* a OCT NOU D€C 
7 Impact of The Ribbon Bridge/MAJ Peter J. Mackie 

10 Something is Very Wrong/LTC J. H. Moellering 

12 Autograph Collecting/CPT John J. Connor 

14 Keeping It Together/LT Charles L. Gallion, Jr. 

16 Lake Mendicino/CPT Robert L. Harder 

22 

25 

200 Years of Military Engineering-Part II/MAJ Matthew Jones 

Whistle While you Work/Engineer Staff 

n1 

26 You Got a Water Problem?/MAJ Douglas K. Lehmann 

28 Tactical Problem/Engineer Staff 

29 The UET/Engineer Staff 

30 Answer To Our Problem/Engineer Staff 

31 The Omaha District Engineer Mura l/Michael L. Baugher 

34 SLUFAE-SLUMIN E/CPT Terry Krupp, CPT Norviel Eyrich 

1 Chiefs Briefs/History 

2 Pipeline/News Items 

3 Engineer Potpourri/Engineer Branch 

37 Bridging The Gap/Career Notes 
F \ 

(h Brigadier General Thomas Lincoln Casey was born at Sackettls 

Harbor, New York, May 10, 1831. He was graduated from the United 

States Military Academy on July 1, 1852 and promoted Brevet Second 

Lieutenant, Corps of Engineers. 

Casey taught engineering at the Academy from 1854 to 1859. In 

1859-1861 he commanded Engineer troops in Washington Territory. 

During the Civil War Casey served on the Staff of the Department 

of Virginia and was entrusted with a variety of coastal fortifications 

responsibilities. For faithful and meritorious services he was brevetted 

Colonel on March 13, 1865. 

Casey is best known as the Corps of Engineers most distinguished 

builder of public monuments and buildings. In this role he supervised 

from 1877 to 1888 the construction of the State-War-Navy Building and 

the completion of the Washington Monument. The latter project 

featured Casey's greatest engineering feat: the straightening of and 

placing of a new foundation under the monument, already 173 feet 

high. 

While Chief of Engineers from July 6, 1888 to May 10, 1895, Casey, 

in addition to normal duties oversaw most of the construction work on 

the Library of Congress. 

Prior to his death on March 25, 1896, General Casey served as a 

member of the National Academy of Sciences, the Society of the 

Cincinnati, and as an officer of the Legion of Honor of France. He was 

buried at the family farm in Rhode Island. 

JOHN M. DERVAN 

Assistant Curator 

U.S. Armu Enaineer Museum 

United States Army 

Engineer School 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Commandant 

MG James A. Johnson 

Assistant Commandant 

BG H. McK. Roper, Jr. 

Editor 

LTC William C. Simpson 

Editorial Board 

MG James A. Johnson 

BG H. McK. Roper, Jr. 

COL Charles J. Osterndorf 

COL Charles A. Debelius 

COL Charles A. Kiefer 

COL.Robert S. Kubby 

COL Thorwald R. peterson 

COL Edward K. Wintz 

LTC William C. Simpson 

CSM Robert G.Cady I

Production Manager 

John W. Savage, Jr. I 

Production Assistant 

Mr. William W. Behring 

SP5 Anthony E. Banks 

The Engineer is an authorized quarterly publica- 


tion of the U.S. Army Engineer School. It is 


published to provide factual and in-depth informa. 


tion of interest to all Engineer units. Articles, 


photographs and art work of general interest may be 


Submitted for consideration to: Editor, The Engi- 


neer, USA Engineer School, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 


22060. Views and opinions expressed herein are not 


necessarily those of the Department of the Army. 


Use of funds for printing of this publication has been 


approved by Headquarters, Department of the 


Army, January 1, 1974. 


Subscriptions to THE ENGINEER are available 


through the USAES Periodical Publications Fund, 


Fort Belvoir, Va. 22060. Annual Rates are $4.00 for 


domestic and APO addresses and 55.00 for overseas 


addresses. 


Engineer Magazine Telephone: (703) 664-2838 -
 Autovon: 354-2838 


ABOUT OUR COVER 

We could not let this, the year of our 


Bi-Centennial, come to a close without 


one more relating cover. We think it is a 


fitting end for our article, "200 Years of 


Military History." Let's hope that when 


the United States has its Tri-Centennial 


that THE ENGINEER magazine will be 


around also. 

@ PIPELINE. PIPE 


ANTARTICA STUD1 ES 

SCHEDULED BY 

CRREL LAB 

Five members of the staff at 

the U.S. Army Cold Regions 

Research and Engineering 

Laboratory will be participating this winter in an International program for the study of 

glacial ice and marine organisms in Antarctica. 

The CRREL team will be responsible for the drilling of 

three holes in the Ross Ice 

Shelf utilizing a wire-line 

mechanical drill developed at 

the Laboratory. 

The first hole, which will go 

three-quarters of the way 

through the 1375-foot ice shelf, 

will be used to make age 

measurements of the ice. The 

ice will be melted at different 

levels and measurements 

made using radioactive techniques. 

The second hole will be used 

to recover a 2-3/8-inch core 

which will be used in studies 

F~R50 LONG WE CAN 

including determination of 

chemical constituents of the 

ice through a history that dates 

back into the pleistocene ice 

ages. CRREL recovered a 

7,100-foot ice core from Byrd 

Station in Antarctica in 1968 

and a 4,560-foot ice core from 

Camp Century, Greenland, in 

1966. The ice coring project, 

sponsored in the U.S. by the 

National Science Foundation, 

has been a continuing one since 

that time. 

The third hole, 12-inches in 

diameter, will be used to study 

the sea water beneath the ice 

and to analyze the ocean bottom. An underwater television 

camera will be used to view 

the ice bottom and the sea 

floor. 

In addition to the drilling, the 

team will make measurements 

of depth, temperature, inclination. and closure of the hole. 

Nets, traps, and baited lines 

will be lowered through the 

hole in an attempt to sample 

life beneath the ice. In addition, the team will attempt to 

drill 90 feet into the sea floor 

which is 780 feet beneath the 

ice shelf bottom. 

In addition to the United 

States, participating in the 

project will be scientists from 

Australia, Denmark, England, 

Japan, New Zealand, Norway, 

Soviet Union, Switzerland, and 

West Germany. 

NEW WATER 

PURIFICATION UNIT 

TESTED BY 

MERADCOM 

A mobile water purification 

unit designed to replace four 

existing water purification 

units is undergoing developmental tests by the US Army 

Mobility Equipment Research 

and Development Command 

(MERADCOM) at Ft. Belvoir, 

Va. 

The 600 gallons per hour reverse osmosis water purification unit being tested is the 

first and smallest in a family 

of multipurpose units being 

developed for field support. 

When operational, the family 

will replace the ERDLator, the 

150 gph distillation unit, the 

CW-BW decontamination kit, 

and the mobile ion exchange 

unit. 

The reverse osmosis system 

is capable of producing potable 

water from polluted fresh 

water, sea water, and brackish 

water and in removing chemical and radiological contaminants from water. The system 

can even remove certain 

viruses and bacteria when 

aided with post chlorination. 

"It should be highly effective, providing water of high 

quality wherever troops may 

be located,!' said Allen Ford a 

project engineer. 

Reverse osmosis is the 

process of pressurizing raw 

water above its osmotic pressure, and forcing it through a 

thin cellulose acetate or polyamide membrane fabricated 

into a spiral wound element. 

Twenty elements are used in 

the new unit. 

The development of a dry 

membrane represents an advancement in the state-of-theart in reverse osmosis membrane technology. Unlike commercially available wet membranes, the dry membranes 

can be stored dry and are wet/ 

dry reversible. 

Incoming water is pretreated 

with calcium hypochlorite for 
---- 

LINE. PIPELINE. 


disinfection and a polymer to 

aid filtration prior to final 

passage through the RO elements. 

The 600 gph reverse osmosis 

unit is mobile and can be air 

dropped to forward tactical 

units or towed on a trailer. In 

both cases, it will supply 

enough to support at least 2000 

men per day. 

ENGINEER DINNER 

AND CASTLE BALL 

DATES SET 

Engineer officers should 

mark May 6 on their calendars 

as the date for the 110th Annual 

Engineer Dinner. As in past 

years, the dinner is planned to ? begin at 6:30 p.m., the Engineer Mess, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

On hand will be Lieutenant 

General John W. Morris, chief 

of engineers, to present the 

ltschner Awards for 1976. In 

addition, elements of the U.S. 

Army Chorus and the Old 

Guard Fife and Drum Corps 

and Color Guard have been 

requested to entertain as they 

have at past dinners. 

In conjunction with the dinner, the annual Castle Ball for 

officers, wives and guests will 

be held the following evening 

at the Engineer Mess. Theme 

of the ball will be "The Castlei' 

Ticket prices will be announced soon. For reservations and further information 

write: Protocol Office, Bldg. 

216, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

22060 or call (703) 664-4300, 

(Au tovon 354-4300). 

Seating arrangement will be 

available for only 550 persons, 

so make your plans to attend 

now. 

ITSCHNER AND 

STURG~SAWARD 

PREPARATION FOR 

CALENDAR YEAR 1976 

Now is the time to start 

planning and preparing for the 

ltschner and Sturgis Award 

nominations. The Emerson C. 

ltschner Award is awarded by 

the Society of American Military Engineers (SAME) to the 

engineer company which best 

symbolizes the character, 

mission and performance of 

the Corps of Engineers. The 

award, presented annually at 

the Engineer Dinner at Ft. 

Belvoir, is named in honor of 

LTG Emerson C. Itschner, a 

former Chief of Engineers and 

past president of the society. 

One of the aims of the award 

is to promote leadership in 

junior officers and to foster 

"espirit" in company sized 

engineer units. For the purpose of the competition, company sized units include all 

engineer numbered and lettered or headquarters companies, separate or belonging 

to a battalion, brigade, group 

or larger organization, and 

activated under a TOE/TDA. 

In the past, the award was 

limited to active duty units. In 

1974, the competition was expanded, providing separate 

awards for both National 

Guard and Reserve units. 

The Samuel D. Sturgis Award 

is awarded by the (SAME) to 

an active Army enlisted member in recognition of outstanding contributions to military 

engineering, by demonstrated 

technical and leadership 

ability. This award is also 

presented annually at the Engineer Dinner in honor of LTG 

Samuel D. Sturgis, A former 

Chief of Engineers. 

For the purpose of the competition, the individual should 

be classified in one of the following career management 

fields or military occupational 

specialities while performing 

the service for which recommended: 12 Com bat Engineering, 35E (Special Electrical 

Devices Repairman), 51 (General Engineering), 52 (Power 

Production), 62B ( Engineer 

Equipment Repairman), and 

81 (Topographic Engineering 

and Map Reproduction). The 

narrative description should 

emphasize the individuals contribution to military engineering. The term "military engineering" may be literally interpreted to include troop or 

contract construction, maintenance, facilities engineering, 

com bat engineering, engineers 

training, management/supervision of engineers activities, 

or other engineer support. 

Although the designation of a 

single winner from a field of 

highly qualified finalists is a 

difficult chore at best, the 

ltschner and Sturgis Award 

Selection Committee would like 

to see more units and enlisted 

members compete for these 

awards. The key to turning out 

a winner, in addition to having 

the qualifying credentials, is to 

adequately document the unit's 

activities and the enlisted 

members contributions over 

the course of a given calendar 

year. 

The annual presentation of 

this coveted award provides a 

means of revitalizating the 

competition and renewing the 

challenge. How does your unit 

stand against the others? You 

can find out in 1977. 
GINEER POTPOURRI ENG! 


COLONELS: 

ASSIGNMENTS. The assignment picture remains the same. Each Engineer Colonel received a 


letter last October giving a more detailed analysis. Keep us advised of your "druthers." 


OPMS COMMAND. Engineer Colonels will no longer be allowed to command both a troop unit 


and a district. The recently announced Combat Support Army Selection Board results were 


developed based on this policy. Specific assignments to command positions will be made by Colonels 


Division. 


SPECIALTI ES. The primary and alternate specialty designation has been entered in Section 1 


of the Officer Record Brief [ORB1 for each officer. Please check this information the next time you 


review your ORB. 


LIEUTENANT COLONELS: 

COMMAND. The LTC Combat Arms Troop Command Board will select officers best qualified to 


fill Engineer command designated position vacancies projected for 1 October 1977 through 30 


September 1978. Centralized LTC Command Selection Boards will be convened after the calendar 


year. 


ASSIGNMENT. Engineer '05's at CONUS installations can expect to stay in their current 

assignment for 36 months. Officers who complete 36 month CONUS assignments and are nct 

overseas vulnerable will probably remain on station for one additional year. Exceptions to stability 

described 

battalion command, 

herein will 

and 

be 

those 

made 

having 

for officers 

a specific 

selected 

skill required 

to command 

to fill 

battalions, 

a Department 

those 

of 

completing 

the Army mp

designated priority assignment. 

MAJORS: 

ASSIGNMENTS. With the continued reduction in PCS funds, Engineer Majors can expect to 


remain on station for a minimum of three years unless they are in a "must move" assignment 


[officers returning from Overseas tours, completing school terms, completing four years on the GA 


staff, completing three-year ROTC tours without volunteering for a fourth year, and completing 


two-year USAREC tours without volunteering for a third year]. This stabilization impacts on 


becoming qualified in your alternate specialty. Therefore, if you have not had an assignment in yoi!r 


alternate and there is an opening at your present duty station in that specialty, you should consider 


moving to that position. Call or write Major Woodham at MILPERCEN for advice and assistance. 


PROMOTION. Everyone in the primary zone for LTC AUS or who will be considered for RA 


Major [YG 641 should insure that a current [and good] official photo is in their file. Also, update 


your ORB if you have not done so in the past year. Don't wait until the last week. [The Major, RA 


board is expected to convene 29 March and the LTC AUS board on 5 April]. 


OPMS. Many of you have wondered what the "mechanics" are in making an assignment now 

that we are no longer in a branch. In Majors Division, there are at least four officers involved. Data 

in the computer has each of you projected into either your primary or alternate specialty for your 

next assignment. Approximately 6 to 9 months prior to your date of availability [completion of 

normal tour1 the specialty manager of the specialty to which you are projected will review your file, 

and slate you for an assignment based on the needs of the Army, your career development and your 

personal desires. [Our policy is to try and contact you by either telephone or mail prior to 

completing the slating]. After the specialty manager has firmed up what he feels is correct, your 

file is routed to your other specialty manager for concurrence. If there is a disagreement, they r) attempt to resolve it at that point. Your file then goes to the professional development officer for his 

concurrence. If he feels the assignment is not appropriate, he trys to resolve it with the two 
FEER POTPOURRI ENGlNt 


specialty managers. Your file then goes to the Chief of Assiqriments for final resolution. 

The overriding factor on any assignment is the needs of the service. The next factor is 

professional development. For Engineers, it is extremely difficult to meet both due to the near 

critical shortage of Engineer Majors. A simulation model indicates that in order to meet the base 

minimum of Engineer requirements, Engineer Majors will be utilized approximately 80% of the time 

as Engineers. Therefore, you can see it wiii be exirerr~ely difficul: to get you du:! tracked Ir! both of 

your specialties prior to promotion to LTC. Our goal, however, is to do so. 

CAPTAINS: 

Preference statements, letters, or verbal communication of an officer's preferences continue to 

be extremely important. Captains should insure that their assignment officer knows their desires at 

least one year, prior to DEROS or DTAV. All CONUS assignments are a minimum of 36 months in 

length unless the Army has an extremely urgent requirement that warrants breaking stability. 

Captains interested in ROTC assignments or civil schooling [graduate or undergraduate] during the 

next year should contact their assignment officer. If captains have any questions or concerns they 

should call their assignment officer. We will do what we can to help if it's within our power. Officers 

who have been in CONUS since 1970 are extremely vulnerable for overseas assignment [long or 

short]. 

LIEUTENANTS: 

The selection board for CPT [AUSI convened in Nov 76 to consider first lieutenants of the Army 

and Women's Corps with a TDOR of 31 Jul 75 or earlier for temporary promotion to the grade of CP. \.. 

WARRANT OFFICERS: 

Engineer Warrant Officers. 

The following is a list of RA Engineer Warrant Officers as of 30 September 1976. 

I 

AUS Promotions: 

The next AUS CW2/3 and CW3/4 promotion board is scheduled to convene in January 1977. 

FOR ALL: 

Proiected Requisitioning Authority. 

The Army rarely is in a position where its officer assets, by specialty and grade, equal the sum 

total of all authorization documents. Like the commanders who are trying to do a job with fewer 

people than their TOE says they are supposed to have, the officer distribution planners and 

managers at MILPERCEN are also trying to make ends meet-but on a somewhat larger scale. 

The challenge is this-there are three principal factors which impact on the distribution process: 

assets, authorizations, and priorities. All three are in a constant state of change. Thus, there is a 

need for a master distribution plan which will assure that all commands, agencies, and activities 

receive, in line with their priority, a fair share of the available officer assets. The necessary 

management tool which brings the three principal factors into balance is called the Projected 

Requisitioning Authority-PRA for short-and as such becomes the Army's most important 
ENGINEER POTPOURRI E 


document for officer distribution planning. Properly used, the PRA is an equitable system which 

allocates officers to positions in accordance with established priorites and availability of the 

required personnel assets. 

OFFICER RECORD BRIEF: 

MILPERCEN has dubbed this the "YEAR OF DATA ACCURACY." Objective is for 

MILPERCEN and all others in the personnel business to make a special effort to improve the quality 

of our personnel records and, in particular, our automated personnel records. 

Data quality is crucial to effective operations at MILPERCEN. Many key personnel decisions 

are made daily at MILPERCEN based on the records available. If records are inaccurate we run 

the risk of making an incorrect decision and adversely impacting on our officers' or soldiers' 

careers. 

The Army is being pressed for more efficient management of all aspects of the personnel 

system. Having a quality data base is a key element for improved personnel operating both in the 

field and at HQA DA and MILPERCEN. Numerous top level personnel decisions pertaining to 

promotion allocations, assignment distribution, training requirements and others are largely 

dependent on statistical data and reports obtained from the automated personnel records. 

The Officer Record Brief (ORB) has become a very, if not the most, important record 

MILPERCEN maintains on the Officer Corps. It is no more than a print out of the officer's record on 

the Officer Master File. ORBS are sent out through MlLPOs to officers for review and audit. 

Careful audit and prompt return of ORBS must get priority attention. Considerable improvement is 

needed in this area. 

CHANGE IN TIMES-PAY 

As times change, so does a soldier's pay. For the most part pay has increased. Only twice; once 

before the Civil War, and once after, has military pay gone down. The QRMC has been around since 

the Civil War- only it wasn't called the QRMC. Below are the pay scales per month for a Corporal 

(E-4) and a First Sergeant (E-7 and E-8) from 1785 to present. 

Corporal (E-4) Inf. 1785 

$5 

1790 

$4 

1798 

$7 

1812 

86 

1854 

$17 

1864 

$20 

1871 

$17 

1908 

$24 

1918 

$27 

1923 

$44.10 

1942 

$69.30 

1949 

$124.95 

1958 

$150 

1967 

$251.70 

1975 

$459.30 

First Sergeant (E-7 & E-8) 1833 

$15 

1838 

$16 

1854 

$20 

1864 

$24 

1871 

$2 1 

1908 

$57 

1918 

$57 

These pay rates are averages for time in service. It should be noted that the actual grades have 

changed over the years, i.e., a First Sergeant was "Second Grade" a Corporal was a "Tech 5:' etc. 3 
MAJ Peter J. Mackie 

The introduction into service of the new 

Ribbon Bridge will solve many of the old problems 

of float bridge operations -but it will also pose 

some new ones. The aim of this article is to 

highlight these new problems and to suggest 

possible solutions. 

Issue of the Ribbon Bridge system to units in 

USAREUR began in August 1976 with an appropriate amount of M4T6 equipment being phased 

out as the Ribbon Bridge is phased in. Introduction of the new equipment will prompt the formation of a new unit to operate it. The Float Bridge 

n Company (Ribbon) will have the primary mission 

to haul, maintain and instau the Ribbon Bridge. 

This mission is an expansion over that of the M4T6 

equipped Float Bridge Companies which are organized to haul and maintain their equipment but 

not to install it. 

Let us compare the installation of a 400 ft long 

M4T6 and Ribbon Bridge with a 60 ton capacity. 

The bridges are to be installed as part of a 

deliberate river crossing operation in the offense. 

The first and obvious difference between the 

two is the bridge construction time - up to six 

hours for the M4T6 and one hour for the Ribbon. 

The faster Ribbon construction rate is a tremendous asset to the whole operation, but it will 

be a test for the Engineer Commanders. To 

emphasize this, let us assume that our bridge has 

to be open for traffic at H hour. The M4T6 

commander would aim to be on site at H-6 hours 
and if he left a piece of equipment behind in the 

assembly area by mistake he could still send 

someone back to collect it and have the bridge 

open on time. The Ribbon commander, on the 

other hand, would aim to be on site at H-1 hours. If 

there is any flaw in his construction planning he 

will find it virtually impossible to complete the 

mission on time. The first lesson to be drawn from 

our example, therefore, is that the plan assumes a 

new importance in float bridge construction: 

accurate map reading, careful reconnaissance, 

strict road movement discipline en route to the 

construction site and command and control on the 

site must be close to perfect. To use a CPM 

analogy -the 'float' has disappeared out of float 

bridging. 

A second factor relevant to the road move 

prior to construction is the respective times of the 

move vis a vis our H hour. The M4T6 convoy, for 

a final approach of one hour's duration, will be on 

the road from H-7 hours until H-6 hours. At this 

time the road net in the river crossing area should 

still be comparatively clear of non-engineer movement. The Ribbon convoy on the other hand will 

aim to move between H-2 and H-1 hour. During 

this period the combat units designated to cross 

the bridge at H hour will be forming up and 

moving into position near the bridge site. There is 

a real danger that our convoy of Ribbon Bridging 

equipment will become snarled with the tactical 

units and the whole operation will be delayed. 

With Ribbon Bridge, route priority is essential for 

the Engineers for movement to the river line. 

Construction of M4T6 is relatively complicated 

and demands a high degree of skill within the 

constructing troop units. Hopefully, the prudent 

construction commander will have used his time in 

the assembly area to brief and rehearse his 

soldiers and to thoroughly check his equipment. In 

short, experienced Engineers know that there are 

pitfalls in M4T6 construction and plan accordingly. 

Construction of Ribbon Bridge appears to be 

simple, as the bays are simply released from the 

transporter, slide into the water, unfold automatically and are coupled together. But is it really 

that simple? The honest answer is 'no' -the road 

latches and ponton latches still have to be 

released, drain plugs installed, winch cable released, shore lines tied and construction tools 

checked. None of this is difficult but failure to 

perform any one of the pre-launch steps will result 

in a hold up in the operation. The lesson to be 

learned - and hopefully not the hard way -is 

that although Ribbon is much simpler than M4T6, 

it still has to be handled with respect. Skill and 

professionalism are still essential to a successful 

build and, because of the potentially faster construction rate, even minor mistakes can threaten 

that success. 

Ribbon Bridge construction is dependent on the 

rate at which bays can be launched. With M4T6 

bridging, the five ton Bridge Trucks do not 

normally back into the water. They can remain on 

firm level ground away from the waters edge. In a 

Ribbon Bridge build, the same trucks will usually 

have to back into the river. On a construction site 

with wide frontage and firm evenly graded access 

this will not pose a problem, but experience has 

shown that this situation is not the norm. The 

Ribbon Company will be issued with the flexible, 

fiberglass mat system known as MOMAT to aid 

truck access to the river. Similarly, the winches 

on the bridging trucks may have to be rigged to 

provide mutual assistance or, in extreme cases, 

entry slots may have to be cut. What is obvious, 

however, is that Ribbon Transporter drivers will 

have to be trained to overcome the access problem 

and that the various access improvement measures 

are going to have to be thoroughly tried, tested, r, 

and rehearsed. Finally, referring back to our 

bridging example, arrangements will have to be 
made for the marshalling and dispersal of the 18 

empty bridge transporters once the bridge is in 

place. They cannot be left on the bridge site but 

must be available for bridge retrieval when 

required. 

Coupled with the truck access problem will be 

the problem of access to the completed bridge. 

The fact that a Class 60 bridge requires Class 60 

approaches is often ignored in the rush to get 

bridge construction completed. In a 6 hour M4T6 

build, the marking and upgrading of the immediate 

bridge access does not pose much of a problem. 

During the 6 hour construction time, dump trucks, 

bulldozers, improvised trackway, etc. could all be 

used, if required, to supplement the slow but well 

tried combat engineer methods of overcoming 

difficult ground. The one hour Ribbon construction time changes all this and the approach 

problem assumes a new importance on the critical 

path of crossing-site construction. That development personnel are aware of this, is evidenced by 

the new interest in rapidly emplaced trackway 

systems, night marking systems, etc. The fact 

that a Ribbon Company can install its own equipment does not mean that there is no longer a role 

for the Combat Engineer Line Company on a river 

crossing site. The construction and marking of 

approaches could well prove more difficult to 

accomplish than the construction of the bridge 

itself. 

During an M4T6 bridge build there is usually 

ample time to concurrently install the anchorage 

system required. As Ribbon Bridge uses virtually 

the same anchorage systems -shore guys, kedge 

anchors and overhead cable -there is now a 

danger of our Ribbon Bridge being ready before 

the anchorage system. Without this anchorage, 

the bridge cannot be trafficked and the construction mission is not complete. To overcome this 

problem the Ribbon Company TO&E will include 

14 Bridge Erection Boats mounted on modified 

Transporters which can be used, not only as a 

construction aid, but as a rapidly emplaced temporary anchorage system. The thrust from these 

boats can be used to hold the bridge in place until 

such time as the fixed anchorage system is 

complete and traffic is allowed to cross the bridge. 

This assumes that all bridge boats are functioning 

properly, emphasizing the importance of the 

bridge boat to the whole bridging operation. 

Like the M4T6, the Ribbon Bridge can also be 

used to build rafts. A Class 60 Ribbon raft can be 

built in approximately 15 minutes provided that 

the transporters can get the bays into the water 

fast enough. Similarly, any upgrading and marking of approaches must be complete before the raft 

can operate. Although the whole 26 foot long End 

Ramp Bay articulates relative to the raft, shallow 

water will still pose a raft access problem as will 

the fact that the Bridge Erection Boat has a 

draught of 40 inches against the Ribbon rafts 20 

inches. Accurate reconnaissance is just as important as ever. 

In sumnmary, the introduction of the Ribbon 

Bridge is a big step forward in terms of our ability 

to cross water obstacles quickly. To use the 

equipment to its best advantage, we must know of 

its limitations and make adequate provision to 

overcome these. Although the basic equipment is 

much simpler to use than M4T6, it must still be 

treated with respect. The basic Combat Engineer 

skills of arriving on the right site at the right time 

with the right equipment and properly briefed 

soldiers are as important, if not more important, 

than ever. 

Submitted by Major Peter J. Mackie, Royal 

Engineers, Senior Bridging Instructor, Field Engineering/Bridging Branch, Combat Operations 

Diwiswn, Department of Military Engineering, 

United States Army Engineer School. 
It was a dark, chilly November night as 

Sergeant Hanford skillfully maneuvered his enclosed MP jeep around the curve of the qavel 

road. Suddenly, his headlights focused on an 

incredible sight. Two hundred meters ahead, the 

road simply disappeared! Braking sharply, he 

reached for his hand mike and ordered the Range 

Central operator to connect him with the Fort 

Campbell Provost Marshal at once. 

"Sergeant Hanford, Sir. Something's very 

wrong! I'm on patrol in training Area 31. I just 

came upon a huge crater on Stampers Chapel 

Road. Looks to me like some artillery rounds have 

missed the South Impact Area." 

Before he could continue, two menancing 

soldiers in field gear appeared on either side of his 

vehicle, rifles at the ready. After establishing that 

the Sergeant was not a part of the aggressor force, 

and convincing him to douse his headlights ("The 

light line, Sergeant, is on the east end of the 

Reservation") the two soldiers explained that the 

crater had been deliberately placed earlier that day 

by Company C, 326th Engineer Battalion (Air 

Assault) as part of the barrier plan ordered by 3d 

Brigade, lOlst Airborne Division. It was designed 

to stop enemy tanks (provided by the Kentucky 

National Guard) and had been created with "about 

350 pounds of cratering charges.'' 

LTC J. H. Moel lering 

"In fact, Ghost Corps Trail, Killebrew Road and 

Pleasant Mill Road have also been cratered and 

mined, so you won't be able to get through them 

either," the soldier was saying. 

There had been misgivings about using real 

craters from the very outset. It's not really safe to 

use large quantities of demolitions outside a 

controlled demolition area. Blow them at night? 

Unheard of. Those are all major training roads on 

the Fort Campbell Reservation. You would close 

the reservation for weeks. Every unit in the 

Division would be operating on the reservation. 

You would inhibit the infantry and support units' 

ability to move, once on the ground. 

These objectives had all been discussed with 

the Division Commander in the early planning 

stages of "Exercise Orbiting Eagle V" - a 

maneuver which would pit one Brigade of the 

10lst using Air Assault tactics against an enemy 

brigade-sized force augmented with National 

Guard tanks and APCs employing Soviet bloc 

tactics. Having listened to the arguments on both 

sides of the issue, the Division Commander announced, "We will use actual craters and live 

demolitions on all major roads of the reservation 

except those which are asphalt." And, turning to 

his engineer battalion commander, he added with a 

half grin, "Naturally I hold you personally responsible to repair all those roads after the 

exercise." 
A shortcoming of some infantry brigade S-3's is 

their lack of expertise in properly employing all 

members of the combat arms team available to 

them. The S-3 of the 10lst's 3rd Brigade, was 

different. The Commander of Company C, 326th 

Engineer Battalion was standing before the operation's map in the 3rd Brigade TOC explaining to 

the 3rd Brigade Commander and the Bde S-3 the 

details of his proposed brigade barrier plan. 

Having received the "green light" from the 

Division Commander on the use of live craters, the 

Brigade Commander realized what a powerful tool 

he had for influencing the action, particularly since 

off-road mobility for tanks at Fort Campbell is 

relatively limited. The Crater locations were 

carefully selected for maximum impact and were 

augmented with minefields, tied in to natural 

obstacles, and covered by fire. 

Several craters were actually blown, three at 

night. The effect on enemy armor and mechanized 

forces was devastating. The Chief Controller 

declared that all tanks had been destroyed in the 

attack, many of them more than once. 

Achievement of true realism in training requires paying a price. Certainly, we must do our 

best to limit maneuver damage; certainly we must 

repair the damage we do. But "doing damage" to 

fixed facilities is a prime combat mission of the 

combat engineers. And unless they are afforded 

the opportunity to "do their own thing" in a 

combined arms maneuver setting, the other elements of the combined arms team will never gain a 

true appreciation for the kinds of capabilities and 

assistance afforded by combat engineers. In 

essence, these "live fire" tactical exercises will do 

a great deal toward fixing in the mind of the 

infantryman and tanker how he can enhance his 

already considerable capability. To achieve this 

requires a philosophical attitude on the part of the 

installation commander that the military reservation is his to "consume" much as one consumes 

ammunition from a CTA in training infantry. 

Recognizing this, the divisional engineer battalion 

has placed maximum emphasis on constructing 

hasty structures - bridges, towers, bunkers, 

culverts, etc. - of natural timber. The Division 

Commander has strongly backed this practice. 

There is, at the same time a vigorous reforestation 

program underway by the Fort Campbell Facilities 

Engineer to insure that trees are available in the 

future. During non-tactical periods, the full capability of the engineer battalion can be used to 

repair the craters and maintain the roads. The 

outstanding results achieved at Fort Campbell 

indicate that the benefits clearly outweighed the 

costs. 
CPT John J. Connor 

Autograph collecting is a "topical" hobby. 

Some of the common subjects collected are United 

States Presidents, Members of the Continental 

Congress and Civil War generals. Some of the less 

common subjects include Nobel Prize winners, 

Medal of Honor recipients and British royalty. In 

recent years, two new topics have become popular, 

astronauts and principals in the Watergate 

scandal! 

Often the topic has a relationship with the 

collector: a doctor may collect autographs of 

famous figures from the medical sciences, or 

someone from Texas might seek autographs of 

famous Texans. In this fashion, an appropriate 

collection for an ofiicer in the Army Corps of 

Engineers would be correspondence of the fortyfive men who have held the position of Army Chief 

of Engineers. Such a collection spans more than 

180 years, as the first Chief died in 1796. It also 

overlaps with several other topics including Civil 

War generals and Medal of Honor recipients. 

When thumbing through catalogs it takes a 

keen eye to spot a Chief Engineer as you'll seldom, 

if ever, find him listed as such. General Rufus 

Putnam, the second Chief, serving from August to 

December 1776, would probably be listed as "Ohio 

pioneer." As he is best known for leading a group 

of Revolutionary War veterans to found what is 

now Marietta, Ohio. He also served as a judge of 

Autograph letter signed by Maior General A. A. Humphreys 

while Chief of Staff of teh Army of the Potomac. Humphreys 

was the Army's fifteenth Chief of Engineers, serving from 

August 1866 to June 1879. 

---.- nasd V.S~'.I,.C,,,~ ,! ,,,.,,, 

.-

-. --

. 

,& --.--.--.-,-.-.-- i-

* C.S t". 


.) ;, -.-...-, ' ....,, . . . 


L.L.,. 

., ..*.,..-% 

..* .,. %. <,. *,,,./ , /..

s 

I 

the Supreme Court of Ohio and as Surveyor 

General of the United States. Similarly, Major 

General Horatio G. Wright, Chief of Engineers 

from June 1879 to March 1884, is usually referred 

to as "Commander of Union VI Corps." 

This topic also presents a problem to those who 

like to collect autographs of "incumbents," that is, 

a document signed during the period the person 

held the job. Brigadier General Henry M. Robert's 

tenure was a scant two days; appointed on April 

30,1901, he retired on May 2, 1901. His successor, 

Brigadier General John W. Barlow, topped this 

Letterheads of the Office of the Chief of Engineers between 1867 

and 1976. 

record by retiring one day later on May 3rd. By contrast, Major General Joseph G. Totten served h 

in the position, from December 1838 to April 1864. 

Incidentally, General Robert is the author of the 
Letter written by a clerk, signed by Colonel Rufus Putnam, 

Chief Engineer of the Continental Army from August to 

December 1776. This letter was written to a state governor, 

probably prior to 1790. 

"Pocket Manual of Rules of Order," the famous 

book of parliamentary law commonly known as 

"Robert's Rules of Order." 

One additional feature of this topic is that it 

gives rise to a logical sub-topic, namely, Office of 

the Chief of Engineers letterheads of which there 

are more than a dozen different examples in the 

last hundred years. Part of the joy of a topical or 

specialized collection is the opportunity it presents 

to study the lives of the persons whose autographs 

are being sought, and to come to know them as 

real people and not just scraps of paper. The Chief 

Engineers were real people; let's take a look at a 

few. 

One of the most fascinating of the forty-five 

Chief Engineers was the very first, Colonel 

Richard Gridley (June 1775 to August 1776). At 

age 65 he forsook a pension and other rewards for 

service in the British Army to join the Revolution. 

It was Gridley who laid out the defensive positions 

for the Battle of Bunker Hill and for the Seige of 

Boston which led to the British evacuation on 

March 17, 1776. 

The third and fourth Chiefs were Frenchmen, 

apparently recruited by Benjamin Franklin. Interestingly, both men - Major General Louis 

Duportail and Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Rochefontaine -returned to France to fight for the 

King during the French Revolution, and both men 

escaped back to America after the defeat of the 

monarchy. Jonathan Williams, grand nephew and 

secretary to Benjamin Franklin became the 

Army's sixth Chief Engineer (April 1802 to July 

1812) as well as the first Superintendent of West 

Point. Williams was not the only Chief with a 

famous relative. General Walker Armistead was 

the Father of Confederate General Lewis A. 

Armistead, killed leading Pickett's charge at 

Gettsburg. General A. A. Humphreys' grandfather designed the frigate USS CONSTITUTION 

(Old Ironsides). General James Duane's grandfather was a member of the Continental Congress 

and the first major of New York. Finally, General 

William Marshall was a direct descendant of Chief 

Justice John Marshall. 

As stated previously, many of the Chief 

Engineers earned distinction during the Civil War, 

either as commanders or as engineers. Four were 

Southerners who supported the Union: John 

Newton and William Craighill of Virginia; Henry 

Robert of South Carolina; and George Gillespie of 

Tennessee recipient of the Medal of Honor for 

gallantry at Cold Harbor. Brigadier General John 

M. Wilson also received the Medal of Honor for 

action at Malvern Hill. Because of the wide 

interest in this 'period, autographs of the Chief 

Engineers of this era are more readily available 

than any other period excluding the last thirty 

years. 

Above all else, whatever their other accomplishments, the forth-five Chief Engineers were 

practicing engubeers and not merely administrators. Here are four examples of their work: 

Brigadier General Joseph Swift (1812-1818) 

directed the rebuilding of the Capitol after it was 

burned during the War of 1812. Brigadier General 

Thomas Casey (1888-1895) completed the Washington Monument, which, already 173 feet high and 

leaning badly, had to be straightened and provided 

with a new, solid foundation. Major General 

William Black (1916-1919) chaired a board of 

engineers tasked to raise the sunken battleship 

MAINE from Havana harbor and Lieutenant 

General Raymond A. Wheeler (1945-1919) personally directed the massive salvage operation in 

the Suez Canal after the 1956 Middle East War. 

Such a specialized collection obviously means 

slow -but satisfying -progress. Above all it has 

developed a greater appreciation for the important 

role the Corps of Engineers has played in shaping 

the history of the United States. 

By the way, if you have any letters of William 

Trent Rossell, the 28th Chief of Engineers, hidden 

away in a drawer . . . 

A 1972 EOAC Graduate, Captain Conner is 

presently serving as the S-2 and Information 

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

Fort Devens, Massachusetts. He has also received 

his BS in Geology from Boston College. 
ru, 

LT Charles L. Gallion, Jr. 

and in many ways I'm just like many of the 

younger soldiers I've seen over the years. Used 

by the Army on every imaginable detail, taken far 

away from home to a strange country, and never 

once have I gotten a promotion. By now I should 

have been recognized or something; but I've never 

been recommended. It's a sad story; but true. 

w Not even an Article 15 in my logbook, although "v I've appeared on the deadline report a couple of ' ' n times. You see, I'm not the "ordinary" American

Soldier. I'm A-88, multi-fuel powered, and owned ' V 

i ' by Uncle Sam. Some may call me a Dump Truck, 

others a Five Ton; but by the book it's really 

Truck, Dump, 5 Ton M51A2. Anything you ever 

wanted to know about me is printed in my 

biography. TM 8-2320-211-10. Sequels have been 

written that go into greater detail, these are the 

-20 and -34. Not as famous as TOLKEIN'S 

TRILOGY and they'll probably never make it to n - the movies; but it is a good reading collection. 

v t You really should read them for my sake. 

P 


14 F 

9 
I've sat back and watched things take their 

natural course for a long time, and now it's time 

for me to speak up and take care of myself before 

it's too late. Hundreds of others like me feel the 

same way and I've been chosen as the spokesman 

for all military vehicles. We're tired of being 

driven and neglected to death and even worse, 

transported to the Property Disposal Officer 

(PDO). My time is short, maybe two years at the 

most, and then my logbook will reflect "DEATH 

BY UNNATURAL CAUSES" like so many of my 

friends. My transmission seals are leaking, pistons 

worn, and my new operator insists on reving me 

past the maximum permissible RPM. That kind of 

treatment can mean only one thing for us - a 

blown engine. Sure, you can say "we can replace 

an engine;" but I'm eight years old with 82,000 

miles, far past the limits of being economically 

repairable. Why not replace an operator it's 

cheaper, or better yet, train him to be a better 

operator. Keep one man on me until he knows the 

whole works inside and out. Daily checks in the 

morning are a good start; but make sure he 

follows up later with those during and after 

operations checks. Remember he needs my 

biography to do it right. Once the program is 

under way you'll be surprised how fast it catches 

on, and how much better we respond. I'm here to 

serve you and without proper care, I'll quit when 

you need me the most. 

Over longer periods of time the Equipment 

Serviceability Criteria (ESC) is a good indicator of 

my COMBAT READINESS. It's good up to 90 

days and gives a RED-AMBER-GREEN rating in 

all of my functional areas. I'm AMBER right now 

on three counts for engine, transmission, and rear 

differential mileage 'cause I have over 50,000 

miles; but I'm ready if the need arises. Without an 

operator's care, I'll turn out to be a headache for 

everyone concerned, and end up as a Not Operational Ready (NOR) listing on the 2406. I might 

even add to your RED percentage and throw your 

Readiness Conditon (REDCON) out of whack. It's 

a nasty business; but I have to tell it like it it. 

Now I'm speaking to a much higher level than 

the operator, right? It's sort of like the Big 

Picture and the root of a good Maintenance 

Program. Everyone from top to bottom has to get 

involved. Occasionally, I've witnessed supervisors 

give the OK to operate a vehicle in less than satisfactory condition. No mission can be that important and that's why we break down. Call it a 

revolt or a mutiny; but we like to think of it as a 

"Trucker's Strike." This is our time to stand up for 

our rights. A well timed strike forces you to 

re-evaluate and correct our deficiencies. At this 

point, we get the attention of everyone and are 

finally in the spotlight. Prescribed Load List 

(PLL) Clerks order parts, The Army Material 

Management System (TAMMS) Clerks make out 

the necessary reports, Maintenance Warrant Officers diagnose the problem and mechanics prepare 

to replace components. Supervisors and platoon 

leaders look for a replacement to finish the job 

that I couldn't and the Company Commander is 

busy explaining to the Battalion Commander. 

Wouldn't it be easier on everyone to plan their 

maintenance periods rather than let me do the 

scheduling. When I make the decision, I'm not as 

considerate of your mission requirements. It's far 

simpler to do something right the first time, every 

time, than to waste time correcting a larger 

problem magnified by the course of time. 

A-88 isn't my only name. I could be any one of 

the vehicles looking back at you from the motor 

pool. I may even be your truck, so if my story 

sounds a little familiar, maybe you should check 

out your maintenance program. 

I 

CPT Robert L. Harder though the precise, stringent eligibility criteria 

required by the program (based upon an applir+ 
The historic versatility and "Can Do" performance of the Corps of, Engineers was demonI 	 strated at the Lake Mendocino Recreation Area in 

I 	 Ukiah, California, 120 miles north of San Francisco. 

In July 1975, the Corps' San Francisco District 

was granted $754,000 through the Department of 

Commerce under the provisions of the Emergency 

Jobs and Unemployment Assistance Act of 1974 

(Public Law 93-567; "to provide emergency financial assistance to stimulate, maintain or expand job 

creating activities in areas, both urban and rural, 

which are suffering from unusually high levels of 

employment." The San Francisco District was to 

I 	 hire unemployed persons from Mendocino County, 

I 	 primarily for recreation resource improvement. As 

a result of this unusual program, the District was 

placed in the unique situation of filling all three 

principal positions of a major construction project: 

User, Designer, and Builder. The formation of a 

Construction Management (CM) team to coordinate the program was a logical and natural result. 

With characteristic "Will Do" determination, personnel from the District's Operation (User), Engineering (Designer), and Construction (Builder) 

sections quickly organized to insure the successful 

implementation of the Lake Mendocino program 

(the largest of 25 such programs assigned to the 

Corps). 

Hiring Restrictions 

Particularly challenging was the requirement 

to meet the many restrictions and goals specifically outlined in the Title X legislation. One such 

goal was the requirement to hire the majority of 

the work force within two weeks of being notified 

about the program. An analysis of the work to be 

accomplished and a survey of the unemployed 

work force in the local area demanded the development of a simple, yet flexible organizational 

structure. Accordingly, ten 6-man crews were 

proposed, each comprised of five laborers and one 

leader. It was anticipated that such a 'squad-type' 

organization would enable crews to be easily 

combined or interchanged with minimum difficulty. (As the program progressed, the appropriateness of such an organization was repeatedly 

demonstrated as inclement weather and material 

delivery delays often required' changing work 

schedules on short notice.) For supervision and 

support, six office positions were also proposed, 

.C\ 	 including toolkeepers, clerks, and a safety officer. 

With a minimum of job descriptions involved, the 

task of identifying qualified applicants through the 

state employment officers was expedited. Alcant's unemployment history) posed an additional-' 

restriction to the hiring procedure, the timely 

coordination of effort between the project, District, and state employment personnel enabled a 

work force of 66 men and women to be employed 

and busy at work by the end of July. (During the 

course of the program, the multi-disciplined work 

force increased to a peak of 80 persons, including 

unemployed archaeologists and social scientists.) 

Adequate Supervision 

Another work-related restriction of the program that was of considerable concern was the 

problem of providing adequate supervision of the 

work force. Since program funds could not be 

used for salaries of permanent Corps personnel at 

the project or District level, it was imperative that 

the work crews assume a large part of the 

responsibility for their own performance. To 

facilitate the identification nf ::.orke~-s with ieadership ability, it was proposed that assistant foremen 

and assistant crew leader positions be created and 

filled by promoting qualified members of the work 

crews. Motivated by the possibility of promotion, 

many workers quickly developed and demonstrated excellent supervisory capabilities, enabling 

the program to become largely self-managing as 

anticipated. In addition, as many of the crew 

leaders resigned during the course of the program 

to accept permanent employment elsewhere, the 

promise of such upward mobility proved to be a 

continuing incentive to the work force. 

Material Limitations 

Perhaps the most challenging aspect of the 

program was the requirement to meet the severe 

restriction imposed upon material purchases: a 

maximum of twenty-five percent of the allocated 

funds could be expended for supplies and materials 

required in support of the program. In these 

times of spiraling material costs, the development 

of constructive, meaningful work projects within 

such a strict material budget required through 

deliberation. A study of the various stages of 

development of the camping and day use areas as 

outlined in the project's Master Plan resulted in a 

listing of proposed projects that promised compliance with the strict labor/material ratio of 

75/25. By balancing labor-intensive projects with 

those requiring considerable material purchase, an 

overall labor/material goal of 80/20 was established. Detailed records were updated weekly 

reflecting the' total manpower and material expenditures for each work project. These records 
were then used to determine each individual 

project,'^ labor/material ratio. Continuous monitoring of these ratios and the careful reallocation 

of available men, and machinery resulted in a 

balanced project mix that kept the overall material 

costs well below twenty percent. In addition, such 

detailed cost records proved to be a valuable 

source of historical data for estimating work 

project of a similar nature at other project 

locations. 

As a result of the coordination and preplanning 

accomplished by the CM team, and through the 

continuous reallocation and balancing of program 

resources, a diverse combination of work projects 

was successfully completed, that greatly enhanced 

the long-term protection and use of the enviroment and natural resources of the area. Most of 

these projects were aimed at the staged improvement of Lake Mendocino's many recreation 

facilities i.e., the construction of individual and 

group picnic shelters, group barbeques and picnic 

table pads in day use areas; the lengthening of 

selected campsites to accommodate longer mobile 

camping units; the design, fabrication and erection 

of natural-material play structures for the younger 

park visitors; the development of a 5000-meter 

nature trail system selectively marked with distance and interpretive signs; the construction of a 

central ranger station to facilitate traffic control in 

adjoining day use and camping areas; the upgrad- (I 

ing and rehabilitation of many access and circulation roads in the project area; the development of 
I:; 


a natural amphitheater for evening slide/movie 

presentations and interpretive programs; and the 

refinement of an extensive footpath and footbridge 

system for park pedestrians to improve circulation 

between all facilities. 

In addition to these facility-oriented projects, 

considerable manpower was directed toward the 

protection and preservation of the area's natural 

resources. These projects included the development of numerous fish habitat shelters around the 

lake; the placement of over 3000 tons of select 

riprap for shore protection; the construction of 

k\ 	 traffic barriers and guardrails for landscape protection; slope planting and drainage-works improvement for erosion control; and landscape 

planting for general area enhancement. Additionally, an extensive Cultural Resource Study 

was conducted to research and record information 

concerning the archaeological and ethnographical 

history of the Coyote Valley area. These many 

and varied projects richly enhanced the operation. 

maintenance, safety, and beauty of the entire 

project area and have greatly improved the 

utilization and enjoyment of park facilities by all 

visitors. 

Productive Job Training 

When the $754,000 Title X -Job Opportunities Program at Lake Mendocino ended in June 
1976, over $600,000 had been paid in direct salaries 

to over 100 previously unemployed Mendocino 

County residents. Additionally, over $100,000 of 

supplies and materials were purchased from local 

area vendors, significantly contributing to the 

economy of the community. Even more significant than the one-time cost of the program, 

however, was the long-term investment in manpower achieved at Lake Mendocino. With a 

number of craft skills available in the predominantly unskilled or semiskilled work force, an 

informal apprentice training program naturally 

developed. By rotating work crews through the 

varied mix of projects, each worker became 

familiar with the basic techniques of carpentry, 

masonry, concrete placement and finishing, roofing, painting, plumbing, equipment operation and 

maintenance, and environmental protection 

measures, including erosion control and selective 

landscaping. This basic orientation completed, 

some work crews were reorganized, matching 

worker interest and aptitude with the more 

complex projects scheduled in each craft field. 

The resulting increase in worker motivation and 

skill level was clearly evident in the well-crafted 

facilities, a lasting testimony to the success of the 

program. In addition to such acquisition of craft fi skills, considerable emphasis was placed on the 

development of good work habits and attitudes, 

safety and environmental awareness, and team-
work, including active participation in work planning, scheduling, and personnel supervision. The 

habits and skills thus obtained by the workers 

enabled many of them to obtain permanent 

employment upon completion of the program. 

Conclusion 

Meaningful employment -Valuable training -

Tangible results. The Lake Mendocino Title X 

Program was indeed Job Opportunities at its best. 

The success of the program exemplifies the flexibility and professionalism demanded of the Corps 

in response to its many missions. Be it flood 

control, disaster assistance, or help for the nation's 

unemployed, the spirit of the Corps of Engineers 

rings clear: "Essayons: Let Us Try!". 

CPT Robert L. Harder is the Special Assistant 

to the Chie.L Cons truction-Operations Division, 

Sun Francisco District, COTS of Engineers. Since 

joining the District in. July 1975, he has been 

Project Manager for the Title X - Job Opportunities Programs in Mendocino, Sonoma, and Del 

Norte Counties. CPT Harder is an alumnus of the 

University of Colorado where he earned a B.S. 

degree in Architectural Engineering. He .is also a 

graduate of Oregon State University where he 

completed two M.S. degrees in Construction 

Engineering Management and in Soil Mechanics 

nn,d Foundations. CPT Harder is a registered 

professional engineer in Oregon. 
MAJ Matthew J. Jones 

With the war now accomplished fact, military 

engineers girded their loins for still another kind 

of conflict - attacking the rampaging waters of 

our central river system. In 1927 the Mississippi 

and Ohio rivers overcame their banks from Illinois 

and Kentucky to the Gulf of Mexico. The tragic 

loss of human life and demolition of property 

throughout the region caused Congress to summon 

military engineers to embark on a program for 

controlling floods. Military engineers undertook a 

continuing series of projects for the control of 

floods and related programs concerned with navigation, electric power and irrigation. 

Navigation routes along the Illinois River 

waterway between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River were completed. A navigation system on the Mississippi from the mouth of the Ohio 

to Minneapolis-St. Paul was developed. A chain of 

canals to link the 1,200 mile Atlantic Intercoastal 

Waterway was brought to completion. Dams like 

the Fort Peck on the Missouri River and the 

Bonneville on the Columbia were built. These and 

other dams provided flood control systems, helped 

regulate water navigation, supplied water, produced huge quantities of hydroelectric power and 

furnished year-round recreational areas. Military 

engineers concentrated much of the 20's and 30's 

on water resource preservation, improving waterborne transportation capabilities and serving the 

needs of the people. 

The experience gained in civil works would 

soon pay huge dividends in a defense emergency. 

On 1 September 1939 Hitler's armies introduced 

Blitzkrieg to the world, by overrunning Poland. 

The biblical Armageddon was to be visited not on 

the plains of Meggido but on the rolling countryside of Europe and in the islands of the calm ocean. 

Pacifism and isolation were the order of day 

throughout the 30's infecting even many top levels 

of the War Department. In spite of Protective 

Mobilization Plans drawn so as not to repeat the 

unpreparedness experienced in 1917, no one 

realized the magnitude of the effort which would 

be needed to stem the Axis legions. The nation was 

beginning to re-arm by 1939 -to prepare for it 

really knew not what. Again military engineers 

were gathered in recognition that construction 

would be the controlling factor in mobilization. 

Technology had again changed the character of 

warfare and the preparations therefor. Mobilization camps, arsenals, depots, hospitals, seacoast 

defenses and training schools were needed; so 

were airfields, aircraft factories, ships, shipyards 

and a host of supporting facilities. 

Before the war ended military engineers had 

been responsible for the acquisition of 38 million 

acres of real estate and the completion of approximately 3,000 command installations and 300 major 

industrial projects. Included in this were 500 

camps, 765 airfields, 167 depots and numerous 

other facilities. The Pentagon was one of these 

projects. To accommodate the major activities 

of the Army in one headquarters this five story, 

reinforced concrete structure on concrete pile 

foundations was planned, designed and built in 16 

months at a cost of $65 million. Several hundred 

architects and engineers and up to 15 thousand 

construction men at one time labored day and 

night to complete this impressive structure in so 

short a time. 
In spite of all the mobilization effort, war 

surprised us on the infamous day of 7 December 

1941. The nation was not yet fully ready. The 

n 	 pace of activity hastened toward a four million 

man force. At its peak in 1942 construction to 

support this force was being placed at the rate of 

over $20 million per day. 

In the theaters of operations, military engineers 

fought and constructed. In the Pacific they built 

ports, airfields, and huge bases in dense jungle and 

on coral reefs. On the Asian mainland they built 

the Burma and Ledo Roads across impassable 

terrain. North Africa and Europe also witnessed 

the ability of the American military engineer. 

Military engineers landed as much as one hour in 

advance of the first assault waves of infantry and 

armor on Omaha and Utah beaches. They helped 

clear the way through the mine fields and 

hedgerows of Brittany. Across France they 

cleared rubble-choked roads of war torn cities and 

reduced natural obstacles. They defeated the 

raging rivers and the difficult mountains of Italy, 

France and Germany with bridges and rafts. They 

kept the famous Luddendorf railroad bridge at 

Remagen open long enough for the Allies to gain a 

toehold across the Rhine. They pushed pipeline, 

road, and railroad construction to bring forward 

the supplies needed to sustain the advance. 

To protect our nation's northern flank a line of n communication was needed to tie Alaska to the 

Continental United States. Military engineers 

undertook a road construction engineering feat of 

titanic proportions. Despite weather, terrain, and 

often criticism the Alcan Highway reaching 1,523 

miles from Duncan Creek, British Columbia, 

through the Yukon Territory to Fairbanks, Alaska 

was completed in just a year. 

World War I1 was a multi-faceted war. LTG 

Reybold, Chief of Engineers during the war, called 

it an "Engineer War" by virtue of the unprecedented engineering requirements needed to support air power, amphibious assault, and armored 

mobility. He observed that the military engineer 

was involved in every tactical and logistical 

decision because it was he who made possible the 

commander's most daring plans. And, he concluded that "By war's end it was evident that 

American engineering capacity was the one factor 

of our strength which our enemies most consistently under estimated" 

The atomic bomb marked the finish to World 

War 11. Military engineers were much present in 

the top secret Manhattan Project that developed 

the weapon which carried us into the atomic age. 

V-J day quickly followed the detonation of the first 

atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The 

war was over and military engineers in the face of 

a cold war returned to peaceful pursuits. 

Increasing emphasis on water resources management and modernization of the Ohio, Arkansas 

and Missouri Rivers occupied the military engineer 

until June 1950 when their attention was directed 

to Korea where the Cold War had suddenly gotten 

hot. The unexpectedness of the violation required 

many military engineers to engage in combat 

initially as infantry. Coupled with this role the 

rugged, mountainous terrain which dominates 

Korea engendered no end to the number of 

problems to be overcome. Moving troops into 

position and keeping them supplied called for 

uncommon effort. Aerial tramways solved this 

problem; but, in the Korean valleys -the only 

real maneuver area - military engineers had 

other problems in terms of obstacles and the 

flooding that caused these flat areas to become a 

nightmare. Bridge building became a daily occupation for the military engineer. 

The Korean conflict ended in a truce but the 

hot and cold war of the 50's brought a new dimension to our security needs. Military engineers 

helped to construct warning systems like Dewline 

which spans the North American frontier. They 

also undertook major missile construction efforts 

in the NIKE, ATLAS, TITAN and MINUTEMAN 

launching and support facilities, and expanded our 

air bases to accommodate the heavier jet aircraft 

used to support Strategic Air Command operations. 
Military engineers also travelled to Greenland 

to construct Camp Century, the city under the ice. 

Their objective -to study the polar regions with 

a view toward opening it for human usefulness and 

habitation. The 50's included other major projects 

for the military engineer. The long planned Saint 

Lawrence Seaway Project, which opened the 

Great Lakes ports to seagoing vessels, became a 

reality theough their efforts. 

The 60's fulfilled the military engineer's long 

term role as pioneer, explorer, scientist, builder. 

For now he reached out to man's infinite frontier 

-outer space. Military engineers helped to plan 

and build our space age staging center at Cape 

Canaveral and continue to engage in the engineering of ground support facilities for space vehicles 

as well as in the planning for extra-terrestrial 

construction. 

The 60's also brought the nation to a highly 

controversial role in supporting our commitment 

to the defense of Southeast Asia. Ignoring the 

controversy over the national effort there, and 

concentrating on the performance of the military 

engineer in his role, one can but observe that he 

did his job well. His first major task was the 

construction of air bases, seaports and logistical 

installations to support the arrival of increasing 

numbers of combat units. The terrain of Southeast 

Asia made the conventional tactics and machines 

of modern war unsuitable for much of the area. 

The air mobile operation came into its own as a 

key tactic with the helicopter joining the ranks as 

the workhorse to support the Army in the field. 

Military engineers constructed hundreds of air 

strips and heliports with supporting fu I and 

maintenance facilities. They developed air mobile 

engineer equipment that could be lifted into 

remote worksites. Without a conventional front 

line the conflict was fought every,where. They r3 

built base camps and fire bases throughout the 

country and then tied them together with land 

lines of communication, an enormc, ;road network 

complete with bridges. They thwarted the 

enemy's ambush tactics by clearing large areas of 

land along these routes using large numbers of 

tractors with special land clearing or "Rome Plow" 

blades. And they devoted significant measure of 

their time to civic action projects of direct benefit 

to the civilian population. 

The cessation of American participation in the 

Vietnamese conflict has turned military engineer 

attention again to peaceful purposes. Thus, the 

military engineer pursues his dual role of builder 

and preserver of our nation -always doing both 

- emphasizing the one or the other as national 

policy dictates - but ever ready to redirect his 

efforts when his nation asks it of him. Whether 

dredging a harbor at one of the port cities on our 

three coastlines; building a dam in the western 

reaches of the nation; mapping uncharted regions 

of the hemispheres; upgrading facilities at our 

military installations; teaching in the academic 

halls of our service schools; participating in NATO 

exercises; undertaking research in our laboratories; or developing new equipment and materials 

and systems to do his job better and more 

efficiently, the military engineer's principal focus 

is national preparedness - prepared, in peace, to 

enhance the quality of life of the American people; 

and, in war, to defend it. 

Two hundred years of military engineering -

indeed, a strong, enduring and glorious foundation 

for the future. It is to us now to duplicate that 

same superb quality in the structure to be placed on 

that foundation. 

Mqjnr Mnt thew J. Jones, .Jr. is assigned to the 

(It,Tice of the D~putyChMf Of' Staff for Operations, 

HQDA. A civil engineering graduate 0.f the 

IJniversit:y of Detroit, he u:cl.s commissioned in the 

Corps yf' Engineers in 1962. Since then he has 

ser?:erl 7mn'th the 326th Airborne Engineer Battcllion: th~8th Er~gineer Ra,ttalwn, 1st Cavalry 

Lhvision; thc 2d Engineer Rattakwn, 2d Infantry 

I)i.i>i.son;the US Army Support Command- Vietnam: MACV; Test Cornrna~zd, Defense Nuclear 

Agelzcy: and the lJS Army Engineer School. Major 

.Jones has n blasters Degree in civil engineering 

from Sta??fhrdUnivc?rsit y and is a graduate o.f both rn 

the Evgincler Officer Advanced Course and the 

Command alzd General Stczff' Coll~ge. 
So you've been crying about how much work 

you're doing. Never get any time off, eh? Well, 

jet's look at it this way. There are 365 days in a 

year. You are entitled to 30 days leave and have 

the privilege of a three-day pass about every six 

weeks. That's a total of 56 days, leaving 309 days. 

There are approximately 16 National holidays 

and 104 Saturdays and Sundays. That narrows 

the balance to 189 days. You sleep approximately 

eight hours a day and spend another eight off 

duty. That takes up another 125 days of your year 

and leaves Uncle Sammy with 63 days. 

If you take an hour a day for coffee, cokes, and 

incidentals, that's 15 days a year. Only 48 left, 52 

n half work days a year are set aside for physical 

training and information and education lectures. 

The balance is now 22 days. 

Of these 22 days, 12 are pay days, and you 

know how much you get done then. That leaves 10 

days. 

Statistics show that the average person spends 

2 days a year in the dental clinics and 7 days 

undergoing medical treatment. That narrows it 

down to one day. And brother, if you can't figure 

how to goof off for one day a year, you're hurting. 

Editors Note: This item originally appeared in 

STARS and STRIPES during the era between 

World War II and Korea. It was attributed to 

an Army First Sergeant. He presented it at his 

retirement ceremony in Wiesbaden, Germany. 
MAJ Douglas K. Lehmann 

The nineteen seventies have recorded the 

Engineer distaste for the water supply function. 

Before you read another word, let me state my 

unequivocable opinion that this function is and 

should remain an engineer mission. Second, let me 

state that my viewpoint is not an official US Army 

Engineer School (USAES) policy. 

The background on the subject is recorded in 

three studies, which more or less recommend the 

engineers get out of the water supply business. 

They are: 

1. The West Board Study by Office of Chief of 

Engineers (OCE) 

2. The Bachus Board Study by OCE 

3. The AIM Engineer Battalion Study by 

USAES 

The two OCE studies, published around 1971 

and 1973, advocated the function to the Quartermaster Corps. The recent 1976 USAES study 

recommended the five water points in the ArmorInfantry Mechanized (AIM) Engineer Battalion be 

transferred to the Combat Engineer Battalion, 

Corps. Additionally, Ft. Bragg is experimenting 

with transferring the water supply mission to 

DISCOM. The latter was never sanctioned by the 

USAES and was upsetting to many members of 

the Engineer Community when it became known. 

The arguments for the transfer revolve around 

the ten classes of supply which are primarily a 

Quartermaster function. Why should engineers be 

in the supply business? This question is shallow to 

me. The communication-electronics people are in 

the crypto supply business and the medical folks 
run their own warehouses. These branches want 

the function and their cases along with the 

Engineer are the exceptions that prove the rule. 

The Engineers are very much in the map supply 

business. The latter reverts only to the Quartermaster at the DISCOM level and from Corps and 

above it is all engineer. I venture to say, we are 

very much in the transportation business, as all 

barrier materials forward of brigade and division 

combat training areas are transported by the 

engineers. So much so, that the ribbon bridge 

transporter was adapted after the fact with a 

pallet for cargo. 

The specifics of the recommendations are 

aimed at field operations. Some of the studies 

keep such activities as equipment development 

with the Engineers. Some recommendations are 

impractical. For example, counting both the active 

and reserve components, there are approximately 

20 divisional engineer battalions and 60 corps 

combat engineer battalions. The USAES recommendation would delete 100 water supply units (5 

times 20) and add 300 (5 times 60). The extra 200 

are not needed and wasteful. Adding just 1or 2 

per corps battalion would not cover the population 

and area for water supply. Then there are the 

problems of insuring that every division deployed 

has a corps combat engineer battalion with it. I 

doubt the priorities of combat would allow the 

latter. 

I disagree with the transfer. A function should 

be deleted from a branch only when one of the 

i'oiiowing occurs: 

1. The mission is no-longer feasible. 

2. The mission is superceded by a new mission. 

3. The transfer is mutually supportive. 

Water is still necessary, potable water has not 

been replaced nor can we count on it being 

available in rural areas. No substitute has yet 

been developed and the Quartermaster Corps does 

not want the function. 

You don't win friends and influence people by 

trying to pawn your job on them. Such is the case 

with water supply. It could be argued that the 

debate was within the engineer family. But that is 

no longer the case with the Ft. Bragg experiment. 

The technical reasons and logic are more 

straight forward. Water supply is a function of 

location and not distribution, storage or other 

element. Water is not neatly boxed, placed on the 

shelf, and stocked when you get 3 demands in a 

180 day period. The DISCOM is seldom located 

near the best water source. Water supply is 

unique to engineering because of location and 

reconnaissance for future locations. Engineers are 

in positions to locate, emplace, produce, and 

relocate as far forward as the brigade rear area for 

the combined arms team. 

I suspect one reason engineers are reluctant to 

accept the water supply mission is that it is a 

bother, especially a training one in peacetime. 

Transferring a problem does not solve it. The 

mission is still essential to combat and must be 

maintained during peacetime. Location and terrain and thereby water supply are the property of 

engineers, not exclusively but within our proponency. We, as part of our regular reconnaissance engineer mission, can locate future water 

supply locations and have the added advantage of 

being able to provide construction support for 

access and egress. 

I further suspect the mission is not wanted for 

lack of knowledge in our officers and senior NCO's. 

Certainly the knowledge of our water supply 

specialists is not a problem. These men are one of 

the finest trained specialties of both the Corps and 

Army. But the water supply training given to 

engineer supervisors is lacking. It can be learned 

OJT by those commanders and S-4 officers who 

seek it out. Basically it is not taught and therefore 

not understood. 

Lastly, I feel that the Fort Bragg experiment 

will prove nothing since a peacetime environment 

is not germane to water supply. The transfer 

under peacetime conditions would be valid in just 

about any branch or location. The proper location 

must be determined subjectively in light of our 

experiences and the concept of the future battlefield. The conditions that engineers must produce 

water in are unique to combat. 

The time has come to understand this vital 

mission, support it, and not try to pass it along. 

Clearly the Corps of Engineers has accomplished 

its assigned mission in the past and should 

continue in the future. Water supply is part of 

that mission. 

Major Douglas K. Lehmann holds a BS degree 

in Forestry from Syracuse University and a MSA 

degree in Systems Management from George 

Washington University. He has been a Company 

Commander in the 97th Engineer Battalion (Construction), Germany and 26th Engineer Battalion 

(Combat), Vietnam. He also has held additional 

staff'positions in the 8th Engineer Battalion (Combat), Korea, 91st Engineer Battalion (Combat), Ft. 

BeLvoir, and 32nd Engineer Group (Construction), 

France and Ft. Hood. Since 1969, the major has 

held successive assignments at Ft. Belvoir of 

EOAC student; Office of the Director of Instruction, USAES; "Bootstrap"; and LTSACDC. 
TATICAL PROBLEM 


You are the platoon leader from the divisional engineer battalion (mechanized) in direct support of a 

mechanized heavy task force. The task force has been moved into the sector, part of which is shown on the 

Sketch Map. This deployment is part of a force concentrating to blunt a breakthrough attack. Intelligence 

estimates predict an attack by an opposing force motorized rifle regiment within the hour. This regiment 

contains a tank battalion (40 medium tanks, T62) and three motorized rifle battalions (approximately 100 

APC's either BMP or BTR-60 PB). 

The task force commander directs you to concentrate your efforts on destroying the bridges and 

fords. Your estimate reveals you have only the resources and time to either destroy the bridge or the 

fording sites. 

Which task do you recommend to the task force commander? ANSWER PAGE 30 
An improved Universal 

Engineer Tractor (UET) developed by the Product Manager, FAMECE/UET at the 

U.S. Army Mobility Equipment 

Research and Development 

Command (MERADCOM), 

For: Belvoir, VA is undergoing 

extensive government acceptance testing at the Aberdeen (MD) Proving Grounds. 

The latest version of the UET 

incorporates all the desirable 

characteristics of earlier 

models, such as versatility, 

mobility and air transportability, plus greater durability 

and reliability. 

The multi-purpose, tracked 

UET can doze, scrape, rough 

grade, tow, dump and haul, to 

perform the earthmoving tasks 

required in a combat engineer 

unit. It features the ballast 

concept to keep its 32,000 pound 

weight within the limits for air 

transport and air drop and 

high cross country mobility 

while providing the work capacity of a heavier unit. The 

front-loaded with 8 cubic yards 

of soil it provides enough additional weight to almost double 

the UET's earthmoving capacity. 

With a speed of 30 mph on 

level ground and outstanding 

cross-country mobility, the 

UET will, for the first time, 

provide the combat engineer 

with the mission capability to 

travel and to keep pace with 

armored units. It also is fitted 

with light armor protection, 

and has a limited swim capacity of 3 mph. 

The scraper bowl is fitted 

with a hydraulically operated 

apron and positive load ejector. Dozing and scraping are 

accomplished by raising and 

lowering the U ET's entire front 

end by means of the hydropneumatic suspension system. 

The 285 HP diesel engine provides more than sufficient 

power for all operations. 

The four current pilot models 

built by Pacific Car and 

Foundry Company have completed the MASSTER test in 

December 1975 and are scheduled for completion of APG 

tests in July 1976. To date test 

results indicate that reliability 

problems encountered with 

previously built prototypes 

fabricated earlier in the development program have been 

overcome and that the UET 

will provide features of mobility, versatility, and maneuverabil ity required to support 

combat forces. 
ANSWER 


TO OUR 


Recommend ford destruction. SCALE 

czxY-u 1 

This is deduced from: 	 0 100200 3M) 400 500 IOW METERS 

a. 	 the ability of Teams A and B to observe and fire on the canalizing bridge approach. 

b. 	 the reconnaissance symbols which reveal: 

(1) 	 Fords 1 and 3 may be used by all vehicles capable of fording in depths up to 1.4 meters. 

(2) 	Ford 2 is for "pedestrians" only. 

(3) 	 Bridge 3 has one way capacity of class 30 and two way of class 24. Bypass is impossible while 

height and width restrictions are 5 and 7.5 meters respectively. 

c. 	 the characteristics of the armored vehicles in the opposing force regiment. 

These include: 

T62 BMP BTR-60 PB 

Type: Medium tank Amphibious armored Armored personnel 

infantry combat vehicle carrier 

Weight: 40.2 tons 14 tons 11tons 

Fording Depth: 1.4 meters Amphibious Amphibious 

~erefore, the r62 cannot cross the bridge. 

d. 	 the availability of good concealment for ford use. 
Michael L. Baugher 

During this, our Bicentennial year; cities, or- ! 

ganizations, groups and individuals have concerned 

themselves with a multitude of grandiose activities 

to celebrate our Nation. Plans ranged from 

parades, proclamations and fireworks to the planting of time-capsules and a flotilla of high-masters .. . 

in New York's harbors. Like celebrants, the 

Omaha District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- .' 

- ' neers formed a committee and charged them with 

the responsibility of a fitting and novel approach. 

Among their suggestions was the idea of a 

mural-a mural that would depict the growth of I 

the Nation and that of the Corps of Engineers. 

Mastering this scheme was George Barry, a a 

writer-editor for the Planning Division in Omaha. 

A dabbler in oils himself, he envisioned a timejourney through athe Corps' major contribution to 

the Missouri River Basin. Included would be the 

Lewis and Clark Expedition, the development of 

major railroad routes and the construction of the 

mainstem dams. 

Drawn from the Corps' talent resources, a pair 

of artists; Bob Irey and Tom Hudson; were 

commissioned the task. With minimum guidance, 

Bob set about the job of formulating George's 

ideas into a living mural. 

Since the mural was to depict the events, 

I 
motivation and direction of the Corps, he tried to 

narrow its emotion and basic attitudes into a 

unified set of descriptive ideas. Bold, masculine, 

angular, geometric-all what he felt to be the 

overriding suggestions of the Corps. 

Retaining these emotional assumptions, he 

began to fill his layout sheet. To the untrained 

eye, it was a panel of harsh lines-a pencil doodle. 

But to him, it was the mural. Somewhere within 

the layout's borders were the events and characters peculiar to the Corps. 

The mural was born-there were no colors, no 

people, no trains, nor dams-but the mural was 

begun. From this first layout of emotion, he 

progressed to a series of characters and structures. These now had the continuity of time and 

direction. They had become tangible to the untrained. Soon he was water-coloring a miniaturized 

mural. Through this he was able, visually, to 

determine the impact of each part of this graphic 

history. While Bob was busied with the minature, 

Tom was delving into forgotten files, researching 

subjects for pictorial and historical accuracy. 

Jim Brown, Chief Carpenter from the District's 

Maintenance Base, soon presented the artists with 

the frame-a three-piece, 24 by 5%-foot superstructure, over which, the canvas and 200 years of 

Corps history would be stretched. Since no 

single length of canvas could be found to cover 

the entire frame, two sections would have to 

be joined. They both measured, sketched and 

planned-all in an attempt to choose the least 

obtrusive junction. They then started to taperactually sandpaper-the edges of the canvas. 

When glued and overlapped, the tapered edges 

combined to a single layer thickness. 

Since even the slightest wrinkles and pulls 

were accentuated by its bulk, the canvas stretching was no little task. Tom and George took turns 

tightening the canvas from the rear while Bob 

directed and stapled from the front. With the 

assistance of an overhead projector to guide with a 

rough proportional design, Tom applied the first 

bit of color to the canvas. Not until this moment, 

seeing the light-brown underbelly of the antelope, 

had the artists been fully aware of the size of their 

undertaking. All that white space-more than 130 

square feet-was frightening. Progress soon overtook the white starkness as the two men brought 

the mural to life. 

First came the animals in the park, then the 
workings of the dam, then the explorers, the 

water, sky and more. Work was continuous as 

they removed the blank from the canvas. The 

artists moved from one area to the next; beginning 

new work or returning to others to help balance or 

maintain continuity. To maintain their agreed upon 

style, each strained under the pressure of compromise-hard work, for such artistically individual 

men. Despite the differences in age, experience 

and taste, they painted as one. When one became 

more comfortable with figures and detailed work, 

the other became his perfect compliment; working 

with the bolder, more geometric areas of the 

project. 

Soon the entire canvas was covered. 

The main themes of expedition, railroads and 

dams overlapped in time and space to provide a 

vivid montage of life on the Missouri. Interlaced 

were scenes through history; and Indian village, 

settlement expansion, river commerce, power 

generation, flood control, irrigation, recreation, 

environment and wildlife. 

Finally the artists had a chance to step back 

and get an overall view of what they had done. 

They were able to see how differing scenes 

interacted, how colors directed and how they could 

improve the mural's impact. Thus began the 

mural's revision. Whole sections were reworked: 

portions highlighted, given more weight, toned 

down, detailed for more realism. The entire 

canvas took new life. It had been a mural before, 

but now it boasted direction, motion, emotion. 

Slightly more than four months after the mural 

was proposed, the Omaha District's tribute to the 

Nation's Bicentennial was completed; its creators 

proud to have worked on the mural and for the 

Corps. A graphic history of the Corps and its role 

in the development of one of the great regions of 

the United States, the mural now s~dnds on 

exhibition in the west section of the Main Lobby of 

the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse in Omaha. 

Michael L. Baugher is a Public Information 

Specialist for the Omaha District, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. He has worked as a writereditor for the U.S. Army Recruting Command, 

Sioux Falls, S.D. and with the Bureau of Land 

Management in Denver. He served as the PI0 for 

the USAF Survival Schools and as a Public 

Information Specialist at Lowry AFB, Cob. He 

attended Santa Ana College, Calif. and the 

University of Colorado. 
> 

3
 -5 


L'! 6 


;,' P 

CPT Terry Krupp 

CPT Norviel Eyrich 

Current US doctrine for offensive and defensive operations emphasizes the combined efforts of 

the combat, combat support and combat service 

support units to insure success. Combat engineers 

will make their major contribution to the battle by 

impeding enemy mobility, enhancing friendly 

mobility and providing greater survivability to the 

maneuver units through construction of battle 

positions and protective shelters. A major part of 

this effort will be mine/countermine warfare -

the thrust of this article. 

The engineer's capability to adequately support 

the Combined Arms community is severely constrained by current mine/countermine hardware. 

This capability will be enhanced by the fielding of 

two systems currently under development. Utilizing a common carrier and launcher the Surface 

Launched Unit, Fuel Air Explosive (SLUFAE) and 

the Surface Launched Unit, Mine (SLUMINE) can 

accurately be called a revolution in mine/countermine warfare. Both systems are fired from a 30 

tube rocket launcher mounted on an M548, 6 ton, 

full tracked cargo carrier. The system can either 

emplace or breach a minefield and will have 

mobility comparable to that of the supported 

armored/mechanized units. Basis of issue will be 

two per company in the divisional engineer 

battalion and one per company in the Corps 

Combat Engineer Battalion. Current planning 

calls for a resupply vehicle, and a four man crew to 

support each SLUFAEBLUMINE system. The 

system, in either mode, can be positioned and fired 

within 10 minutes and reloaded with a full 30 

round load within one hour. 

As an example of the conceptual employment 

in both modes a short scenario will be presented to 

illustrate employment techniques and the impact 

of SLUFAE/SLUMINE on the FM 100-5 battlefield. B/132d Engineer Battalion is supporting 

Task Force (TF) 1-72 which is conducting a 

counterattack to secure a key ridgeline. Reconnaissance has revealed a large enemy mined area 

which is covered by observation and fire. The task 

force commander has decided to attack with two 

companies leading and the third company trailing 

in the center sector ready to reinforce either 

company in order to maintain the momentum of 

the attack. 

After receiving the task force commander's 

concept of operations, the engineer company commander analyzed those tasks which his company 

must perform to support the task force counterattack. During the assault phase the engineer 

tasks will consist of creating two assault breaches 

in the previously located minefield and being 

prepared to breach any unknown minefield encountered. After the objective has been secured, 

engineer tasks will consist of emplacing hasty 

3 
obstacles and assisting in the preparation of battle the recommendations were briefed and integrated 

positions, to repel an enemy counterattack. No into the task force commander's battle plan. 

other tasks were identified based on current At 0130 the attack began against heavy enemy intelligence and available time. fire. The launchers with FAE rounds moved from 

Based upon the task analysis and available 

resources, the engineer company commander 

recommended that one la ncher loaded with FAE 

rounds accompany each o 9the two lead companies 

and be located near each maneuver company 

headquarters element for immediate response. In 

coordination with reconnaissance elements, available photos, and a map analysis, possible firing 

positions were located along each attack route to 

insure maximum protection and to take full 

advantage of the SLUFAE's stand-off capability 

distance (up to 1000 meters from the far edge of 

the mined area). When the objective is secured 

both launchers will be reloaded with 30 mine 

rounds, and then located in protected positions 

from which they can emplace mines in support of 

the task force's defense during an enemy counterattack. The recommended launcher positions for 

the mine role were coordinated with the TF S-3 so 

that mines could be immediately placed on the 

approaching enemy force on the-two most likely 

avenues of approach. At a subsequent meeting 

protected positions to their supporting positions 

along concealed routes using the terrain to insure 

maximum protection. The launcher and crew 

immediately prepared the launcher by aligning it 

on the proper azimuth, elevating the launcher 

tubes and entering the firing data. Concurrently, 

the lead maneuver elements neared the previously 

located minefield and at the direction of the unit 

commanders, 15 FAE rounds were fired into the 

minefields. Upon impact in the minefield, each 

round formed a cloud which when detonated, 

neutralized all mines through the blast and 

overpressure effects. The result was a breach 8 

meters wide for the entire depth of the minefield. 

Shortly afterwards both companies encountered 

minefields not previously located. In less than 10 

minutes, both launchers were again positioned, 

aimed, and fired to breach the enemy minefields. 

An artists concept of SLIJFAE employment is 

presented in Figure 1. 

The counterattack was successful due in great 

part to the minimal delays created by the enemy's 
obstcles, and subsequent reduced effectiveness of 

supporting direct fire weapons. During consolidation both launchers were reloaded with MINE 

rounds and positioned to support the task force 

while other elements of the engineer company 

were assisting the preparation of defensive positions. 

At 1500 hours, the enemy counterattacked in 

strength lead by a major tank element. As the 

battle reached a critical phase with the US forces, 

outnumbered by more than 3 to 1in firepower, the 

task force commander ordered one launcher to fire 

mines on and in front of the advancing enemy and 

the other launcher to standby. The mines slowed 

the enemy sufficiently so that the antitank 

weapons systems of the task force were able to 

engage the targets and ultimately defeat the 

attacking enemy unit. An artist concept of 

SLUMINE employment is presented in figure 2. 

The SLUFAE/SLUMINE system will, when 

adopted by the Army, be incorporated into engineer units in the early 1980s. As can be seen from 

the scenario presented in this article the system 

will provide the engineers with a highly mobile 

responsive system for mine/countermine warfare, 

and greatly enhance the combat effectiveness of 

the combined arms team. 

"7 

CPT Norviel Eyrich graduated from the United 

States Military Academy in 1969 and was commissioned in the field artillery. He is a graduate of 

the Field Artillery Basic and Advanced Courses. 

CPT Eyrich spent two and one-half years in the 

7th Bn 16th FA, Baumholder, Germany where he 

served as assistant S-3, Battery XO and Battery 

Commander. He served as senior RFPF Adwisor, 

MA CV Advisory Team 36, Republic of Vietnam. 

Prior to his current assignment as ORSA Project 

Officer Concepts and Studies Division, Directorate 

of Combat Developments, CPT Eyrich completed 

his Masters Degree in ORAS at Georgia Institute 

of Technology. 

CPT Terry Krupp graduated from the Colorado 

School of Mines in 1971 with a Bachelor of Science 

in Chemical Engineering, and was commissioned a 

2LT in the Corps of Engineers. He is a graduate 

of the Engineer Officer Basic and Advanced 

courses. Prewious assignments include; platoon 

leader, 902nd Float Bridge Company and Construction Officer, 44th CBT Engineer Bn (Heavy), 

Korea. Prior to his current assignment as ORSA 

Project Officer in Concepts and Studies Division, 

Directorate of Combat Developments, CPT Krupp 

completed his Masters Degree in ORSA at Polytechnical Institute of New York. 
BRIDGING THE GAP 


MORE ON PROPOSED DIVISION REORGANIZATION 

If the Army adopts the new division reorganization plan now under study, the division engineer 

battalion will drop the present division's bridge company, and will add more combat engineering 

equipment. More armored Combat Engineer Vehicles, (CEV) would be added, along with Surfaced 

Launched Fuel Air Explosives (SLUFAE), and Surface Launched Mines (SLUMINE). 

The changes would give the engineer battalion a larger role in boosting the mobility of the 

division, according to staffers of the TRADOC-based Division Restructuring Study Group (DRSG). 

The added combat engineering equipment would also serve to inhibit the mobility of enemy combat 

formations, say DRSG planners. 

If the proposed organization gets the official nod from the Army, the division's logistical 

organizations will also be in for some streamlining. The logistical base of the division would be more 

oriented to sophisticated modern weapons. More repair and technical services support will be 

pushed forward to the combat units. 

Some testing of the proposed reorganization plan will begin early next year. 

SOME COMMANDER'S DENIALS ARE NOT OK 

DA officials say that soldiers are being denied promotion and taken off promotion lists, with no 

authority, in the field. 

The problem stems from the fact that some commanders are imposing additional, local, 

eligibility and promotion criteria which is against regulations, paragraphs 7-1.1 and 7-14 or AR 

600-200. 

As an example, some company commanders are delaying recommending E4s for the E5 board 

because they had not attended the Primary Noncommissioned Officers Course (PNCOC). In 

addition, some boards were not selecting soldiers for promotion because they had failed to complete 

PNCOC. This action is unauthorized. 

Under EPMS, PNCOC will become a requirement for promotion to E5 in some MOSS. 

Commanders can't impose this requirement criteria until it has gone into effect Army wide. 

The commander must judge future potential, and may use failure of PNCOC or other courses as 

one of the reasons for possible non-recommendation for promotion. Failure, alone, should not lead 

automatically to non-recommendation. Commanders are not allowed to deny a promotion 

recommendation solely because a soldier has not attended a PNCOC. 

As far as removing a soldier from a promotion list, a soldier can be removed for cause, one of 

which might be failure to pass a course such as PNCOC, but a determination must be made by a 

board as referenced in paragraph 7-27, AR 600-200. 

In addition, board members should net use failure of a course as the only reason for 

non-selection of a soldier. 

Additional local promotion criteria can not be established because it is unfair for sorne soldiers 

to meet criteria which is not required of other soldiers. 

The heart of the matter revolves around the fact that the individual commander does not have 

the authority to impose his own, local, eligibility and/or promotion criteria. 

Junior E4 Housing 

It's official, E-4s with more than two but less than four years service who don't have a six-year 

active duty commitment will now be considered equal with other E-4s when it comes to post family 

housing. 

In the past, these individuals had virtually no chance of ever being assigned to family housing. 

Posts should receive implementing instructions by early September through the pinpoint distribution 

system. These are effective upon receipt. 

37 
They may look like tramps, But they build your camps, And they sometimes lead the advance. 


And they sweat red blood to bridge the flood, To give you a fighting chance. 


Who stays behind when it gets too hot, To blow up your roads in the rear? 


Just tell your wife that she owes your life to some muddy old ENGINEER. 


Some dusty, crusty, croaking, joking, muddy old ENGINEER. 


A BRITISH SAPPER 

Although he can't create miracles, When there goes up a hew and cry; 

Being an ENGINEER means he'll give it a damn good try. 

Essayons is a statement clear, That to him means a hell of a lot; 

It's not to say or evem imply, That he's doing something he's not. 

No fancy badge to hang on his chest, Though laurels he doesn't abhore; 

His castle will gain him entry, When he walks to that golden door. 

For the first to arrive, and the last to leave, the ~nuddy old ENGINEERS 

The sweating, go-getting, uproarious, glorious, muddy old ENGINEERS. 

AN AMERICAN ENGINEER