructor Accreditation Program, that 

will benefit participants in their next assignment and 

help them achieve their personal goals. The TWI Program 

should be sustained within the Engineer Regiment. It provides a solid baseline of fundamentals for an NCO’s followon assignment at the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence Directorate of Training and Leader Development.

Staff Sergeant Ethridge is a training developer in the DirecSupport Center of Excellence. He is a graduate of the Engineer 

Senior Leader Course and is working toward an associate’s 
.

16 Engineer January–April 2017

A

s the 39th Brigade Engineer Battalion (BEB), 2d Brigade Combat Team (BCT), 101st Airborne Division 

(Air Assault), prepared for its deployment to Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR), it quickly became apparent 

that every member of Task Force Strike would need to be a 

proven force multiplier due to the constraints of a theaterwide force manning cap. The cap limited the BEB and BCT 

from deploying their full complement of engineer enablers 

to operate along the lines of engineer support. The BEB 

staff realized that one of the most effective ways to provide 

these lines of engineer support was by placing a task force 

engineer inside each battalion level advise-and-assist (A&A) 

headquarters. This article discusses the methodology that 

the 39th BEB used to select and train these critical staff 

enablers before the OIR deployment.

Selection of Task Force Engineers

T

o better understand the role of the task force engineer during the 39th BEB deployment, it’s best to 

begin with the Task Force Strike adviser framework. Based on current policies, the Combined Joint Forces 

Land Component Command–Operation Inherent Resolve 

(CJFLCC–OIR) operates under a force manning cap that 

limits its only BCT from fully deploying its formation to 

the combined joint operating area. As the BCT planned 

the task organization for the deployment, each battalion 

level headquarters expected to partner and conduct A&A 

operations with an Iraqi army division level headquarters 

preparing to retake key cities along the Euphrates and 

Tigris River Valleys. Based on the operational environment observed during the site survey before deployment, 

By Major Randy M. Schultz
.

January–April 2017 Engineer 17

expected the task force A&A teams to advise their 

Iraqi counterparts on mechanical and explosive 

breaching operations, wet-gap crossings, survivability operations, and counter improvised explosive device (C-IED) operations. Task force commanders also expected to receive key BEB engineer 

enablers as resources were shifted to support the 

decisive operation. These conditions required the 

inclusion of a task force engineer in each of the 

staff organizations. 

With slight variations by individual battalions, 

adviser staff organizations were composed of only 

24–30 Soldiers. This limit meant that task force 

commanders critically weighed the value of staff 

members to ensure that each vital position was 

filled with an officer who was able to operate at a 

high level. The BEB was just as deliberate in its 

methodology for choosing its task force engineers. 

Acting in his role as the brigade engineer, the BEB 

commander carefully selected engineer lieutenants 

who were finishing or still serving successful stints 

as platoon leaders or executive officers. The temperaments of the supported task force and the supporting engineer staff officer were also taken into 

account to ease any friction from integrating into 

a new staff. With the prospective task force engineers identified, the BEB armed these officers with 

the tools they needed to provide expertise across the 

lines of engineer support 

A

s BEB leaders prioritized how the unit 

would spend its limited time before deploy 

.ing, the commander realized that the battalion junior engineer officers were not proficient in 

many of the requisite planning tasks they needed in order to 

succeed on a task force staff. The battalion had just completed an intensive training program to prepare for a 

decisive-action rotation and needed to reorient its training 

priorities toward the deployment. As the brigade engineer, 

the BEB commander developed a course that would provide 

the BCT with trained and proficient task force engineers who 

were capable of providing engineer expertise at the battalion 

level. This course would provide the battalion junior engineer officers with the skills needed to participate in battalion 

level planning on offensive and defensive operations and on 

OIR-focused tasks. Using a mixture of classroom instruction 

(led by engineer company commanders and staff officers) and 

hands-on practical exercises, the engineer lieutenants were 

taught new doctrinal concepts and given an opportunity to 

apply them. The offense and defense periods of instruction 

culminated in a tactical exercise without troops that gave 

students the opportunity to walk a notional engagement area 

plan and discuss how they would attack and defend key terrain. The students divided into groups, developed plans, and 

back-briefed their plans to a larger audience. The task force 

engineer academy provided exceptional “bang for the buck” 

to the BEB and larger BCT formations. 

The final BEB-led training event for the lieutenants 

focused on the conduct of a wet-gap crossing. The BEB 

expected to A&A the Iraqi army on the conduct of this critical operation during its attack across the Tigris River. The 

BEB spent 1 day refreshing the lieutenants on the doctrinal 

basics of a wet-gap crossing, focusing on the staff planning 

and preparation aspect, and then brought in bridging subject matter experts to discuss tactics, techniques, and procedures that advisers could relay to their future Iraqi army 

counterparts. The lieutenants were also tasked to complete 

either antiterrorism officer or contracting officer representative certification so that they could provide a critical enabling 

function to their supported task force. The investment in the 

professional development of the junior engineer officers soon 

had an impact on the maneuver task forces during the BCT 

culminating training event.

This A&A-centric command post exercise provided the 

first opportunity for the freshly trained BEB task force engineers to integrate themselves into another battalion staff. 

Though the training scenario wasn’t optimally designed 

to allow task force level engineer planning to be executed, 

the engineer officers were charged with finding a way to 

prove to the task force commander that they were key staff 

A bridging adviser assigned to Company A, 39th Brigade Engineer 

Battalion, Task Force Strike, points to the far side of a river to indicate Iraqi positions during an A&A mission in northern Iraq.
18 Engineer January–April 2017

enablers. Each of the engineers exemplified the “can do” 

nature of the Engineer Regiment and filled in as battle captains and key leader engagement managers while providing 

engineer expertise when needed during planning. One critical result from integrating the task force engineers was that 

the officers earned the confidence of their supported units and 

were allocated a critical staff manning position for the deployment. This early integration of the engineer staff officers 

meant that the maneuver commanders fought to retain these 

positions as the BCT brought its deployed task organization 

within the manning limits. It also ensured that the task force 

engineers would hit the ground running once deployed.

Task Force Engineer Experiences in OIR

U

pon arrival in the CJFLCC-OIR combined joint 

operations area, task force engineers integrated 

with the Task Force Strike artillery battalion and 

two battalion A&A teams and filled the assistant brigade 

engineer role on the BCT staff. They planned and executed 

survivability, general engineering, mobility, and C-IED 

operations as advisers and in support of BCT priorities. An 

engineer lieutenant who supported the fires battalion serves 

as an example of this integration. The lieutenant, who had 

previously supported the battalion as a light-equipment platoon leader during an earlier training exercise, was charged 

with all of the force protection efforts on an austere firebase. 

After completing a relief in place, he began planning the 

employment of a task-organized light-equipment squad and 

rapidly began employing the squad to complete force protection and quality-of-life improvements. The task force engineer led efforts to execute expeditionary dust abatement and 

trail construction, helicopter landing zone construction, and 

bunker construction and served as the contracting officer’s 

representative for the eventual closure of the base. Use of 

his engineering expertise wasn’t limited to within the camp; 

he also developed a survivability plan to protect artillery 

pieces and crews during multiple gun raids to support Iraqi 

Army river-crossing operations. The lieutenant was also 

able to effectively leverage contracted construction assets 

to support his attached light-equipment section. His contracting officer representative training and knowledge as 

an engineer allowed him to effectively oversee the Kurdish 

construction company and ensure that it was fulfilling the 

requirements of the contract. 

In contrast to this experience, the engineer lieutenant 

supporting the task force operating in Baghdad focused 

most of his initial engineering effort on the military decisionmaking process and conducting terrain analysis, ultimately 

resulting in a military combined obstacle overlay. As this 

A&A task force mission changed, the task force engineer 

shifted his focus to facilitating Iraqi security force C-IED 

operations, assessing Iraqi security checkpoints, and assessing construction of the Baghdad wall that was designed to 

protect the civilian population from Islamic State of Iraq 

and the Levant threats. The lieutenant was also selected as 

the task force protection officer.

The final task force engineer experience to be discussed 

highlights the importance of selecting the right personnel 

to fill these critical positions. Within the first month of the 

deployment, the BCT was without its assistant brigade 

engineer and the position could not be backfilled internally. 

Thanks to the availability of its task force engineers, the 

BEB was able to fill the position with an engineer lieutenant

from a task force that was not expected to have a large 

An Iraqi army captain with an Iraqi security forces bridge regiment displays a diagram of bridging operations during an A&A mission in northern Iraq. 
January–April 2017 Engineer 19

engineering requirement. Upon assignment to the BCT 

staff, this officer quickly integrated herself and led a number of critical staff efforts to support the Iraqi army attack 

across the Tigris River. She also headed the BCT protection line of effort and was critical to the success of the BCT 

protection working group. A significant basing requirement 

was also integrated into the BCT protection line of effort. 

The assistant brigade engineer became the project lead for 

a number of critical BCT-directed construction projects and 

was able to apply the tenets of construction management. 

Finally, she was a critical planner in the BCT operation to 

reconnoiter, reoccupy, and reconstruct the former Iraqi airbase at Qayyarah. 

T

.alent management. The experiences of the 39th 

BEB during its preparation for, and conduct of, 

operations during OIR offer a number of important 

lessons learned that other leaders can apply to their formations. First, as with many army operations, talent management is critical to success. Not every officer is prepared to 

step into an infantry battalion staff and succeed; the ability 

of the BEB leaders to select the right lieutenants for each 

task force ensured that each task force engineer was up to 

the challenge as mission requirements shifted. Technical 

and tactical competency on engineer tasks at the platoon 

and company levels, the ability to integrate into a maneuver battalion staff, personal resiliency, strong interpersonal 

skills, and maturity were common attributes selected across 

all of the task force engineers. 

Focused training. Selecting the right officers was only 

the first step in the process. Though strong officers find a 

way to accomplish the mission, investing a modicum of time 

in training these officers on prioritized, mission-focused 

skills guarantees their success once they integrate into 

the task force staff. As training time is a finite and everdecreasing resource in the months before a deployment, the 

BEB staff must also discipline itself to select only the most 

relevant tasks for training. Each hour spent in the task force 

engineer academy is an hour that these officers are not with 

their platoons or company operations sections. The 39th 

BEB achieved its goals by limiting the course to the length 

of a single training week and scheduling it for a period of 

time when no platoon-level-or-above collective training 

was planned.

Force protection emphasis. One common factor in 

the experiences of all of the task force engineers was their 

involvement in the BCT force protection line of effort. This 

spanned the spectrum from planning and supervising force 

protection upgrades to tracking critical force protection 

equipment to construction contract oversight to basic construction management. Involvement in this area led to the 

task force engineer’s involvement in the theater construction approval and management process. Based on after 

action review comments, this area is worth more emphasis 

through additional leader development or training to better 

prepare the task force engineers.

To enhance the integration of its officers into the task 

force staff and justify their inclusion in a manning-capped 

formation, it was important for the BEB officers to arrive 

with skills and certifications that would fill anticipated 

capabilities gaps. Providing these capabilities to the task 

force ensured that the engineer officers were recognized as a 

valuable addition to the supported staff. Similarly, integrating the engineer officers into their supported staffs as early 

as possible enhances their value.

In terms of the operational employment of the task force 

engineers, including these personnel in each task force staff 

ensured that the BCT had the appropriate subject matter 

experts to plan critical force protection, general engineering, mobility, and C-IED operations. Having an officer with 

each task force also provided the BEB—and ultimately the 

BCT—the to weight decisive operations with the 

appropriate engineer officers. 

Conclusion

W

hen properly selected and trained, these task force 

engineers provide the capacity to lead planning 

and to synchronize efforts along the engineer lines 

of support. As seen through the experiences of the 39th BEB, 

the employment of task force engineers across the BCT formation is an effective way to embed engineer expertise into 

formations even during deployments with force manning 

constraints. Their inclusion in the BCT A&A staffs guaranteed that engineer subject matter experts contributed to 

critical force protection, assured mobility, and guided general engineering operations that ensured success during an 

A&A-centric deployment. 

Major Schultz is the executive officer for the 39th BEB, 2d 

BCT, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault). He is a graduate of 

the U.S. and General Staff College, the Engineer Captains Career Course, and the Engineer Basic Officer 

Leader Course. He holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering 

the U.S. Military Point, New York, and a 

degree in education Kansas State University. He 
20 Engineer January–April 2017

I

n April 2016, 15 members of the 502d Multirole Bridge 

Company, 19th Engineer Battalion, deployed to Iraq 

to support Operation Inherent Resolve. Assigned as a 

division level asset to Combined Joint Forces Land Component Command–Iraq, they became the bridge training team 

(BTT). Their mission was to train the sole Iraqi army (IA) 

bridge regiment on the employment of the floating improved 

ribbon bridge (IRB) and the fixed Acrow® modular bridge 

system. The BTT included two commissioned officers, nine 

noncommissioned officer (NCO) bridge crewmembers (Military Occupational Specialty 12C), and four NCO maintainers. Upon arriving in Iraq, they learned that the Iraqi bridge 

regiment would play a key role in Operation Valley Wolf, 

a shaping operation with the objective of seizing Qayyarah 

Airfield West in northern Iraq.

Having identified the need for a rapidly emplaced bridge 

across the Tigris River, the unit focused on training with the 

IRB and maintaining its equipment, including—

■ Common bridge transporters.

■ Bridge erection boats.

■ IRB interior and ramp sections. 

Based alongside the Iraqi bridge unit at Camp Taji, the 

BTT quickly established relationships with its Iraqi counterparts and, with their input, laid out a plan that would 

eventually lead to mission success.

T

he first major challenge confronting the BTT was 

the disrepair of the Iraqi equipment, especially the 

bridge erection boats. Without these boats, no bridge 

could be emplaced. Faced with a lack of tools, parts, and 

knowledge, most of the boats had become non-missioncapable since they were received in 2012. By sourcing a 

single aluminum welder and exercising some strategic, controlled substitution within the fleet, the BTT maintenance 

team returned nearly half of the boats to mission-capable 

status without any available repair parts. The team members’ experience and knowledge proved invaluable in helping the IA to bridge a gap that was wider than expected.

After conducting more than 150 hours of operator and 

maintenance training, it was time for the IA personnel to 

test their ability on the water. However, although the Tigris 

River flows just 50 meters from Camp Taji, conventional 

U.S. forces did not have the authority to partner with their 

IA counterparts outside of fortified military installations. 

This prohibition prevented BTT participation in training on 

the Tigris River, and BTT participation was an important 

requirement for the on-water training to be worthwhile. 

Therefore, the BTT identified a large retention pond on Camp 

Taji that normally held storm water runoff for the camp. A 

colocated U.S. Army Reserve horizontal-construction unit 

By Captain Garrett A. Dean
January–April 2017 Engineer 21

improved the pond to accommodate the launch and recovery 

of IRB equipment. The addition of a boat slip and launching 

ramp quickly transformed the uninteresting water hole into 

a valuable training resource. With these improvements, and 

a fortuitous rainfall at the tail end of Iraq’s rainy season, 

the pond soon played host to more than four bridge erection boats and eight IRB bays at a time. Here, the BTT crew 

trained its IA counterparts on the basics of boat operation 

and bay and ramp hookup. The pond later accommodated 

a scale model of the full-size bridge the IA later emplaced 

on the Tigris, with some additional shore improvements. 

This makeshift training resource provided the perfect 

opportunity to hone boat-operating skills and improve overall efficiency on the water.

T

he possibility that waterborne improvised explosive 

devices would be launched by the enemy to destroy 

the floating bridge became a real concern. This threat 

prompted the need to construct an obstacle upstream to prevent such attacks. However, the last time such a device was 

mentioned in an Army publication was in a 1988 training 

circular.1 Without any dimensions or reference to its construction, the manual shows a line drawing of a sample mine 

A large retention 

pond that held 

storm water runoff for Camp Taji 

became a training area for Iraqi 

army bridgers.

Iraqi troops and the BTT work together to complete full enclosure on the makeshift training pond.
22 Engineer January–April 2017

boom constructed from simple materials. Similar materials were purchased, and the BTT became responsible for 

designing and constructing a protective device and training 

the members of the IA bridge unit on its emplacement.

The protective device was designed not only to protect 

against waterborne improvised explosive devices, but also 

to observe two other important factors: simple construction 

and ease of emplacement. Once assembled and emplaced, 

the bridge protective 

device served its purpose. Together with 

IA security personnel, it defeated several threats aimed at 

inflicting damage to the 

bridge within the first 

30 days of emplacement. The design, construction, and success 

of this device served 

as a testament to U.S. 

Army engineer ingenuity and problemsolving skills.

Advise-and-Assist Relationship

L

earning to navigate Iraqi military culture took time 

and patience. Despite initial difficulties, the BTT 

achieved a favorable position within the advise-andassist relationship. Then the BTT brought about genuine 

change in mission planning and influenced systemic change 

within the larger organization. BTT linguists contributed 

A common bridge transporter retrieves an IRB bay at the end of a day of training.

A member of the BTT 

discusses maintenance procedures 

for the scoops on a 

bridge erection boat 

with members of the 

IA bridge unit.
January–April 2017 Engineer 23

to this endeavor by serving as cultural guides and assisting with nearly everything from negotiations to navigation through the cultural nuances that sometimes impeded 

success.

It immediately became apparent that rank discrepancies 

between BTT members and their Iraqi counterparts would 

present challenges. The commander of the Iraqi bridge regiment held the rank equivalent to a brigadier general, and 

the rest of the IA bridge unit was overstaffed with officers. 

Recommendations for change were often ignored at first. 

Nevertheless, after socializing over many cups of chai, the 

credibility of the BTT grew and the Iraqis slowly began to 

embrace change. After the mission, the Iraqi commander 

requested a formal after action review with BTT leaders to 

discuss Iraqi performance on the river. This was a true display of humility and trust. 

As in the U.S. Army, the majority of experience in the 

IA resides in the enlisted ranks. However, IA culture does 

not encourage input from its NCOs. This can result in unrealistic planning. Overcoming this obstacle and promoting NCO involvement took real effort, but the effort paid 

off in a comprehensive mission plan. Gathering officers 

and NCOs together in a conference room, the BTT ensured 

that all leaders had an opportunity to voice their opinions 

before detailing the plan on a whiteboard. This tactic also 

improved morale among the enlisted soldiers, who had often 

felt underappreciated.

In the days leading up to the mission, BTT operational 

planning efforts culminated. In what became an entirely 

Iraqi-led event, leaders and soldiers at all levels in the IA 

bridge regiment conducted a rehearsal-of-concept drill 

using a large-scale terrain map. Because the IA bridge 

unit had not conducted rehearsals of this scale in the past, 

the BTT spent a considerable amount of time working with 

the Iraqi leaders on the presentation of the rehearsal and 

on operational details. The rehearsal was a well-executed 

event and was exactly what the Iraqi bridge regiment leaders needed to clearly communicate their plan to the lowest ranks.

End Result

T

he BTT effort resulted in the emplacement of a 

230-meter IRB across the Tigris River on 15 July 

2016. Iraqi soldiers were primarily responsible for 

the construction, while a small section of the BTT contributed in an advise-and-assist role from the nearshore of the 

river. It was the first frontline, battalion level advise-andassist mission during Operation Inherent Resolve. The Iraqi 

bridge regiment exceeded expectations by completing the 

assembly of the IRB to U.S. Army standards in an impressively short period of time and without substantial injury, 

despite taking enemy fire. The emplaced bridge facilitated 

the resupply and equipping of IA troops on the west bank 

and later supported U.S. Army efforts in reconnoitering and 

occupying Qayyarah Airfield West.

Endnote:

1Training Circular 5-210, Military Float Bridging Equip-

 27 December 1988.

Captain 

He holds a bachelor’s degree in civil 

engineering 

York, and degree in engineering 

Missouri University of Science and Technology at Rolla. He is 

licensed as a professional engineer in Missouri.

BTT members coached their Iraqi counterparts through a well-executed rehearsal-of-concept drill.
24 Engineer January–April 2017

S

oldiers begin their transformation into the Army as 

willing civilians, the best of America’s national treasures—her people. Citizens join for many reasons, 

not the least of which is to become more than they are and 

to serve the call to freedom’s defense. Their mental transformation begins with an immediate introduction to stress 

and maximum control by drill sergeants. This condition 

gradually shifts to a more positive coaching environment as 

Soldiers in training begin to adopt the Army values and to 

display personal responsibility and teamwork. The mental 

transformation strategy maximizes stress up front and then 

slowly reduces it. 

However, taking a similar approach to physical development can potentially add too much stress too quickly, 

injuring Soldiers—many of whom have not previously 

maintained active lifestyles or healthy diets. This stress 

significantly increases risk for injury and adds to the 

Army’s long-term health care costs. This article examines 

the following:

■ Physical aspects of initial-entry training (IET).

■ Current research on how physical demands affect the 

body’s transformation.

■ Immediate changes that can be made within current fiscal and training time constraints. 

■ A possible optimal training environment.

Recently, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) provided a fitness model to compare current Army physical fitness training and testing standards to 

physical requirements that Soldiers must be able to meet in 

combat. In this model, TRADOC identifies endurance as the 

current center of gravity for common Army fitness training. 

The model also demonstrates a need for more emphasis on 

strength training, explosive power, speed, and agility. The 

By Colonel Martin Dale Snider, Lieutenant Colonel Charles B. Gray, and 

Lieutenant Colonel Michael D. Helton
January–April 2017 Engineer 25

model links a different training emphasis, one based on the 

mission-focused, common physical requirements of Soldiers. 

As doctrine and practice come 

online with institutionalizing 

a new Army fitness center of 

gravity, leaders in the IET community can lean forward with 

implementation.

The Army professional must 

be a warrior athlete. Carl von 

Clausewitz wrote, “War is the 

realm of physical exertion and 

suffering. . . . Birth or training 

must provide us with certain 

strength of body and soul.”1 If 

professional athletes need to 

use strength and conditioning 

coaches and fuel their bodies 

with proper nutrition to maximize performance, how much 

more, then, do aspiring warrior athletes need to be properly 

conditioned and fueled? Most Soldiers in IET are enduring 

rigorous physical training for the first time in their lives. We 

must wisely transform physically unfit Soldiers into warrior 

athletes. Appropriate athletic and master fitness training 

and proper nutrition are key. We are committed to ensuring 

that the aspiring professional Soldiers produced by the 1st 

Engineer Brigade enter the force as warrior athletes. They 

should have a basic understanding of strength and conditioning training and proper fueling because they will have 

been properly trained and fueled during basic combat training and advanced individual training. Most importantly, 

when commanders of U.S. Army Forces Command units 

receive our graduates, they will receive Soldiers who have 

started their progression to becoming warrior athletes.

TRADOC Regulation 350-6, Enlisted Initial Entry Training Policies describes current efforts to 

improve Soldier performance. Efforts include incorporating 

healthier foods in dining facilities and using athletic trainers and strength and conditioning specialists to identify and 

Soldiers prepare to pull casualties from a vehicle.

Many Soldiers quickly discard initial-entry boots upon graduation from IET.
26 Engineer January–April 2017

treat overuse injuries early, stressing the importance of 

sleep discipline.2

One of the challenges that IET units must address is that 

many recruits are unfit for the rigors of basic combat training.3

 The Army has long known that warfare is work. Field 

Manual 7-22, Physical Readiness Training, clearly 

identifies that mission accomplishment is heavily dependent on Soldier fitness.4

 Unified land operations place a premium on the Soldier’s strength, stamina, and agility. The 

question is how to develop a large group of individuals, who 

are initially at various levels of fitness and health, to the 

required standard as quickly as possible without breaking 

their bodies in the process. The prescribed TRADOC method 

to quickly transform young Americans, in large groups, from 

citizens to Soldiers is through the Physical Readiness Training (PRT) Program.

Field Manual 7-22 describes PRT as a system of drills 

and activities designed to enhance the performance of warrior tasks and battle drills. The Army PRT Program seeks to 

develop the physical attributes of Soldiers to their full potential. It states that “the toughening phase of BCT training 

schedules . . . when executed to standard, provide the proper 

training intensity and exercise volume and gradual progression appropriate to improving physical fitness and controlling injuries.”5

 In the 1st Engineer Brigade, this has proven 

to be a very good method for getting the masses from a low 

point of physical fitness to a good, solid initial standard with 

very little equipment in a reasonable amount of time. If followed as prescribed, this program undoubtedly improves the 

progression of strength, endurance, and mobility while minimizing injury. However, the program of instruction requirements of basic combat training, advanced individual training, and one-station unit training add additional impacts 

that, when combined with PRT, can lead to injuries for those 

who have not previously maintained an active lifestyle.

The manual states that “overtraining often results from 

a lack of adequate recovery, rest or, in some cases, a lack of 

nutrient intake. Thus, too much training, too little recovery, 

and/or poor nutrient intake may elicit both the physical and 

psychological symptoms associated with overtraining syndrome.”6

 While PRT alone balances the principles of precision, progression, and integration, the additional activities of initial military training can inhibit proper recovery 

between PRT sets and increase the risk of overuse injuries.

The physical fitness environment in the training brigade 

can be referred to as PRT–Plus. It involves quickly putting 

Soldiers into Army combat boots and loading their bodies 

with additional weight. From the first training day, Soldiers 

start moving quickly, often running with new boots and adding the weight of a weapon and other heavy items. For the 

first 3 weeks of training, they move to most training sites by 

foot. The course program of instruction also includes very 

physical activities such as the confidence course, confidence 

tower, physical endurance course, and land navigation 

course. Soldiers are fitted for combat boots within 48 hours 

of arrival at reception units. From then on, they are usually in their boots. Other than during PRT, Soldiers (except 

for those with profile restrictions) are in boots for most of 

the training day. Throughout their day, they are either running, marching, or in an expedited state of movement. For 

some new Soldiers, this rapid increase in physical activity 

is too much. Overuse injuries account for 70 to 80 percent of 

IET-related musculoskeletal injuries and more than half of 

all disability discharges among first-year recruits.7, 8, 9, 10 The 

PRT Program was developed to get at these musculoskeletal 

injuries and allow the undertrained initial recruit’s body 

to adapt at an acceptable (but high) rate without injury. A 

key element of the PRT Program is a decrease in running 

frequency and duration with a corresponding increase in 

running intensity. Many serious musculoskeletal overuse 

injuries can be prevented through leader education, leader 

enforcement of proven methods, and injury tracking and 

reporting. One area of injury prevention is the wearing of 

properly fitted boots and orthotics, if required. Currently, 

no verification or fitting of orthotics is occurring. Interestingly, many Soldiers quickly discard initial-entry boots 

upon graduation. Initial-entry boots are harder and lack 

Soldiers carry 40-pound cratering charges.
the offered in other 

available boots. In an anecdotal survey through observation, the authors observed that 

very few professional Soldiers 

wear initial-entry boots, even 

though they are cheaper and 

readily available through the 

Army and Air Force Exchange 

System. 

Current fitness injury and

prevention research provides 

empirical evidence that recruits 

with a history of low fitness 

levels are not prepared for the 

physical stress that they 

undergo during their first 

weeks of training.11As many as 

25 percent of male and 50 

percent of female recruits 

sustain at least one musculoskeletal injury during IET.12

A 2006–2010 study of more than 210,000 Soldiers in training identified the increased challenge for military trainers of 

transforming increasingly overweight and less-fit recruits 

into the warrior athletes required by the Army. The study 

shows that this problem is compounded by inadequate bone 

and connective tissue health among these populations, 

resulting in high early-injury rates. The study also found 

that injuries are expensive, some resulting in long-term 

care that could mostly be avoided through leader education, 

leader enforcement of established injury prevention guidance, and injury surveillance with reporting.13

An IET brigade at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, has 

considered the above studies; initiatives there include phasing in running and foot marches over a short time period, 

requiring a minimum of 7 hours sleep (with a goal of 

8 hours) per night, and changing the recruit nutritional 

plan. Nutrition is a main focus. Soldiers receive no less than 

15 minutes to eat every meal. All Soldiers are provided a 

fourth meal whenever possible. Drinking chocolate milk is 

encouraged at every meal. The brigade has also added days 

for physical recovery and healing. For example, mandatory 

active resting and greater use of the Army physical fitness 

uniform are encouraged on Sundays.14

There are several initiatives to consider in moving to 

improve IET fitness and injury prevention. One question 

that needs to be addressed quickly is: What can be done 

now? First, many of the agencies that support Soldier physical care can be moved to the forefront of intervention, assessment, and recovery through a Total Soldier Fitness review. 

Currently, most of these agencies provide great support, 

but in a fragmented way. By moving these agencies into a 

review board that routinely meets at the brigade and battalion levels, we can get ahead of awareness, prevention, and 

intervention more rapidly. Another initiative would introduce the approach used by the 194th Infantry Brigade, Fort 

Jackson, and the 14th Military Police Brigade, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, which phases in the wearing of new 

boots and makes incremental increases in running requirements and weight-loading. Another initiative would address 

shortfalls in quality calories and nutrients. The possibility 

of incorporating additional high-quality meals and snacks 

through existing dining facility contracted services will 

be determined.

In the near term, a focus group can determine how to 

quickly assess the physical fitness of new recruits and how 

to conduct PRT by ability group. Fitness sessions could be 

more rapidly tailored if it could quickly be determined which 

personnel are fit enough to press forward with intermediate 

and advanced levels of strength, stamina, and agility training through the existing PRT Program while those who are 

underperforming could also be identified. Those who were 

underperforming IET standards could move to master fitness and athletic trainer oversight to physically press new 

recruits without injuring them.

The IET community should not stop with the implemention of the above, but should pursue an optimal environment. A physical fitness reach goal is established to 

create an environment of incentivized physical fitness, 

where motivated Soldiers want to achieve their own fitness 

January–April 2017 Engineer 27

“. . .warrior athletes must be 

trained to sustain themselves 

and their units at maximum 

physical levels on their own.”

Soldiers participate in a ruck run.
28 Engineer January–April 2017

potential and their unit physical fitness goals. Soldiers 

must be warrior athletes. War is work, and maximizing 

warfighting systems so that Soldiers can manage their own 

fitness in austere, dangerous, difficult environments is key. 

A Soldier’s true place of work is in these difficult environments. Every other environment must allow for the preparation necessary to win at those places of work. The human 

ability to successfully prepare for one’s self and one’s organization requires a highly fit body that can sustain the mind to 

make the best decisions possible. Therefore, warrior athletes 

must be trained to sustain themselves and their units at 

maximum physical levels on their own. Units need to move 

to ability group PRT. After Soldiers reach a higher level of 

fitness, installations and units need to support expanded 

ability group training. Expanded ability group fitness must 

include a full range of mobility, strength, and cardiovascular opportunities. All of these must be tracked for 

quality and accountability with the ease of opening a “smart 

phone” application. 

For example, an ability group of Soldiers conducting 

strength and cardiopulmonary circuit training would scan 

their common access cards or walk across a Bluetoothenabled mat before and after fitness events. Their smart 

workout device would track their entire workout and upload 

their location, duration, heart rate, and other vital signs to 

a cloud-based application, where leaders could review them 

throughout the reporting period. Individual, semiannual 

testing to ensure that Army standards are being met must 

be tied to promotions, awards, school selections, and pay. 

Unit fitness success would also be assessed for progress. 

Quantifiable unit successes would be connected to group 

leader promotions, awards, selection, and pay.

In conclusion, the current fitness model and practices 

provide America’s military with foundationally trained 

and prepared Soldiers. Civilians are being transformed 

into great young Soldiers who are certified in their IET 

and military occupational skills. However, plenty of space 

for improvement remains. The quality of each new Soldier’s 

physical preparedness can be improved. There is plenty 

of empirical and anecdotal evidence to guide us to betterqualified and more-fit Soldiers as they graduate from IET. 

In the near term, there are areas we control that can be 

improved, while long-term, positive, institutional changes 

can be pursued.

Endnotes:

1Carl von Clausewitz, “On War,” <http://www.gutenberg 

.org/files/1946/1946-h/1946-h.htm#link2HCH0003>, accessed 

on 9 December 2016.

2TRADOC Regulation 350-6, Enlisted Initial Entry Training 

 7 November 2013.

3Joseph M. Molloy et al., “Physical Training Injuries and 

Interventions for Military Recruits,” Military Medicine, Vol. 

177, Issue 9, May 2012, pp. 553–558.

4Field Manual 7-22, , 

26 October 2012.

5

Ibid., p. 4-1.

6

Ibid., p. 5-2.

7D. W. Niebuhr et al., “Chapter 4: Morbidity and Attrition Related to Medical Conditions in Recruits,” Textbooks of 

Military Medicine: Recruit Medicine, pp. 59–79, <http://www

.bordeninstitute.army.mil/published_volumes;recruit 

_medicine/RMch04.pdf, accessed on 9 December 2016.

8

“Accession Medical Standards Analysis and Research Activity,” 2010 Annual Report, <http://www.amsara.amedd.army 

.mil/reports/2010/AMSARA_Annual_Report_2010.pdf, accessed 

on 9 December 2016.

9S. A. Almeida et al., “Epidemiological Patterns of Musculoskeletal Injuries and Physical Training,” Medicine and Science 

in Sports and Exercise, August 1999.

10B. H. Jones et al., “Chapter 6. Injuries Treated in Outpatient Clinics,” Surveys and Research Data Military Medicine,

1999.

11Malloy, et al. p. 556.

12Ibid., p. 554.

13Shawn J. Scott et al., “A Multiple Intervention Strategy 

for Reducing Femoral Neck Stress Injuries and Other Serious 

Overuse Injuries in U.S. Army Basic Combat Training,” Military Medicine, Vol. 177, Issue 9, May 2012, pp. 1081–1089.

14Colonel John Conor briefing at the U.S. Army Center for 

Initial Military Training, 194th AR Injury Prevention, [September 2016].

Colonel Snider is the of the 1st Engineer Brigade, 

Fort Leonard Wood. He holds a bachelor’s degree in geography 

Texas Tech University, degree in construction 

Texas A&M University, and degree 

graduate of the Engineer Officer Basic Course, the Field Artillery Officer Advanced Course, the U.S. Airborne School, 

the School, the U.S. 

Staff School, and the U.S. 

and General Staff College.

Lieutenant Colonel Gray is the 31st Engineer Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood. He previously served as the 

deputy of the U.S. Corps of Engineers, New 

England District. He holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineerdegree in civil engineering Missouri University 

of Science and Technology in Rolla. He is a graduate of the Engineer Officer Basic Course, the Engineer Captains Career Course, 

Staff College, the U.S. 

Assault School, the U.S. School, 

and the Sapper Leader Course. He is a professional engineer in 

the state of Kansas.

Lieutenant 

Engineer Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood. He holds 

degree in engineering University of 

Science and Technology in Rolla. He is a graduate of the U.S. 

Military Point, New York, the Engineer Officer 

Basic Course, the Engineer Captains Career Course, the U.S. 

Staff School, the U.S. 

Bradley Leaders Course, 
January–April 2017 Engineer 29

E

ngineer is a Department of the Army-authenticated publication that contains instructions, guidance, and other 

materials to continuously improve the professional development of Army engineers. It also provides a forum for exchanging information and ideas within the Army engineer community. 

Engineer includes articles by and about commissioned officers, 

warrant officers, enlisted Soldiers, Department of the Army civilians, and others. Writers may discuss training, current operations and exercises, doctrine, equipment, history, personal viewpoints, or other areas of general interest to engineers. Articles 

may share good ideas and lessons learned or explore better ways 

of doing things. Shorter, after action type articles and reviews of 

books on engineer topics are also welcome.

Articles should be concise, straightforward, and in the 

active voice. Avoid using acronyms when possible. When used, 

acronyms must be spelled out and identified at the first use. 

Avoid the use of bureaucratic jargon and military buzzwords. 

Text length should not exceed 2,000 words (about eight doublespaced pages). 

Articles submitted to Engineer must be accompanied by a 

written release from the author’s unit or activity security manager before editing can begin. All information contained in an 

article must be unclassified, nonsensitive, and releasable to the 

public. It is the author’s responsibility to ensure that security 

is not compromised; information appearing in open sources 

does not constitute declassification. Engineer is distributed to 

military units worldwide and is also available for sale by the 

Government Printing Office. As such, it is readily accessible 

to nongovernmental or foreign individuals and organizations. 

For convenience, a user-fillable security release memorandum 

is provided at <http://www.wood.army.mil/engrmag/Security

%20Release%20Form%20cx.docx>. 

Authors are responsible for article accuracy and source 

documentation. Use endnotes (not footnotes) and references to 

document sources of quotations, information, and ideas. Limit 

the number of endnotes to the minimum required for honest 

acknowledgment. Endnotes and references must contain a complete citation of publication data; for Internet citations, include 

the date accessed. 

Include photographs and/or graphics that illustrate information in the article. Graphics must be accompanied by captions 

or descriptions; photographs should also be identified with the 

date, location, unit/personnel, and activity, as applicable. Do not 

embed photographs in Microsoft® PowerPoint or Word or include 

photographs or illustrations in the text; instead, send each of 

them as a separate file. If illustrations are created in PowerPoint, avoid the excessive use of color and shading. Save digital images at a resolution no lower than 200 dpi. Please see the 

photo guide at <http://www.wood.army.mil/engrmag/Photograph 

%20Illustration%20Guide.htm> for more information.

Copyright concerns and the proliferation of methods used to 

disseminate art, illustrations, and photographs require that the 

origin of any graphics be identified. If a graphic is copyrighted, 

the author must obtain copyright approval and submit it to 

Engineer with the proposed manuscript. As a general policy, 

Engineer will not use artwork that cannot be attributed. 

Provide a short paragraph that summarizes the content 

of the article. Also include a short biography, including full 

name, rank, current unit, job title, and education; U.S. Postal 

Service mailing address; and a commercial daytime telephone number.

When an article has multiple authors, the primary point of 

contact should be clearly designated with the initial submission. The designated author will receive all correspondence 

from Engineer editors and will be responsible for conferring 

with coauthors concerning revisions before responding to 

the editors.

Engineer will notify each author to acknowledge receipt 

of a manuscript. However, we make no final commitment to 

publish an article until it has been thoroughly reviewed and, 

if required, revised to satisfy concerns and conform to publication conventions. We make no guarantee to publish all submitted articles, photographs, or illustrations. If we plan to publish 

an article, we will notify the author. Therefore, it is important 

to keep us informed of changes in e-mail addresses and telephone numbers. 

Manuscripts submitted to Engineer become government 

property upon receipt. All articles accepted for publication are 

subject to grammatical and structural changes as well as editing for length, clarity, and conformity to Engineer style. We will 

send substantive changes to the author for approval. Authors 

will receive a courtesy copy of the edited version for review 

before publication; however, if the author does not respond to 

Engineer with questions or concerns by a specified suspense 

date (typically five to seven working days), it will be assumed 

that the author concurs with all edits and the article will 

run as is.

Engineer is published three times a year: April (article deadline is 1 December), August (article deadline is 1 April), and 

December (article deadline is 1 August). Send submissions

by e-mail to <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.engineer@mail 

.mil> or on a CD in Microsoft Word, along with a double-spaced 

copy of the manuscript, to Managing Editor, Engineer Professional Bulletin, 14010 MSCoE Loop, Building 3201, Suite 2661, 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8702.

As an official U.S. Army publication, Engineer is not copyrighted. Material published in Engineer can be freely reproduced, distributed, displayed, or reprinted; however, appropriate credit should be given to Engineer and its authors.

Note: Please indicate if a manuscript is being considered for 

publication elsewhere. Due to regulatory requirements and the 

limited space per issue, we usually do not print articles that 

have been accepted for publication at other Army venues.

Engineer Writer’s Gui e
30 Engineer January–April 2017

T

he ISR in the title of this article does not address a 

new form of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. ISR-I refers to an Installation Status Report–

Infrastructure Program that provides data for assessing 

key elements of an installation, such as the office spaces, 

parking lots, and maintenance bays that Soldiers use every 

day. The program provides a checklist for inspecting and 

rating assets associated with a facility, installation, or base. 

The information from the checklist is uploaded to the program Web site at <https://isr.hqda.pentagon.mil/>, where it 

is rolled into a mission, quality, and readiness rating that 

allows Army leaders to evaluate the mission support function capability, quality, and readiness of the elements and 

infrastructure for the reporting facility. This article focuses 

on the U.S. Army Reserve process, but also applies to the 

Regular Army and Army National Guard processes.

For U.S. Army Reserve facilities, the report provides 

regional support commands (RSCs) with detailed information on the status of the facility and the possibility for 

increased restoration and modernization dollars. The report 

answers questions about the facility, such as whether it—

■ Is capable of meeting the mission of current tenants.

■ Has sufficient parking for 60 percent of tenant military

 equipment.

■ Offers sufficient storage for newly fielded equipment.

Most RSCs assign an area facility operations specialist 

(AFOS) to complete the report worksheets and enter them 

into the ISR database, but tenants may be assigned the 

additional duty of gathering information and filling out the 

worksheets. Leaders at each facility should be involved in 

assessing their facilities, assisting the AFOS, and producing 

accurate reports. This is an opportunity for facility tenants 

to be heard.

T

he ISR–I checklists are referred to as workbooks 

and can be found at the ISR Web site. There are 

73 workbooks that cover more than 1,000 facility category codes, each representing a specific type of asset. For 

example, Workbook 6 covers maintenance facilities, capturing 31 category codes. Workbook 68 covers training centers 

and captures two category codes. These two workbooks cover 

most off-installation Army Reserve assets that leaders and 

Soldiers use. Each AFOS must receive annual ISR training, 

but the workbooks are designed for ease of use. The first few 

pages of each workbook list a brief description of the codes 

covered inside. Inspection instructions, to include a description of the inspected component, follow. 

It is worth noting that Army Regulation 140-483, 

1

 Appendix B, is 

listed frequently in Workbook 68. It explains how much 

space units are authorized within a facility. Tenants planning to send a red up the chain regarding a lack of 

office space or military equipment parking should first look 

through Appendix B. The regulation is under revision and 

By First Lieutenant Shaun J. Levandoski

New equipment that requires more motor pool space should result in the authorization of more space for receiving 

units. 

-I:
January–April 2017 Engineer 31

should contain space authorization updates. Each element 

of a facility is given a green, amber, or red rating based on 

the spreadsheet criteria. Elements are rated based on their 

designed use, not necessarily on their current use.

Quality and Mission Functional Ratings

T

he quality, or Q rating, assesses the overall condition 

of an asset against Army standards. The mission, or 

F rating, represents an element’s functionality and 

mission support for its intended purpose. More plainly, the 

Q rating describes the physical condition of the asset and the 

F rating shows whether the rated asset meets the mission 

requirements of the current tenant. For example, all Army 

Reserve facilities are authorized classroom space based on 

the number of Soldiers present during the largest battle 

assembly weekend. Each F-rated component is weighted 

from 1 to 4, based on the nature of the component. Each 

facility element listed in the workbook receives a color rating 

from the inspector: green for good or like new, amber for adequate, or red for poor. Once these color ratings are entered 

into the ISR Web site, the database calculates Q and F ratings from 1 to 4. For example, an F1/Q1 rating indicates that 

little attention is required, while F4/Q4 ratings suggest that 

there are significant problem areas. These Q and F ratings 

are the final product of the ISR-I inspection process and are 

the first item reviewed by leaders, but inspectors are highly 

encouraged to include additional comments.

Asset Readiness Ratings

T

he C rating (also referred to as the Commander’s 

Readiness Rating) is similar to the Q and F ratings 

in that it has a value of 1 to 4. However, this rating 

is made by the RSC commander or delegated representative 

by taking the Q and F ratings and other appropriate factors 

into consideration, including projected mission changes and 

restationing actions. The rating applies to an entire area of 

responsibility rather than to each individual asset.

T

he frequency of asset ratings varies based on previous 

ratings, on whether it is a new asset, and on whether 

it is a multiuse asset with shared components. Assets 

that receive a rating of Q4 or F4 must be inspected every 

year. Assets rated Q2–3 or F2–3 are inspected every 2 years, 

while those with Q1 and F1 ratings are inspected every 

3 years. Facilities with an overall rating of green do not need 

to be inspected for 3 more years. 

The Red Stigma

I

t is important to shed the notion that a rating of red 

is a “bad” rating that carries a stigma to be avoided. 

Facilities should receive a thorough inspection and a 

rating that represents their actual condition. A red rating 

on a facility doesn’t mean that the commander, facility manager, or AFOS is failing; it means that the facility is failing. Unless a facility is in like-new condition, it should not 

be rated green. It would be a mistake to manipulate the 

inspection ratings to get the desired overall ratings. At the 

RSCs, a green rating on an older facility that has not been 

restored will raise a ag quicker than an amber or red rating. Directorate of public works staffs know that the majority of their assets were constructed long ago and are not 

in perfect condition. Giving a facility an unrealistic green 

rating ties the hands of those who could help improve the 

facility. Accurately reporting the condition of facilities and 

assets allows the directorate of public works to generate 

work orders and identify features that need to be refurbished or replaced.

The Status Quo

T

he Army sometimes makes changes without considering second- and third-order effects. Accurate ISR-I 

data is important to inform leaders and justify funding decisions at each RSC, at the U.S. Army Reserve Command headquarters, and at the Department of the Army 

headquarters. A few years ago, the Army replaced its M920 

series medium-equipment transporters with the M983A4 

light-equipment transporter. These new vehicles require a 

much larger turning radius and take up more space in motor 

pools. Units are authorized 25 additional square yards of 

parking per light-equipment transporter issued. The mission rating for military equipment parking should have 

been changed once a unit fielded this equipment, indicating a need for more parking. It is unlikely that all units got 

the extra authorized space when this equipment was fielded. 

This is just one example of how forced changes generate 

second- and third-order effects. 

In the U.S. Army Reserve, RSCs struggle to receive 

accurate reports. It is impossible for a 40-year-old building that has had no major restoration or revitalization to 

deserve a rating of green across the board, but some buildings get that rating. This is why some units may be struggling to train their Soldiers as effectively as the Army 

demands. Army Reserve assets are intended for training 

and readiness. If facilities are not properly evaluated, leaders should contact their RSC or directorate of public works 

so that they can contact the appropriate AFOS to properly 

rate the facilities. Inspectors should be working with representatives from each unit, preferably a leader or a member 

of the full-time staff. That is the best way to inform them of 

changes within an organization and their effects on readiness. Engineers are always going to make do and get the 

job done. But the voice of Army Reserve engineers, joined 

with the voice of their RSC, speaks louder than a single 

voice from the RSC. 

Endnote:

1Army Regulation 140-483, -

, 24 July 2007.

First Lieutenant Levandoski serves as a directorate of public 

works plans officer for the 63d RSC in Mountain View, California. He is a graduate of the Engineer Basic Officer Leader 

Course and holds a bachelor’s degree in architecture 

University of Kentucky. 
32 Engineer January–April 2017

T

he Army develops capabilities for homeland operations based on national strategies, joint and DOD 

directives, and current doctrine. These capabilities 

enable the Army to protect the homeland by deterring and 

defeating attacks and mitigating the effects of attacks and 

natural disasters as described in the 2014 Army Operating 

Concept (AOC), as stated in U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Pamphlet 525-3-1, The U.S. 

: “The 

AOC describes how future Army forces will prevent 

shape security environments, and win wars while operating as part of a joint force and working with multiple partners. It provides the intellectual foundation and framework 

for learning and for applying what we learn to future force 

development under Force 2025 and Beyond.”2 Concepts do 

not constitute doctrine, but they serve as the beginning of 

the process for delivering capabilities to future Army forces. 

The AOC presents 20 Army warfighting challenges (AWFCs) 

as first-order problems, the solutions to which improve the 

effectiveness of the future force. AWFCs provide an analytical framework to integrate efforts across warfighting functions while collaborating with key stakeholders in learning 

activities, modernization, and future force design.3 The U.S. 

Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence (MSCoE) has 

been assigned the responsibility to lead AWFC No. 5, Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), and AWFC 

No. 6, Homeland Operations. The AOC requirements 

the two primary missions identified in the Strategy for 

Defense and Defense Support of Civil Authorities: 

■ Defend U.S. territory from direct attack by state and nonstate actors.

■ Provide assistance to domestic civil authorities in the 

event of natural or man-made disasters.4

The role of MSCoE as the AWFC No. 6 lead is to guide, 

facilitate, and integrate learning across Army missions that 

support deterring and defeating attacks; mitigate consequences of attacks and disasters; support integration into 

capability development for future force required capabilities; and develop capabilities for MSCoE equities.

W

hen the AOC was issued in 2014, it stated, “To protect the homeland, the Army deters and defeats 

attacks and mitigates the effects of attacks and 

natural disasters.”5 These two missions, 1) deter and defeat 

attacks and 2) mitigate effects, although equally important, 

had not received equal consideration. Over the preceding decade, TRADOC and the operational force conducted 

extensive work on the DSCA requirement to mitigate the 

effects of attacks and natural disasters, primarily for domestic chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear response. 

It was evident that the Army had a role in deterring and 

defeating attacks, but initial analysis identified very limited learning to support capabilities development. This mission is complex and crosscutting and includes many civilian 

organizations.

T

he Army must not focus on the homeland itself but 

must equally balance efforts across the homeland, 

in the approaches, and in the far regions. This is a 

whole-of-government approach that will be pursued in the 

building of the community of practice. The Army’s responsibility to protect the homeland is a primary strategic priority. The homeland is increasingly at risk as threats become 

greater and the world effectively becomes smaller. To meet 

these more dangerous threats, the Army must prioritize 

1

By Mr. Tony W. Sexton
January–April 2017 Engineer 33

the development of capabilities to deter and defeat attacks 

against the homeland and to mitigate the consequences of 

attacks and disasters in the homeland. The homeland mission must be a consideration for the development of Army 

capabilities to address the full range of military operations. 

These considerations must be developed in a concept for 

homeland operations that describes an Army total force 

approach to synchronize efforts across components and 

between the operating and generating forces. A concerted 

effort is necessary to gain a shared understanding of the 

homeland defense and DSCA principles and the Army role 

in DOD missions in support of civil authorities. This entails 

an analysis of policies that impact the Army ability to conduct homeland operations; define or refine its homeland 

defense and DSCA principles; and enable capability development across doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF). 

DOTMLPF addresses critical challenges affecting the operating force ability to perform missions and fosters readiness 

through coordinated contingency planning and exercises 

between the Army total force and joint and civil authorities.

The Army must integrate homeland considerations into 

new and existing scenarios to provide an accurate foundation for Army capabilities development. These scenarios 

must include a comprehensive model of the domestic operational environment that accounts for the unique homeland 

conditions, including statutory constraints and relationships 

with federal, state, and local governments. Experimentation 

must deliberately evaluate Phase 0 through Phase 2. Given 

the growing interconnectedness of the homeland with the 

world, the Army must also account for the mutual effects of 

domestic events and expeditionary operations to accurately 

portray the challenges to be faced by the future force.

Within the operational environment affecting homeland 

operations beyond 2025, the future challenges are too numerous and complex to be addressed solely by U.S. military 

and civilian agencies. A significant portion of national unified action efforts must be oriented around building foreign 

partnerships and helping partners attend to their internal 

challenges. The Army, for example, must enhance partner 

activities. This approach establishes long-term relationships 

fostering mutual trust and confidence, promoting a more 

stable international security environment, and setting conditions to prevail during armed To prevail, future 

Army forces must collaborate with unified action partners 

to develop security capacity and support capacity building 

of partners’ efforts through security cooperation activities at 

the individual, institutional, and ministerial levels.

Conclusion

T

he Army must develop capabilities to support 

assigned missions as an integral part of its effort 

to develop the Army of 2025 and Beyond in support 

of The National Military Strategy of the United States of 

.

6

 Army analysis over the last 2 years provided some 

much-needed background, particularly the chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear response enterprise force modernization effort, to establish a thorough integrated learning 

plan and solutions strategy for the task of mitigating effects. 

Moving forward, the primary lines of effort required to support this AWFC are to—

■ Define the operational environment for homeland operations in terms of unified action partners, the global operational environment, and homeland-specific conditions.

■ Clarify Army roles and responsibilities associated with 

homeland operations and prioritize their integration into 

concept and doctrine development as a basis for all Army 

capabilities development.

■ Develop and educate Army leaders at all levels of homeland operations.

MSCoE will continue to lead the collaboration among 

the stakeholders through monthly meetings of the AWFC 

No. 6 workgroup, the proposed governance forum, and other 

venues to ensure the integration of homeland operations 

throughout Army capabilities development. The homeland 

operations community will approach this AWFC with a 

near-term emphasis on readiness and implementation of 

mature, high-payoff solutions.

Endnotes:

1DOD, and Defense Support 

of Civil Authorities, February 2013.

2TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1, 

Concept—Win , 31 October 2014, p. i, <http://

www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/pams/tp525-3-1.pdf>, accessed on 

15 December 2016.

3

Ibid.

4 and Defense Support of Civil 

Authorities.

5TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1.

6Joint Chiefs of Staff, The National Military Strategy of 

, June 2015, <http://www.jcs.mil 

/Portals/36/Documents/Publications/2015_National_Military

_Strategy.pdf>, accessed on 15 December 2016.

Mr. Sexton is the lead for AWFC No. 

for the MSCoE Concepts, Organization, and Doctrine Develop-

“The Army must integrate homeland considerations into new and 

existing scenarios to provide an 

accurate foundation for Army 

capabilities development.”
34 Engineer January–April 2017

T

he 16th Engineer Battalion Catamounts had a very 

successful deployment supporting the 1st Brigade, 

1st Armored Division, during National Training 

Center (NTC) Rotation 17-02 in the fictional country of 

Atropia. Some of the highlights included a large number of 

Shadow® flight hours, battalion retransmission, the integration of enablers, obstacle effects, and antivehicular ditch 

(AVD) breaching with bulldozers. The Shadow platoon broke 

the NTC, Fort Irwin, California, record by accumulating 

260 flying hours. The battalion successfully created a 

retransmission team out of hide, providing frequency 

modulation coverage across the brigade area of operation. 

Brigade level assets were integrated to enable combined 

arms maneuver. Many linear meters of obstacle effort were 

executed in the defense, which provided good effects on the 

opposing Donovian forces. Breaching AVDs is a challenge 

for a Stryker engineer battalion, so the battalion trained 

hard to breach the AVDs with bulldozers and achieved a full 

lane in less than 10 minutes. 

One of the important lessons learned regards ways to 

improve the effectiveness of brigade engineer battalion (BEB) 

assets attached to supported battalions. The quality of training at home station must be improved before arrival in Atropia. The focus of the training should be on the company and 

troop commanders. The final assessment after completing 

the NTC rotation indicated that the 16th Engineer Battalion 

is great at integrating assets with sister battalions with the 

intent of enabling combined arms operations. The problem 

is that maneuver task forces do not always realize the full 

potential of the attached asset. Why aren’t engineers and 

intelligence collection assets as effective during combined 

arms maneuver operations? How can we improve the use 

of BEB assets at the supported task force operation? There 

is a recommended way to support maneuver commanders 

more effectively.

The 16th Engineer Battalion executed collective training 

to validate all its assets and capabilities the month before 

integration with maneuver task forces. Engineer squads 

were integrated at infantry platoon situational training 

exercises (STXs) and live-fire exercises. Engineer platoons, 

human collection teams (HCTs), signal intelligence teams, 

unmanned aerial reconnaissance and surveillance assets, 

and antitank guided missile platoons were integrated during infantry company STXs and live-fire exercises. All assets 

also supported battalion and brigade STX lanes before 

deploying to NTC. An engineer reconnaissance team (ERT) 

was resourced out of hide with hopes of improving obstacle 

intelligence and marking bypasses to facilitate the tempo 

during the attack. A Prophet signal intelligence collection 

team was pieced together to add signal collection into the 

fight. An assault breacher vehicle and engineer Bradley 

fighting vehicle were borrowed from the 40th Engineer Battalion to build mobility capability in a depleted second combat engineer platoon in Company A. But all of this effort 

resulted in disappointment at the loss of tempo and missed 

opportunities during operations.

By Lieutenant Colonel Brian P. Hallberg
January–April 2017 Engineer 35

Some of the shortcomings include force protection shortfalls, blown cover, and faulty economies of force. Because 

of manning shortfalls, the supported battalions required 

additional combat power to secure critical mission command 

nodes. In many instances, BEB enablers provided security 

at command posts and the battalion aid station. This happened across all types of attached units and did not meet the 

intended use. There is a perception that the Prophet team 

blows the reconnaissance screen’s cover since the Prophet 

system is slow, cumbersome, and takes a long time to set 

up. Therefore, the team is perceived as a risk to reconnaissance and surveillance operations. Other assets were misused in mistaken economy-of-force measures. Infantry Soldiers were required to finish seizing the objective, so HCTs 

spent their time pulling guard duty on detainees rather 

than collecting actionable intelligence that would support 

current operations. Engineer platoons had to provide their 

own security while constructing obstacles, which decreased 

productivity and effective obstacle integration. BEB assets 

were required to do more with less because rifle battalions 

were undermanned and in the middle of reconstituting 

combat power.

The friction of war is part of the problem at NTC; the 

enemy has a vote. Maneuver battalion commanders do not 

set out to intentionally misuse BEB assets. However, supported battalion commanders need to assign attached assets 

at the platoon level and below to a company headquarters—

and that company headquarter’s understanding of how to 

employ those assets is the underlying problem. Properly 

using the assets versus simply task-organizing them is a 

problem that needs to be solved across the Engineer Regiment. How should we improve asset use?

First, I propose that we train company and troop commanders during company and battalion STXs. We must 

clearly establish that these commanders own the training 

objective. The emphasis was placed on the enabler actions 

on the objective versus the commander’s interaction and use 

of assets on the objective during the gated training strategy. The tasks need to be externally evaluated by observercontroller trainers and should be formally assessed during 

the after action review. The gated training strategy focused 

almost solely on Stryker infantry maneuver and clearing 

tactical objectives during the attack. Less focus was placed 

on effectively integrating enablers to improve intelligence 

collection on the objective even though most of the objectives 

included securing or clearing a civilian population center.

Secondly, we must ensure that the brigade operations 

order clearly states the task and purpose of the asset 

attached to the maneuver battalion. The brigade staff did 

an adequate job of conceptually planning and verbally 

describing the information collection plan during the operations order briefing. What they failed to do was provide clarity and specificity to the task. The brigade staff needs to 

be more directive in how brigade assets—especially ERT, 

human intelligence, and signal intelligence assets—should 

be used. Specific information collection requirements, locations, and times to collect should be provided. Likewise, the 

task and purpose must be clear in operations orders from 

battalions and squadrons to company and troop commanders. The brigade staff may have buried that information in 

an annex, but that was not effective in getting results at the 

company and troop levels.

Next, we must educate company and troop commanders on the capabilities, functionalities, and limitations of 

Route clearance Soldiers in observation point
36 Engineer January–April 2017

common BEB attachments. There has not been time during the last year to familiarize commanders on the abilities 

of the BEB. Two combat training center rotations in a year 

have been a time management nightmare, but I highly recommend that the capabilities and functions of the system 

in a field environment be demonstrated to all commanders. 

We need to clearly articulate system limitations and explain 

ways that company and troop commanders can mitigate 

some of the limitations so they can realize their full potential in support of the brigade operation.

Another idea is for the military intelligence company to 

take the initiative in helping company and troop commanders visualize how to employ human and signal intelligence 

assets. The key is to use a multifunctional team platoon 

leader, who should develop the contingency operations plan 

that provides the concept of intelligence collection, recommended locations for the intelligence collection, and the 

resources required from the supported task force in order for 

the intelligence collection to be effective. For example, the 

security force required, the processing area layout, and the 

method of processing the flow for task force detainee information collection could be listed. The multifunctional team 

platoon leader should also develop line-of-sight products to 

help company and troop commanders place the Prophet to 

collect signal intelligence. The military intelligence company commander can validate the platoon leader’s plan during troop leading procedures.

Lastly, I acknowledge that I could have done a better 

job of influencing the use of assets with my fellow battalion and squadron commanders. I failed to establish metrics 

for the use of the ERT, the Prophet, and the HCTs in the 

commander’s critical information requirement (CCIR) list. 

The Prophet and the HCTs made the combat power CCIR, 

but that is not enough information to influence the effectiveness of the asset. Refining the CCIR to assess how and 

when collection assets were being used would have helped 

me influence asset use with fellow commanders and make 

recommendations to the brigade commander about refining 

task organization.

My final thoughts are that BEB commanders need to 

influence brigade staffs in weighting the main effort, which 

will decrease asset idleness. The ERT was with the cavalry 

squadron during most of the rotation. When the team members were idle, they pulled guard duty. The task force that 

was attacking to seize population centers could have used 

the ERT to collect intelligence about protective obstacles and 

to help task force commanders decide on a point of breach 

with battalion scout platoons. That would have increased 

the tempo of battalion hasty breaches. Likewise, the battalion task force that was seizing population centers could have 

used additional HCTs, which would have eliminated HCT 

members pulling guard at the command post simply because 

they did not have a task or purpose with the supported battalion during that phase of the operation. 

Overall, during NTC Rotation 17-02, the 16th Engineer 

Battalion Catamounts were successful in enabling combined 

arms maneuver operations in Atropia. But the battalion 

will continue to push to achieve its full potential through 

improved, realistic, and tough combined arms training 

focused on educating company and troop commanders.

Lieutenant Colonel Hallberg is the of the 16th 

Brigade Engineer Battalion, 1st Brigade, Division, 

Fort Bliss, Texas. He is a graduate of the 

Staff College, the Engineer Officer Basic Course (now the Engineer Officer Basic Leaders Course), and the Engineer Captains 

Career Course. He has a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering 

Point, New -

A&M University, in engineering -

Missouri University of Science and Technology 

at Rolla.

16th Engineer Battalion command post
January–April 2017 Engineer 37

J

ust a couple of years ago, the National Training Center (NTC), Fort Irwin, California, transitioned from 

counterinsurgency-based training to the decisiveaction training environment, combining what many of us 

remember from before 2004 as high-intensity combat with 

multiple urban areas and civilians to create a truly hybrid 

fight. Rotations begin with the traditional 5-day reception, 

staging, onward movement, and integration followed by 

10 days of force-on-force training and 4 days of live-fire 

operations. Live-fire operations have changed significantly 

over the past year and are now brigade level training events, 

rather than sequential task force level iterations. There is 

now a rapid transition from force-on-force training to livefire with no intervening “dry-fire” day. Units conduct requisite rehearsals at echelon and move directly into force-onforce training under live-fire conditions. Most significantly 

for engineers, only live rockets and live mine-clearing line 

charge tubs are used in live-fire operations.

There are keys to home station training success for units 

preparing for rotations at NTC. Future Combat Training 

Center (CTC) Corner articles will dive deeper into each of 

the following subjects:

■ Engineer qualification tables. It is recommended that 

units prepare by conducting engineer qualification tables 

through Table XII (platoon level live-fire) and combined

arms live-fire exercises at company team level or higher. 

While a combined arms live-fire exercise is not a requirement, units that are integrated with combined arms 

teams early on are much more proficient. 

■ Live-fire waivers. The brigade decides whether engineer units will fire the 25-millimeter main gun or small 

arms during live-fire training. For engineer units that 

plan to take part in live-fire training, a waiver must be 

submitted through the brigade commander for approval 

by the commander, Operations Group, if the unit hasn’t 

completed gunnery/engineer qualification tables through 

Table XII or if it has turbulent crews.

■ Battalion staff military decision-making process 

training and tactical operations center proficiency.

It’s imperative that battalion staffs conduct thorough 

mission analysis and course-of-action development to 

identify and solve problems for the brigade. Reverse 

breach planning, defensive planning, defended asset list 

planning, engagements, route reconnaissance, and area 

security must be addressed. Specific training objectives

must be prepared for the NTC Leader Training Program; battalion commanders and command sergeants 

major should participate in a 2-day NTC ride-along. 

■ Integrated training for military intelligence and 

signal companies. These companies should be fully 

included in task force and brigade level exercises. The

tyranny of distance and the communications challenges 

at NTC are difficult to replicate at home station, but 

the integration of all systems at home station can 

result in the early identification of deficiencies and 

weaknesses. 

■ Sustainment as an operation. Logistic and operational

planning must occur simultaneously. Unit leaders should

develop reporting requirements, build a logistics common 

operating picture, and rehearse the logistics plan. 

NTC remains the premier venue for armored and Stryker 

brigade combat team training. The professional feedback, 

instrumentation, and world-class opposing force help get 

the best out of the team. For official NTC trends, visit the 

Sidewinder binder at the Joint Lessons Learned Information System (JLLIS) Web site at <https://www.jllis.mil>. 

Lieutenant Colonel Hilliard serves as the current Sidewinder 07, the senior brigade engineer battalion trainer at NTC. 

He holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Auburn 

University and master’s degrees in civil engineering from Montana State University and Missouri University of Science and 

Technology at Rolla. 

By Lieutenant Colonel Robert A. Hilliard

The National Training Center: 

New and Improved
38 Engineer January–April 2017

W

ithin the last year, the brigade engineer battalion 

(BEB) training team at the Joint Multinational 

Training Center, Hohenfels, Germany has seen a 

steady improvement in the way engineers help shape the 

battlefield for a brigade combat team. However, a recently 

observed trend is the ineffective integration of sapper companies into the maneuver task force during defensive operations. A lack of engineer experience, expertise, and credibility has degraded the ability of the task force engineer to 

provide countermobility support to task force engagement 

area development. This edition of the Combat Training 

Center (CTC) Corner examines the problem set and recommends steps to ensure that company level engineer officers 

regain the knowledge necessary to effectively contribute to 

the defense.

Over the last decade, engineers have focused primarily 

on counterinsurgency and stability operations, sometimes to 

the detriment of defensive operations. This has resulted in 

an experience gap in the roles and responsibilities of the task 

force engineer. Units primarily conduct brigade-directed, 

offensive-based training progressions, which results in 

missed opportunities for the task force engineer to gain 

experience at assisting the maneuver staff with defensive 

planning. Many junior officers experience task force engineer operations for the first time when they attend one of 

the CTCs. With the high CTC operational tempo, task force 

engineers may struggle with procedures for integrating into 

the maneuver task force. Senior leaders at the battalion 

level and above are the only individuals who have knowledge of this role. It is the responsibility of BEB commanders 

to mentor their subordinate commanders on the proper role 

of the engineer commander within a task force. 

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

Missouri, is currently the primary source for developing expertise on the role of the task force engineer. During the Engineer Captains Career Course, students spend 

2 weeks on defensive operations as a task force engineer. 

Although the course lays down a good introduction, it is not 

the responsibility of the schoolhouse to be the sole source 

of education. To obtain a better task force engineer foundation, this education needs to be reinforced through training 

and experience. The best way to do this is to integrate with 

maneuver units during training events. This leads to task 

force engineers becoming more experienced and ultimately 

increases their credibility with the maneuver commanders.

Task force engineers establish credibility through competence and confidence. Engineer company commanders 

may fail to effectively communicate their unit capabilities to 

the maneuver commander. Without a clear understanding 

of engineer capabilities, the maneuver commander cannot 

visualize a sound operational approach. Engineer company 

commanders are frequently observed to be uncomfortable 

and inexperienced with the process of integration into a 

maneuver task force. Their lack of competence and confidence often causes them to lose credibility with their supported maneuver commanders.

Although Army Techniques Publication 3-90.5, -

bined ,

1

 discusses the roles and responsibilities of the task force engineer, there is no current engineer 

doctrine that further elaborates or discusses this at the 

company level. Past task force engineer doctrine existed in 

Field Manual 5-71-2, 

Operations,

2

 but was rescinded during the transition to the 

new 3-34 series of Army publications. The Engineer School 

is currently updating Army Techniques Publication 3-34.22,

Engineer Operations–Brigade Below,

3

 to 

include discussion on the roles and responsibilities of the 

task force engineer. Additionally, BEB commanders need to 

institute leadership development programs or enabler acad-

 to ensure that subordinate leaders fully understand 

their responsibilities to increase expertise. Leaders at the 

company level will gain more experience through combined 

training events with habitually supported maneuver units. 

These combined training events will assist the company 

commander and ultimately establish credibility within a 

maneuver task force.

Endnotes:

1Army Techniques Publication 3-90.5, -

talion, 1 October 2009.

2Field Manual 5-71-2, Task Force Engineer 

Operations, 28 June 1996 (rescinded).

3Army Techniques Publication 3-34.22, Engineer 

Operations–Brigade Below, 5 December 

2014.

Joint Multinational Readiness Center at Hohenfels. He is a graduSchool, the Sapper Leader Course, and the Marine Engineer Diving 

Officer Course. Captain holds a degree in engineering Missouri University of Science and 

Technology at Rolla.

By Captain Gregory D. Basco b II, Captain 

Anthony C. Funkhouser Jr., and Captain Scott E. 

King

Defense
January–April 2017 Engineer 39

Captain Funkhouser is an observer-controller trainer at the 

Joint Multinational Readiness Center at Hohenfels. He is a 

graduate of the Engineer Captains Career Course, the U.S. 

Air Assault School, the Route Reconnaissance and Clearance 

Leadership Course, and the Engineer Explosive Ordnance Clearance Agent Course. He holds a degree in engineering 

Missouri University of Science and Technology at Rolla.

Captain King serves as a task-force engineer observercontroller trainer at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center 

at Hohenfels. He is a graduate of the Engineer Captains Career 

in geological engineering 

T

ask Force 5 is often asked how brigade engineer battalions (BEBs) are employed at the Joint Training 

Readiness Center (JRTC), Fort Polk, Louisiana. The 

Regular Army has completed the Active Component transition from the special troops battalion to the BEB; nonetheless, many BEBs are still treated as legacy special troops 

battalions and assigned missions according to the battalion 

leader’s strengths and the brigade combat team (BCT) commander’s confidence level in the organization.

According to doctrine, the BEB may perform nonfunctional roles, such as area security and terrain management, in extreme circumstances. However, in reality, the 

BEB consistently conducts additional tasks beyond its 

functional role of providing engineer coordination for combined arms maneuver; countermobility and survivability; 

and the requisite military intelligence, signal, and chemical 

reconnaissance support to the BCT. These additional tasks 

vary according to each BCT and rotation. Recurring tasks 

include—

■ Rear area security.

■ BCT command post and base cluster defense.

■ Key leader engagement with U.S. government and host

nation partners.

■ Noncombatant evacuation operations.

■ Establishment of detainee collection points.

In a sense, the term brigade enabler battalion seems to 

apply, especially when the BCT commander relies on the 

BEB to serve as the mission command problem solver as 

external attachments arrive to enhance the capabilities of 

the BCT.

Given the probability that this trend will continue, BEB 

leaders must develop and train their staffs to manage these 

multiple roles and rapidly transition between them. This 

begins with clear guidance and expectations from the battalion commander and is reinforced by—

■ Integrating recurring staff processes in garrison by 

establishing daily battle rhythms, incorporating the military decision-making process in all planning horizons, 

preparing command post standard operating procedures, 

and conducting rehearsals. 

■ Developing an effective common operational picture

(COP) through numerous repetitions, comparing it to

the BCT COP, and understanding that the battalion is

the divide between digital and analog COPs.

■ Developing and validating a reception, staging, onward

movement, and integration standard operating procedure 

to help integrate external enablers. 

■ Understanding the applicable on-the-ground command

or support relationships with enablers and identifying 

the subject matter experts on the staff.

■ Practicing and developing countermobility/survivability

synchronization matrices along with effective reporting 

and tracking systems to feed into the COP.

Units should not wait until they are tagged for a combat training center rotation to begin training their staff. 

Instead, leaders should leverage every working day as an 

opportunity to hone their systems and processes. However, 

this requires guidance, organization, and prioritization.

Finally, there are two ways to provide firsthand learning 

opportunities to help understand BEB employment during 

combat training center rotations: 

■ Send personnel to the JRTC as guest observer-coach

trainers.

■ Request a short ride-along with the Task Force 5 Team to 

gain experience during an actual rotation. 

For more information about Task Force 5, call (337) 353-

8287 or (337) 208-3441. 

Lieutenant Colonel Biankowski is the Task Force 5 (BEB) 

senior observer-coach trainer at the JRTC. He recently -

Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Georgia.

By Lieutenant Colonel Michael R. Biankowski Jr.

Role at the Joint Readiness 
40 Engineer January–April 2017

T

here is an unusual engineer unit embedded within 

the 12th Aviation Battalion, U.S. Army Aviation Brigade (formerly known as the U.S. Army Air Operations Group). Soldiers in the Engineer Regiment may have 

heard rumors of the existence of the 911th Technical Rescue 

Engineer Company (TREC) in some form, either in a passing 

comment or from a friend of a friend who was once assigned 

there. The 911th TREC is an elite unit that continuously 

seeks motivated applicants who wish to challenge themselves and become part of a unique team with a unique mission. The company is located in the National Capital Region, 

tucked away on Fort Belvoir, Virginia. In addition to its classified primary mission set, the unit stands ready to provide 

technical rescue support during disasters—man-made or 

natural—within the District of Columbia metropolitan area 

and to execute defense support of civil authorities operations 

within the surrounding area. 

The company earned its name after responding to the 

11 September 2001 attacks on the Pentagon, where members 

of the unit conducted 24/7 search-and-rescue operations 

for 10 days. Though named after the date of the attacks, 

the unit has been called everything from a “unicorn” to the 

“redheaded stepchild” of the Engineer Regiment. In keeping 

with its various nicknames, the company faces unique challenges associated with its one-of-a-kind mission set. 

As the current commander pointed out, “We don’t deploy. 

In a normal [Army force generation] cycle, a unit would 

train, deploy, reset, and begin training again. The 911th 

doesn’t have a ramp-up period. Rather, we constantly train 

in order to be ready for America’s worst day. Our ‘deployment’ can come any day, any time; and we always have to 

remain ready.” 

The 911th TREC recruits only Soldiers capable of supporting this highly coveted mission with national consequences. The candidates they want on the team are Soldiers 

who are highly motivated and disciplined. Prospective applicants should enjoy learning new skills because new arrivals usually possess little knowledge of the technical rescue 

By First Lieutenant Michael A. Connors

The 911th Technical Rescue Engineer 

Company Offers Unique Assignments
January–April 2017 Engineer 41

profession. The ideal Soldier has been described as 

“one who loves being part of a team, is a meticulous 

problem-solver, and an attention-to-detail-oriented 

Soldier,” said the commander. Rescuers need to be 

well-grounded, mature decision makers who are 

confident in their abilities. The personal readiness 

of 911th TREC Soldiers can make the difference 

between life or death—for themselves, for fellow rescuers, and for trapped victims.

Since the majority of Soldiers who come to the 

company have little experience in the field, the learning curve is steep and requires individual commitment. But the training that new members get at the 

911th TREC is incomparable. First-year Soldiers in 

the unit spend about 3 months on temporary duty at 

different locations in the United States, learning the 

skills they’ll need to be successful in the company. 

Every Soldier earns professional certifications that 

are recognized across the military and civilian urban 

search-and-rescue communities. Regardless of their 

military occupational specialty (MOS), each Soldier 

gets specialized training on ropes; confined-space 

operations; structural collapse; and trench, mine, 

and tunnel rescue techniques. The company trains 

with national search-and-rescue teams, local first 

responders, the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, and other federal and state agencies in the 

National Capital Region. By the time new Soldiers 

have been with the unit for a year, the Army has 

invested a lot of time and money in training, outfitting, and certifying them.

Another unique aspect of the company is the diversity 

of MOSs in the ranks. Line platoons are composed of engineer officers (MOS 12A), combat engineers (MOS 12B), firefighters (MOS 12M), horizontal-construction engineers 

(MOS 12N), and carpentry and masonry specialists (MOS 

12W). The headquarters and support platoons are composed 

of construction engineering supervisors (MOS 12H); signal 

support systems specialists (MOS 25U); health care specialists (MOS 68W); chemical, biological, radiological, and 

nuclear specialists (MOS 74D); wheeled 

vehicle mechanics (MOS 91B); allied

trade specialists (MOS 91E); construction

equipment repairers (MOS 91L); automated logistical specialists (MOS 92A);

petroleum supply specialists (MOS 92F);

and unit supply specialists (MOS 92Y).

Each junior enlisted Soldier, noncommissioned officer, and commissioned officer brings a different perspective to the

team and plays an important role in contributing to the success of the unit. The

current company first sergeant summed

it up by saying, “This is an incredibly

unique assignment and unlike anything

else you’re going to encounter in the

Army. Applicants need to have an open

Soldiers practice helicopter stabilization and victim rescue.

Soldiers from the 911th TREC, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, compete for the title of Rescuer of the Quarter.
42 Engineer January–April 2017

mind and be humble. Regardless of MOS, rank, or time in 

Service, everyone who comes here is a new rescuer. And 

everyone who comes here needs to be motivated to learn 

a new skill set while striving to remain proficient in their 

primary MOS. The company affords the unique opportunity 

for individuals to attend a lot of professional military and 

civilian schools to do just that.” 

The 911th TREC is a table-of-distribution-andallowances unit with plans to expand the organization to 

adapt to the ever-changing skill set of technical rescue. 

The company strives to remain current with the equipment, training, and technology required of such a specialized unit. Every Soldier plays a role in adapting to the 

fluidity of the profession by staying current with his or her 

certifications and training. Soldiers cross-talk and crosstrain with each other and with civilian entities to remain 

ready to respond. The company tries to improve every day 

and constantly seeks eager, committed Soldiers who aren’t 

afraid to test their limits as part of a highly technical, fastpaced team. Further, the unique and highly valuable 

skills of the Soldiers are reinvested 

into the Engineer Regiment as

seasoned 911th TREC members

move on to new assignments after

their time in the 12th Aviation

Battalion.

Soldiers interested in applying 

for the 911th TREC should contact

the 12th Aviation Battalion adjutant at <usarmy.belvoir.usamdw

.mbx.12avnbn-pac@mail.mil>.

First Lieutenant Connors is the 

assistant operations officer for the

12th Aviation Battalion. He served as

a platoon leader and executive officer

in the

a 

bachelor’s degree -

ginia Wesleyan College. He is a graduate of the U.S. School, 

the U.S. and 

the Sapper Leader Course.

A Soldier from the 911th TREC competes for the title of Rescuer of the Quarter. The biannual competition tests 

the physical fitness level, technical knowledge, and basic fundamental skill set of unit members.

A Soldier from the 911th TREC competes for the title of Rescuer of the Quarter.
January–April 2017 Engineer 43

Engineer is always looking for good-quality, action photographs 

(no “grip and grins,” please) to use on the outside covers. If you have 

photographs of Soldiers who are in the proper, current uniform and 

are participating in training events or operations or photographs of 

current, branch-related equipment that is being used during training 

or operations, please send them to us at <usarmy.leonardwood 

.mscoe.mbx.engineer@mail.mil>. 

Ensure that photographs depict proper safety and security 

procedures, and do not send copyrighted photographs. All photographs must be high-resolution; most photographs obtained from 

the Internet, made smaller for e-mailing, or saved from an electronic 

file such as a Microsoft® PowerPoint or Word document cannot be 

used for print. In addition, please include a caption that describes the 

photograph and identifies the subject(s) and photographer (if known). 

Please see our photograph guide at <http://www.wood.army.mil 

/engrmag/Photograph%20Illustration%20Guide.htm> for more 

detailed information.

We Need Your Photographs!

Above: A sapper from the 555th Engineer 

Brigade prepares a road-cratering charge.

Right: Soldiers create an 11-row wire 

obstacle.

The 2016 Sapper Stakes at Joint Base Lewis–McChord, Washington, 25–26 October, consisted of nine lanes that evaluated how 

well squads performed basic combat engineer tasks. This year’s 

competition marked the first time that women combat engineers 

had taken part since the Army opened the combat engineer field 

to women. (Photographs by First Lieutenant Tanangachi Mfuni)
44 Engineer January–April 2017

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update pdate

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate 

Concepts, Organizations, and Doctrine Development Division

Publication 

Number Title Description/Status

Publication Revisions

ATP 3-34.80 Geospatial Engineering Revisions include loss of the topographic companies, adoption of Joint Publication 3-34, Joint Engineer Operations, 

migration of the Digital Topographic Support System into the 

Distributed Common Ground System–Army family of systems, establishment of other peripheral systems and software 

to the geospatial realm, and further establishment of the 

Standard and Shareable Geospatial Foundation. 

Status: To be published in 2d quarter fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Survivability Operations Revisions include updated survivability data in various tables.

Status: To be published in 3d quarter, FY 17.

ATP 3-37.34

Power Generation and 

Distribution

This manual supersedes Technical Manual 3-34.45, Engineer 

Prime Power Operation, and will cover low and high voltage.

Status: To be published in 4th quarter, FY 17.

ATP 3-34.45

Engineer Operations Brigade Combat Team (BCT) 

and Below

ATP 3-34.22 This revision will include discussion of the roles and responsibilities of the task force engineer; clarify the roles and 

responsibilities of the brigade engineer battalion (BEB) 

commander, BEB operations officer, and assistant brigade 

engineer; and include discussion of additional BEB missions 

and responsibilities within the BCT.

Status: To be published in 4th quarter, FY 17.

“Doctrine is indispensable to an army. Doctrine provides a military organization with a common philosophy, a common language, a common purpose, and a 

unity of effort.”
 

January–April 2017 Engineer 45

Please contact us if you have any questions or recommendations concerning doctrine.

Lieutenant Colonel Matt McCulley, Telephone: (573) 563-2717; e-mail: matthew.y.mcculley.mil@mail.mil

Mr. Douglas K. Merrill, Telephone: (573) 563-0003; e-mail: douglas.k.merrill.civ@mail.mil

Engineer Doctrine Team, e-mail: usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.cdidcodddengdoc@mail.mil 

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update pdate

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate 

Concepts, Organizations, and Doctrine Development Division

New Army Publication Highlights

Updates to Army Doctrine Publication/Army Doctrine Reference Publication 3-0, Operations, 

11 November 2016, include the following: 

■ Updates the definition of unified land operations: simultaneous offensive, defensive, and stability or defense support of civil authorities tasks to seize, retain, and exploit the initiative and 

consolidate gains to prevent conflict, shape the operational environment, and win the Nation’s

wars as part of unified action. 

■ Modifies the tenets of unified land operations to simultaneity, depth, synchronization, flexibility. 

■ Adds principles of unified land operations: mission command, develop the situation through

action, combined arms, adhere to law of war, establish and maintain security, and create multiple dilemmas for the enemy. 

■ Adds discussion of multiple dilemmas. Army forces present the enemy with multiple dilemmas 

because they possess the simultaneity to overwhelm the enemy physically and psychologically,the depth to prevent enemy forces from recovering, and the endurance to sustain 

operations. 

■ Expands the traditional concept of combined arms to include joint and multinational assets 

as integral to combined arms and discusses how the Army conducts these operations across 

multiple domains. 

■ Adds “Conduct security cooperation” as a sixth stability task. 

■ Adds “Plan and conduct space activities” as an additional task within the mission command 

warfighting function. 

■ Adds discussion of position of relative advantage, which is defined as a location or the establishment of a favorable condition within the area of operations that provides the commander 

with temporary freedom of action to enhance combat power over an enemy or influence the

enemy to accept risk and move to a position of disadvantage.

■ Adds discussion of consolidating gains, which is defined as the activities to make permanent 

any temporary operational success and set the conditions for a sustainable stable environment allowing for a transition of control to legitimate civil authorities.
46 Engineer January–April 2017

B

etween February 2014 and December 2015, the 

U.S. Army Special Operations Aviation Command 

(USASOAC) from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, built 

five facilities in Arizona for the U.S. Army Special Operations Command Flight Company (UFC). There had previously been no facilities at Yuma Proving Grounds (YPG), 

Arizona, for the Army’s newest aircraft, the C-27J Spartan 

airplane. The USASOAC deputy command engineer (DCE) 

served as the primary USASOAC representative to the agencies working on the projects; he worked to ensure that the 

projects were executed on budget and in a timely manner.

The DCE contributed to every stage of the construction 

process and coordinated the work of the agencies involved. 

He faced many challenges along the way, including handling normal construction issues, working across time zones, 

and balancing Army needs with reality. It is important to 

pass along the numerous lessons learned over the 2 years 

to future leaders. The lessons may seem simple, but their 

implementation can make the difference between project 

success and failure. 

The Yuma projects consisted of two prefabricated metal 

buildings (PMBs), a fabric hangar, two fabric sunshades, 

and corresponding airport taxiway extensions. These simple structures were necessary for the UFC to support the 

U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and 

Military Free Fall School. The PMBs were needed to store 

aircraft parts and to house the Spartan pilots, crews, and 

maintainers. An enclosed hangar was needed for conducting aircraft repairs, especially during the harsh desert summer. Overhead sunshades were needed to reduce the heat 

buildup inside the plane during the day. USASOAC purchased a fabric hangar and fabric sunshades as a temporary 

solution until permanent facilities could be constructed.

The DCE received the project in its conceptual stage. 

Funds to purchase materials and start work had not been 

approved, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

designs were only 65 percent complete, and a military 

unit to build the projects had not been designated. The 

USASOAC commander directed that the facilities be up and 

running within a year to begin supporting the Military Free 

Fall School, which allowed the DCE to begin working on 

the project.

USACE was the primary agency outside of USASOAC 

that worked on the projects, with involvement from five 

districts:

■ Los Angeles.

■ Sacramento. 

■ Mobile.

■ Omaha.

■ Louisville.

By Captain Jeffrey R. Walton
January–April 2017 Engineer 47

The Los Angeles District was the primary district 

involved, providing a project engineer to coordinate operations. The Sacramento District provided designers, the 

Mobile and Omaha Districts provided design and aircraft 

facility expertise and support, and the Louisville District 

started the projects but later turned them over to the 

Los Angeles District since it was geographically closer 

to YPG. 

Many military units were involved throughout the life 

of the projects. The U.S. Naval Construction Force—the 

Seabees—originally planned to construct the facilities. 

They reviewed the designs and developed cost and timeline estimates for USASOAC. However, the Seabees could 

not build the facilities due to other mission requirements. 

USASOAC then called upon the U.S. Air Force Rapid 

Engineer Deployable Heavy Operational Repair Squadron 

Engineer (RED HORSE) to perform the work. The 820th 

RED HORSE Squadron picked up where the Seabees left off. 

It determined the bill of materials, coordinated with USACE 

to order the equipment required, and completed the hangar 

and sunshades from the ground up. 

All construction plans were submitted to the YPG garrison commander for approval, while the YPG Department 

of Public Works worked with USASOAC to approve work 

orders. The Department of Public Works also coordinated 

with other personnel including base master planners, 

the installation fire chief, airfield managers, the installation environmental office, other Army units, and other 

organizations in the area to ensure project success. 

During construction, the Department of Public Works 

worked closely with the 820th and helped the Air Force engineers with any problems they encountered.

The 820th could not provide enough resources and workers to construct the PMBs in time for the UFC to begin operations as planned. USASOAC then looked to USACE, which 

hired a general contractor. This removed the burden of daily 

construction management from the DCE and entailed minimal coordination. 

The last group involved with the projects was the vendor 

who provided the fabric hangar and sunshade structures. 

These structures were much like interlocking toy building 

sets. The prefabricated frame pieces were sent directly to 

the site, where they were erected by the 820th RED HORSE. 

The vendor that won the bid provided the plans for assembly 

and sent a representative to YPG to assist the 820th. The 

vendor also worked directly with USASOAC to ensure that 

the structure customizations, including specialized electrical components, a fire suppression system, and a gantry 

crane, met the needs of the aircraft. 

As with any construction project, there were difficulties. 

Site conditions differed from the time of the initial survey to the start of construction. Environmental concerns 

arose. Communication problems led to misunderstandings. And unique problems came from obtaining funding 

authorizations; working as the middleman between the end 

user, the civilian contractors, and USASOAC; and working 

across three time zones. 

Hangar under construction
48 Engineer January–April 2017

T

he problem of differing site conditions is very common in the construction industry. It is impossible to 

analyze every square inch of a site. The substantial 

foundations required for the YPF projects became an issue. 

Foundations usually support the weight of a structure, but 

the Yuma project consisted of fabric structures stretched 

over poles. The foundation designs were meant to keep them 

from blowing away in the site’s high winds. Poor soil conditions required the purchase of extra fill material to boost soil 

compaction levels. 

T

he desert environment also posed unique challenges. 

Because of the existence of an endangered species 

of cactus on the site, the YPG Environmental Office 

had to relocate the cacti before work could start. Dust pollution was another problem. Dust kicked up by wind and 

moving construction equipment covered the site, which had 

to be watered regularly to reduce the problem. Finally, erosion was another major factor that had not been initially 

considered. It rains hard in Yuma, and soil erosion can cause 

considerable damage. Careful site drainage planning was 

required to reduce erosion effects. 

T

here were some problems with communication. Concerned parties were not always notified of design 

changes. For example, USAOAC inspectors were 

surprised to see dropped ceilings that were not called for in 

the original design. In addition, problems occurred when a 

USAOAC team arrived from Fort Bragg for a PMB inspection and discovered that the structures weren’t ready to be 

inspected. 

T

he USASOAC commander approved the project budget, but funding limits were tight. There were several 

funding account types for each project. For example, 

the communication equipment was purchased from one 

funding account and construction materials had to be purchased with another. This made the DCE role of keeping 

track of the expenses complex and important. 

The Role of the Middleman

T

hroughout the life of the projects, the UFC and 

USASOAC commanders requested many modifications that were not feasible due to budget, time, or 

resource constraints. The DCE’s job was to inform the commanders of what was possible and what was not. Keeping 

the civilian contractors updated with change orders through 

USACE and specifying changes required by Army regulations posed another set of challenges. For example, regulations required separation between the computer server 

rooms and the main portion of the building, so USACE modified the design to meet the requirement. 

Multiple Time Zones

T

he last challenge involved working across time zones. 

Although problems associated with multiple time 

zones are not unique to military projects, the need 

for project leaders to wait for 3 hours for their counterparts 

on the West Coast to get to work can be frustrating. It was 

important for the DCE on the East Coast to check official 

e-mails after normal working hours. 

T

he primary question resulting from the project is, 

“What can be learned?” Regular communication, 

proper planning, proper documentation, physical 

inspection, follow-through, and knowing the end user were 

vital to the success of the projects. Most of the difficulties 

encountered were preventable through the application of 

these principles. 

Communication

R

egular, reliable e-mail communication is important. Senders should ensure receipt of e-mails by 

requesting a reply or calling on the telephone after 

sending a message. Also, since much of the information in 

an e-mail can get “lost in translation,” verbal communication is vital to success. Telephone calls, face-to-face meetings, and teleconferences help explain e-mails and ensure 

the dissemination of accurate information. The best way 

to communicate is in person. The DCE traveled to YPG at 

least once per quarter to speak face-to-face with all parties involved. Meeting people this way helps establish good 

relationships; it is hard to ignore someone who is in the 

same room.

The projects in Yuma would have never been completed 

on time or to the satisfaction of USASOAC without regular team meetings. Meetings, via conference call or in person, provided a great means of ensuring that everyone was 

on the same page, that project details were discussed, and 

that tasks were not forgotten. Taking notes during meetings 

and disseminating the notes to all participants provided 

“The primary question resulting from the project is, ‘What can 

be learned?’ Regular communication, proper planning, proper 

documentation, physical inspection, follow-through, and knowing the end user were vital to the success of the projects.”

(continued on page 51)
January–April 2017 Engineer 49

S

ince the earliest times in our Nation’s history, the 

ability to accurately and quickly survey and assess 

land has proven instrumental in enabling the acquisition and sale of land, the rise of local economies, and the 

free of commerce across what eventually became state 

boundaries. Migrations from the eastern to western United 

States relied in part on the fact that land could be accurately 

plotted and segregated for ownership using survey methods. 

However, as would be expected, these early survey methods 

were largely manual in nature, time-consuming, and prone 

to error. For example, early survey methods for both horizontal (latitude and longitude) and vertical (elevation) positioning required a clear line of sight from one observation to 

the next. Therefore, surveyors and their assistants invested 

years to develop a network of positioning survey marks that 

ultimately spread across the United States. The network 

continued to grow over time, reaching more than 850,000 

positioning survey marks, and is now part of the National 

Spatial Reference System. 

D

espite the vast network of positioning survey marks, 

surveyors were still bound by the requirement of a 

clear line of sight from one survey observation to 

the next. These limitations endured until the advent of the 

global positioning system (GPS) in the late 1970s. Developed 

and launched by the U.S. military in 1978, GPS represents 

a literal constellation of 24 navigation satellites, positioned 

11,000 miles above Earth, that continuously transmits radio 

signals. These signals enable accurate geographic positioning on Earth.

Before long, GPS use expanded well beyond military 

applications, but concerns about accuracy endured. In

response, scientists developed a more accurate form of GPS,

known as differential carrier phase positioning. This form

of GPS enabled the determination of the positions of two

stationary GPS receivers relative to one another. While

limited by stationary requirements, this new form of GPS

eliminated the need for line of sight and enabled the surveying of distances as great as hundreds of kilometers in just

hours, as compared to weeks or even months using earlier

methods (depending on the size and composition of the land

being surveyed).

While this new form of GPS freed surveyors from lineof-sight limitations, its accurate application was limited in

that the GPS receivers needed to remain stationary and

only two GPS receivers could be engaged at a given time. To

address these limitations, scientists began developing kinematic methods to process GPS data. Kinematics refers to the

branch of mechanics concerned with the motion of objects

(without reference to the forces that cause the motion).

These methods ultimately enabled accurate positioning,

within centimeters in some cases, even when one of the GPS

receivers was in motion.

By Mr. George H. Ohanian and Dr. Christina M. Bates 

GPS-S controller
50 Engineer January–April 2017

A Cutting-Edge Capability 

B

uilding upon decades of advancements in GPS technologies, the Global Positioning System–Survey 

(GPS-S) enables Army units to perform several types 

of survey missions, including—

■ Reconnaissance.

■ Construction stake-out and as-built surveys.

■ Airfield surveys.

■ Precise survey control relative to World Geodetic 

System 84.

■ Establishment of control points for engineering, construction, field artillery, air defense, and intelligence. 

GPS-S is managed by the Product Director Combat Terrain Information Systems (PD CTIS), a subordinate command of Project Manager Terrestrial Sensors. The mission 

of PD CTIS is to manage the total life cycle of capabilities 

that collect, disseminate, store, analyze, enhance, and 

improve data that is used in mission planning, design, construction, and topographic/hydrographic survey operations. 

The GPS-S system allows engineer teams to perform precision construction and topographic and hydrographic surveys using signals from several global navigation satellite 

systems to enable efficient and timely construction and construction management decisions. These systems include the 

current GPS, Globalnaya Navigatsionnaya Sputnikovaya 

, and the European Galileo global navigation satellite 

systems that support GPS-enabled survey equipment to 

ensure centimeter level accuracy in all surveys.

GPS-S uses encrypted U.S. military GPS signals in accordance with Department of Defense policy, which does not 

make these signals available to commercial survey equipment. Each GPS-S includes one reference station and two 

rover stations. The reference station will have the capability 

to receive and collect GPS data and compute and transmit 

real-time kinematic (RTK) differential survey and local area 

differential GPS corrections. The rover stations have the 

capability to receive and collect GPS data and receive and 

apply RTK corrections. The reference station is also capable 

of operating as a rover station to ensure redundancy within 

the system. The system includes a perpetual software license 

and associated support equipment that allows the end user 

to upgrade and maintain the following components:

■ Tripods.

■ Survey poles.

■ Transit cases.

■ Carrying bags.

■ Cables.

■ Battery chargers.

■ Software installation/upgrade kit.

■ Spare batteries for extended field operations.

■ Transport cases to protect the equipment.

■ Tools to calibrate and maintain the equipment in 

the field.

GPS-S-9367
January–April 2017 Engineer 51

T

he accuracy and security of the GPS-S are critical, so 

it is equipped with selective availability antispoofing 

modules that allow operations in degraded and contested environments that are being spoofed or jammed. The 

GPS-S can operate in keyed and unkeyed modes to address 

operational needs. Once in keyed mode, the GPS-S antispoofing capability allows surveyors to continue surveying 

activities to complete their mission. Additionally, the GPS-S 

was specifically designed with a modular architecture that

allows it to leverage and adopt current and future spoofing 

and jamming capabilities. This architecture improves security, reduces vulnerability, and allows continuous survey 

operations in degraded conditions. 

The GPS-S is fully interoperable with the currently 

fielded Instrument Set, Reconnaissance and Surveying 

capabilities and the line-of-sight Army Integrated Survey 

Instrument (together known as Total Station). This interoperability allows for the seamless collection and processing of 

survey data within the family of systems that support combat engineers and surveyors and construction units without 

requiring additional hardware or software. 

Further, the GPS-S has an embedded, switchable radio 

that allows it to communicate between the bases and rovers and with the currently fielded machine controls used on 

heavy equipment. The radios were designed and approved to 

be used in the continental United States and abroad. Unlike 

other commercial survey systems, the embedded radios, 

antispoofing receiver, and other components of the controller reduce cabling, standardize batteries, decrease setup 

time, and reduce overall maintenance. 

Fielding of GPS-S

F

ielding of the GPS-S was scheduled to start in late 

2017, with the initial fielding to the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. During this fielding, PD CTIS would provide new 

equipment training to the center community, which represents a combined audience of multiple Services. (The Army 

is the lead proponent for providing joint survey training to all 

Services). After the fielding to the Maneuver Support Center 

of Excellence, PD CTIS will begin fielding GPS-S to survey 

units and provide associated new-equipment training

Mr. Ohanian is the PD CTIS and serves as the chief of the 

Acquisition Branch, U.S. Geospatial Center, U.S. 

He holds a bachelor’s degree 

the University of Maryland and a graduate degree 

Washington University and is Defense Acquisition Workforce 

Dr. r of C. M. Bates Consulting. 

-

tion and research, and engineering 

holds a bachelor’s degree 

and doctor of law degrees University, and a doctoreveryone with a record of the discussions and made it easy 

to update the commander about the project status. Physical 

records and notes ensured that everyone left the meetings 

with the same picture of the way forward. The ability of the 

DCE to reference notes and e-mails ensured that other agencies took responsibility for their assigned tasks. This helped 

prevent contractors and USACE from billing USASOAC for 

their mistakes on more than one occasion.

T

he most important aspect of the construction projects was follow-through. It should be possible to 

trust that everyone working on a project is doing the 

right thing, but tasks can still be forgotten or ignored. Early 

during the construction of the hangar and first sunshade, 

the drawings for the second sunshade remained incomplete. Several months earlier, USASOAC had requested 

that USACE begin working on the designs; but USASOAC 

did not follow through, and USACE did not work on the 

drawings for several months. Both organizations subsequently forgot about the drawings, and there was a scramble to complete them in time for funding approval. Better 

follow-through from both parties would have prevented 

this problem.

Another key factor to success was knowing the end user. 

The UFC commander asked for many changes to the projects, 

but a knowledge of the actual requirements versus requests 

helped keep the change orders to a minimum. In addition, 

problems always crop up during projects. But awareness of 

the USASOAC commander’s notification criteria kept the 

project running smoothly without any unnecessary explanation of project details. Informing the commander about 

every detail and problem that arose would have unnecessarily overwhelmed him.

 The DCE was the lynchpin that held the entire venture 

together. The original plans changed considerably throughout the 2 years of the project, but persistence and hard work 

ensured success. Through all the problems, the requests for 

changes, and the coordination with the different elements, 

the DCE found a way to keep the project running.

Acknowledgement:

Special thanks to Dr. George Ford, Graduate Program Director for Construction Management, Western Carolina University.

Captain Walton serves as the deputy operations officer/chief 

of operations for the 18th Military Police Brigade at Grafen-

-

neer Captains 

Course. He holds a bachelor’s degree in construction engineering 

and Carolina State University and a 

degree in construction He is a certified 
Self-development is a major pillar in the growth of Army leaders. One tool to aid in this is the “Engineer Commandant’s 

Reading List” at <https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/usaes-commandant-resource-menu>. It includes a variety of books 

on history, politics, and culture that are appropriate for Soldiers and civilians in the Engineer Regiment. The list is not allinclusive and will be updated over time.

Book reviews are a feature in each issue of Engineer. Authors of book reviews summarize the contents of books of interest 

and point out the key lessons to be learned from them. Readers who wish to submit book reviews may forward them to <usarmy 

.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.engineer@mail.mil>. Books for review do not need to be selected from the reading list.

52 Engineer January–April 2017

This book contains an intriguing historical account that 

traces the lineage of the powerful concept of the caliphate 

from its inception to its modern manifestations. As Hugh 

Kennedy explains, “In order to understand the Islamic 

State’s idea of caliphate and why it should prove relevant 

and important to many, we have to understand its roots 

deep in the Muslim tradition.” Kennedy explores the historical connotations of the office and strives to draw a parallel between past Muslim concepts of the position to its 

present day existence in the Islamic State of Iraq and the 

Levant (ISIL). The text breaks down the idea of a caliphate by historical dynasties and explains how the legacy 

and contributions of each dynasty shaped the modern geopolitical climate. The text vividly describes the rise and 

fall of the dynasties, their struggles with the office, their 

achievements during their reign, and the way their contributions are being used in modern times to portray a romanticized view of Islamic warfare. 

From its use of the traditional black color scheme on 

banners and attire, which was adopted during the Abbasid 

era, to its espousal of the tradition of bay’ah, which signifies 

allegiance to an individual as the caliph, ISIL appears to 

use the concept of a caliphate to justify some of its barbaric 

and violent actions. These actions are viewed by many as a 

repetition of past atrocities committed during the Islamic 

Golden Age, traditionally dated from the 8th century to the 

13th century. The book begins with the explanation of the 

idea of a caliph, or God’s deputy on Earth, and culminates 

by correlating the ty of the concept with the way ISIL 

uses the idea to legitimize its political and religious power 

over the Arab world today. From the selection of the first 

caliphs after Mohammed’s death (which undoubtedly set the 

tone for the way later dynasties would struggle for power, 

determine the powers held by the position, and create the 

division of the Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims) to the current 

claim that Abu Bakr Baghdadi is to be the next caliph, ISIL 

is indeed attempting to revive an ancient conception, which 

some would argue is a perversion of Islam. 

Kennedy does a marvelous job of breathing life into a 

historical text that encompasses centuries of historical incidents, while setting the tone to make historical connections 

between past occurrences and the ideological movement 

that is unfolding in the present day Middle East. This text 

is a must-read for those who wish to understand the effects 

that past caliphates have on the ever-growing movement we 

see today.

Captain Braxton is the of the 74th Multiof the U.S. the U.S. -

borne School Basic and Advanced Airborne Courses, the 

Sapper Leader Course, the U.S. and 

the Defense Support of Civil Authorities Phase II Course. He 

Auburn University.

Caliphate: The History of an Idea, by Hugh Kennedy, 

Basic Books, 11 October 2016, ISBN-13: 978-0465094387

Reviewed by Captain Dale C. Braxton
January–April 2017 Engineer 53

The hundreds of bombers overhead sounded like bees in 

the ears of those on the ground and darkened the midday 

sky as young Airmen on their way to pummel cities just 

a few miles ahead. By the dozens, American and British soldiers clung to the sides of Sherman and Challenger tanks 

streaming to the heartland of Germany to put an end to the 

war. Rick Atkinson paints remarkable detail of the scenario 

in broad, colorful swaths, through individual accounts and 

by capturing the movements of great armies across expansive terrain.

Mr. Atkinson, bestselling author of military history and 

senior editor of the Washington Post for more than 20 years, 

has accumulated many awards, including Pulitzer Prizes for 

history and journalism. The Guns at Last Light completes 

his World War II trilogy, which began with An Army at 

Dawn and continued with The Day of Battle.

1, 2 It seems that 

little escapes his telling. For instance, he describes General 

Dwight D. Eisenhower’s habit of smoking 90 cigarettes a day 

and details the Supreme Commander’s deteriorating health 

from stress and lack of sleep. He provides details of privates 

and officers alike, carrying out their orders at the knife’s 

bloody edge of battle. Mr. Atkinson reveals the human 

menagerie as it emerges from water’s edge at Normandy and 

surges through Europe in fits and starts, through heroic, 

cowardly, faithful, and sometimes whimsical perpetual 

motion. He begins the story in England, as the Allies prepare for beach assaults on Normandy and southern France. 

He reveals the Allied leader’s frustrations and compromises 

as the Allied armies formulate what will become Operation Overlord. As their plans unfold, equipment, supplies, 

men, and anxiety mount in England. Operation Overlord 

became the greatest air, land, and sea attack in history. In 

preparation for D-Day, hundreds of assault boats were built, 

hundreds of rehearsals were performed, and tons of supplies were gathered. Units organized, and the host country 

became uneasy as the youth of America descended on British soil. Mr. Atkinson describes vivid accounts of men on the 

march—all of whom had a single purpose: to race toward the 

German Fatherland and destroy the evil within.

Mr. Atkinson candidly describes America’s shortcomings. He tells how the country was woefully unready for 

war in 1943–44. Generalship at the highest levels was too 

often found wanting. Soldiers were poorly organized and 

inadequately equipped. But America’s industrial might 

and adaptability steadily improved despite initial failures. 

Throughout the narrative, he tells how U.S. industry rapidly uncoiled to raise production levels and sustain them 

at heights unequaled by any other industrial nation during 

the war or for decades after. America began June 1944 with 

3.5 million Soldiers, more than 2,000 tanks, 13,000 planes, 

and 5,333 ships. By the spring of 1945, it had more than 

8 million men in uniform and was producing 50,000 planes 

per month. America’s industrial machine allowed adaptations of equipment and then massed that equipment on the 

battlefield in quantities that the Axis powers could not keep 

up with. In June 1944, the U.S. Army Air Force launched 

37 sorties for every one by the German Luftwaffe.

The author occasionally provides a wide-lens view of 

America’s greater challenges, which is helpful in providing 

the reader with context. By early 1945, America was working to close down the war in Europe and was starting to 

turn its eyes toward Japan. By the time Germany surrendered in May 1945, America had already made significant 

advances toward mainland Japan. Mr. Atkinson provides an 

inside look at the power struggles between U.S. President 

Franklin D. Roosevelt, Russia’s General Secretary Joseph 

Stalin, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Their 

competition over occupation lands and jockeying for postwar 

alliances dominated their thinking, with each leader struggling to advance his own position. All three men knew that 

America was nearing completion of the atom bomb. What 

they did not know was that its use against Japan would tip 

the global scales of power toward the United States for more 

than 60 years. 

Mr. Atkinson struggles to keep the reader on track from 

time to time. Clarity is occasionally lost as he leaps from 

individual stories and firsthand accounts to grand descriptions of the U.S. Army’s movements across the battlefield. 

For example, he recounts “The windows are exploding, the 

(Continued on page 56)

The Guns at Last Light: The War in Western Europe, 

1944–1945, by Rick Atkinson, Henry Holt and Company, 

2013, ISBN 978-1-2500-3781-7

Reviewed by Colonel Martin Dale Snider
54 Engineer January–April 2017

S

erving as an instructor can be one of the most gratifying assignments in the Engineer Regiment. It provides 

the opportunity to shape and mold the next generation 

of Army engineers, who are highly motivated warfighters 

from all walks of life. Instructors have the potential to make 

a positive, lasting impact on the students who will fill the 

ranks of the Engineer Regiment. There are numerous techniques and methods of instruction that can be used to meet 

this challenge. This article focuses on three of them: 

■ Collaboration.

■ Reflection.

■ Student-centered instruction. 

Understanding and successfully integrating these three 

methods enable instructors to produce the best engineers 

the military has to offer. Success is not measured by how 

well the instructors know their profession, but by how well 

they tap into the skills needed to cultivate a learning environment that extends beyond the classroom.

T

he engineer profession is risky business, even in the 

best of circumstances. By the time Service members are on assignment to be instructors, they have 

several years of military experience under their belts and 

should know that the success of a unit is not based on any 

single individual, but on the group. Students may not be 

familiar with group dynamics, with what it means to be part 

of a team, or with the importance of communicating with 

others. Engineering requires collaboration, which starts 

By Staff Sergeant Eric T. Bailey

An instructor monitors a student who is attempting his first surface weld.
January–April 2017 Engineer 55

with the planning phase, continues through the execution 

phase, and ends with the recovery phase. Instructors should 

not expect students to automatically know how to collaborate. Rather, they should start by introducing the concept 

in the classroom instead of waiting until the students are 

performing an exercise in a field environment. Collaborative 

learning helps students understand the technical information that is presented.

Everyone brings something, such as prior knowledge or 

experience, to contribute in the classroom. The information that students learn in the classroom does not stem only 

from what instructors teach them. Instructors must make a 

conscious effort to learn who their students are and where 

they come from. Instructors should have the students share 

the experiences they had before they came to the school and 

urge them to connect those experiences to the lessons they 

are learning. This initial connection is associated with several benefits; it—

■ Illustrates how students can tie their lessons to earlier 

experiences. 

■ Shows students that their experiences have value.

■ Provides opportunities for students to share their 

thoughts with others, which leads them to think critically and avoid automatically accepting their lessons at 

face value.

The Think-Pair-Share technique promotes collaboration. Using this technique, the instructor poses a question 

to the students and asks them to think, then write down 

their answers. It is important that they write down their 

answers because this reinforces what they are thinking and 

forces them to commit to an answer. Then students pair up 

with a classmate to share their answers. The two-person 

conversation makes the exercise

easier for those who are not comfortable talking in larger groups.

It often reinforces what the students originally thought, thus

making them more comfortable

with sharing their thoughts with

a larger group—or it might signal

that their answers are off target,

which provides their partners

with a teaching moment. Finally,

students are asked to share the

conversation they had with their

partners with the group. The

exercise shows that competence

is important, but that developing

the ability to communicate, share,

and teach is even more important.

Reflection

R

eflection can be compared 

to the Army method of 

conducting after action 

reviews. Reflection can be conducted in large groups or 

performed individually. The paper, a form of 

reflection, is a quick, easy method of interactive instruction 

that can be employed anywhere. The instructor asks students to anonymously write down at least one thing they 

learned that day and pose one question they have about the 

material. The instructor reviews what the students wrote, 

then devises a game plan to tackle any misconceptions 

revealed by the questions. Using this approach requires that 

every student participate, allowing the instructor to gauge 

the students’ level of understanding. This also allows students to remain anonymous and avoid any possible embarrassment for asking what they may fear are silly questions.

Another example of reflection takes place in a larger 

setting, where students share information with the entire 

class. The instructor takes notes throughout the day about 

subjects and activities on which the students could improve. 

When it comes time for reflection, the instructor is not 

responsible for leading the period of reflection, but facilitating it. The instructor holds the students responsible for 

comparing what was supposed to happen to what actually 

happened and then discussing how to make improvements. 

Students should commit their thoughts to paper before they 

share with the larger group. While the students are sharing, the instructor should listen for any misconceptions (to 

stop the spread of misinformation), while crossing topics off 

the list as they are mentioned. If there are items that have 

not been crossed off when the students are finished, the 

instructor should intervene with brief, pointed comments. 

By reversing roles, the instructor empowers the students, 

making them responsible for their own learning. At the 

end of a long day, students are likely to be more engaged 

when listening to their peers than their instructor, who has 

probably been talking to them all day. The final step for 

A student begins to secure a flange at the aquatic training facility.
56 Engineer January–April 2017

instructors is to ask for questions. This ties in well with collaboration and gives students the opportunity to find their 

own solutions.

L

ecturing is important, and it has its place; however, it 

should be used sparingly and along with other methods of instruction. Any time an instructor is the one 

who is talking, the learning is not student-centered. Many 

of the engineering fields are technical and full of procedural material, but that only means that instructors need 

to think of creative ways to educate students. One way to 

implement the student-centered method of instruction is to 

direct students to read the material that will be covered the 

following day. While the students are reading, they should 

come up with their own questions about any material that 

is unclear or about information that they would like to have 

explained in greater detail. As students pose their questions 

the next day, the instructor should invite others in the classroom to answer the questions. If there are no takers, the 

instructor can step in to shed some light. After all questions 

have been answered, students should be allowed to start on 

their homework. The instructor should remain available 

to answer questions. Students should be allowed to take 

responsibility for their own learning. When they show up 

in class with questions, the instructor knows exactly what 

topics to be addressed and can avoid wasting time on material the students already know. If anything in the lesson has 

been neglected, the instructor can create a small quiz that 

covers the material that wasn’t discussed. This technique 

keeps students on their toes and makes them realize that 

they should not neglect information that was not covered 

in class. This may require that the instructor spend more 

time in preparation; but when it comes time to teach, the 

instructor should be able to operate more as a facilitator and 

less as a lecturer who repeats what is already written in the 

student guide.

Conclusion

I

nstructors never have enough time to hone all the facilitation skills that are required to teach. The small list 

of examples of instruction and facilitation techniques 

presented in this article should provide some insight that 

instructors can use inside and outside of the classroom. The 

intent of this article is to show instructors how to get students more involved in their learning. This teaching philosophy represents but a small portion of what I have learned 

as an instructor at the Naval Diving and Salvage Training 

Center, Panama City, Florida, and the Cadre Faculty and 

Development Course, Fort Knox, Kentucky.1 By incorporating collaboration, reflection, and student-centered instruction into the learning environment, instructors in the Engineer Regiment are doing their part to produce the very best 

engineers the military has to offer. 

Endnote:

1The Cadre Faculty and Development Course at Fort Knox 

is a pilot program for senior commissioned and noncommissioned officers to study organizational learning and leadership 

while earning college credits from the College of Education and 

Human Development, University of Louisville.

Staff Sergeant Bailey serves as an instructor-writer -

pany A, 169th Engineer Battalion, at the Naval Diving and 

Salvage Training Center, Florida. He is a graduate of the Cadre Faculty and Course and has been 

awarded the Senior Instructor Badge. He is working toward 

a bachelor of science degree in organizational leadership and 

is shaking, we are choking in the smell of gunpowder. 

She piled her children and mattresses onto a horse cart 

and inland... Allied planes swaddled the bombardment 

lanes with white smoke to blind German gunners.”

Mr. Atkinson is skilled at guiding the reader through 

engaging accounts of the official correspondence of the greatest leaders of the Axis and the Allies, as well as more intimate personal accounts. For example, General Eisenhower’s 

personal assistant, Captain Kay Sommersby, wrote in her 

journal: “. . . E. is very depressed. . . . E. worried because 

Monty has stopped going. . . . E. does not feel well, high 

blood pressure. . . . E’s waspish mood is truly vile. . . . Beetle 

(General Walter Bedell “Beetle” Smith) was positive that he 

was on the verge of a nervous breakdown.” 

The Guns at Last Light is a five-star account of the best 

and worst of mankind at war. This book is engaging in its 

realistic descriptions; readers may have a strong desire to 

read it in a single sitting.

Endnotes:

1Rick Atkinson, 

1942–1943, Holt Paperbacks, New York, New York, 15 May 

2007.

2Rick Atkinson, The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and 

Italy, 1943–1944, Henry Holt and Company, New York, New 

York, 2 October 2007.

Colonel Snider Brigade, 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He holds a bachelor’s degree in 

Tech University and degree in 

construction He is a 

graduate of the Engineer Officer Basic Course, the Field Artillery 

Officer Advanced Course, the U.S. Airborne School, the 

U.S. 

Staff School, the U.S. and the 

General Staff College.
January–April 2017 Engineer 57

I

n September 2012, then Secretary of the Army John 

M. McHugh signed Army Directive 2012-08, 

Total Force Policy. In it, he challenged Regular Army 

and Reserve Component units to train together. He placed 

emphasis on “. . . collective training of tactical-level organizations, including for those organizations that will routinely 

deploy as multicomponent forces . . ..”1 Engineer companies 

and detachments assigned to engineer brigades fall into the 

category of organizations that routinely deploy as multicomponent forces. 

The 16th Engineer Brigade, Ohio Army National Guard, 

and the 20th Engineer Brigade (Airborne), Fort Bragg, 

North Carolina, regularly seek opportunities to train 

tactical organizations. During the summer of 2016, firefighting detachments and engineer support companies 

(ESCs) from both brigades trained together in Ohio and 

Pennsylvania which served as a great opportunity to share 

skills across components.

T

he combined firefighting training event took place 

during the Ohio Army National Guard annual training cycle, 15–20 July 2016, at the Ohio Fire Academy, 

Reynoldsburg, Ohio, with the 295th, 296th, and 5694th Firefighting Detachments from the 16th Engineer Brigade and 

the 513th Firefighting Detachment from the 20th Engineer 

Brigade participating. The 

training consisted of classroom

instruction by academy staff;

search and rescue techniques

training; live-burn training;

and scenarios that included

aircraft, structure, and vehicle

fires and rescues. Firefighting

detachments are small organizations consisting of just seven

Soldiers. Members of Military

Occupational Specialty 12M–

Firefighter, make up a small,

close-knit community. Some

unit members know each other

A Soldier from the 945th 

ESC tends a concrete mixer 

as other Soldiers prepare a 

crater with a high-mobility 

engineer excavator.
58 Engineer January–April 2017

from advanced individual training, oversees deployments, or 

prior training events. 

During firefighting operations, the firefighters were 

trained on properly dispatching to an emergency. They also 

responded to vehicle fires and vehicle crashes. In these scenarios, firefighters were required to properly extract victims 

from the vehicles while stabilizing the casualties. Using 

hydraulic cutters, firefighters quickly evacuated casualties 

and rendered first aid. A noncommissioned officer from the 

296th Firefighting Detachment described the overall training tempo and requirements of the exercise, stating that 

working with another team allowed firefighters to share 

their experiences and techniques, tactics, and procedures. 

He said that working together was beneficial for both organizations and that he hoped to train with another Regular 

Army element in the future.

During the three structure fire scenarios, firefighters rescued numerous victims from a three-story building. Search 

and rescue teams searched through pitch black, smoke-filled 

rooms that reached temperatures of over 1,000°F. Ladders 

were deployed to the second floor to retrieve casualties. A 

Soldier from the 513th Firefighting Detachment noted that 

carrying the combined weight of firefighting gear and a victim made for a demanding task. All of the teams worked in 

unison to battle the fire and save victims, with each Soldier 

playing an active part in the scenarios. 

Everyone agreed that the most difficult portion of the 

training was the downed C-130 aircraft scenario. Working 

through the night, the firefighters had little time to search 

for survivors while dealing with the fire from aircraft fuel. 

Managing the site was chaotic, with personnel performing 

numerous tasks. Firefighting team leaders used the Incident Command System to control the scenario and ensure 

safety. Truck placement, fire hose positioning, water tender 

operation, rescue techniques, and accountability were some 

of the individual tasks built into this collective training 

event. The Ohio Fire Academy staff maintained the integrity of the firefighting training throughout the scenario. One 

member of the 295th Firefighting Detachment said that the 

best part of the entire exercise was the opportunity to work 

alongside an active duty detachment. He said that the cooperation and mutual understanding of the firefighting elements led

to better training because of the

team effort by Regular Army and

National Guard units.

T

he 945th ESC, Ohio Army 

National Guard, and the 

618th ESC (Airborne), Fort 

Bragg, trained on culvert and rapid

runway repair from 11 to 26 June

2016. The 945th ESC was strong

at culvert repair, but weak on

rapid runway repair; conversely,

the 618th ESC was strong on rapid

runway repair, but weak on culvert

repair. To gain proficiency in rapid

The 295th Engineer Detachment station chief supervises 

vehicle extrication training by an Army firefighter using 

hydraulic cutters.

Soldiers of the 945th ESC conduct rapid runway repairs at Fort 

Indiantown Gap.
January–April 2017 Engineer 59

runway repair, a platoon leader from the 945th ESC traveled to Fort Bragg months ahead of the scheduled collective 

training to observe training there. He observed the materials and equipment used during a full rehearsal of rapid 

runway repair by the 618th ESC. Upon return to Ohio, he 

prepared a list of necessary equipment and materials and 

the 945th ESC began planning the training for the upcoming annual training period. In turn, the 618th ESC sent one 

platoon to work with the 945th ESC to support Army Total 

Force Policy training in June.

The rapid runway repair training was conducted at Fort 

Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania. A platoon from each company performed the following tasks in daylight and in limited visibility:

■ Stone and grout repair.

■ Concrete cap repair.

The units also shared equipment to minimize training 

equipment purchases and transportation costs. The 618th 

ESC provided repair-specific equipment such as anchor 

drills, drill bits, and anchors, while the 945th ESC provided 

the heavy engineer equipment, such as the Interim Engineer 

High-Mobility Excavator. Culvert repair training took place 

at Camp Ravenna Joint Military Training Center, Ravenna, 

Ohio. The companies repaired two washed-out culverts by 

excavating the unserviceable culvert, placing a new culvert, 

backfilling, compacting, and grading the roadway.

Policy in Action

T

he combined efforts of the firefighting detachments 

allowed efficient and effective training to take place. 

Members of both units had only positive things to say 

about the overall training and expressed eagerness to participate in future combined training events. The detachment 

leaders credited the success of the training to the hard work 

and collaboration of Soldiers in each component. 

The specific skill sets that each ESC possessed before 

conducting the combined training allowed the Army Total 

Force Policy to showcase the benefits that a partnership can 

bring. Each unit provided the other with technical training 

on key collective tasks that were important to their commanders. The units also developed a relationship that will 

result in future idea sharing and collaboration that did not 

exist before. Overall, the Army Total Force Policy training 

was a success and the units look forward to the next opportunity to train together.

Endnote:

1Army Directive 2012-08, Total Force Policy, 4 September 2012.

First Lieutenant Cope is the of the 945th ESC, 

112th Engineer Battalion, 16th Engineer Brigade, Ohio 

National Guard. He is a graduate of the Engineer Basic Officer 

Leader Course and holds a bachelor’s degree in organizational 

Chief Warrant Officer Three Ahrens 

5694th Engineer Firefighter 112th Engineer Battalion, 16th Engineer Brigade, Ohio National Guard. He 

is a graduate of the Warrant Officer Advanced Course and holds 

Soldiers from the 945th ENC and 618th ESC (Airborne) mix concrete to cap off the crater repair at the bottom 

left of the photograph.
60 Engineer January–April 2017
58 Engineer January–April 2017

from advanced individual training, oversees deployments, or 

prior training events. 

During firefighting operations, the firefighters were 

trained on properly dispatching to an emergency. They also 

responded to vehicle fires and vehicle crashes. In these scenarios, firefighters were required to properly extract victims 

from the vehicles while stabilizing the casualties. Using 

hydraulic cutters, firefighters quickly evacuated casualties 

and rendered first aid. A noncommissioned officer from the 

296th Firefighting Detachment described the overall training tempo and requirements of the exercise, stating that 

working with another team allowed firefighters to share 

their experiences and techniques, tactics, and procedures. 

He said that working together was beneficial for both organizations and that he hoped to train with another Regular 

Army element in the future.

During the three structure fire scenarios, firefighters rescued numerous victims from a three-story building. Search 

and rescue teams searched through pitch black, smoke-filled 

rooms that reached temperatures of over 1,000°F. Ladders 

were deployed to the second floor to retrieve casualties. A 

Soldier from the 513th Firefighting Detachment noted that 

carrying the combined weight of firefighting gear and a victim made for a demanding task. All of the teams worked in 

unison to battle the fire and save victims, with each Soldier 

playing an active part in the scenarios. 

Everyone agreed that the most difficult portion of the 

training was the downed C-130 aircraft scenario. Working 

through the night, the firefighters had little time to search 

for survivors while dealing with the fire from aircraft fuel. 

Managing the site was chaotic, with personnel performing 

numerous tasks. Firefighting team leaders used the Incident Command System to control the scenario and ensure 

safety. Truck placement, fire hose positioning, water tender 

operation, rescue techniques, and accountability were some 

of the individual tasks built into this collective training 

event. The Ohio Fire Academy staff maintained the integrity of the firefighting training throughout the scenario. One 

member of the 295th Firefighting Detachment said that the 

best part of the entire exercise was the opportunity to work 

alongside an active duty detachment. He said that the cooperation and mutual understanding of the firefighting elements led

to better training because of the

team effort by Regular Army and

National Guard units.

T

he 945th ESC, Ohio Army 

National Guard, and the 

618th ESC (Airborne), Fort 

Bragg, trained on culvert and rapid

runway repair from 11 to 26 June

2016. The 945th ESC was strong

at culvert repair, but weak on

rapid runway repair; conversely,

the 618th ESC was strong on rapid

runway repair, but weak on culvert

repair. To gain proficiency in rapid

The 295th Engineer Detachment station chief supervises 

vehicle extrication training by an Army firefighter using 

hydraulic cutters.

Soldiers of the 945th ESC conduct rapid runway repairs at Fort 

Indiantown Gap.
January–April 2017 Engineer 59

runway repair, a platoon leader from the 945th ESC traveled to Fort Bragg months ahead of the scheduled collective 

training to observe training there. He observed the materials and equipment used during a full rehearsal of rapid 

runway repair by the 618th ESC. Upon return to Ohio, he 

prepared a list of necessary equipment and materials and 

the 945th ESC began planning the training for the upcoming annual training period. In turn, the 618th ESC sent one 

platoon to work with the 945th ESC to support Army Total 

Force Policy training in June.

The rapid runway repair training was conducted at Fort 

Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania. A platoon from each company performed the following tasks in daylight and in limited visibility:

■ Stone and grout repair.

■ Concrete cap repair.

The units also shared equipment to minimize training 

equipment purchases and transportation costs. The 618th 

ESC provided repair-specific equipment such as anchor 

drills, drill bits, and anchors, while the 945th ESC provided 

the heavy engineer equipment, such as the Interim Engineer 

High-Mobility Excavator. Culvert repair training took place 

at Camp Ravenna Joint Military Training Center, Ravenna, 

Ohio. The companies repaired two washed-out culverts by 

excavating the unserviceable culvert, placing a new culvert, 

backfilling, compacting, and grading the roadway.

Policy in Action

T

he combined efforts of the firefighting detachments 

allowed efficient and effective training to take place. 

Members of both units had only positive things to say 

about the overall training and expressed eagerness to participate in future combined training events. The detachment 

leaders credited the success of the training to the hard work 

and collaboration of Soldiers in each component. 

The specific skill sets that each ESC possessed before 

conducting the combined training allowed the Army Total 

Force Policy to showcase the benefits that a partnership can 

bring. Each unit provided the other with technical training 

on key collective tasks that were important to their commanders. The units also developed a relationship that will 

result in future idea sharing and collaboration that did not 

exist before. Overall, the Army Total Force Policy training 

was a success and the units look forward to the next opportunity to train together.

Endnote:

1Army Directive 2012-08, Total Force Policy, 4 September 2012.

First Lieutenant Cope is the of the 945th ESC, 

112th Engineer Battalion, 16th Engineer Brigade, Ohio 

National Guard. He is a graduate of the Engineer Basic Officer 

Leader Course and holds a bachelor’s degree in organizational 

Chief Warrant Officer Three Ahrens 

5694th Engineer Firefighter 112th Engineer Battalion, 16th Engineer Brigade, Ohio National Guard. He 

is a graduate of the Warrant Officer Advanced Course and holds 

Soldiers from the 945th ENC and 618th ESC (Airborne) mix concrete to cap off the crater repair at the bottom 

left of the photograph.