FESSIONAL BULLETMl FOR ARMY ENQlNEERL 
B , Liiijo, (;<,it nil XO~WIIH.l'i~,n~~,s 

Co~~riii~r~r~l~rnr. L!.S. ;\~III! Eii,qiirt2erSchool

The leader's statement, "How so few can do so much 

for so many" is a perfect fit for the many 

accomplishments the U.S. Army Engineer School 

has managed this past year Our community has experienced 

great change, not only in the myriad of tasks required for our 

seamless transition to the Maneuver Support Center 

(MANSCEN) but also in what we do best-supporting the 

engineer community. We will continue to march proudly into 

the future as we modernize our engineer force structure 

by synchronizing Force XXI and Army After Next 

efforts, complete Engineer School reorganization under 

MANSCEN. and continue to develop cilrrent doctrine. 

Our Doctrine Division continues to work on "high 

priority" manuals: FM 90-13-1, Combined Arms Rreachii~g 

Operations. FM 90-7, Combined Arnls Obsrocle Inregrariof~, 

and FM 5.103, S~trvivnbilit)j. Furthermore, the division 

continues to work on Force XXI and the joint contingency 

force requirements. The article "Joint Doctrine Update" 

appears on page 24 of this magazine. 

The theme for this year's ENFORCE Conference is 

"Joint Engineers: America's Total Engineer Force for the 

Next Millennium." We believe that this event has all the 

attributes of an outstanding conference. One of the highlights this year, presented by 1st Engineer Brigade, is a 

tactical twilight tattoo that outlines the rich histor). of the 

Engineer Regiment. 

If you have not had an opportunity to visit our installation 

recently, I extend my personal invitation for you to do so. As 

soon as yo11 enter the front gate, you will feel an air of 

vitality and energy. You will see an installation going 

through its maturation process as the Amy's Maneuver 

Support Center. A $260 million constmction effort on this 

post supports our soldiers' training needs. It leverages and 

synchronizes the Engineer School with the Chemical and 

Military Police Schools. This marriage truly passes the 

"common-sense test" in savings to the nation's taxpayers. 

The construction also supports the role these proponent 

schools will play in satisfying future Homeland Defense 

training and doctrinal requirements. 

This spring, Fort Leonard Wood will reorga~ze to 

common corps subjects that will be taught by MANSCEN 

personnel under the Directorate of Common Leader 

Training. These courses include subjects that are common to 

all branches-for example, legal and medical courses. This 

will allow the proponent schools to focus training energies on 

branch-specific subjects. We have programmed this transition 

so the impact will be seamless to the engineer community at 

large. 

In March, I had the opportunity to testify to a 

congressional subcommittee concerning our installation's 

readiness. I took this occasion to highlight our many 

accomplish~nents in 1998. Last year we trained more than 

32.000 soldiers in 60 military occupational specialties (MOS) 

through our Basic and Advanced Individual Training, Basic 

and Advanced NCO Courses, Drill Sergeant School. Oflicer 

Basic and Captain Career Courses, and Precommand Courses 

for senior leaders. We also trained 4,000 sailors, marines, and 

airmen via interservice training courses. Funhemlore, I 

extended my personal thanks to Congress for their efforts in 

improving our soldier's pay and retirement benefits. 

Your Engineer School accomplishes all this while training 

and producing the finest soldiers and leaders throughout the 

training base. During the past two years, commanders at Fort 

Leonard Wood have used Army Pe~formance Improvement 

Criteria principles to document and optimize their training 

program of instruction. After base-lining their soldiers' 

performance to that of othcr TRADOC installations. we 

found our soldiers set the standard in marksmanship. physical 

fitness training. and basic soldiers' skills testing. 

Keeping my finger on the training pulse of our field units 

is imperative if we are to fulfill our mission at the Engineer 

School. I want to personally thank all ofthe commandel-s and 

key leade1.s who participated in the recent Commandant's 

VTC. The issues, concerns, and discussions have not fallen 

on deaf ears. I want you to know that we at the schoolhouse 

are working your issues with renewed vigor. It is our goal to 

meet your visions and training objectives so that engineer 

soldiers and leaders are trained for whatever the future may 

hold. 

Along with all these innovations and changes come new 

faces and jobs. I would like to announce just a couple: 

Colonel Bill Van Horn will become the Engineer Assistant 

Commandant, and Colonel Marsha Killam will become 

Director of the Directorate of Common Leader Training. 

We are living in a fast-paced environment. All of us at the 

Engineer School are committed to providing you with worldclass training support. See you at the conference! 

Essayons! 
I 

April 1999 	 Headquarters, Department of the Army Volume 29 PB 5-99-2 

UNITED STATES ARMY 

ENGINEER CENTER AND 

FORT LEONARD WOOD 

COMMANDERICOMMANDANT 

Major General Robert B. Flowers 

MANAGING EDITOR 

Catherine Eubanks 

FEATURES EDITOR 

Shirley Bridges 

GRAPHIC DESIGNER 

Jennifer Morgan 

By Order of the Secretary of the Army: 

DENNIS J. REIMER 

General, United States Army 

Chief of Staff 

Official: 

JOEL B. HUDSON 

Administrative Assistant to the 

Secretary of the Army 

05515 

Front Cover: Joint operations, represented by 

(left to right) the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps, 

Army, and Navy, ensure strong warfighting 

capabilities. 

Back Cove,: Historical example of the Amy 

value "Honor" 

FEATURES 

2 Bosnia: The SecondTime Around 

By Colonel Thomas FI Bost~ck 

6 Building Bridges Between Nations 

By Lieutenant Colonel William H. Haight 111, U.S. Army and 

Lieutenant Colonel Leonid I. Ysik, Russian Army 

9 One Regiment, One Fight 

By Lieutenant General Joe N. Ballard 

12 	 Joint EngineerTraining:TopTen Lessons Learned 

By Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Vesay 

19 	The USACOM Joint Warfighting Center 

By Major General Martin R. Berndt and Colonel John A. Clauer 

24 	 Joint Doctrine Update 

By Major Scott Spellrnon 

28 	 Military Support Detachment (RA1D):TheTip of the Military 

Spear 

By Colonel Kenneth Gonzales 

32 	 The First DEUCES are "On the Ground" 

By Jeffrey Klein 

34 	 Army Experimentation Campaign Plan:Total Army and 

JointTeamworkToward a Full-Spectrum Land Force 

By Vern Lowrey 

38 	 Engineer Contributions to Army After Next 

By Lieutenant Colonel James Vosler 

40 	 Engineers - inTask Force XXI 

By Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Weddle, Lieutenant Colonel 

Cliff Farquhar, and Major Steve Gav 

44 	 Bridge to the Future:Tele-Engineering and the Bubiyan 

Bridge Assessment 

By Dc Paul EMlakar Sc, James C. Ray, and Captain Todd C. Liebig 

50 	Training for the Field: Squad Drill Certification 

By Captain Keith W: Ensley 

DEPARTMENTS 

Inside front cover: Clear the Way 

39 	 Book Review 52 Engineer Update 

47 	CTC Notes 53 MANSCEN and Engineer School Directory 

ENGINEER (ISSN 0046-19890) is prepared quarteriy by the U.S. Army Engineer wilhin their areas 01 expertise for the purpose of enhancing their professional 

School. 320 Engineer Loop. Sute 210. Fort Lwnard Wood. MO 65473-8929. Second dwelopment. Views expressed are those of the author and not those of the 

Class postage IS pald at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, and additional malling onices. Department of Defense or its elements. The contents do not necessarily reflect 

offlcial US.Army posillons and do not changeor supersede information in other U S~ 

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to ENGINEER Magarine, 320 Engineer Army pubticat$ons. Use of news (terns const8tutes neither affirmation d ther accuracy Loop. Suite 210. Fort Leonard Wood. MO 65473.8929. nor product endorsement. ENGINEER reserves the nght to edlt material. 

CORRESPONDENCE, leners to the editor, manusciiph. photographs. ~Hiciat CONTENT is not copyrighted. Material may be reprinted il credit is given to 

unit requests to receive copies, and unlt address changes should be sent to ENGINEER and theauthor 

ENGINEER at the preceding addressTelephone: (573) 563-4104. OSN 6764104. 

ENGINEER'S e-mail address is: eubanksc@wood.armymtt. Our Internet home page OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION is largeled to all engineer and engineer-related units. 

is located at: http.llww.wood.army.millENGRMAGlemaehp.htm. PERSONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS are amilable by contacting the Superintendent of 

DISCLAIMER: ENGINEER presents professional information designed to keep Dmuments. PO Box 371954. Pinsburgh. PA 15250-7950. Address changes for 

US. mllitaly and chilian englneerr informed of current and emerging developments pemnal subsciiptioos should aiso be sent to me Superintendentof Documents. 

April 1999 	 En~ineerI 
By Colonel Thomas P. Bostick 

he 1st Armored Division completed its second 

deployment to Bosnia on 7 October 1998. A number 

of units in the division, including the Engineer 

Brigade, served during various periods throughout the oneyear rotation. The 16th and 40th Engineer Battalions 

deployed at different times during the year, and a portion of 

the Engineer Brigade Headquarters Company deployed for 

the entire year. Engineers were actively engaged in missions 

on two major fronts: demining and construction. The 

successful rotation in Bosnia was a total team effort. Army 

engineers worked side-by-side with Navy and Air Force 

personnel, civilians, Brown & Root and other contractors, 

NATO and non-NATO allies, and many others. This article 

highlights some of the missions and lessons learned 

throughout the deployment. 

Demining 

uch progress was made in moving toward the 

demining end state identified by the Stabilization 

Force (SFOR) commander: a national, sustainable 

demining capability. Several key elements of the campaign 

plan were vital to achieving this end state: organization, 

training, equipment, and insurance. 

Organization 

The organizational structure successfully transitioned 

from the U.N. Mine Action Center to the BosniaHerzegovina Mine Action Center, which includes 

representatives from both the Federation and Republika 

Srpska. This center has overall responsibility for the 

demining program throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina. The 

SFOR headquarters, through the multinational divisions, met 

regularly with the Entity (Federation and Serb) Mine Action 

Centers and the Entity Armed Forces (EAF) to determine 

future areas of work. Entity Mine Action Center personnel 

worked with EAF soldiers to determine areas of focus, while 

SFOR retained veto power over sites selected. SFOR 

soldiers monitored the EAF demining efforts. SFOR 

participution in ove~,reeing the deminiiig proce,s.s could 

coiitii~urto decrea.~e wit11 addifiorial training for EAF 

rnonitors and qualiiy-control ohserver-r. 

A significant challenge in achieving all the requirements 

2 Engineer 

set by the Dayton Accords is to complete civil implementation 

tasks. The military continued to provide a secure and stable 

environment, but the civil implementation tasks were a 

challenge to plan, coordinate, and execute. Demining provides 

a model for how civil and military tasks may work together. 

The U.N. Mine Action Center controlled the tasks and 

priorities of the civilian demining organizations, while SFOR 

monitored the military demining effort. Both organizations 

worked in parallel toward a common goal. Early in the process, 

the military placed a demining expert liaison officer in the 

U.N. Mine Action Center to help synchronize civilian and 

military efforts. Equally important, commanders worked at all 

levels-including SFOR, Multinational Division-North, and 

the EAF-to regularly address requirements, training, and 

ongoing issues. Because of the coordination between the U.N. 

Mine Action Center and SFOR, the demining mission could 

more effectively cmploy the efforts of multiple nongovernmental and private volunteer organizations. 

Training 

Long-tern1 training programs in Bosnia allowed the 

country to train its own deminers. U.S. Special Operations 

Forces (SOF) established three training centers for military 

and civilian deminers. The SOF coordinate many demining 

operations throughout the world, hut combat engineers have a 

significant role in Bosnia. Ir is imporfirnf ihiri SOF pr.ovide a 

liuison o/jYijicei. lo n,nihiit engiiieenr ear-/), in this Wpe oJ 

rnissioii aild througho~rf peacekeepii7g operations. Liaison 

officers are important to ensure a coordinated effort in key 

areas-such as training, funding, and equipment-so that 

resources are appropriately distributed among the many 

demining operations that require military support. 

The demining challenge in stability operations requires 

long-term solutions. Therefore, in-theater schools that help to 

train the indigenous population must he established early in 

the campaign. Training both military and civilian deminers in 

Bosnia reduces the need for SFOR engineers in the training 

arena. Training for the civilian population in BosniaHerzegovina is also important. Many initiatives, including 

Superman comic books, were used to educate the local 

populace. Figure 1, page 3, shows the significant progress 

made in reducing mine strikes in Bosnia. 
Max: 98 

100 

80 

60 	 Avg 55 

Avg 40 

40 

20 

0 

Jan Feb Mar 

3- -_-_ --

Apr May Jun 

~-

Jul Aug Sep Oct 

~~ 

Nov Dec 

Avg 9 

Number of Mine SI*,:kes 

o1996 11997 01998 

Figure 1 

Equipment Arniored Division's year in Bosnia, 100 percent of the 

SFOR purchased mechanical demining equipment similar demining teams often anived at work each day. 

to the U.S. miniflail for the EAF demining teams. They also 7iiii,iiii!: nird n,-qnrii;i,ip 4 i ~i~d yr,niii,

acquired additional personal protective gear and mechanical ~;s,$~o~u,i~.t! o!!i!.t'r, ro o~<i,,i!c rile roi~ 01 ,Si:OR ivm?ifo~~~ (I

demining equipment. The EAF used a small number of T55 kc) c.ii~nri~~ in ricirir~iir; rlic i!<irc.With proper training, 

tanks with rollers, which were particularly effective in the EAF can assume this responsibility and report to the 

relatively flat areas. The EAF teams were much more Entity Mine Action Center, which will reduce the 

effective and willing to do dangerous demining work when requirement for SFOR engineer monitors. The overall 

they were properly equipped. P,nl.i!iii?s n!i~i~>~f~ciri I!] fir(, demining campaign in Bosnia has made significant progress. 

I . I I . I i I 1 I i ! i I ~h~ lessons learned in organizing, training, and 

I I f sril i s I I I I insuring personnel may be applicable to future operations in 

c ! ! 1 : / i J 2 1 I ! countries ravaged by mine challenges, 

Insurance 

The Entity Armed Forces now have health and life CO~S~TUC~~O~ 

insurance, which is a major improvement. Before insurance uring late 1998 and early 1999. Task Force Eagle 

could be acquired, the EAF had to agree to several recei\,ed the most significant constn~ction mission 

stipulations. One stipulation was to convert their mine- since U.S. forces arrived in Bosnia. Some of the major 

clearing operations to humanitarian standards. They had to were aiheld repair, hospital construction, SEA-huts 

and use Ihe 

D 


perfom the same Sandards same techniques (Southeast Asia huts) for most troops, two base camp closures, 

as used U.N. civilian deminers. and asphalt road repair. Many smaller projects were completed 

continue to lift mines identified only on minefield records. are ongoing. ~h~ surge of was funded a 

The EAF successfi~lly made this transition in July 1998, and s,pp~emenml appropriation from congress of about $34

they now focus on the amount of land cleared rather than million. ~~~h of the constNction was performed during an 

total mines lifted. Early in the demining program. it was not intensive that also included ~ ~ ~ for less than Percent the lifting learns to elections and transfer of authority to the 1st Cavalry Division. 

arrive at work. Their reasons included pay, equipment. and he construction mission was a joint and combined effon of 

insurance. Several attempts to gain funding for deminers ~rmycombat heavy and mechanized N~~~ 

from the international community and various countries seabees, Air Force personnel, allied engineers, USACE, iu~d 

were unsuccessful. However, insurance for deminers was B~~~~ & R~~~contractors, 

very important to the EAF, and the international community The 1st Armored Division Engineer Brigade headquarters suppolted this initiative for moral reasons. Combined with command and control for both the construction and 

training and equipment, insurance for deminera made a huge demining missions. ~h~ 130th Engineer Brigade deployed impact on their morale and efforts. Near the end of the 1st members of its constNction section and 

April 1999 	 Engineer-3 
B Company, 94th Engineer Battalion. The European District 

provided civilian inspectors and engineers from Corps of 

Engineer districts in the United States. The surgeon 

general's office deployed a facilities planner to assist with 

hospital design and construction. The Navy deployed 

additional design and project management engineers, and 

the Air Force deployed an airfield construction expert. 

Mechanized combat engineers worked side-by-side with 

Navy Seabees and Army combat heavy engineers, and 

USAREUR used tele-engineering to provide off-site 

assistance with challenging sewage and electrical power 

design. These teams, as well as others, were key to success. 

111 Booiiii. ~v~giii<,ei. rcn171.s de.ri,y~?ic.d o1i0 coruirircreil srvei-a1 

.si~!i~ficu~it pr(!;~cf.s. Frr/i1~c ope~~olioii~ izi~,~i pluii ,for tlic.se 

feufiis to conrr toyetho. (li~irk!i. f/i~-(jrigh (I co(h-c r?frii/~icliliii~ 

deplovahlc e.~/~r~-r.c. 

Airfield Repair 

The Tuzla Airfield presented several challenges before it 

was completed. The most significant were funding and the 

need for airfield construction expertise. Task Force Eagle 

worked with funding constraints that were difficult to 

theater-of-operations hospital described in the theater 

construction manual did not meet the strict requirements of 

the medical community. Therefore, the surgeon general sent a 

facilities planner to Task Force Eagle to assist with the 

hospital design. This officer was extremely helpful throughout 

the entire process. The team effort resulted in a new hospital 

that was completed on time. Engi~ire~:~ niint irrclirde it 

,fucilirie.s plunner early in rhe planniiig procrxs fi~r pr(~j,lrci.s 

with .specific clesiy~l I-eqriiremeiits. 

SEA-huts 

The primary goal of this rapid construction effort was to move 

soldiers out of tents by the winter of 1998. Soldiers, sailors, and 

civilians worked together to construct SEA-huts. A new design 

combined five single SEA-huts side-by-side with a latrine1 

shower unit located between the second and third huts (Figure 3). 

The new design reduced fue harards and improved quality of life 

for soldiers by providing a common roof, covered walkways, and 

nearby latrine and shower facilities. 

overcome in a peacekeeping mission. Dq)nrrrii~,it ofDefi,~i,se 

lendeis nrriri reossc.s.s ilir sto~if/orf/ r!iiIirnr?, ~iei~-cori.cii~~ciioii 

Iinrit 11fSi00.0(10 iind l-rpnir liniirr 01'52 ~riillioriii i~nii.? f!f 

Iioi~ rhel I 10 pn~~elie~p~i~g ~iiro~i~iie~~i,. NATO

provided some funding for the airfield and may ultitnately 

fund the entire airfield repair. SFOR, USAREUR, and U.S. 

Air Force in Europe (USAFE) assisted Task Force Eagle 

throughout the entire funding process. USAFE provided an 

airfield construction management expert, who was valuable 

in working through translators to ensure that local subcontractors met stringent standards. The result is a strategic 

airfield that allows soldiers to fly, for the first time, directly 

from the United States into Tuzla (Figure 2). 

I 

Figure 2 

Hospital Construction 

Another significant construction mission for Task Force 

Eagle was a theater-of-operations hospital, so the medical 

facility at Guardian Base Camp could move to Eagle Base 

Camp before the 1st Cavalry Division arrived. The standard 

4 Engineer 

Figure 3 

Base Camp Realignment 

To improve efficiency, save money, and realign base 

camps, Task Force Eagle closed the Colt and Guardian Base 

Camps. These closures required that the entire logistics 

operations be moved from Guardian to Comanche Base 

Camp. A massive constn~ction effort was required at 

Comanche that included living areas, a container storage 

handling area, a direct support maintenance building, a supply 

and service area building, 50-ton haul roads, a new dining 

facility, parking areas, and numerous other projects. Some of 

this construction had to be completed or be well under way so 

that the 1st Cavalry Division could move directly into 

Comanche and Eagle Base Camps. 

One IC~C.SOW 11?f rig I co~triiioi nlission 

wn.r rlrc .n.n~~;:.i.stic~ eTfeci of i\'a1(1. Seiiheer. Arnn cor~ihat 

heiii:s n~iil conil~or ~nrcliiiriizcil eiiginee~s, arid !\+IT0 arid 

otlier n1lir.s i,,orki~ig sir/~-l~~~-siclc~ ~vith Bro~irr R. Roof 

po:~oii!ieI lo cn~?rpIet~~ o il<~iiii~!lilingcon~triictioii ~~iis.sioii. 

April 1999 
Mechanized engineers provided much-needed manpower 

and dozer expertise (cross-trained armored combat 

earthmover operators). In fiiture peacckee/?irig operotiorrs. 

spc,<.iol const,-t~ctior~ rools riot or.Silrlic to rriechnriiied 

engiitemr shoiiln'he o~,ailahle rhr.o~,:lipre-positione<Istockv. 

Task Force Eagle also benefited from theater engineer 

support provided by Italian mil engineers, Austrian army 

dump tn~cks, and Hungarian rail ramp expertise. These 

soldiers, their expertise, and their equipment were a significant force multiplier. Brown & Root personnel integrated 

their work with military construction efforts extraordinarily 

well. Military and Brown & Root planners, designers, project 

managers and builders worked together to make complex 

operations run smoothly and safely (Figure 4). 

Other Engineer Missions 

ilitary engineers also completed considerable work 

M[.' on roads and bridges off the base camps. As the SFOR mission extended throughout Bosnia, 

heavily used roads and bridges required significant repair. 

Engineers retrieved seven armored vehicle-launched bridges 

from Multinational Division-North routes and replaced them 

with timber trestle bridges. Some bridges were simple, but 

others were more challenging and included piers, n~ultiple 

spans, steel stringers, and concrete abutments. Federation 

engineers (Croatians) worked with C Company, 40th Engineer 

Battalion, to construct the bridge shown in Figure 5. 

In some cases, military engineers demolished damaged 

bridges on major highways so that new bridges could be 

constructed. B Company, 16th Engineer Battalion, used more 

than 750 pounds of explosives to destroy the Bosanski Samac 

bridge (Figure 6). 

Figure 6 

Task Force Eagle encouraged EAF engineers to support the 

democratization of their military. These engineers could help 

rebuild their counQ in areas other than demi~ng. In most 

democratic countries, the military provides aid following natural 

disasters, and the EGF could do the same in its war-tom country. 

Convincing the EAF of the advantages such projects offer was 

initially challenging, but bridges proved to be a useful vehicle 

for this effort. Bui1riiri.q b~.iO'q<,,~ he~lcfiteil tlie Iocnl peo]~ii? a110 

ileiped tlra inlaze of rite L4F ~ililirar? or~d Bos~ri~~-Her~~,~oi~i

politiciorr.~. With the proper recognition and use of media, the 

joint effort with the EAF in bridge building was quite 

successful. Russian and American engineers worked closely 

with Serb engineers to complete the bridge at Priboj (Figure 7). 

Figure 7 

Figure 5 

(Corrti~riit~~i on page 18) 
Building Bridges Between Nations 

By Lieutenant Colonel William H. Haight 111, U.S. Army, 

and Lieutenant Colonel Leonid I. Ysik, Russian Army 

The 20th Engineer Battalion is a 

mechanized combat engineer 

battalion in the U.S. 1st Cavalry 

Division stationed at Fort Hood, Texas. 

The engineer battalion of the Russian 

Army's Separate Airborne Brigade is 

stationed in Stavropol, Russia. Both 

units are well trained, combat ready, 

professional, and fully prepared to 

answer the call to fulfill the military 

needs of their respective nations. Both 

units received that call early in 1998 to 

deploy to Bosnia-Herzegovina to support NATO and Operation Joint Forge. 

Deployment 

'hile preparing all the necessary logistics for the upcoming deployment, each unit 

simultaneously completed extensive 

training plans, complete with country 

briefings on the Entity Armies in Bosnia, force protection, mine awareness, 

and studies of information relevant to 

engineer operations in the theater. The 

Russians arrived in midsummer 1998 

and immediately hegan operations in 

support of the Russian Separate Airborne Brigade Sector, one of four 

Multinational Division-North (MNDN). The MND-N is one of three multinational divisions that make up the 

NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR). In 

September 1998, the 20th Engineer 

Battalion took responsibility for the 

U.S. brigade sector in MND-N from 

the 40th Engineer Battalion, 1st 

Armored Division, and hegan operations in support of the 1st Brigade 

Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division. 

Joint Training 

The commander of the MND-N 

and 1st Cavalry Division realized early in the mission the 

potential for combined projects witb all 

allied nations in SFOR, but he particularly wanted to promote US.-Russian 

training and projects. Very little encouragement was needed. From the first 

week the 2Gth Engineer Battalion was on 

the ground, Russian and American 

brigades in the United States-led Russian and American soldiers build a bridge at Priboj 

6 Engineer April 1999 
commanders mutually agreed to make 

combined US.-Russian training a priority. 

During the six-month deployment, 

the two battalions participated in 13 

combined training or construction 

projects and completed planning for 

several more. They also visited each 

other's base camps to conduct NCO 

and ofticer professional development 

classes on topics ranging from minefield marking and recording to familiarization with former Soviet engineer 

equipment. Perhaps the most exciting 

training was a joint demolition range 

where soldiers from both countries 

demonstrated their tactical combat engineering skills. They completed a livefire minefield brcach using a Russian 

mini-line charge (see photo below). 

Additionally, both engineer battalion 

commanders held multiple trilateral 

meetings with Entity ~i~(Bosnian) 

engineers - and municipal leaders conceming areas of common interest to the 

U.S. and Russian brigades. 

Bridging Projects 

ost of the combined projects, 

however, involved building 

bridges. Following up on initial 

coordination by the 40th Engineer Bat- because most of the projects were 

talion, 20th Engineer soldiers and their located in economically depl-essed 

Russian counterparts began a combined parts of Bosnia. The locals had very litbridge-building project on the Janja tle to offer in return other than their 

River soon after arriving in country. gratitude. 

The bridge connected Bosnian and Serb The bridging projects were comcommunities for the first time since the pleted as military operations. Discusend of the war. A local village donated sions for planning, design, materials, 

materials for the bridge, while SFOR etc., were in English, which gave the 

engineers provided equipment support Russian engineer battalion interpreters 

and manual labor. The result was a quite a challenge. Differences in planmilitary load class 30 bridge that ning and design factors and detenninspanned a 12-meter gap and saved resi- ing bills of material for projects made 

dents a 40-kilometer detour over very for lively planning meetings. While our 

bad roads. approaches differed, it was very interA total of six vehicular bridges were esting to see at the end of our planning 

either completely rebuilt or resurfaced processes that the results were very 

by U.S. and Russian engineers working similar. That surprised many engineer 

together. The U.S. Civil-Military Com- soldiers from both units and taught us 

mission (CIMIC) Task Force soldiers all a lesson about the universal nature 

who supported the Russian Brigade of engineer work. .. 

sector deserve credit for helping to 

identifv and coordinate most of these ' Removing Barriers 

projects. In some cases, the CIMIC Each bridge-repair mission was 

teams secured local funding or national carefully selected to support 

assistance for materials or other sup- several important MND-N obport, such as welding. The CIMIC jcctives and to improve quality of life. 

teams facilitated our engineer work by While the value of these bridges in supensuring local support and approval for porting freedom of movement and 

all plans. This was not an easy task, regenerating economic activity is very 

U.S. Army engineers watch while Russian engineers use a mini-line charge to breach a minefield. 

April 1999 Engineer 7 
There is great value in working 

closely with engineers of another nation 

in any operation. United States-Russian 

cooperation was particularly important. For many years both of our armies 

studied each other from a distance and 

learned as much as possible about our 

mutual capabilities and equipment. The 

spirit of international cooperation that 

exists in SFOR helped both organizations set aside previously held prejudices and misconceptions. 

What proved true was that both 

groups of engineers were skilled, motivated to complete their tasks, had dedi- . ,

.. . . 	 cated competent leaders, and cared for 

their soldiers' training, weIrare, and 

safety What proved untrue were the 

misconceptions that for too many years 

An American soldier measures a bunker. 	 created distrust and si~spicion between 

our nations. 

This experience may have been 

unique to our two units, but we think 

not. Engineers had much work to 

.-.-	 accomplish in Bosnia, and common 

goals have a way of removing barriers. 

We sincerely hope that the bridges we 

built together will long outlast the timber and steel structures we leave behind 

in the Balkan countlyside. 

Setting an Example 

Both units trained hard for their 

primary missions, but neither 

anticipated nor prepared for a 

very special opportunity to conduct 

combined United States-Russian engiRussian soldiers discuss bridging plans. neering missions in Bosnia. These missions, which were enthusiastically embraced by engineer soldiers and comimportant, their value in terms of the contributed to the terrible war that tore manders, have produced a lifetime of 

message they sent is equally as power- Bosnia apart earlier this decade. memories for the soldiers of both counful. The image of U.S. and Russian sol- Perhaps the '.'. and Russian "'-

tries. Significantly, these missions also 

diers working together to bridge a diers did not discuss such symbolic serve as an example to the former warphysical gap senred as a powerful met- connections while swinging hammers ' ,ing factions of Bosnia, and the world, aphor for bridging other gaps, opening and lifting heavy timbers, but you that former can forget their 

lines of communication, expanding could see on their faces that they fully differences and work together toward 

cooperation, and more importantly, , understood the historical significance goals and lasting peace, developing mutual understanding and ' of these events. What made all this 

trust. All this between military forces even more rewarding was that the Lieutenant Colonel ffaighf con)- 

of two nations that until recently had ' projects were real, affected real peo- the 20th Engineer Ballalion. 

few if any bridges between them, much ple, and helped countless displaced Lieutenant Colonel Ysik is ll~e chief 

less bridges that they built together. persons, refugees, and war victims engineer for the Russian Brigade in 

The lack of these cultural bridges begin new and better lives. Bosnia. 

8 Engineer 	 April 1999 
B? Lierrrerznr~r Ger~ernl Joe N. Bollard 

when I was a lieutenant. senior leaders 

talked about hranch unity. Back then I

" " didn't really know what they meant, and 

frankly I didn't care. All I knew was that every 

ti~ne they started talking about the regiment and 

unity, I got a little sleepy. And I wasn't the only 

one. Some of the other lieuten;~nts and captains 

would also start to nod. Therei'orc. I decided it 

wasn't all that important. 

But this kind of attitude has led us to where we 

nre today. If engineers don't care about the Engineer Branch, then who does? 

Branch unity i.; not new. It has heen aniond ihr 

decades, and it always secnls to he the favorite topic 

of old lieutenant colonels, colonels. and generals. 

But to junior oficers in the trenches, where the 

impoltant work is done. regimental unity seems 

about as relevant ns a glass of water to a drowning 

man. 

During my lieutenant years. 1didn't care what 

the rest of the Corps did. I kept my eyes on the 50- 

meter t;lr:ets and let someone else worry ;!bout the 

300-meter targets. After all, anybody who knew 

anything knew who the reol engineers were. Light 

engineers knew rlrq \\.ere the re01 engineers. So 

did the heavy engineers. The same was true for 

airborne, construction. Departments of Public 

Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, topographic. National Guard, and U.S. Army Reserve 

personnel. All those engineers were in the field. 

where the rubber hits the road. I thought that leaders interested in regimental unity were out of touch 

with those who made things happen. 

Not only did senior leaders beat the dead horse 

of regimental unity. they frequently put a negative 

1 

-

-

,, 

, . 

i 

'A&& 


~.. 

I, 

c>.<. 

. 

.-

.d / 

:,: 

~-. . .x+-

The 50th Engineer Company, 2nd Infantry Division. rafts Bradley 

fighting vehicles across a river in Korea. 

spin on it. The message I heard was that we needed to analyze why we were falling apart, not getting enough funding. 

or losing force structure. I thought it was someone else's 

problem. since my soldiers worked hard 2nd did a great job. I 

was doing my part, and the soldiers were doing theirs. The 

failings were at ;mother level. Why should I waste time and 

energy worrying about something that I didn't see as a problem, that I felt I could riot change, and that seemed to he 

a lost cause. In short, rrot my problem. 

Looking hack, I ask myself, "What has changed?'Is 

regimental unity still a senior officer problem'? Is it still a 

problem that has no solution hut that everyone still feels obligated to wring their hands over? No! Re~i~n<~nfal lmih is 

every engincer'.r re.~po~tribility 

Many engineers do not see the value of the Engineer Regiment. They do not understand its benefits. To appreciate the 

value of the Engineer Regiment, we must first understand regimental unity. 

April 1999 E11~ir1cer9 
"...engineers are vital to the AI~IIZJI arzd we willgef 

the job done, but we need tlze funds and equipment 

to accomplish the mission. Y, 

Regimental unity is older than the Roman legions. Effective unity benefits the individual, the onit, and the regiment. 

It is the bond formed by soldiers who share a mission, share a 

perspective, and share hardships. The payoff is a selise of 

identity, camaraderie, and much greater power than can be 

obtained hy isolated elements. If engineers want to he successful in today's resource-constrained Army, we must have 

our act together and act together. 

Army leaders at every level must hear one coherent message from the Engineer Regiment. This message is that engineers are vital to the Army and we will get the job done, hut 

we need the funds and equipment to accomplish the mission. 

There are many steps we can take to change the culture of 

the Engineer Regiment. And, make no mistake, a cultural 

change is required. But I can't make this change alone. It 

takes engineers at every level to see the light and realize that 

the Engineer Regiment has benefits. Until this happens, 

senior leaders will continue to push with no true results. 

A critical question is, How do we know when we have 

achieved regimental unity? First, we must define our success criteria. I see regimental unity as affecting three levels 

of the regiment: the individual, the unit, and the regiment 

itself. 

At the individual level, regimental unity changes the way 

soldiers think of themselves. They Feel that they are a U.S. 

Army soldier first, an engineer second, and a member of their 

unit third. Soldiers stick up for one another simply because 

they are engineers. They are brothers and sisters-family. If 

your engineer brethren need a piece of gear, you support them 

because you trust them; you know they will be there in your 

time of need. Soldiers at every level join professional associations that endorse and support the Engineer Regiment. This 

is how unity appears at the individual level. 

At the unit le~~el, I-egimental unity changes the way units 

interact with each other. Commanders and unit leaders 

emphasize our engineer heritage. Leaders make it a point to 

know about other elements of the regiment and teach it to 

their soldiers. Unit leaders defend or explain the actions of 

their compatriots when they hear them maligned or misunderstood. Unit leaders support the Engineer Regiment's position 

on issues. Every engineer looks out for each other and 

ensures that news-good and bad-gets passed on to someone who can act on it. 

At the regirncntal level. we achieve unity when lieutenant 

colonels, colonels, and general officers band together to 

present a unified front to help each other-not only when 

there is a threat but also during day-to-day operations. The 

Engineer Regiment has never had a problem pulling together 

as a team during times of crisis. It's during the calm of nonemergency operations when we tend to separate. With regimental unity, senior engineer leaders insist that their units 

and soldiers be team players. Senior engineers network and 

politick with senior Army leaders for corporate positions. 

Soldiers and units then are provided the information and 

resources they need to fully function as part of the team. 

Engineer systems and force structure are as well-funded as 

combat and combat support systems. This is what I see as a 

unified end state. 

The one-voice concept is not an attempt to keep soldiers 

and leaders from expressing their professional opinions when 

asked. But there are many sides to any important issue, and 

engineers should learn the merits of opposing positions. The 

proposal to use the Bradley as the engineer squad vehicle is a 

good example. Some engineers advocate using the MI 13A3 

as the engineer vehicle, while others prefer the M2. The Engineer School has detern~ined that the M2s are best; therefore, 

engineers must support this decision. 

All of the above requires a concerted effort. We can't simply say that we are going to be more cohesive and then it 

happens. Making the regiment a viable and effective organization requires commitment from each member. Can this 

happen? Many people doubt it. But if Army engineers don't 

improve the way we do business as a regiment, then we are 

guaranteed to continue to decrease in effectiveness and 

prestige. 

Okay, so why should we cue about any of this? Very simply, it's not only the right thing to do. it's in your hest overall 

interest-personally and professionally. 

Most of you who read this article are trained as Army 

engineers. You could be assigned to an armored or airborne 

division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Puhlic Works, or some other engineer area. Ultimately, your fate 

is entwined with that of the regiment. When the regiment 

prospers or falls, so do you. If not in this assignment, then in 

the next one. 

Corporately, we win on issues when we band together. 

We lose when we don't. Whether the issue is equipment 

funding or fielding or force structure, the Army must see a 

united front from the engineer community. Because of the 

positions we take, when we win the Army wins. 

Personally, 1 don't think we are doing enough to unify 

the Engineer Regiment. We must work together within the 

regiment to realize the efficiencies we gain through a 

coordinated effort. If the regiment applies its collective 







a working knowledge of joint doctrine. Unfortunately, 

Service schools already have packed curriculums and 

shortened course lengths and devote little time to joint 

training. Distance learning is one alternative for acquiring 

joint training. Distance learning offers engineers an 

opportunity to become versed in joint operations before they 

deploy or attend a joint exercise. 

Service engineer chiefs recently approved more than 100 

joint engineer core competencies. The list includes a myriad 

of general and engineer-specific topics, including the 

Goldwater-Nichols Act, Joint Civil-Military Engineer 

Boards. Logistics Civilian Augmentation Program capabilities, and Service engineer capabilities. The goal is to 

establish a joint staff web site and post briefings related to 

the competencies. A web site should be operational by this 

summer. Additionally, USACOM has posted functional area 

handbooks that discuss joint engineering on its home page. 

The third skill is much harder to teach: the ability to be 

flexible and open minded, yet decisive, as a joint team 

member in a crisis-action environment. Recommending 

another Service for a mission based on an understanding of 

the rcspcctive capabilities is tough. Yet it is indicative of a 

joint team member who understands the situation. 

Summary 

oiut task force operations are "high adventure." The 

JTF engineer and his staff are presented with 

numerous challenges. Determining the engineer end 

statc and mission standards, conducting proper mission 

analyses, choosing the appropriate command and control 

structure, and synchronizing the engineer effort during the 

planning atid execution phases are just a few of the 

challenges they face. Engineers do all this in a crisis-action 

environment-very likely in a foreign country without 

needed resources and with team members who probably are 

meeting each other for the first time. 

The lessons presented herc will help the engineer staff 

leam from others' experiences. And hopefully, they will not 

have to be re-learned. Y 

Lieutenant Colonel Vesay is an Army engineer assigned 

to US Atlantic Conlmand. He is the .senior engineer 

ol~sen~er/trainer, responsi!~lefor training engincer,force,s lo 

operate within a joint task force. He ir scheduled to 

command the 249th Engineer Battalion (his snn1n7er. 

(Continued from page 5) 

Task Force Eagle engineers worked with the U.S. Agency 

of International Develop~nent (USAID) as well as politicians 

from the United States and Bosnia-Herzegovina to 

accomplish engineer tasks that supported the overall 

campaign plan. The joint efforts of Ambassador Farrand 

(supervisor of Brcko), MG Ellis (Task Force Eagle 

commander), and USAID leaders to construct a water well 

for a village near Brcko demonstrated the type of missions 

that engineers can assist with during stability operations. 

Anny engineers-working with the ambassador's office, 

USAID, and the two mayors (Federation and Serb) of the 

town of Stari Rasadnik-helped push through the design, 

approval, and groundhreaking of the well, which provided 

much-needed water for the people (Figure 8). !Wiii~a~~ 

Figure 8 

Teamwork 

ngineers in Bosnia-Hcrzcgovina often worked sideby-side with engineers from Inany other countries. 

Each country adds value in various areas that help the 

oxerall mission. To /~WIII (I sri.oii,~ ttiid qf/c,cti~.e friiii~, U S

c.~i~~rw?? pl~i~fr~<~i..% II~I.ISI rl~~~rl~~ III!~<~I~.S~OIJ~ fhc, ccip~~/>ili~;e,~ 

ofoiii 01Iic.r. 

Bosnia provides another great opportunity for military 

engineers from around the world to serve their respective 

countries. MG Ellis' vision. appreciation, and support of 

engineers fueled an enormous effort. The 1st Armored 

Division Engineer Brigade was honored with the opportunity 

to serve in Bosnia. In November 1998, we handed off the 

torch to a well-prepared 1st Cavalry Division Engineer 

Brigade. They are continuing a great tradition of engineers 

serving our nation whenever and wherever they are needed. 

Y 


Colo~lel Bostick ir the 1st Armored Di~~i.sionE~~gi~ifcr 

Brigade commander. Previorrs a.ssignments inclzrde enxirieer 

battalion/brigade S3, Is1 Arntored Division: and coinmander, 1st Engineer Buttalion, Fort Ri1e.v. Kansas. 

IK Engineer April 1999 
4;Major General Martin R. Berndf and Colonel John A. Cla~ier 

The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 highlighted the .Assist the CJCS in the conceptualization, devclopment, 

importance of joint operations to national security and assessment ofjoint doctrine. 

and the critical need for joint training for our armed 

forces. The joint operations envisioned by drafters of this Joint Training 

legislation now are becoming a reality. At the heart of this Before the USACOM JWFC was fonned, the 

improved joint capability is the U.S. Atlantic Command USACOM J7 at JTASC conducted three or four large 

(USACOM) Joint Warfighting Center (JWFC)-an distributed exercises each year. These exercises had 

organization dedicated to comprehensive and integrated 550-3.000 participants, lasted 17-24 days, and focr~scd 

joint training. primarily on operational wartighting training at the joint task 

4s commander of the Joint Warfighting Center, it is my force levcl. The old JWFC at Fort Monroe supported about 

privilege to lead a team of nearly 200 dedicated military and 12 deployed "full package" exercises each year that had 150-

civilian personnel and more than 400 supporting contractors 1,000 participants and lasted 17-24 days. These exercises 

employed in training, modeling and simulation, doctrinal were conducted primarily in theater for regional CINCs and 

and information distribution, and data-collection duties. Focused on preparing for likely contingencies. 

How well the center acco~nplishesthese tasks depends on The new USACOM JWFC supports or conducts 15 

the military community's understanding of the center's "enhanced" major exercises annually. However, the focus is 

mission, knowing what services it offers, and knowing how not on how many exercises we chum out but on the 

to request those services. This article describes the Joint effectiveness of that training. 

Warfigl~tingCenter and its capabilities to support joint Fuertes Defensa~98-99 

engineer training. A recently completed exercise called Furrles D<fen.sus 

History 

The new USACOM Joint Warfighting Center was 

established on I October 1998, by combining the old 

JWFC at Fort Monroe, Virginia, with the USACOM 

57 and its Joint Training, Analysis and Simulation Center 

(JTASC) in Suffolk, Virginia. The ncw organization integrates training and learning to support both CONUS and 

OCONUS joint forces. The USACOM JWFC retains its 

central role in conceptualizing, developing, and assessing 

joint doctrine. It also harnesses modeling and simulation 

tools and evolving information technology to provide 

comprehensive training support to commanders in chief 

(CINCs). Services, agencies, and organizations throughout 

the joint community. The center's liiission is toSupport joint and multinational training and exercises 

for comtnanders, staffs, and component forces.

.Help the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS): 

CINCs; and Service chiefs prepare for joint and combined operations. 

98-99 demonstrates the combined capabilities of the new 

JWFC. This multiechelon excrcise combined a ClNC (U.S. 

Southern Command) battle staff exercise with a joint task 

force (XVIII Airborne Corps) event. It incorporated the 

educational portion of the Anny Battle Command Training 

Program from Fort Leavenworth. Kansas, with an Army 

Warfighter evaluation of the XVIIl Airbonie Corps' Anny 

element. Combining various elements of Service and joint 

cornmunity training programs is referred to as "nesting" 

exercises. 

The capstone element of Fuertes Defe~isas98-99 was 

JWFC exercise program support deployed to the 

CWCSOUTH headquarters in Miami, Florida. Personnel in 

Miami helped to design, plan, execute, and assess this joint 

training event, which focused on a scenario from the U.S. 

Southern Command theater. They helped the ClNC select a 

joint mission essential task list to support training objectives, 

identified the training audience, assisted with the scenario 

and exercise planning, provided the joint exercise control 

group, controlled exercise execution, and facilitated afteraction revicw. In Fuertes Defensas 98-99, this capability was 

April 1999 Ef?gineer19 
-- 

Joint Training Architecture 

NCA / 

CJCS 

Training 

Support 

Joint Exercise Control Group 

Figure 1 

linked. through modeling and simulation. with schoolhouse 

training provided for the XVIIl Airborne Corps at the 

JTASC. The JTASC used the following four-phase training 

cycle: 

W Academic training 

Planning and development of the operation order 

W Execution of the Joint Training Confederation (JTC) 

computer simulation model 

W After-action review 

Figure 1 shows generic joint training architecture. 

During Fuertes Defensas 98-99, the Suffolk, Virginia, 

and Miami, Florida, training sites were augmented by 

elements at component headquarters and other sites across 

the eastem half of the United States and at Davis Monthan 

Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona (Figure 2, page 21). 

These elements were linked by traditional military C4ISR 

(command, control, com~nunications, computers. intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) systems. While 

planning and executing the exercise, commanders and staffs 

were linked by video teleconferencing as well as liaison 

officers. The Joint Center for Lessons Learned (JCLL), 

another element of the JWFC toolbox, helped evaluate the 

exercise and prepare the after-action report. 

Merging capabilities to develop a nlultiechelon exercise 

typifies the training we hope to conduct. Merging 

capabilities will enhance the effectiveness of training and 

help reduce operational tempo. We will provide improved 

academic support, improved and streamlined computer 

si~nulation models, more effective lessons learned, and 

emphasize the distribution of systems via deployed exercise 

support. 

The following elements of the new enhanced training 

program also deserve mentioning: 

\\'orld>ridc Scllcduling 

A new JWFC mission is to coordinate. deconflict, and 

rationalize the scheduling of exercises and training events. 

One way to improve training efficiency is to "nest" exercises. 

Another method is to combine similar or duplicated ClNC and 

Service training and exercise programs. The JWFC uses 

computer-assisted scheduling tools to identify inefficiencies in 

the scheduling process. 

Joint Trainin!: System Support 

JWFC teams train the ClNC staffs on the Joint Training 

System and help develop documents required by the system, 

including joint mission essential task lists and training plans. 

The teams also review and update the universal joint task list, 

which is the basis for developing the CINC task lists and is a 

reference used to create training plans. Mobile training teams 

provide classroom instruction on the Joint Operation Planning 

and Execution System and joint doctrine required for 

deliberate or crisis-action planning for major exercises. They 

also assist with short-notice planning and operations during 

real-world contingencies. 
FD 98 CINC's Battlestaff and JTF Training 

Distribution of Models and Simulation; 


FUERTES DEFENSAS 98/99..."AN EXAMPLE" 


Hurlburt AFB, FI JTASC. Suffolk. VA 

--~ 

3L 

Z / JTASC 

Figures in parentheses are numbers of people in the exercise. 

Figure 2 

Joint Ccnter fnr Lescons Lcarnrcl 

Tlie JWFC has refined the JCLL database of more than 

8.000 entries to about 1,800 relevant lessons learned. They 

also provide a datehase scarch engine and analyst support. 

The JCLL works with the Center for Army Lessons Learned 

Collection and Observation Management System to develop 

collection tool software, which is scheduled for fielding 

in FYY9. Using JCLL analysts as collection agents 

significantly improves the after-action products we provide. 

JCLL is a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network 

(SIPRNET)-based wcb tool available to all agencies ~,ith 

registered SIPRNET access. JCLL tnay be accessed at 

jcl/j~~~fi.uc~m,.s~~iil.n~il. 

Joint Distributed Lcarnin: Ccnter 

This wcb-based tool is available to Unclassified-butSensitive Intemct Protocol Routcr Network (NIPRNET) 

military address users. It contains programs taught at the 

JWFC, links to I-elated doctrinal and reference material, the 

Joint Task Force Commander's Handbook, and other 

handbooks on joint topics. It can be accessed from the JWFC 

home page at ht1p://it~~:w/tns~:.ncom.n7ii. If denied access, 

call the JWFC at DSN 668-7266 for a password. 

Modeling and Simulation Support 

exercises. Large exercises such as Ocean Venture or Solid 

Shield have traditionally cost upwards of 800,000 man-days 

and $40 million. By using innovative modeling and 

simulation tools, we can provide the same level of training 

for colnmanders and other leaders for about 80,000 man-days 

and $3.5 million-a YO percent reduction in cost and 

personnel tempo (Figure 3, page 22). This method of training 

allows Service forces and unit commanders to focus on 

tactics, techniques, and procedures rather than function as a 

training tool for the joint force commander, component 

commander. and staffs. Tlie key to JWFC's successful 

training programs is effcctive use of the following modeling 

and simulations systems: 

Joint Theater-Level Simulation (JT1.S) 

The JTLS ~nodcl hcilitates training in simulationsuppo~tedevents at strategic theater and operational levels of 

war. The sinlulation is a single model that can display forces 

in an aggregate format. It is widcly used to support 

~~~ultidimcnsional conventiolial warfare, military operations 

other than war, and coalition warfare. Several fully qualified 

JTLS database builders, technical opei-ators, and instmctorl 

controllers provide training on the simulation and oversee 

simulation operatintis. 

Joint Training Confederation (JTC) 

As the lnilitary lnoves illto the 21st centuly, two This modcl co~nbincs several Service models that interact 

problelns will affect training: personnel tempo and and operate within the Aggregate-Level Simulation Protocol 

the high cost of manpower- and resoul-ce.intcnsive System. It supports ClNC and joint task force simulation- 
-- 

I Joint Training Man-Day Comparison 

i._li)i:..'. .,...-.... ... ,." , - I . . I 'iip&l(Tralnjnq Computer-Assisted I 

unlrleo inde!averE n-days 

an-days 

Cosr - 9J.rn 

Figure 3 

supported training, primarily at operational levels of 

warfare. While well-planned exercises using the JTC can be 

effective, they usually require numerous support personnel, 

role players, and event scriptors, as well as large control 

groups. However, the JTC displays forces at the smallest 

unit level and provides simulation support for detailed 

training objectives by functional and Service components of 

a joint task force. The JTC is used by the JWFC in ClNC 

and joint task force training from the Joint Training, 

Analysis and Simulation Center. 

Other Modeling and Simulation Programs 

The USACOM JWFC also supports the following 

emerging modeling and simulation programs: 

Joint Simulation System (JSIMS). This system 

eventually will replace the JTLS and JTC. It will support 

joint and Service training requirements from strategic 

national through tactical levels, across the full spectrum of 

warfare operations. JSIMS is a joint, Service, and interagency cooperative development effort. 

When JSIMS reaches its initial operational capability in 

April 2001, it will replace the Joint Training Confederation. 

It will have a strategic theater and operational focus. By full 

operational capability, anticipated in December 2003, 

JSIMS will replace all joint legacy simulation models. It 

will support the full range of universal joint and Service 

tasks. 

Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation (JCATS). This 

is a multisided, interactive, high-resolution, entity-level 

simulation for training, analysis, mission planning, and 

rehearsals. It displays simulations down to individual 

combatants in single buildings or combat vehicles. It 

supports military operations other than war, military 

operations in urban terrain, special operations, conventional 

ground combat operations, and mission rehearsals. JCATS, 

Version 1.1, fielded 30 October 1998 by Lawrence 

22 Engineer 

Livermore National Laboratories, has robust joint and urban 

features that no other simulation possesses. JCATS, Version 

12, released in December 1998, has even greater resolution 

and fidelity. JCATS is evolving as the common simulation 

for joint experimentation applications in Service Battle 

Laboratories. 

Joint Integrated Database Preparation System (JIDPS). 

This system reduces the time and manpower required to build 

databases and conduct database tests for simulation-supported 

exercises. 

Joint Doctrine 

An essential piece of any training program is the 

doctrine used for force employment. The CJCS Joint 

Doctrine Program helps the Services and joint 

community conceptualize, analyze, develop, disseminate, 

assess, and revise current and future joint doctrine, tactics, 

techniques, and procedures. By having the CJCS's day-to-day 

manager of the Joint Doctrine Program collocated with the 

joint training processes, we have established a cycle of input 

and output of doctrinal ideas from all training and exercise 

events. 

The JWFC provides worldwide support to all CINCs, 

Services, and Joint Staff as the "honest broker" in joint 

doctrine. Our role, as described in Joint Publication 1-01, 

Joint Doctrine Publication System, has three primary 

responsibilities: 

Write joint doctrine. 

Coordinate with other activities that are tasked to write 

joint doctrine. 

Disseminate and integrate doctrine into the training and 

exercise program. 

Whether writing joint doctrine or supporting others who 

write it, the JWFC accomplishes the same key tasks during 

April 1999 
doctrine develop~iient. These include: 

Analyzing new doctrine proposals. 

Developing directives that outline the structure of new 

publications. 

Hosting working groups to discuss publications. 

Coordinating and commenting on publicatio~i drafts. 

Assessing all approved publications. 

Revising these publications when necessary. 

A critical JWFC role in the doctrine process is to assess 

currentjoint publications. Blessed with officers from all four 

Services who possess a broad range of military skills, we 

identify and address shortcomings in joint publications, 

inconsiste~icics between similar documents, and voids in the 

doctrinal library. We also assess the overall readability of 

publications and ensure that training processes are consistent 

with joint doctrine. Finally, we observe the application of 

doctrine during training events. 

JWFC personnel help tlie Joinl Staff 57, Joint Education 

and Training Division, to certify and accredit joint 

professional rnilitary educational institutions. 

The USACOIv1 JWFC Joint Doctrine Divisioli and its 

electronic library may be accessed on the NIPRNET at http:i 

hr.u.~rciric.mi/!~ioct~~ine. This site allows access to all

approved joint doctrine tools and sites. 

Emerging Systems 

he following emerging systetns will support joint 

training: 

Di~:ril~utedJoint Training Initiative 

A new initiative within the Joint Warfighting Center is 

our involvement in distributed joint training. As the 

Chairman of the Joint Chief5 of Staff expressed in Joint 

Vision 2010: 

fidelity training an 

Joint Escrcisc Management Package 

Joint Exercise Management Package (JEMP) 111 will 

providc automated support for thc joint training system. 

When completc, the JEMP 111 will havc four modules, one to 

support each phase of tlie system. The Mission Reqi~iren~ents 

Module and the Mission Planning Module are in place, and 

the Mission Execution and Mission Assessmenl Modulcs are 

being developed. Thc Mission Requirements Module 

identifies CINC mission requirements and helps develop the 

CINC's joint mission essential task list. The Mission 

Planning Module automates development of all rcquired tabs 

of the CINC's Joint Training Plan. When the four modules 

are complere, the system will provide a range of database 

information to manage the CINCs' training programs. 

The Road Ahead 

he JWFC is a growing organization that is involved in 

ahnost every aspect ofjoint training. It is more than a 

conglo~nerate of programs and systems. The JWFC is 

a dynamic organization that enhances the U.S. military's 

ability to conduct coherent joint operations through the 

synergistic effect of training support, modeling and 

simulations, doctrinal $entices. and distributed learning and 

training technologies. Our role in these programs and our 

innovative usc of emerging information technologies places 

"Sii~i~i/oiio,z,~ ,~iit.%r/x3 i,ite,-c,(~~~!i<~crc~c/ ,~ii~/~ol/~~.--c~~~~~iiit~~ us on the cutting edge of joint training. I encourage you to 

n ile(ii. nvil-thilc a i .sinii~/iriii,n .srii,c.rhigI~~~~a~~ contact us on our NIPRNET and SIPRNET weh sites and to 

heri!.ci,ii oir,/r~r<cc iil i,~.i,i?. hc rihle use the scrvices and products that we provide. Y rheniei.. Oicli C7VC' i~i~tst 

to tci/~iirio thi.~ g/011cil iic~n~,orA- OIM/ c.0111ic2[:1 /i~rc<',swcj~-i~I~~~i~/<, 


!hut ~~oii/(/ ill, n~~ui/~ih/e,fbr thcntcl- ~~pv~.ciIio~ic. This nelu,oi.k 
 1l4ujor General Bet-ndt is comn~arzder of the Joiilr 

\\ill nlio~i, ~c,/r<'iediiilir.s iil CO.VC'.l to ri.oii~ niih fi~i.ci..i Warfig/~ting Center. Foi-t Moiii-oe, Virginia, oil(/ rhe ~Iirecror. 

/ou!f?d in ciii ui,v,i.,se~7.s tlic~c~~l,~ bt~i111/1ztr ~1cim!/11~ O<>/J/(JI,~JI;; ,for joint traii~ing (J7). USACOM A1orfo/ii, Virginia. He 

rhcre. " 

The vision of this program is to establish global 

distributed architecture that integrates and shapes related 

Department of Defense initiatives, programs, and 

operational requirements. It will link Servicc and joint 

programs and provide the capability for worldwide 

warfighter participation in joint training on demand. This 

program will bcco~ne the means for distributing training, as 

envisioned in Joint Vision 2010. 

April 1999 

previously se1-1.ed as deputy commander. U.S. ~Moriili. Carps 

Forces, Aflaniir; u~id 11.irh the Ofice of the .Jr~iiit Chiefs of 

StqJfand fleiidqlrariws. Lr.S Eur-opean Cor~t~~rnnti. 

Coloi~el Clirlrer is the deplrcv dirrclor of the Joint 

Tr,aini~~g.il~ta(~~sis and Si~~izrlatior~ Center of the Joint

PVa~;figl~ti~~g Cente,: S1@1k, Virgblin. I~ep~~e~~iurrslJ~ served as 

head of !lie Concepts Divi.sion 171 JWFC, responsible for 

co~iccpl develop~nent nnd b~ip/ei?~enliilionof Joint l!i.sion 

2010. 

Engineer 23 
5). Major Scoir Spellnion 

Several engineer-focused joint 

publications (SP) are in the doctrine 

development, revision, and 

approval process. They are JP 3-34, 

Eiiginerr Doctrine fir Joint Operalions; 

JP 4-04. Joirit Doctvine ,/or Ciidi 

Engineeri~ig Si~pport; and JP 3-15, Joint 

Dortriiie for- 5awirr.s. Ohstacies, and 

Mine U'CII$IX. These poblications, among 

several others, present doctri~ial 

discussion for the engineer banlespace 

functions outlined in JP 3-34 (general 

engineering, topographic engineering. 

and combat engineering) as depicted in 

Figure 1 

This article provides an update on 

where these publications are in the 

de\:elopment process. it discusses significant content revisions that have been 

drafted as a result of lessons learned 

-. JP 3-34. Engineer Doctrine for 

-

Joint Operations -

! 

I

Engineer Battlespace Functions 

1 


, JP 4-04, 


Joint 


Doctrine for 


Civil 


Engineering 


General Combat 


Engineering Engineering 


I ' 

I 


bpographic 

Engineering 

- \ 

JP 2-03, JrrP for 


I Geo~paliailnform~tion 


and services suppon to 


Joint Operations 


T~1 Mobility CC y Survivability - . JP 3-15. Joint Docfrine - -

JP 3-10.1. Joint for Barriers. Obstades, Tactics. and Mine Warfare -

1 Techniques.and 

Procedures for 

Base Defense . . 

Figure 1. Engineer battlespace functions 

Given this capability, Chapter 11of JP 3-34, "Command and 

Control," presents several staff placement options for the 

CJTF to consider when organizing his engineer staff for a 

particular operation (Figure 2, page 25). Since many engineer 

staffs within today's joint commands are subordinate to the 

from recent operations and presents the method by which the 

Amy and joint publications hierarchy will be linked in the 

near future. 

JP 3-34 

JP 3-34, E~~;~~~,. D ~ ~ 34, ~ the ~ intent ~ of ~ this~ discussion , J is ~to present ~ the Anew 


jojrli~ ~ ~ will , . ~ as the ~ j ~ ~manual ~


for joint engineering. lt will provide joint force 

commanders and their staffs with guidance, principles, and 

to plan, coordinate, and tilnely 

tailored joint engineer support across the range of 

military operations. ~h,~ publication ,,,ill fill a void i n

today's joint doctrine libraw, there is no manual 

ties together the engineer battlespace functions or describes 

how they shape the battlespace in which joint forces will 

operate. to U.S. doctrine, JP 3.34 

~ considerations , and benefits for locating the engineer staff 

outside of the logistics function. JP 3-34 describes 

advatgages of placing the engineer as a special staff officer 

(with stafflinks to the J3,54, and J5) or as a cell undcr the 53. 

depending on the nature of the operation. In inany operations, 

these options offer the engineer staff more oppom~nities to 

optimize their functions and facilitate planning and 

coordination issues related to o~crational maneuver, force 

protection, or other engineer-intensive mission requirements. 

Command and control options for the engineer force 

is the -FM 5.100, E ~ o,,~~~;~,,,~~ ~ ;of the ~ joint ~traditionally ~ have ~ been established along Service lines as a 

comnunity. 

Highlights of the publication include for 

two "fthe most debated issues the joint engilleering 

placelnent ofthe engineer staff the joint 

staff structure and command and control options for the joint 

engineer force, jp 5.00.2, Join[ ~ ~ ,rorce . ~ plnnning k 

G~,&~,~~ undprocrdlrres,states that -~h~ commander,joint

task force (CJTF) may organize his staff as he considers 

necessary to carry out his duties and responsibilities ...." 

Service component comn~and (top portion of Figure 3, page 

25). While this technique remains an option, JP 3-34 presents 

other command and control courses of action for the joint 

force commander to consider when organizing the joint force 

for an operation. In light of recent operations, a functional 

component command may be more efficient to leverage the 

unique engineering capabilities within each Service (bottom 

p~fiion of Figure 3). For example, in some operations the 

Joint force colnmander may best optimize blarine and Army 

24 En~irlecr April 1999 
-- 

---- 

-- 

-~ 1 p~ 


i n pi= .......[ Commander, 71 
 -

Personal Staff 

Joint Task Force 

Lagistlcs 

Policy 

-

1 Engineer Engineer 

/' 

I -,. -\. 

When engineer effoflpredominateiy supports 

s~pport~ operational movement, maneuver, force sustainmen1

Figure 2. Sample JTF HQ staff organization with engineer staff 

placement options. 

Joint 

-~

Force Commander 

p~ 

Senrice Component Command 

Component Component Component Component 

Air Force 


Engineers Engineers 


. . . . . . , , , , , , , , , . . . . . . . . . . ,.. . . , , , , , , . . . . . . . , , , ., , , , , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . ... . . . ......, . . . . . . . . . ... . . 

Operational Control 

-Command relationship determined 

I by the pint force commander 

Figure 3. Service and functional component commands 

April 1999 
-- 

4- Combat service 

6 Command 

11 -Organization 

213 - Equipment 


4 -Operations 


5 -Topographic 


6 -General engineer 

the September 1995 version by presenting 

NumberingRules operational and strategic considerations for 

planning, coordinating, and executing civil 

engineering operations. As requested by the 

field, JP 4-04 also fully describes the military 

09- Field artillery 

11 Chemical 

civil engineering capabilities 

Services, contract construction 

within the 

agents, and 

20 -Armor contractors 

1 Platoon and 

2_Company 

3-Battalion 

. . . .. . .... . . . . . . .. . .. . i

' lor 2 -Combat 

4 -Bridging 

5 -Management 

6 -Horizontal , 	 7 -Vertical 

8 -Specialty 

Figure 4. Numbering rules 

U.S. Amy Engineer School personnel 

actively participated in the revision of this 

publication. As lead agent, the Navy (Naval 

Facilities Engineer Command) is currently 

staffing JP 4-04 with the commanders in 

chief and Services. The first draft is available 

in the joint electronic library at http:// 

www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jL.l. 

JP 3-15 

J P 3-15, .Joint Doctrine ,for Barriers, 

Obstocies. und Mine Warfare, outlines 

how mobility and countermohility 

opcrations can enhance the terrain and shape 

the battlespace to support the commander's 

operational and strategic objectives. In 

comparison to U.S. Amy doctrine, the publication serves as the operational compilation 

of principles discussed in FM 90-13-1, 

Combined Arms Breuching Operations. FM 20-32, .Mine/ 

Coirnrermine Operations, and FM 90-7, Cornhined Anns 

Ohstncle Inlegrution. Unlike these field manuals, however, 

JP 3-15 presents the land, air, and mariti~ne components of 

minelcountemine warfare. 

JP 3-15 completed the doctrine development cycle on 24 

February 1999. It is available at htlp://~v~~iv.adtdi.arrnj~.mil 

(Joint Publications). 

Linking Joint and Army Doctrine 

unlike the joint doctrine library, the Army's numbering 

system for doctrinal publications follows no 

discemable set of rules. Some engineer manuals, 

such as the 8-71 series, align engineer doctrine its 

associated maneuver doctrine, hut in most cases the 

numerical designation gives no indication of its hierarchial 

position or subject. 

In August 1997, TRADOC initiated a program to revise 

the Amy doctrine hierarchy to link it by number and function 

to the joint publications system. The purpose of this initiative 

is t- 

,	Enable the Amy to move in concert an 

systematic joint doctrine system with the other Services. 

engineers by making them subordinate to the joint force land 

component commander, leaving Air Force engineers 

subordinate to the joint force air cotnponeut commander and 

Navy Seahees subordinate to the joint force maritime 

component commander. This is one example; JP 3-34 

presents numerous options that are available when engineers 

are organized under a hnctional colnponent command. The 

publication also presents considerations the staff should 

address when preparing task organizations and command or 

support relationships for a givenjoint operation. 

U.S. Army Engineer School personnel participated in 

recent working groups to develop JP 3-34. As lead agent, the 

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) 

will distribute this publication to the commanders in chief 

and Services for final review in May 1999. 

JP 4-04 

The key "4-series" joint engineer publication is JP 4- 

04, Joint Doctrinefor Civil Engineering Support. It 

provides joint engineer planners with detailed, 

logistically focused planning and operational requirements 

for shaping the joint force battlespace from a facilities and 

infrastructure perspective. The current revision improves on 
Old Designation FM 5-100 FM so-13.1 CombinedArms +. 	 Breaching Operations New Desrg~ 	 + , 	 , FM3-34.41 1 

00erion6 ~Agnrer 

FM 5-34 FM 5~422 

Track subject and 

proponency horizontally 

and verlically across 

tiers ,, 

~eieren& PI~~IOO~ open Reference 

.. , * 

Specially Open 

Figure 5. Linking joint and Army doctrine 

H 	 Groom young officers for the increasingly joint, interagency, and multinational ndhlre of future military 

operations. 

H 	 Facilitate planning, preparation, and conduct of joint 

operations by Anny headquarters. 

The joint doctrine numbering system follows a fixed set 

of rules, as depicted in Figure 4, page 26. The first digit 

corresponds to the staff functional area for the content of the 

publication (I -Personnel, 2-Intelligence, 3-Operations, etc.). 

The second and third digits correspond to an existing joint 

publication or the Service proponent for the publication 

(20-Armor, 21-Infantry, 34-Engineer, etc). The fourth digit 

describes the content of the publication: organization, 

equipment, reference, and for engineer publications, the type 

of engineering covered (topogaphic, general, diving, etc.). 

Subsequent digits in the numbering system serve as further 

descriptors to the manual's content. 

The end product of this hierarchial method is a three-tier 

system that allows field personnel to track proponency and 

functional areas horizontally and vertically across tiers 

(Figure 5). The upper tier delineates Army or capstone 

doctrine and aligns those manuals with their corresponding 

joint publications. The following examples show how 

current capstone Army field manuals will be renumbered: 

H 	 FM 100-5, Operations, will become FM 3-0, Operations, 

which aligns with JP 3-0, Doctrinefor Joint Operolions. 

H 	 FM 5-100 Engineer Operations, will become FM 3-34, 

Engineer operation.^, which aligns with JP 3-34, Engineer Doctrine for Joint Operations. 

The second tier consists of proponent and branch-specific 

dochine and publications on tactics, techniques, and 

April 1999 

procedures. The lowest tier consists of reference-relatcd 

doctrinal publications that contain tabular data, general 

reference, or common equipment. Examples of field manuals 

in each tier and their future designations are shown in Figure 5. 

The revised doctrinal numbering systetn bas been approved 

at all levels throughout the Army. Implementation of the 

systetn is expected to begin with the new version of FM 100-5 

(FM 3-0) Operations, when it is published. Subsequent 

renumbering of existing field manuals will occur during the 

nonnal review or reprinting process. 

Conclusion 

.S. Army Engineer School personnel continue to 

part~clpate in the doctrine development process for 

joint publicat~ons. In an effort to improve field 

operations, considerable strides have been made over the past 

several months to ensure that lessons learned from recent 

operations have been captured in our joint engineer doctrinal 

publications. 

For more information, call MAJ Spellmon at DSN 676- 

7537 or commercial (573) 563-4106. Y 

Major Spellmon is chief of /he Doctrine Development 

Division at the US. Army Engineer School. Previous 

assignments include obsen~er/controller at the Combat 

M~~~~~~~ rraining center; commander., 81nd 

Engineer Battalion; and platoon leader, X/h Engineer 

Battalion. MAJ Spellmon is a graduate of the U.S. Miliiary 

Academy and the U.S. Army Command and General Staf 

College and holds a master's degree in civil engineeringfiom 

the Universir?, of Illinois. 

Engineer 27 
Military Support Detachment (RAID): 


The Tip of the Military Spear 


A 

BI*Colonel Kenneth Gonzaie.~ 

new unit is standing up at Fon Leonard Wood-the 

7th Military Support Detachnient (MSD) Rapid 

Assessment and Initial Detection (RAID). Like its 

nine counterparts--one in each Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) region-it has a mandate. 

Authorized and funded in tlic FY99 defense bill, it must bc 

manned, equipped. traincd, certified, and validated fully 

mission capable no later than 5 January 2000. Ambitious as 

this may seen?, its fielding is very much in progress. 

Because the RAID detachments are so new and their 

concept-to-fielding process transcends standard procedures 

for introducing new force structure, they arc already the 

subject of much misinfonnation. This a~ticle explains some 

of the background that led to their cstablishnient, how the 

RAID detachments are manned and equipped, and what they 

are designed to do. I also bricfly describe the 7th MSD 

(RAID) relationships with tlic Maneuver Support Center 

(MANSCEN) and the Total Army Center of Excellence for 

Homeland Defense initiatives at Fon Leonard Wood. 

Background 

ur nation's awareness of the threat from terrorist acts 

and incidents involving weapons of Inass 

destruction (WMD) has been ~nounti~~g throughout 

the 1990s. Events such as the bombings at the N~M: York 

City World Trade Center, the Tokyo subway, and the Murrah 

Federal Building in Oklahoma City accelerated the need to 

take action. In June 1995, President Clinton issued 

Presidential Decisioii Directive 39. It provides guidance for 

distinguishing between "consequence management" and 

"crisis management" and establishes specific objectives and 

accountability for federal agencies. The directive's 

objectives include deterring, defeating, and responding to all 

terrorist attacks on our territory and managing the 

consequences of such attacks. 

Nunn-Lugar-Dumenici legislation contained in the FY97 

defense bill directed the Secretary of Defense to more fully 

engage the military in measures to protect our nation from 

terrorist attacks iiivolving WMD. Accordingly, the 

Departtnenl of Defense is providing for training, expert 

advice and assistance, loail of equipment, rapid response 

capability, and the use of the National Ciuard and other 

elements of the Reserve Componentc. 

In May 1997, the National Security Council released Tile 

:Vutional Securiy Sfrofegi:,/'or (I ~Vett.Cenfuf?:Our nation's 

security planners recognizcd that "...because of our 

don~inance in the conventional military arena, adversaries 

who challenge the United States are likely to do so using 

asymmetrical means such as weapons of mass destruction. 

infonnation operations, or terrorism." A few months later, the 

Secretary of Dcfense released an updated Nc~tional ~Miliiury 

Sfroteas (October 1997). It provided additional insight into 

an acknowledged vulnerability: "...terrorism, the use or 

thrcatcned use of WMD ... have the potential to threaten the 

U.S. homeland and population directly and to deny us access 

to critical overseas infrastructure.'' 

Other reports since then from the Defense Science Board, 

Foss-Downing Coinmission (CB 2010), and Quadrennial 

Defense Review also acknowledged the terrorist threat. 

Anlong the conclusions reachcd hy these separate studies was 

one colnlnon secotnmendation: greater use of the National 

Guard and other elements of the Reserve Components. 

In response to thesc findings aiid recommendations. thc 

Department of Defense establislied a special committee to 

investigate how to better integrate National GuardIReserve 

Component WMD capabilities to enhancc military response 

to civil authorities. Designated the 'Tiger Team." its charter 

was straightrorward: construct a complete inodel for 

integrating the Reserve Components into a consequencemanagement response for domestic terrorist incidents 

involving WMD. 

Establishment 

A mong reco~nniendations posed by the Tiger Team's 

early 1998 rcpol-t was the establishment of a rapid 

assessrncnt and initial detection capability in the 

National Guard. The original rccommendation called for 54 

teams (one for each state, territory, and Washington, D.C.). 
MSD (RAID) Locations 

The manning document provided for 44 personnel: 22 fulltime (Active GuardIReserve) and 22 part-time (traditional or 

mobilization-day guardsmen). These teams were to be 

trained and equipped to standards compatible with the 

civilian "first responders" (fire, police, emergency medical, 

and hazardous materials) they were designed to support. 

Despite time, budgetary, and legislative obstacles, the 

Tiger Team's recommendation became a reality when the 

1999 defense bill was signed. Final legislation, however, 

reduced the number of National Guard teams from 54 to I0 

(one for each of the 10 FEMA regions) and provided for 

only 22 full-time Active GuardlReserve personnel (no 

traditional guardsmen). Figure 1 shows the 10 FEMA 

regions and the MSD (RAID) states. 

commander is normally the local civilian fire chief. The RAID 

detachments, in direct support of incident collunanders, help 

first responders identify and assess the nature of an anack and 

determine the presence and type of nuclear, chemical, 

biological andlor radiological (NBCR) contamination. The 

detachments are trained and equipped to provide on-scene 

medical and technical advice to incident co~n~nandersand 

have the knowledge and capability to reach back for follow-on 

state, federal, and military assets. Figure 2 shows the MSD 

(RAID) mission statement. 

The MSD (RAID) 22-man table of distribution and 

allowances provides for six subteams: command and 

control, operations, communications, adminishationllogistics, 

Mission 

he purpose of MSD (RAID) is 

multifaceted. From the time of 

notification, units are designed to 

deploy within 4 hours to the site of a 

suspected terrorist incident within the 

FEMA region they support. The RAID 

detachments operate in direct support of 

civilian first responders. The local agency 

head that has authority over the incident 

response is referred to as the incident 

commander. In terrorist incidents 

characterized by explosive devices, fires, 

hazardous materials, etc., the incident 

ons. 

:ILITATE r -. -~.~, 

s, prevenl 

perty dam 

MSD (IMID) h4 

+n3" inri, 

~dersrega 

Dr assista 

-~~*-~.-

I 

Figure 2 

The MSD (RAID, ,,.,, ., ,,. ...,. dent site i..,. ,f the 

local incident commande 

ASSESS a suspected n 

radiological event. 

ADVISE civilian respon 

acti 

FAC equests f~ 

arrival or aooitional stare or reoerat assers ro nelp s 

live :human suffering, 2 

pro1 age. 

~rdingapp 

nce to ex1 ~~-. -..-Aand mitiga 

Jedite the ...--.-. 

Ite great 

ave 

-

April 1999 Engineer 29 
MSD (RAID) Organization 

1 Commander 1
 I 


LTCIOS 

Team (4) Team (2) 	 Logistics Team (4) 

Team (2) 

Figure 3 

medical, and survey. Figure 3 depicts how the RAID 

detachments are smlchtred. All positions iway hc filled by 

either Atiny or Air National Guard personnel. 

Command and Control Team 

The command and control team oversees the MSD 

(RAID). advises thc incident commander on appropriatc 

responses to WMD incidents, and facilitates follow-on 

support. Thc team also coordinates all public affairs issues 

for the MSD (RAID). 

Operations Team 

The operations teain conducts planning, hazard modeling, 

and interagency coordinatioo and schcdulcs individual and 

collective training for MSD (RAID) personnel. The team 

helps plan aud conduct interagency cxcrcises, conducts force 

protection and liaison functions, and coordinates MSD 

(RAID) sustainrnent training. 

Commi~nications Team 

The communications team supports the technical needs of 

the MSD (RAID). It provides day-to-day con1munications 

(internal and external voice and data ncrworks) while the 

RAlD detachment is at home station. Once mobilized, it 

supports team comtnunications en route to an incident site. 

Upon arrival at the incident site. the cotnmunications team 

keeps tl~e MSD (RAID) commander in touch with the 

incident commander and other reach-back support as 

needed. 

Because of the civil-military implicalions of this teain, 

MSD (RAID) communications equipment appears morc 

civilian than military. Civilian fire, police, and elnergcncy 

medical senrice departments fi-equcntly employ 8001900 

MHz two-way radio communications systems. HFIUHFI 

VHF systems rrequently are used to link military and fcderal 

agencies. Pagers, cellular telephones, and tactical satellite 

voice and data telecomtnunications systems supplement 

the wdio-based systems that provide comnlunications power 

30 Engineer 

to the MSD (RAID) commander and the supponed incident 

commander. 

Administrationll,ogisticsTeam 

The administration1logistics team procures, stores, 

accounts for and maintains all MSD (RAID) equipment. I1 

also provides traditional administrative and personnel 

functions cotnmon to all units. The challenges of its support 

are magnified by the unique requirements of the unit. The 

communications systems described above are representative 

of thc unusual and nonstandard military character of the MSD 

(RAID). Transportation and protective gear are nther 

cxatnples of the unique nature of this unit. Its vehicles are 

nonstandard-Gcneral Services Administration vans and 

sport utility models. While all team members arc issued 

personal protective equipment and carry M40 masks, the 

survey team is trained to opcrate in Level A suits (spacesuittype outer gannents with sclf-contained breathing apparatus). 

Medical Team 

The medical tcnm advises the incident cotninander of 

health and tnedical implications for personnel in areas 

affected hy a WMD incident. Tca~n members are trained and 

resourced to coordinate with local, state, and federal healthcare officials and agencies for follow-on support as needed. 

The lncdical team providcs basic medical care for MSD 

(RAID) members and conducts physical assessments before 

and after survey tea111 members enter potentially contaminated WMD incident sites. 

Survey Team 

The survcy team conducts nuclear, biological, chemical 

and radiological (NBCR) surveys at a WMD incident site, as 

directed by the MSD (RAID) conimander. Survey team 

members are at the heart of the MSD (RAID) weapons-ofmass-dcstmction incident response. They are trained and 

equipped to enter the "hot zone," obtain samples of possible 

NBCR contaminants, and monitor local contamination levels. 

April 1999 
They are equipped with the latest technology for detecting 

and assessing possible contan~inants. In addition to familiar 

military detection and monitoring equipment, the survey 

team brings sophisticated diagnostic tools like the gas 

chromato~aph and mass spectrometer to the incident 

commander. Having these devices available is critical to the 

unique mission of the MSD (RAID) and its support to 

civilian authorities. 

Command and Control 

perationally. the MSD (RAID) falls under the 

command and control of the adjutant general of the 

statc to which it is assigned. As a Title 32 National 

Guard asset, its deployment to support civilian authorities 

during a WMD incident is similar to other state disaster 

deployments in which the National Guard has been involved 

for many years. 

Recognition of the long-standing relationship behvccn 

the National Guard and civilian authorities was an 

influencing factor in deciding where to place the MSD 

(RAID) capability. Deployment of the detachments to 

other states is coordinated through FEMA. In those 

circumstances, the MSD (RAID) falls under the command 

and control of the receiving adjutant general. while 

remaining in direct support of the local incident commander. 

Many other doctrinal, training, equipment, evaluation, and 

deplovment considerations for MSD (RAID) are still being . . 

developed. 

Stationing the 7th MSD (RAID) at Fon Leonard Wood 

offers it some advantages that the other detachments won't 

enjoy. During FY99. the Amy's Chemical and Military 

Police Schools \vill join the engineers as co-tenants of Fort 

Leonard Mrood. While the dynamics of this union may take 

years to fully realize, the 7th MSD (RAID) will reap some 

immediate benefit$. Subject matter cxpertise available in the 

three schools xvill enable the 7th MSD (RAID) to lead in 

doctrine. training, leader development, organization, materiel, 

and soldiers (DTLOMS) issues affecting its mission. 

The advantage works both ways. Discussions with senior 

members of the school staffs reveal that they already see 

benefits for their students, battle lab experiments, facilities 

employment, leader development, and training by having a 

RAID detachment in their own backyard, D~signated the 

Maneuver Support Center and established to leverage the 

synergistic impact of all three schools. Fort Leonard Wood 

is a showcase for TRADOC's reorganization initiative 

around battlefield functions. (See Eiixineer; April 1998). 

Through its stationing at the MANSCEN. the 7th MSD 

(RAID) benefits from this consolidation. No other 

installation brings together the subject matter experts, 

training oppnrmnities, and battle lab facilities as well as Fort 

Leonard Wood. 

April 1999 

Threat Response 

-n homeland defense and Department of Defense 

initiatives to provide for the defense of our nation, the 

.MSD (RAID) is the tip of the military spear in 

responding to incidents involving WMD. In fact, while our 

leaders determine how to bring all stratcgic assets into 

coordinated alignment (information operations, national 

missile defense, special operations forces, etc.), the MSD 

(RAID) stands out as the military's newest and most visible 

capability for responding to the threat of domestic terrorism. 

The designation of MANSCEN as the Total Army Center of 

Excellence for Homeland Defense training, experimentation. 

and force integation is a given. At MANSCEN, troops will train 

to detect, defend against, and decontaminate NBCR weapons. 

Soldiers will manage the treatment and evacuation of casualties 

and assist with the quarantine of affccted areas and personnel. 

Proponent responsibilities of the Chemical, Military Police and 

Engineer Schools (the MANSCEN) are to respond to NBCR 

contamination, counter the threat of terrorism, protect the force. 

secure projection platfom~s. and ensure continuity of critical 

infrastructure. The physical and intellechlal capital invested in 

Fort Leonard Wood today will contribute to the Total Anny's 

success in executing homeland defense missions. Stationing the 

7th MSD (RAID) at Fort Leonard Wood is pan of that 

investment. 

Conclusion 

he requirement for a rapid assessment and initial 

detection capability was documented by numerous 

studies and technical working groups. Hence, the 

establishment of the Military Support Detachment (RAID). 

Stationed in the I0 FEMA regions of the United States, these 

National Guard detachments will be designed. trained, and 

equipped to detect and assess NBCR contamination resulting 

from terrorist acts in\iolving weapons of mass destruction. The 

MSD (RAID) will augment civilian authorities with technical 

capabilities beyond those normally found among first 

responders. 

If called on to respond to a WMD incident. an MSD 

(RAID) deploys to support civilian authorities as the initial 

military response element on the scene. For the Department of 

Defense, the National Guard's MSD (RAID) capability is the 

tip of the military spear. For Fort Leonard Wood, the 

Maneuver Support Center, and the Total Amy Center of 

Excellence for Homeland Defense, the 7th MSD (RAID) is a 

unique tenant activity and a viable partner for the futurc. Y 


Colonel Gonmles ic direcroi,qfplm, operations. ond nai~~ii~g 

for the Missorsi .\ratioiml Gtiaid He commanded tlie 1751/? 

biiiitaty Police Battalion ri~id has seived at tlre .Marioiml Guard 

Bur.eau in Warhiiigoii, D.C. COL Gonzales holrls a ma~terlr 

degree in ediication and is a graduate ?frhe Arn7.v War. College. 

Enfiineer 31 
Bv Jeffrw Klein 

n 29 January 1999, the U.S. will supplement the school's training tractors. They are at the top of a teachAmly Engineer School re- mission by providing advanced tech- ing pyramid that will rapidly multiply 

ceived the first two production nologies and will help define fbhlre 1 the number of properly trained engineer 

deployable universal combat eartlimov- mission doctrine. soldiers. 

ers (DEUCES). This highly anticipated , In addition to receiving thc cqoipearthmover, which will soon be in the ment, Engineer School instructors, Description 

Army construction equipment inven- maintainers, and operators received The DEUCE is the result of an tory, will provide light infantry and air- instntctor and key personnel training. 1 ongoing partnership between thc borne combat engineers with an These critical personnel will train Tank-Automotive and Anna- unpreccdented self-deploy capability future Amy soldiers in the correct 1 ments Command (TACOM), in Warren, The Engineer School's two DEUCEs operation and maintenance of the Michigan, - and the contractor, Caterpillar Inc.. Defense and Federal Products 

Department. A contract awarded to 

Caterpillar in 1995 is managed by 

TACOM's project manager for TankAutomotive Weapon Systems (PM 

-,.:iah.:,... 1 'TAWS) and the product manager for . . ,> ::.,.,r;- a Constn~ction EquiplnentiRlaterial Handling ~~ui~rnent (PM CEIMHE). Representatives from both TACOM and 

Caterpillar attended the DEUCE handoff at Fort Leonard Wood. 

The DEUCE'S engine, transmission, 

and suspension configuration combine 

. ,,. to allow it to travel in the self-deploy 

mode at speeds up to 30 mph. It has an 

automatic h-speed transmission and a 

fully suspended undercarriage. The 

In the earthmoving mode, the DUECE's blade can be tilted in six different rubber track is lighter and less damag- positions with a joystick. ing to road surfaces than a traditional 
- - 

steel-track dcsign. This configuration allows for a safe and comfortable ride and eliminates the need for 

additional hauling assets between 

job sites. 

The flip of a switch engages the 

earthmoving mode. The DEUCE 

operates with a standard power-shit? 

transmission, a locked-out suspension for a rigid dozing platfomi, and 

a dozing capability comparable to 

the D5 dozer currently authorized to 

some 18th Airborne engineer units. 

The DEUCE is desiened for driving 

on and off C-130, C-141, C-5, and In the self-deply mode, the DUECE can travel up to 30 mph on asphalt roads 

tification testing for C-130 airdrops. 

The DEUCE will be ~~sed primarily 

to prepare airstrips, roads, and protcctive positions. To increase its effectiveness, the operator may comlnunicate 

from within Ihe DEUCE the 

single-channel, ground-to-air radio 

'ystem @INCGARS) and precise 

light-weigllt GPS (global positionillg 

systenl) receivers IPLGR) "le I 

DEUCE uses a six-way hydraulic 

power-ang'e-tilt blade and a rearmounted 22,000-pound winch. The Caterpillar 3126 Hydraulic 

Electronic Unit Injector engine has 

dual power settings, which produce 

185 hp in the earthmoving mode and 

7-65 hp in the self-deploy mode. The 

DEUCE is equipped with an enclosed, 

climate-controlled cab that allows optima1 performance from a less-fatigued 

operator. The engine, as well as 75 

percent 3,000 serviceable 

DEUCE has proven its 1 durability through Caterpillar's extensive commercial experience. 

Testingnitial testing indicated that the 

undercarriage design, although 

adequate for con~mercial applica- 1 

tions, was not sufficient for rigorous 

military operations. After consulting 

with all appropriate commands, including U.S. Amiy Forces Command and 

the Engineer School, the PM CEIMHE 

initiated a nine-month testing and 

April 1999 

C-I7 aircraft and is undergoing cer- without causing 

redesign period with the goal of 

improving the future readiness of 

lnacllines, The result is a much 

ilnproved undercarriage design, 

According to the assistant product 

lnanager for the DEUCE, the 

tnck technology has been proven over 

the years on Caterpillar.s 

nies of agricu~~~ tractor. he entire

undercarriage, including the steel. 

reinforced solid rubber track, has undergone extensive testing across the count~y. conditions included knee-deep 

lnud and clay at Aberdeen proving 

Grounds; fiozen soil (sand, gravcl, and 

clay) at ill^^^^ ~ i ~facility;~ 

desert rock and sand at 

zona ~ ~ and a ~id^^^^~ 

mix of clay,sand, gravel, and mud at Caterpillal.%sproving in Peoria, ~lli. 

nois. All of this data was incorporated in 

the final undercarriage design that soldiers will receive. Sharp volcanic rnck in 

Hawaii and Fort Lewis, Washington, will 

undoubtedly increase the gro~lser wear 

rate, similar to the experiences of rubbertired vehicles, hut the transoortabilihi 

advantages of this type of track are necessary to meet the quick-strike capabilities 

of light and airborne engineers. 

Fielding 

Before delivering these machines, 

unit personnel will receive three 

days of operator training and 

five days of maintenance training. The 

advanced design of the operator's 

compartment, along with the ergonomically designcd operator controls, 

allow for these minimal operatortraining requirements. For example, the 

automotive-type steering wheel, accclerator pedal, and brake pedal typically 

are not associated with tracked construction equipment. 

The 10th Mountain Division (Light) 

at Fort Drum, New York, is scheduled 

to receive the first DEUCE in May 

1999. The 82nd Airborne Division at 

Fort Bragg, North Carolina, will be 

outfitted with thc DEUCE in June, followed ~ by ~ the ~20th Engineer ~ l Brigade i ~at 

Fort Bragg. Fielding the acquisition 

objective ~ of d 160 DEUCES ~ ; will continue through 2002. 

The coming months will be busy as 

product managers from both TACOM 

and Caterpillar's Defense and Federal 

Products Dcpart~nent prepare for the 

initial tieldings. At that time, TACOM 

and all of the DEUCE team members 

will have achieved their goal of fielding a capable, reliable, and supportable -

piece of equipment to the soldiers of 

the 2lst century. Y 

Mr Klein LF the DEUCEprojecl enxineer and works on the Construction 

Equipment Team at TARDEC. He holds a 

hachelorS degree in mechanical engineerii~gfrom Virs'nia Tech anda rnnrfer 's 

degree in mechanical engineering fiom 

Calhoiic UniversiQ, Wa.~hington, DC 

Engineer 33 
Total Army and Joint Teamwork Toward a 


General Reimer, Chief of Staff. United States Army, 

recently approved a new path to the future that is 

described as the Arn~v E.xperi~~~entntio~~ Cnn?paign 

/'Inn (AECP). The AECP is a result of the Arniy's successful 

experimentation since 1993 with new ideas, teclmologies, 

equipment, and organizations as part of the Force XXI 

process. Results from experimentation with mechanized 

forces and digital teclmologies at Fort Hood. Texas, and the 

National Training Center (NTC), Fort Irwin, Califoniia, led 

General Reimer and Army leaders to expand experimentation efforts into other areas. These areas include light 

contingency forces, Strike Forces. and future Anny After 

Next (AAN) forces. Thc AAN forces include Battle Forces, 

campaign forccs, homeland defense forces, and special 

operations forces (SOF). 

The AECP path lo the future shown in Figure I takes the 

.4rmy from the current Army of Excellence (AOE) organization through a spiral development process. Beginning 

with research and study, science and technology. and 

experimentation, the process spirals throush the newly 

designed Amiy XXI Division toward AAN and its various 

franchise study groups. Fort Leonard Wood will lead Amy 

homeland defense doctrine, training, leader development, 

organization, materiel, and soldier (DTLOMS) developmental efforts (See article on page 38). 

The three AECP experilnentation axes shown in Fi~rmre 2, 

page 35, will guide the Amly over the next 10-25 years. 

Mechanized and light force axes will lead to fully digitized 

mechanized and light corps by 2010. Current Strike Force 

experimentation efforts will create a deployable headquarters that can quickly assimilate Amiy warfighting 

capabilities to meet strategic and operational requirements in 

a theater of operations. The Anny is teaming with its joint 

partners in the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force 

through a series of joint experiments over the next several 

years to develop mutually supporting technologies and 

organizations. Anny engineers will continue to be key 

players in all AECP experimentation efforts. The following 

potential issues and initiatives will be addressed in future 

AECP experimeiitation efforts. 

3lechanized Contingency Forces. An article beginning 

on page 40 describes lessoils learned from early experimentation with mechanized forces. Experimentation 

continues with the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Hood. Texas 

Path to the Future 

Strategic Human 

Resources Development plan 

Experimentation 

Scienceand 

Army After Next 


JointJTotal Arm 


Trsndomafion enablers: RevOl"t,on 

8" b"sne5s analr5, revoiulian in mifa", 

logllcs; AGRC Iniegrafron: stralegc 

mobility second iranrng revoluton 

Figure 1 

34 E11,qineer April 1999 
Army ExperimentationCampaign Plan 

(Total Army and Joint Teamwork Toward a Full-Spectrum Land Force) 

.--" -

Mechanized Contingency Forces 

USMC - - Hunter1 Urban I Capable Wanior -+ 

USN Extended Littoral Battiespace -b 

USAF 

USACOM 

Air Expeditionary Force -

~lobal Joint Experimentation ~- Challenge 

Figure 2 

(Figure 3, page 36). Thc Army will validate the first digital 

division design in FYOl during division capstone exercises 

(DCX) at both Fort Hood and NTC. Following the DCX, the 

1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood will start digitizing its 

command and control capability. Ongoing hardware 

integration and software upgrades within the Army Battle 

Command System, including the Force XXI Battle 

Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) platfonn computer 

system, will continue through the DCX. Training and 

Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is developing a Corps XXI 

design that will focus on the new battlefield framework of 

shaping, decisive, and sustainrnent operations. This design 

will rcplace the current Air-Land Battle framework of deep, 

close, and rear operations. The new Corps XXI design will 

be validated during a Corps advanced warfighting 

experiment (AWE) that will examine both heavy and light 

corps operations. The following are some of the engineer 

issues to be addressed in the mechanized contingency force 

experimentation axis: 

Army XXI division engineer command and control 

structure. 

H Colps XXI engineer command and control structure. 

H Joint combat engineer command and control tools. 

H Army XXI division consolidated combat service 

support structure for engineers. 

H Digital terrain data acquisition, management, dissemination, and storage. 

H Engineer Bradley fighting vehicle. 

Route minefield clearance. 

H Maneuvcr control system-engineer (MCS-E) software 

Light Contineency Forces. The Army has conducted 

very few experiments with light contingency forces over the 

past several years. That situation is changing because we will 

be involved with the Joint Contingency Force (JCF) AWE, 

which will be conducted at the Joint Readiness Training 

Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana, in the fall of 2000. As shown in 

Figure 4, page 36, the JCF AWE will showcase new warfighting technologies and digital command and control 

linkages, which were developed during the Rapid Force 

Projection Initiative's (RFPI) advanced concepts technology 

demonstration (ACTD) and the ongoing Military Operations 

in Urbanized Terrain (MOUT) ACTD at Fort Benning, 

Georgia. The loth Mountain Division from Fort Drum, New 

York, will be the JCF AWE experimental force. The XVlIl 

Airborne Corps headquarters, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, will 

servc as the joint task force headquarters for the AWE. The 

United States Atlantic Command (USACOM) will serve as 

the overall joint experimentation headquarters for the AWE. 

The Marine Corps will participate through ongoing Urban 

Warrior experimentation that will continue through the JCF 

April 1999 En~ineer-35 
MechanizedContingency Forces 

GOAL: Field modernizeddoctrine, organization, materiel and leader development for this mechanizedcontingency 

force. The force will have enhanced deployability, sunrivability, iethality,mobility,and sustainability 

Experimentation Model: Task Force XXI and DAWE Experimentation Forces: 4th ID and iii Corps 

EXPERIMENTS: Fort Hood, NTC, 

Fort Knox USA Distributed 

,- -\ ,\ ,, '\uiLitizedand mOdernizid 

mechanizedcontingency corps 

Current Output Futul 

First Dlgital Division: 

/ Capableof meetingoperational and conti / ~igitiiedembedded 

'e Focus 

lTP, FM 100-5 

training. 

commitments. - Leader development. 

.Equippedwith legacyand immature systems. Force XXi corps operations and organization. .Able to commandand control using digital methods. 

.organizedaccordingto a table ot organizationand equip Commandand control on the move. 

ment, but modifiedto compensate for lack ol "enablers." .JoinVcoaiitionoperations.

- Reduced sustainmentfootprimand demand. 

-

.Trained primarily atthe unit through both new equipment 

Ltraining and unittraining. S-Reserue Camponent!nleg~ ~ ~~ 

.- ~ ~--~~ . ! 

Figure 3 

Light Contingency Forces 

GOAL: Enhancethe lethality, survivability and interoperabillty of contingencyforces. Provide situational 

awarenessto light forces comparableto that provided to mechanizedforces. 

Experimentation Model: Task Force XXI AWE Experimentation Forces: 18th ABN Corps, lath Mountain Division, 

and special operations forces 

Experiments: Joint ExperimentationCampaign Plan 

JRTC 

Fort Benning 

-~ Dlgitired Light Contangency 

EXFOR 

Equipping 

decisions 

Current Focus 

Operations in urbanlrestrictedterrair Gint continaencyfarce doctrine. 

Joint C41, surveillance and reconnair igitallcoalitia- '-----

and logistics. 

New organizational design. :e headquart 

.Through-wail sensors. !adquarters.

.Enhanced lethality. Sllerllly llldteliel ~0i~ti0~~~ USLIITSII llSaVII 

I Light digital tactical operations center. light farces. 

Reserve Component integration. -- --~ 

ieaqnight;d 

.eader deveic 

loint task far, 

ach corps he 

,r, ,",Ge>. 

ers design el 

,.& 8 

Figure4 

April 1999 
AWE. The Air Force also will participate as pan of their 

Air Expeditionary Force experimentation process. A newly 

fom~edStrike Force headquarters will he evaluated during 

the JCF AWE. Results from the JCF AWE will be used to 

assess needed changes in light contingency forces and to 

identify issues for the follow-on Corps AWE. The following 

are some of the Amiy engineer issues to be addressed in the 

experimentation axis for light contingency forccs: 

B Rapid airfield construction. 

H Digital terrain data acquisition, management, dissemination, and storage, especially in urban environments. 

Urhat~obstacle and rubble removal. 

B Subterranean robotic reconnaissance. 

H Advanced technologies for the demolition of buildings 

and walls. 

H Digital command and control of en,'v~neers. 

Tactics, techniques, and procedures for the acquisition 

and operation of contingency engineer equipment. 

Strike Forces. Strike Forces are pan of the AECP to 

prepare combat and combat support organizations for future 

multifunctional operations. They will be pan of a rapidly 

deployable, flexible, and adaptive early-entry force (Figure 5). 

The evolving Strike Force shucture is intended to complement 

current light and heavy force capabilities. Strike Forces will 

serve as a bridge between the physical agility of Amiy XXI 

and the mental agility inherent in the Anny After Next. Initial 

experimentation efforts ugill focus on the design and 

operations of the Strike Force headquarters being developed at 

Fort Polk, Louisiana. The following are some of the engineer 

issues to be addressed as part of Strike Force experimentation 

efforts: 

Engineer command and control requirements associatcd 

with the cotnbat support node of the Strike Force headquarters. 

Digital terrain data acquisition, mana_eenient,dissemination, and storage for Strike Forces. 

Requirements for a high-speed engincer vehicle as a possible complement or replacement for the small emplacement excavator (SEE). 

H Engineer robotic applications. 

Capability of the deployable universal combat eanhmover (DEUCE) to support more than light forces (see 

article, page 32). 

H Lightweight bridging. 

Strike Force 

Goal: To provide a rapidly deployable, flexible, and adaptive early-entry force and to serve as a vehicie for developing 

the future force. The initial focus is to field oniy a deployable Strike Force headquaoers. 

Experimentation Farce: 

2nd Armored Cavally Regiment Joint ExperimentationCampaign Plan 

Experiments: 

Decision ioequp dkb fz:(;j:" "" headquaiers 

headquarters 

Current Focus Future Focus I

1 - Stand up headquarters. 

Initial operational capability for Joint Contingency Force 

AWE: Organizing "come as you are" 

- Worldclass command, control, communications, 

computers, and intelligence (C41). Organizational design options. - Organic information operations capabilities. - Capable of receiving, training and commanding tailored .Modernization or technology 

U.S. Army and coalition combat, combat support and breakthroughs. 

combat service support operational elements. - Training and leader development systems for rapid, 

in-stride team building. 

Simulations exercises (SIMEX Iand 11). -~ ~ ~ 

Figure 5 

April 1999 Eiiginrer 37 
I-Inmeland Defense. Amy leaders are defining this new 

mission area. Homeland defense encompasses many areas, 

including disaster relief, protecting the nation's infrastructure 

against weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, and 

vulnerability assessment tools. Fort Leonard Wood will 

become the Army's Center of Excellence for Homeland 

Defense on I October 1999, when the Maneuver Support 

Center officially stands up. The Maneuver Support Battle Lab 

has several ongoing engineer-related experiments that may 

become part of the homeland defense mission: 

Mine detection using chemical signature technologies. 

Evaluation ofjoint vulnerability assessment tools. 

Evaluation of an antiterrorism planning tool for blast 

effects. 

Force protection of logistics bases. 

The Maneuver Support Battle Lab is charged with 

integrating all engineer experimentation activities associated 

with AECP. We continually seek new thoughts and ideas 

from field personnel related to AECP and homeland defense 

missions. For additional information or to pass on ideas, 

please call Colonel Greg Bean or Vem Lowrey at DSN 676-

4082 or commercial (573) 563-4082. Our fax number is (573) 

563-4083. E-mail addresses are beang@wood.artny.mil or 

1owreyv@wood.army.mil. bd 

Mr. Lowrey ir the technical director of the Maneuver 

Support Battle Lab at Fort Leonard Wood. 

Engineer Contributions to Army After Next 


By Lieutenant Colonel James Vosler 

Knowledge, speed, and power are broad capabilities 

that will form the foundation of the Army After Next (AAN) 

in 2025. The Chief of Staff, United States Army, 

established the AAN project in February 1996 "...to assist 

our leadership in developing a vision of future Army 

requirements,'' The project's mission is to conduct broad 

studies of warfare out to the year 2025.These studies will 

frame issues vital to the development of the U.S. Army 

after 2010 and identify alternatives for senior Army 

leaders to integrate into TRADOC's combat development 

programs (see figure). 

U.S. Army Engineer School personnel are actively 

engaged in the AAN project and participate in TRADOC. 

sponsored war games, technology seminars, and integrated idea teams that occur throughout the year.This year's 

&qN project will culminate wim TRADOC'S third annual 

report to the Chief of Staff of the Army in December 1999. 

The AAN project's main effort each year concentrates 

On a spring war game at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. 

The game this year will examine asymmetric threats by 

Opposing forces, which include weapons of mass 

destruction, information warfare, and operations within 

~0mplex and urban terrain. Other war games planned for 

this year will examine implications resulting from the 

spring war game across the Army DTLOMS (doctrine, 

training, leader development, organization, materiel, and 

soldiers) imperatives. During the last week in April, the 

Engineer School will provide Personnel to support both 

the blue and red commanders in chief at Carlisle Barracks 

to Specifically address engineer issues. 

Integrated idea teams bring together technical and 

military art experts to examine, refine, and provide insight 

into AAN FY99 concepts, capabilities, notional systems, 

and enabling technologies. This year Engineer School 

Personnel participated in urban, hybrid, and C41 

(command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence) integrated idea 

I CsA 


Paper 


ARSOF 

Game 

AMEDD Game 

~~99 	 lwoo teams. Engineers are making significant Ocl NOV Dec Jan Feb Mar ADr Mav Jun Jul Auq 	 SeD Oct Nov Dec regarding the development of 

Force Army Imperatives I future force mixes and materiel requirements Projection Seminar Games CsA by participating in these events. Game 	 PAPER Although the year 2025 is far beyond most space I ' (r TM of our horizons, the Engineer School's par- 10 Game 

Game 	 I Commanders ticipation in the AAN project will ensure that 

National engineers remain relevant into the next Security 

Seminar 	 century. Our efforts today will play a large role 

in shaping the Army of tomorrow. 

Spring War Game Lieutenant Colonel Vosler is the strategic 

planner for the U.S. Army Engineer School Integrated Idea Teams Seminar 

Game 	 and Fort Leonard Wood. 

38 E~fgineer 	 April 1999 
The Bear Went Overthe Mountnin: Soviet Combat Tacticsin 

Alghhnnisiuri, by Lester W. Grau. Frank Cass Publishers 

(Portland, Orcgon), 1998,220 pages. The ISBN is 0-7146-4857- 

4 for a hard-back copy and 0-7146-4413-7 for a paper-back 

Lester W. Grau's TheBeur Went Over the Motcnfoin provides 

an outstanding look at and commentary on Soviet tactics against 

tlie mujahideen fighters from 1979 to 1989. The author uses a 

series of vignettes that were originally published by the Soviet's 

Fmnze Combined Anns Staff College. The intent was to pass on 

both positive and negative lessons leanied from that conflict to 

Sovict forces. Given the college's original effort and Grau's 

translation, editing, commentary, and incisive conclusion, this 

unique work enlightens Western readers about the Af~han war. 

Grau's work is a tool that allows leaders to learn from the 

So\,icts' efforts and possibly use this hard-won knowledge to 

kccp their soldiers alivc on fume battlefields. 

The introduction sets an attention-getting stage for tlie 

vignettes. A Soviet airborne divisiot~ began to land in Kabul on 

Decemher 24. 1979. By December 27, airborne and Spetsnaz 

forces had overthrown the Afghan government and killed the 

president while heavy divisions executed a cross-border 

invasion. A pro-Soviet president was installed on December 28. 

The last Soviet combat units withdrew from the country on 

Febn~ary 15. 1989. In the intervening decade, 620.000 Soviets 

scrved in Afghanistan: 13,833 of them were killcd and another 

469,685 were sick or wounded. The Sovicts left I I8 jets, 333 

lielicopters, 147 tanks. 1.314 armored personnel carriers. 433 

artillery pieces and mortars, 1,138 radio sets and command 

vehicles, 5 10 engineer vehicles and 11.369 trucks destroyed 

across Afghanistan's mountain-descn terrain. 

After setting the stage, the author presents 47 vigncllcs that 

were writrcn by junior officers bascd on their tirstliand combat 

experiences against the niujahideen. The vignctrcs typically 

have four parts: the plan. a brief summary of mission 

preparation, the outcome, and both Frullze and Grail 

commentaries. A map shuwing key terrain features and Russian 

graphic-control measures accompanies cach vignette. Tlie 

author uses Russian map symbols because they clearly illustrate 

time-phased cxccurion of (he action. While the officers ollen 

"le maps from 'lemory and have in 

location and terrain. the maps add significantly to the readers' 

understanding of the plan and its execution. Each vignette is an 

outstanding after-action review conlplete with graphics and 

cotiimcntary that capture key lessons learned. 

Many of the vigncttcs discuss Sovicr and mujahideen 

cngilleer operatiolls, ~~bility focus mute 

clearance, obstacle reduction, and creating -mouse.~lolc" 

entrances to huildiIlgs. while none of the ,.iwenes discuss 

anns breaching in detail, brracl,ing operations were 

part of sevcra~missions. ~h~ purpose of missiolls was to 

find supply and arms caches and to destroy them using 

explosives. Soviet static positions and security outposts 

typically fealured extensive protective obstacle systems. Both 

sides used mines and other obstacles to support ambushes. 

They blocked avenues of approach, fixed the enemy in the kill 

zone, and disrupted counterattacks against the ambushing unit's 

flanks. The mujahideen apparently were very adept at wargaming likely reactions of Soviet veliicle drivers during 

ambushes and then mining those locations. The Soviets used 

BM-22-delivered scatterable mines as situational obstacles to 

disntpt withdrawing enemy forces. The combined effect of 

mujahideen mincs on amior avenues of approach and the 

restricted terrain contributed to the ineffectiveness of Soviet 

tanks in the Soviet-Afghan war. Road mining by the 

mujaliideen disrupted thc movement of Sovict units and 

supplies. Although not specifically discusscd. Soviet engineers 

apparently provided cxtcnsive survivability support to their 

base camps and sonietimes dug in combat vehicles that 

occupied static blocking positions. 

Lessons Icarned range from the basics of light and litter 

discipline to tiic correct use of indirect fires and the 

synchronization of mounted and dismounted elemcnts. The 

value the noncommissioned officer corps provides to the U.S. 

Army is evident in almost every mission In addition to the 

lessons io commentariec at the end of each vignette, Grau's 

concluding chapter addresses tactics, equipment. force 

structure, morale, and tlic effects of Soviet operations on thr 

Afghan population. Interestingly. he states that engineers wcrc 

always in demand. The book brings honic the following key 

points concerningengineer operations: 

. analysis is imperatiire,

.Obstacles lnust be integratcd with fires to acliicvc their 

intended effect. 

.Event triggers and an appropriate observation plan are 

cssential to effcctivcly employ situational obstacles. 

.Engineers with nobility assets must be located near the 

front of every combat formation. 

The O1,er iMo,r,,ini,, is a 

tool, especially for leaders at the battalion level and below. Tlie 

Vignettes arc ideally suited to a of leaderdevclop~ncnt classes. The lessons learned are not uniquc to the 

Soviet atiny or to a specilic gcogrdphic location. Whether the 

is tlyingto more about Soviet-Afsllanwar or to 

prcDarc and his soldiers for R,turc this book 

will not disappoint. 

iWajo~. h4ike Rose i.? Ci~i</,'Engines? Divirion of the 

Warfighter Deport~,ient. at the Mnn~alw. S~fpportCenter, F(1i.1 

Leona,-d Wood. He p~eviously served a.s a docirine bvritn. oi 

the Engirten. School <fie,- a four or a11 obsen~w/c~ontroil~ir a? 

the Natiu~ml Training Cenie,; Fort bwin. Califor~ria. 

April I999 Engineer 39 
Engineers C1 in Task Force XXI


By Lieutenant Colonel Kevln Weddle, Lieutenant Coionel Cl~fFarquhar, and Major Steve GCI~ 

Tlre 1st Bi.i:a(ie Conrhol Exor~z.4117 Iri(niiii?: Divi,sioi?, ir 

coiidir~~ii~ig a pr.er/iii,,i~hiish. otiark 017 (I diig-in ciiciii), 

!rioiori;co' I-i/lr hartiilioii. Lorc iii llic, rccon~~aixsuiicc ,/ight, 

i11e eiic!ii). ~~oI~II~~~I~I~~~I~ ~i~iexpeci~~cil~~ cIi[~iig<,.s 17;s ~,oi.ir.~t, CJ~' 

nciio~i A/ 02(10. 11,irh lair' i/Iir~iiiiicitioti, ilic~ />~-igade 

I I I I d~!i.i~leson o liliil, hixh-/ii,!v~fl iiiglii 

iiroi,eiiien~ o/'thc, rrriiiv hii~yo~lc~ to iiiiack posiiioi~s. He elecrs

to iiwvr ovr sorrie oj rh? ro~~,ylrc.sr ier-roi,~iii the ,\:uiioiici/ 

Truiizin,~('uirrer ISTC), I?ie rirrock kick, o[fnr rhc rig111 iiirie. 

The Beginning 

The Task Force XXI AWE process was an 18-month 

effort that will stand as the nlodel for all future 

AWES. It began in January 1995, when the Chief of 

Staff, United States Anny, designated the 4th Infantry 

Division, Fort Hood, Texas, as the Experimenial Force 

(EXFOR). The division designated the 1st Brigade Combat 

Team as Task Force XU, which included the 299th Engineer 

Battalion. Early that spring, work began on a modified table 

iiird thi ~onin?oi,ilei- coiii,riii!rdc oil11 <.oi7ir-ois the riio~~oiie~~i of organization and equipment and task organization for a 

a,rd irtmcr: desjliic loifll ~/o~~I~ii~~.s,s iifio' <~trci?~!~-.~)~nili~~,q brigade combat team. An initial training plan was prepared otr(ic1ir. Tilc hrig~iilc'siiioi!i i.tlort /?its enen?). d<;/i,ii.~c. attire 

1i1 Iuti. /:~~gi~ii'ei.s hrcwcli ~iiriIiip/e 1n1ic.s in eiiori!: 

coi~iplc?~ oh,s/iicir.s in o iiiiiiri.1. ofniiniires. Tlie nli.s.sioii is u

suctt~s.~. 011 to riie i~urr ihi~ll~~i~e! 

This scenario may sound like fiction, but in reality it was 

the next-to-last mission at the Task Force XXI Advanced 

Warfighting Experiment (AWE), which took place in March 

1997. The night attack and its coordinated movements were 

made possible by the Applique system. The All-Source 

Analysis System and the Digital Topographic Support 

System (DTSS) provided terrain and enemy threat analyses, 

which allowed the main effort to hit the opposing force at its 

most vulnerable spot. The Grizzly (a visually modified 

MI 13halong with some hard-working, well-trained, dismounted combat engineers-produced multiple breaches. 

This night attack illustrates the potential of the future 

digitized force. Engineers have been an integral part of this 

force from the beginning. 

40 Engineer 

with hundreds of milestones that would bring the brigade to 

the culmination of the AWE at the March 1997 NTC rotation. 

The brigade organization was finalized only weeks before our 

deployment to NTC. Brigade units included a light infantry 

task force, a mechanized infantry task force, an armored task 

force, an aviation task force, two field artillery battalions 

(direct and gcneral support), an engineer battalion, a forward 

support battalion, an aviation support battalion, a brigade 

reconnaissance troop, and other combat support and combat 

service support units. The 4th Infantry Division Engineer 

Brigade, the 299th Engineer Battalion, and the U.S. Anny 

Engineer Center began a parallel effort to develop tactics, 

tecbniques, and procedures for a digital engineer force. 

The many engineer initiatives originally envisioned were 

pared to 12 systems or ideas tested by the 299th: 

Engineer organization 

Grizzly 

Applique 

April 1999 
ELI 

Figure 1. A Company, 299th Engineer Battalion, tactical internet 

Digital Topographic Support System 

- Engineer Tactical Onerations Ccnter -. 

Maneuver Control System-Enhanced (MCS-E) 

Enhanced - .. Position Locating and Recording Systcln 

(LPLKS) 

Single-Channel, Ground-to-Air Radio Systeln-Systems 

I~nprovement Program (SINCGARS-SIP) 

m Battletield Combat Identification System (BCIS) 

Hornet widc-area munitions 

In addition to the new systems, the battalion also fielded 

the Volcano and 12 amlored combat eanhmovers (ACES) to 

provide a permanent ACEIdozer mix of 12 and six, 

respectively. 

Training 

he training phase of the Task Force XXI AWE began 

in January 1996 with individual training for all 

brigade soldiers on the Applique, SINCGARS-SIP, 

and EPLRS systems. The brigade and the division set up a 

"digital university" (now called the Computar Tuainb~g 

Support Facility), which was operated lnainly by soldiers 

with significant support from contractors. The 40-hour 

courses operated 24 hours a day for a five-month period and 

reached virtually every soldier in the brigade. Concurrent 

with individual training. the brigade established an 

April 1999 

installation yard where soldiers began to install Applique. 

SINCGARS-SIP, global positioning system (GPS) receivers, 

and EPLRS into thousands of the brigade's vehicles. Literally 

thousands of man-hours were expended in individual training 

and installation battalion business 

continued throughout the AWE process-including exercisc 

evaluations, a Battle Command Training Program exercise, 

and tire fighting. 

After thc Applique system was installed and basic 

Applique training was provided to soldiers, the brigade 

combat team "plugged in " the system to see if it worked. 

Through a series of connectivity exercises conducted during 

the summer of 1996, the brigade tested the tactical internet to 

see if it operated as planned. The tactical internet was the 

communications and positioning network (using SINCGARSSIP and EPLRS as the comlnunications "pipes" ovcr which 

the digital and voice traffic passed) that provided the brigade's 

situational awareness. Figure I shows one company's tactical 

internet architecture. The brigade's soldiers and contractors 

achieved higher than a 95-perccnt success rate for AppliquCequipped vehicles. To achievc situational awareness without 

constant contractor assistance, the brigade established 

exacting tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). 

After the brigade was connected, we conducted collective 

training with the new organization. During this training, the 

brigade incorporated tactical and digital TTPs that were 

written and developed over the previous 18 months, trained on 

Engineer41 
Terrain Syste 

Communications 

. ANNRC-92G (X2 , . EPLRS. 

. Lan Router: 

. DNVT l 

. PLGR l . VIC-3 I 

Communication 

. ANNRC-92D: 

ANNRC-SOD:

- MSRT: 

. EPLRS l 

. DNVT 1x2):

. VIC-3: 

. PLGR I . La" Router I 

52 


V2 Applique I 

SIV(S) 

SGR 

Figure 2.The 299th Engineer Battalion's tactical operations center 

and evaluated more than 100 initiatives, and conducted 

nonnal NTC train-up missions. 

Our rotation was unique in several ways. We deployed 

most of the brigade's vehicles, had many VIPs and press in 

attendance, and conducted no live-fire. Wc conducted 

several standard NTC movements to contact, hasty attacks, 

and defenses in sector during the first five days of the 

rotation. After that, the brigade moved into a continuous 

operations phase, where we operated continuously in both 

time and space. We received missions every day without the 

usual "prep day" and operated over the entire NTC 

maneuver area. During two defenses, the brigade defensive 

sector stretched from the northern to the southern boundaries 

of NTC. This action was an attclnpt to stress the tactical 

internet and to detenninc if the brigade was capable of 

increased tempo, lethality, and survivability through the 

magic of digitization. Whilc tlic brigade did riot win every 

battle, the beauty of almost perfect friendly situational 

awareness paid off time after time. 

Lessons Learned 

AAer returning to home station, we conducted a series 

of lessons-learned sessions and internal after-action 

reviews. Here are a fcw of the things we found: 

Appliqui.: The Appliqui: system worked well for friendly 

situalional awareness. We are not aware of a single instance 

where an Appliqub-equipped unit got lost, missed a 

movement or link-up, or experienced any of the other 

mishaps that occur when soldiers operate and train. Much of 

this system's success is attributed to the noncommissioned 

officers (NCOs), who helped develop the plan and kept it on 

track. Red (enemy) situational awareness was less user 

42 B?~inro. 

friendly and less useful. The messaging co~nponent of the 

Applique system never worked very well. Overlays and long 

messages were too large to move digitally over the tactical 

internet, which was often clogged with messages. The tactical 

internet was too rigid and could not be tailored to changing 

task organizations. Positioning and digital message data 

moving over the Applique system often interfered with FM 

voices, degrading the range and quality. Fortunately, many of 

these problems have been solved or are being solved with the 

systern that replaced Appliqut, thc Force XXT Battle 

Cornmand Brigade and Below System. Although its full 

fielding to the 4th Infantry Division has been delayed. limited 

user tests show great promise. The future tactical internet will 

have separate voice and data nets and will allow task 

organization changes "on the fly." 

Hornet: Thc Hornet wide-area munitions have great 

potential for engineers. Throughout the AWE, the Hon~et 

affected the enemy commander's psychology, provided early 

warning, reinforced conventional obstacles, disrupted enemy 

forces, and was a lethal killer. We found that all engineer and 

maneuver scouts can elnplace Hornets in the counterreconnaissance fight. The Raptor, which comhines improved 

Hornets with sensors and comlnunications gateways, was 

successfully tested in sirnulation during the Division AWE. 

Digital Topographic Support System (DTSS): The 

HMMW-mounted DTSS supported the entire brigade from 

the engineer battalion tactical operations center (Figure 2). 

This system was manned by soldiers frorn the 29th Engineer 

Battalion (Topo), Hawaii, who provided outstanding 

topographic support to every brigade unit. Since DTSS did 

not have full digital connection to units throughout the 

brigade, we hand-delivered hard copies of topographic 

April 1999 





Ohstarle Siting 

Integration of Fires and Obstacle Effect Obstacle integration begins 

during obstacle siting. The maneuver company team that overwatches a particular obstacle group 

must understand the intended 

obstacle effect and the type of direct 

and indirect fires required to achieve 

that effect. The company team and 

the engineer platoon must work 

800m together to position each obstacle in 

the group using the direct fire plan 

and the initial obstacle group design. 

A Based on the terrain, the company 

team commander, the fire-support 

officer, and the engineer platoon 

Nae: All lour groups are shown only leader adjust obstacle locations to 

for comparison. Normally, one 

company team covers one or ensure that thc group is covered by 

6000m 3/50"? 3000m 

Figure 2 

obstacle. The method to achieve this effect is to integrate 


obstacles with direct and indirect til-es and manipulate 


enemy maneuver in the desired direction. The end state is 


for each company team to kill at least one enemy battalion 


while remaining combat effective. The maneuver com-


mander's intent tnust specify locations ivhe~-ehe wants to 


affect the enemy's lnaneuvec The engineer must ask the 


commander four qitestions during engagement area 


development: 


H Where does the enemy want to go'? 


H Where should the enemy go? 


H Where should the enemy not go? 


Where do you want to kill the enemy'! 

At the task force level, the maneuver commander uses 

obstacle groups to graphically portray the ohstacle effect. 

Figure 2 depicts weapon ranges from a company-team battle 

position to each type of obstacle group. The four groups are 

shown for comparison only. Normally, one company team 

covers one or two obstacle groups with direct fires. 

Integrating Obstacle Groups and Direct Fires 

Erective units emphasize (he use of the following three 

techniques to successfully inlegrate obstacle group design 

with direct and indirect fires: 

H Obstacle siting. 


H Obstacle ownership. 


W Fire-control plan (direct and indirect fires). 


direct and indircct fires and that the 

group design is consistent with the 

task force conimander's intent. Use 

thc obstacle siting procedure described in FM 90-7. 

Obstacle O\\nprtIiip 

"Ownership" of the obstacle group by the company team 

hegins with ohstacle siting and continues through obstacle 

turnover. While the obstacle group is emplaced by an engineer 

platoon, the acti~al "owner" is the company team overwatching the obstacles. The company team should provide 

security and manpower for fratricide fence construction or 

mine-dump operations for their own obstacle group. This 

technique allows the engineer platoon to focus on its primary 

mission of elliplacing minefields. It also allows the company 

team leadership to account for, equip, transport, and supervise 

its own personnel. The company team is then better prepared 

for obstacle turnover and land closure during the battle ilnd for 

obstacle recovery after the fight. Ownership ensures that the 

company team remains integrated throughout the entire 

process; it results in better integration of the obstacle group 

with fires. 

Fire-Control Plan 

Engineers must know weapons' ranges and capabilities; 

they must also understand and use the same fire-control 

terminology as their maneuver counterparts. When engineer 

platoon leaders are asked, "How far should an obstacle be 

positioned froin the overwatching unit?" most will answer, 

"Two-thirds of the maximuril effective weapons range." 

However, their response should also include the task and 

purpose of direct and indirect tires for the obstacle gi-oup 

design needed to achieve the obstacle effect. An engineer 

platoon leader who can confidently talk about direct fil-e- 
I Disrupt Obstacle Group I I 	 Fix Obstacle Group I - Breks up ensmy tomatian and kmp. 

- Force~cncmyto deploy and leachearl7 RF = 0.5 

SF 250m .	St-s panotcnemy tormatlon and tragmenta command, control, and 

CDmm"nl~t/OnL 

- AIIOW~part denemyto byperr pieoemeal into main engagement area. 

- snsliow obst~ies am no( visible at long range communicarionr but 

-	 Slows snemy In an sngagementarca(EI) so defender has limelo 

acquire, target and destroyenemy In detall. 

- Intensity ol firer and obrfssle den-ity mries as the enemy advanns RF = 1.0 through the depth ot the engagementarea. 

SF = 250m . ~n!erlocklnglire$ form the enemy totight In many directionsst once. 

-	 Shallow obstacles are arrayed in depth lo cause enemy formations to 

react and breach repeatedly. 

- Indlddusl obstacles aooearfa bc earllv breaehedmrmsred. 

TRP01 FPF = llnsl protectwetititis \ . .. -/.+T 

IIO" "ELI 

I, 

RF =2.4 

SF = 500m 

I 

_--, -

, 'I 

i 

Mortar FPF 

I 

Figure 4 

I 

Block Obstacle Group 

. DIa.%C.l". oo,Ur,oo,or,oprnrmy .n.c*ao<>g rm'r 

AA 0, I0 P'..'"lcn.mytrom plrr ng inro-gn an El 

. NO oyoa., am, 110 C tnc LAm,sl cover in* cn, re M 

. H gh .o .me of ntct oc~hptares sceosr inc cnt ic M 

. R mcomtBerr m~rtaclcatencmvav.scnann rnon 

. 	G.0~0cOr%.str 0, corn. ex Dana. er lnllrq, re m. 1.. 

breaching techniques to reduse a lane. 

-	 incorporates Mth "visible" and "unreen"obstadcs 10 dimourage 

breacilching 

- BiOCi obiliisles da no, slop an enemy anark b" liirmri".r 

they 	mi.* be lnlDqrltedwl," ,"tense firer 


33 r M 


...-'x 

TRP 04 ,TO",VE~. 

Figure 6 

obstacle integration is an integral part of engagement area 

development. The engineer must understand fire-control 

planning, and the maneuver commander must understand 

obstacle-group design. Both the engineer and the maneuvcr 

unit must work closely together throughout the engagement 

area development process. By improving their understanding of the task and purpose of fires for each type of 

obstacle group design. commanders can achieve the 

intended obstacle effect of disrupt, fix, turn. or block on the 

enemy's formation. 

Major Erst is the assista~zt hri~adrengineer trainer ar rhe 

National train in^ Center; Fort Inuin. California. He previously sened ns a cornpnny commander in the 3rd 

Wgineer Battalion and 10th Engineer Batralion and as a 

platoon leader/cornpan? XO in the 4th Engineer Battalion. 

He is a graduate oJrhe Unil<ersiry of Central Florida. 

I 

Figure 3 

I 

Turn Obstacle Grou~ 

- Dive* enemy oil an Minto an EA or another M

zFF1Zim - ~a-re. tires and ties obstacles into NSO terrain at anchor win, 


to prevcn, enemy bypass or breach. 


- Allowscnemv lo bwarr inderlreddlreoflon oltum. 

I 

Figure 5 

control measures (such as maximum engagement lines) or 

discuss the type of indirect fires on an obstacle group. can 

effectively assist the company team commander when he 

develops his fire-control plan. 

The four types of obstacle effects (disrupt. fix. tum, and 

block) require a different combination of &it and indirect 

fires to achieve the conunander's intent. The engineer platoon 

and the company team must understand where fires must be 

massed, disuibuted, and shifted within the obstacle ,goup. Both 

must understand how the obstacle group is designed to 

manipulate the enemy's maneuver in the desired direction. 

Figures 3 through 6 combine engineer considerations for 

obstacle group design with the specific direct fire-control 

meawres needed for each obstacle effect. as shown in FM 90-7. 

Summary 

To ensure mission success, units must ensure that 

April 1999 	 Engineer 49 
A 

By Captain Keith W Ensley 

s u.~ual the sqtrad simulation training exerci.se (STX) 

was wedged tightly among several equally demanding events, and we had two new squad leaders. 

It %,(IS remini~cent ofmj,,first squad STX, which had gotten 

offto a .shah sfart about nine n~onths before. Then, looking 

hard af the short-range calendar. we had carved out two 

days to train and reheame squad d~ills. Otrr train-up had 

been simple, well-planned, and predictahlJ painfiil to 

execute. Performed on Wednesday and Thursduy. we had 

I$ Friday,forprecombat checks and inspections. 

When we rolled ro thefielii on Monda,y, Ifu& e.rpected this 

STXto he a repeat of the previous one. But one difference was 

irnntediate(y apprrrent: rehearsals. In the previous STX. we 

had to precsure the squads to rehearse. Thi,~ time they sprang 

into their rehearsal sequence with a purpose. Maybe the!, 

anticipated getting hammered by the evaluators the next r1a.y. 

Tlie slaughter never came. The squads conducted the 1cme.y 

like practiced veterans+lI ofthem. What was different? 

The Secret 

There was no secret-for the second STX, we adhered 

to time-tested doctrine. As FM 25.101, BattleFocused Training, puts it, "Train the trainer to train 

his soldiers." Step two of the eight-step training model 

addresses the training and certification process. Our drill 

certification went even further by finishing with a fully 

evaluated rehearsal. The eight training steps are1. Plan the training 

2. 'hain and certify leaders 

3. Reconnoiter the site 

4. Issue the plan 

5. Rehearse 

6. Execute 

7. Conduct an after-action review (AAR) 

8. Retrain 

The Groundwork 

The certification planning process begins by 

identifying the tasks to he trained. This is 

significantly easier if the company or battalion has a 

standard drill book. We isolated the following drill book 

tasks to evaluate in our squad STX: 

17 Conduct Squad-Level Troop-Leading Procedures 

(TLPs) 

h Place a Row in a Hasty Row Minefield 

50 Engineer 

0 Construct a Standard Antivehicular Wire Obstacle 

CI Crcate a Hasty Road Crater 

fl Deploy a Modular Pack Mine System (MOPMS) with 

Remotc-Control Unit (RCU) 

0 Perfom Target Tumover Using STANAG (DA1355R) 

0 Perform a Minefield Strip Feeder Report 

O Breach a Minefield Using Hand-Emplaced Explosives 

0 Breach a Wire Obstacle With a Bangalore Torpedo 

O Mark a Cleared Lane in a Minefield 

17 Conduct an Enemy Obstacle Reconnaissance 

CI React to Contact 

We then clumped these tasks into four mission scenarios. 

With only a few qualified evaluators, we limited ourselves to 

four stations. "Conduct Troop-Leading Procedures" was 

trained at all stations, and we grouped the other tasks as 

follows: 

St:ltion Onc 

3 Place a Row in a Hasty Row Minefield 

Perform a Minefield Strip Feeder Report 

O Perform Target Tumover Using STANAG (DA1355R) 

Station T\ro 

n Constn~cta Standard Antivehicular Wire Obstacle 

17 React to Contact (Seven Forms of Contact) 

St~tionThl-ec 

0 Create a Hasty Road Crater 

O Deploy a Modular Pack Mine System (MOPMS) with 

Remote-Control Unit (RCU) 

Slation Four 

@ Conduct an Enemy Obstacle Reconnaissance 

fl Breach a Minefield Using Hand-Emplaced Explosives 

@ Breach a Wire Obstacle With a Bangalore Torpedo 

0 Mark a Cleared Lane in a Minefield 

The Plan 

The figure on page 51 shows a two-day squad 

certification plan. The squad leader's brief to the 

commander and first sergeant on Day 1 are essential 

for successful certification. After squad leaders complete this 

session, they are ready to lead their squads with confidence. At 

the end of Day I, participants understand the unit standard. 

April 1999 
standard lane training complete with TLPs, to-standard 

Two-Day Squad Certification Plan execution, AARs, and retraining. Evaluators had the 

I Day 1 (Wednesday) I latitude to repeat an event at any point if the squad's 

execution was off the inark. 

I 	 1 

0400 Squad leaders brief drills to chain of command 

0800 Sauad leaders brief drills to their sauads 

1400 sduads gather training aides 

Day 2 (Thursday) 

0800 Set up training sites 

0930 Execute graded drills (rotation) 

A sand table is the perfect tool for drill briefings. Our 

first sergeant oversaw construction of an excellent sand 

table in om common area. After squad leaders are ccrtified, 

they should sand-table-brief their squads as well. When 

soldiers visualize a task, they perfonn it much better the first 

time. 

The schedule on Day 2 is designed to allow about 2.5 

hours per rotation. This is ample time to conduct good TLPs 

and a quality AAR. Day 2 is a long one. Plan logistics to 

support a day filled with retraining and ree\raluation. It is 

important to evaluate tasks to standard and allow time for 

AARs. so that squads clearly recognize their shortcotnings 

when they leave. 

The Exercise 

ur 	squad leaders' briefing event began at 0400 

hours around the company sand table. with squad 

leaders and above attending. Every squad leader 

briefed every drill. The repetition built confidence and 

reinforced comprehension. There was time for discussion, 

argument, synchronization, and compromise. Squad leaders 

left the sand table knowing the battalion drill and company 

standard. 

Next, squad leaders walked their squads through all of 

the drills on a sand table. Squad leaders coordinated use of 

the company and battalion sand tables. Soldiers thrive on 

this special attention; it's an effective, professional touch 

that they respect. 

Squads were assigned testing stations to set up. AAer 

coordinating with that station's evaluator, they used Day 1 

to gather and load resources for their station. 

Day 2 began with constructing the testing stations. Our 

post has several nearby training areas for unscheduled, 

small-unit training. These sites afford excellent opportunities to save mileage, maximize daylight, and respond to 

flexible training needs. 

After stations were constructed, squads rotated through 

them according to a schedule. Each evaluator issued a 

scenario and missiol~ fragmentary order. Squads conducted 

We prepared soldiers to spend a long day and senred 

chow in the training area. It was important for them to 

complete all tasks to standard. They appreciated the 

company's dedication to uncompromising training. 

Suggestions 

The following suggestions will help ensure a 

successful squad certification: 

O 	Schedule squad certification quarterly. 

0 	Schedule this event as closely as possible to another eval- 


uated event (squad STX, platoon STX, training center 


rotation, etc). 


0 	Assign the company first sergeant as the master trainer 


for this event. 


Cl 	 During training quarters without another exercise. con-


centrate on tasks from the mission-essential task list that 


often are neglected during bigger events. 


C? 	 Deploy a company tactical command post or tactical 


operations center to control rotations, filter distracters, 


and diffuse potential problems. 


0 	Set up stations to support separate sections (dig teams. Class 


IVN teams, etc.). 


The Aftermath 

Squad certification is not designed to be an end in itself, 

it series as a refresher course and prepares soldiers for 

larger events. A key point is to capture the lessons of 

Day 2 before the day ends. Once the troops are gone. gather 

the squad leaders in the commander's or first sergeant's off~ce 

and discuss the exercise. Use this time to direct squad 

rehearsals and make changes to the squad certification plan. 

When you observe squad rehearsals later, check to see if the 

group's advice was incorporated. Without a doubt, you'll see 

an improvement in the rehearsals! Y 

Captain Enslq is serviag in the Heodqrtarter.~. Cornbai 

Manmrver Training Cenrer in German)'. He l>rei~iololv 

con?manded in the 1st Engineer Battaliof? at Fort Riley, Kansas. 

References: 

1. FM 25-101, Batlie-Focused Training (Chapter 4, Drills1 

Lane Training). 

2. ARTEP 5-145-Drill Lane Training i!4eflrodolog1~ aad 

Example Drills. 

3. TC 5-150, Engiaeer Qualification Tables (Tasks and 

Battle Drills). 

April 1999 	 Engineer31 
ENGINEER UPDATE 


Comrnerc8al numbeis are (573) 563-xxxx and Defense System 


Newmh (OSN) numbers are 676-xxxx unless othelw8se noted 


Directorate ofTraining Development 

(DOTD) 

Engineer Museum 

News and Notes 

Engineer Unit Directory. The Engineer Unit Directory has been 

updated and is available at http://w.wood.army.mil/DDD/ddd.htm. 

Revisions or corrections to the directory may be sent to 

bakern@wood.army.mil. POC is Sandy Gibson, -4100. 

Museum Guide. Visitors to Fort Leonard Wood are cordially invited 

to visit the Engineer Museum, which was established here in 1989 when 

the Engineer School moved from Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The museum 

includes an encyclopedic gallery, a chronological gallery, and a World 

War II historic community. 

The encyclopedic gallery displays pieces of the material culture of 

American engineers. Five aspects of the Army engineer mission are 

highlighted: topographic engineering, land-mine warfare, tactical 

bridging, demolitions and explosives, and arms and armaments. 

In the chronological gallery we interpret the history of Army engineers 

throughout America's history. We concentrate on the Battle of Yorktown 

during the American Revolution, westward expansion and the MexicanAmerican War, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean Conflict, 

and Vietnam War. 

The World War II historic community interprets the history of Fort 

Leonard Wood. It includes 13 World War 11-era temporary mobilization 

buildings, such as barracks, a mess hall, day rooms, and a historic chapel. 

You may also visit our web page at: www.wood.army.millmuseum. 

POC is Kim Combs, 6-0780. 

Obstacle Control Points. During a recent Warfighter exercise, the 

3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Georgia, learned that obstacle 

coordination points are critical to the synchronization of Corps obstacle 

plans. The doctrinal foundation for an obstacle coordination point is in 

FM 101-5-1, Operational Terms and Graphics. The 18th Airborne Corps 

engineer section has written a document that explains the engineer 

interpretation of a coordination point as a place where leaders coordinate their obstacle effort across division and corps boundaries. An 

article describing their interpretation will appear in a future issue of 

Engineer. POC is CPT Kevin Pettet, (910) 396-5717. 

Director of Public Works (DPW) Apprenticeship Program. Ten 

soldiers from the 864th Engineer Battalion, Fort Lewis, Washington, 

recently completed a one-month apprenticeship with the post's DPW. 

Each participant (electricians, plumbers, and equipment operators) was 

attached to a three-person crew that responded to service calls 

throughout the post. In addition to receiving valuable training in their 

MOS, the soldiers saved the DPW about 300 man-hours of labor and 

executed more than $20,000 worth of work.The 864th and DPW plan to 

provide additional soldiers with this unique training opportunity in the 

near future. POC is CSM William McDaniel, (253) 967-4483. 
MANSCEN and Engineer School Directory 


Fort Leonard Wood is making organizational 


changes to accommodate the arrival of the Chemical 


and Military Police Schools and to prepare for the 


Maneuver Support Center (MANSCEN), which will 


stand up on 1 October 1999. The following interim 


directory is a partial list of key offices at Fort Leonard 


Wood. Commercial numbers are (573) 563-xxxx and 


Defense System Network (DSN) numbers are 676-


xxxx unless otherwise noted. 


MANSCEN Commander and Engineer School 


Commandant 


MG Robert B. Flowers 


563-61 58 


MANSCEN and Engineer Center Command 


Sergeant Major 


CSM Robert M. Dils 


563-61 49 


MANSCEN and Engineer School Chief of Staff 

COL Robert L. Davis 

563-61 18 


Maneuver Support Center 

Garrison Commander 


COL Tim Daniels 


563-4005 


Directorate of MANSCEN Combat Developments 

COL Leonard Izzo, Director 

563-4009 


Enaineer Division 


C& David Kingston, Chief 


563-4076 


Directorate of Training Development 


COL Rex Forney Jr., Director 


563-41 1 1 


Department of Common Leader Training 


COL Marsha Killam, Director 


563-41 23 


Maneuver Support Battle Laboratory 


COL Gregory Bean, Deputy Director 


563-4082 


TRADOC Program Integration Office, Terrain Data 

COL William Pierce, Director 

563-4086 


Terrain Visualization Center 


LTC Earl Hooper, Chief 


563-4077 


MANSCEN Safety Office 


Fred Fanning, Director 


596-01 16. DSN 581-01 16 


Engineer School 

Assistant Commandant 

COL M. Stephen Rhoades 

563-61 59 


Deputy Assistant Commandant, Army Reserve 

COL Michael Adams 

563-4033 


Deputy Assistant Commandant, Army National 

Guard 

COL Harry Bryan 

563-4034 


1st Engineer Brigade 


COL Thomas Luebker, Commander 


596-0224, DSN 581-0224 


Liaison Officers 

Australian Army, LTC Phil Vandermoezel 

563-6132 


British Army, COL Phil Lilleyman 

563-401 8 


Canadian Army, MAJ Paul Fleet 

563-401 7 


French Army, COLYves LeCouster 

563-4027 


German Army, LTC Helmut Bach 

563-4029 


Directorate of Training 

COL William A. Van Horn, Director 

563-4093 


Engineer Personnel Proponency Office 

Victoria Anthony, Chief 

563-4087 


Department of instruction 


LTC Michael Conrad, Chief 


563-41 19 


Total Army School System Division 


MAJ Victor Stephenson, Chief 


563-41 06 

Doctrine Development Division 


MAJ Scott Spellmon, Chief 


563-41 06 

CountermineTraining Support Center 

David Dunstedter, Chief 

563-41 23 

Honor 


'Xmilitary, or nclaal man, canwt go veryfar astray, who abides by the point ofhonor. " 

Admiral Raphael Semmes 

Robert E. Lee 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1829-1855 


General, Confederate Army, 1861-1865 


He was a foe without hate, a friend without treachery, a soldier without 

cruelty, and a victim without murmuring. He was a public officer 

without vices, a private citizen without wrong, a neighbor without 

reproach, a Christian without hypocrisy, and a man without guilt. He 

was Caesar without his amhition, Frederick without his tyranny, 

Napoleon without his sellishness, and Washington without his reward. 

Benjamin H. Hill - 1832-1882- Tribute to R.E.Lee