"?;- - .."X-r .;*;&*&c :?*gF$) , ..%*%," . ,., -

I

Engineer 

OFESSION&J BULLETIN FUBvU%MYENGINEERS 
By Major General Daniel W. Christman 

Commandant, U.S. Army Englneer School 

n the face of the enormous changes in force struc- 

'ture taking place as the Army downsizes to meet 

the requirements of a new security environment, our 

Chief of Staff has selected training and professional 

development as his highest priorities. General Sullivan is committed to "maintaining the edge" through 

these programs and to ensuring there are no more 

Task Force Smiths" (an army unprepared to do its 

primary job of defeating an enemy on the battlefield.) 

Fort Leonard Wood is fully engaged in General 

Sullivan's current efforts. To show our commitment, 

many of the articles in this issue of ENGINEER pertain to personnel and professional development initiatives. Our most important task at the moment is to ensure we get it righl regarding new Army doctrine. 

Training and professional development programs 

must be placed in an overall doctrinal context ilthe 

pieces of these programs are not to appear disjointed 

or unrelated. Rest assured that combat engineers will 

have a key role in the future battlefield, whatever 

shape that battlefield takes in the evolving doctrine. 

Attention now is focused more on filling the gaps in 

existing doctrine (e.g., peacetime engagements, war 

termination) than on wholesale changes to the basic 

battlefield constluct in FM 100-5 (close, deep, and 

rear). Obviously. engineer opportunities abound in 

these areas. The 18th Engineer Brigade's mission in 

northern Iraq as part of Operation Provide Comfort 

(ENGINEER,October 1991, page 2) attests to that. 

SDeakin0 of oooortunities. Briaadier General Joe . - ~allard, the ~eiui~ Commandant, and Lieutenant 

General Bill Reno, DCSPER, recently reviewed key 

career management issues that affect our regiment. 

They include efforts to open more engineer slots to 

women. We are preparing the groundwork to open 

positions to women in all of the new divisional engineer brigade headquarters, bridge companies, and 

bridge headquarters. We are also developing a broad 

marketing strategy to increase the number of minority 

cadets who select engineer as their first branch of 

choice. 

Noncommissioned officer (NCO) and junior enlisted career management challenges were outlined 

by Command Sergeant Major (CSM) Richard Wilson 

in the October 1991 ENGINEER magazine (page 

61). Let me emphasize that MOS consolidation is 

an area both CSM Wilson and I are reviewing carefully. Sapper diversity must be a hallmark of the engineer force in the downsized environment in which 

future sappers will operate. Consequently, we are 

looking carefully at the pros and cons of combining 

sappers into one "CMF 12," as well as the advantages to be gained from combining vertical (51) and 

horizontal (62) MOSS. Be assured that we will not 

implement any changes in these areas in the next 

12 months1 We have spoken to many of you about 

the pitfalls of consolidation, and both CSM Wilson 

and I are determined to see the advantages of such 

a move clearly demonstrated before we implement 

any changes. 

Finally, let me explain what we are doing within the 

Engineer School regarding curricula revisions to ensure we keep pace with the doctrinal changes. The 

Engineer Officers Advanced Course (EOAC) is being 

revised to establish a more focused block of instruction on sustainment engineering. Officers will receive 

instruction on required horizontal and vertical skills in 

modules that are scenario driven, to accentuate engineer roles in nation assistance and unit deployments and to set these roles in an overall strategic 

context. This chanae should em~hasize the role sustainment engineeriig plays in bdth war and 

peacetime engagements. 

Exciting times! Know you're taxed with day-to-day 

sapper demands, but don't forget the importance of 

self-development. ENGINEER magazine will include 

book reviews of relevant professional reading 

materiaLin this issue, the book review is on page 

20. Take time to whet your appetite with the books in 

this and future reviews. The complex world we face 

demands that we deepen our professional competence and resolve. ESSAYONS! 
UNITED STATES ARMY 

ENGINEER CENTER AND 

FORT LEONARD WOOD 

COMMANDEWCOMMANDANT 

Major General Daniel W. Christrnan 

MANAGING EDITOR 

Catherine Eubanks 

FEATURES EDITOR 

Phillip R. Howell, Jr. 

GRAPHIC DESIGNER 

Jennifer C. Bolyard 

By Order of the Secretary of the Army: 

GORDON R.SULLIVAN 

General, United States Amy 

Chief of Staff 

Official: 

4&.dMILTON H. HAMILTON 

Administrative Assistant to the 

Secretary of the Amy 

Cover IlIustratlon by Joan Omnt 

FEATURES 

2 	The Englneer Personnel Proponency Offlce Works for You 

by Lieutenant Colonel R. 0.Buck 

8 	Clear the Way for Clvllian Proponency 

by Cynthia Mathews 

11 	Computerized Comblned Anns Tralnlng 

by Captain Toby A. Hale 

14 	The Platoon Streamer Program 

by Captain Tony Vesay 

18 	The Mlssion and Enllsted Career Progresslon 

by Master Sergeant Kathy Kindle, Sergeant First Class 

Richard Arsenault and Sergeant First Class Larry Robinson 

21 	Changlng the Warrant Offlcer Force 

by Chief Warrant Officer Bobbie J. Campbell 

25 	Terraln Analysls for Desert Storm 

by Warrant Officer Tern L. Metzger 

32 	The Leedershlp Process 

by Major Richard A. Wagner, Jr. 

37 	And The Brldge Came Tumbllng Down 

by Bob Harris 

DEPARTMENTS 

Inside Front Cover: Clear the Way 


17 Letters to the Edltor 31 Engineer Safety 


20 	Book Revlew 41 Engineer Update 

24 Personal Viewpoint 45 Past In Revlew 


28 Lessons Learned 49 Brldge the Gap 


ENGINEER (ISSN CC4%lsBgOI la prepred quanethl by the U.S. Army Enolnoer 

-

Schml. ATTN: ATSE-TDM-PB. FOn Leonard Wmd. MO 653738850. 

Class postage $ at FW b&Wood. MO. end add@ionai mailing 

O~RCBII. 

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to ENGINEER, the Pmtssslona Bulletin tw Army Engineers. ATTN: ATSE-TDM-PB. Fat bdWood. MO BSWBB50. 

CORRESPONMNCE, lsners lo the sdiior, manw@s, phawraphs, otllciai 

unii requests la receive mpies, and unii address chanw sshwld be sew to ENGINEER. a the preceding address. Telephone: (314) 563-7535. AV 6787535. 

DISCWMER: ENGINEER Presma pmfesslonai intormaion designed lo keep 

Army engineers Informed of current and emerging developments wiihin their ereas 

of svenise. Views expressed are those of the sulhor and do not necessarily 

rdgt otflciai Army or TRADOC posiiions, nor does the mniem change or supersede infamaion in other ofndai ~rmy publications. ENGINEER reserves the right to BdU maferid. ~~-~ ~ 	 ~~~ 

CONTENT k na mpyrightsd. Matsriai may be reprinted it credit is glven to 

ENGINEER snd meauthor. 

OFFICIAL DlSTRlBUTlON Is targeted to all engineer and engineer-rslatsd 

un~a. 

PERSONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS are svaiisbie by mntacting the Superintendent 

01 Documents. AnN: Chief, Mail Un Branch, Stop SSOM, Wsshington. DC 

20402. Address changes far personal subsciiptlons should also be sent to the 

Suwrintendent ol Dmuments. 
The Engineer Personnel 

Proponency Office Works for You 

I

You can shape the future, if you can envision the - future; that is the heart of proponency." 

General Maxwell Thurman 

CG, TRADOC 

January 1989 

n this period of steadily 

diminishing resources, the 

proponency business is evergrowing in importance. The commandant of the Engineer School, 

Major General Daniel W. Christman, is the branch proponent for 

engineer doctrine, engineer material, force structure, training, 

and personnel. 

That last area of responsibility 

is the domain of your Engineer 

Personnel Proponency Office 

(EPPO),the Engineer School staff 

element responsible to the commandant for a wide range of engineer personnel matters. 

Army Regulation 600-3,The 

Army Personnel Proponent System, is the EPPO "bible." It 

designates personnel proponents, assigns their basic responsibilities, and defines the 

eight personnel life-cycle management functions. 

The objectives of the personnel 

proponent system are: 

Identify a single agent (proponent) responsible for all personnel matters in each career 

field. 

By Lieutenant Colonel R. 0.Buck 

2 Engineer 
Fix responsibility for all career 

field-related matters. 

Ensure that the civilian 

workforce is integrated into 

the personnel proponent system. 

m Ensure that personnel management policies and programs established by HQDA 

incorporate career field-related 

considerations. 

Foster awareness and achievement of the objectives 

of the Officer Personnel 

Management System (OPMS), 

the Total Warrant Officer 

System (TWOS), the Enlisted 

Personnel Management System (EPMS), and the Civilian 

Integration into the Personnel Proponency System 

(CIPPS). 

Satisfying these five objectives 

is a constant challenge for 

EPPO. The personnel business 

is, by its very nature, quite fluid 

in the best of times. As we 

proceed through a period of increased turbulence, heightened 

frustrations, and growing uncertainty, meeting and realizing 

these five objectives is all the 

more challengingand important. 

The framework for our work in 

EPPO consists of eight life-cycle 

management functions: structure, acquisition, individual 

training and education, distribution, deployment, sustainment, 

professional development, and 

separation. A brief review of 

each of these functions will, I 

believe, permit a better appreciation of the diversity and 

complexity of the personnel 

management arena, as well as 

highlight some of the key ongoing personnel issues we engineers collectively face today. 

Structure 

Nuch of our effort is 

devoted to analyzing and 

recommending modifications to 

the engineer personnel structure 

in light of documented and annotated changes projected 

through 1996 (and beyond, in 

some cases). This effort may be 

directed at tables of distribution 

and allowances (TDAs), tables of 

organizations and equipment 

(TOES), individual career management fields (CMFs), or 

military occupation specialties 

(MOSS). In all cases, we strive to 

balance what makes sense for 

Engineer 3 
the Army and the engineer force 

while ensuring adequate career 

progression within each MOS 

and CMF. 

Presently, we are studying, 

alongwith the rest ofthe Engineer 

School staff, the feasibility of consolidating military occupational 

specialties 12B, 12C, and 12F into 

one MOS, 12A, or "sapper." This 

study involves a detailed look at 

changes in the progression pa& 

terns of the three MOSS versus the 

new single MOS; any additional 

training requirements that would 

evolve as a result of the consolidation; and the effect of such a 

consolidation on our ability to 

properly man the new Engineer 

Restructure Initiative (ERI) battalions and brigades. If such a consolidation is to take place, it will 

probably not occur before 2nd 

quarter, FY 94. 

Other MOS consolidations in 

CMF 51 and CMF 81 are under 

study at the Engineer School. One 

such action, the "roll up" of three 

MOSs, 51G (Materials Quality 

Specialist), 81B (Technical Drafting Specialist), and 82B (Construction Surveyor) into one MOS 

to be called 51T (Technical Engineer) appears to be almost a 

"natural." Study surveys have 

revealed a broad consensus in the 

field for such a move. This consolidation could occur as early as 

3rd quarter, FY 94. Other consolidations may come later, as we 

continue to examine ways to 

streamline the personnel system, 

while maintaining good career 

progression and satisfying the 

Army's needs. 

Acquisition 

VPPO has an opportunity

- Aeach vear to ~rovide recommendations to the bepartment of 

the Army concerning the quality 

of both enlisted personnel and officers being brought into the 

Corps of Engineers. In the case 

of enlisted soldiers, EPPO annually provides Personnel Command (PERSCOM) a preferred 

mix of recruits in each engineer 

MOS, based on mental category. 

The DA-approved FY 92 enlisted 

accession plan reflects both the 

branch desires and the efforts of 

DA to bring in top-quality soldiers. No more than 3 percent of 

our 12B, 12C and 12F enlistees 

may be of the lowest acceptable 

mental category (CAT IV). Even 

smaller numbers of CPiT IV soldiers are permitted in other engineer accession specialties. 

Additionally, as the result of a 

recent comprehensive Army 

review (in which EPPO participated) of the engineer enlisted 

specialties, we have initiated a 

study of MOS accession qualification scores. We expect this study to 

lead to an increase in some scores 

so that only the brightest individuals become the engineer soldiers of the future. 

In the officers' arena, we annually provide to PERSCOM our 

desired mix of academic specialties for graduating ROTC cadets 

about to be assigned a branch. Not 

surprisingly, the Corps of Engineers strives to acquire as many 

new second lieutenants with 

"hardn (engineering and scienceoriented) college degrees as possible. Leadership ability (as 

demonstrated at ROW advanced 

summer camp) is an important attribute too, so we also accept topnotch new officers with other 

academic backgrounds who have 

strong summer camp scores. 

Our continuing desire to access 

the best commissioned officers 

from ROTC, the United States 

Military Academy and the Officer 

Candidate School (OCS) has 

launched EPPO into a major 

marketing undertaking called 

"Selling the Branch." In the next 

year, we will publish a series of 

updated pamphlets, produce a 

number of promotional items such 

as bumper stickers and coffee 

cups, and distribute a series of 

video tapes which will highlight 

1!or the officer-to-be the benefits of 

taerving as an engineer officer. 

Hand-in-hand with producing and 

distributing these products will be 

the development of a site visitation program which will find 

representatives of the Engineer 

School visiting selected ROTC 

detachments to discuss first-hand 

the challenges and benefits of the 

Corps of Engineers. 

Accession of warrant officers 

continues to be of interest to 

EPPO. All packets submitted from 

the field for application into engineer warrant officer MOSs are 

first reviewed by the EPPO staffto 

ensure they are complete and meet 

basic eligibility criteria. Each acceptable packet is then forwarded 

to USAREC for board action. 

Individual Training and 

Education 

The schooling and training of 

J c the engineer force is vital 

to our collective and individual 

futures. A principle item of interest to EPPO is advanced civil 

schooling for engineer officers. 

Many engineer officer positions 

require graduate degrees (typically a master's degree). To satisfy this need, 40 to 60 officers are 

sent to graduate school each 

year. The majority pursue a 

master's degree in civil engineering and engineering management 

at a wide variety of schools, and 

with significantly varying costs 

to the Army. 

EPPO has undertaken a longrange study to identify those 

graduate schools which charge 

reasonable tuition (typically instate rates) and offer programs of 

instruction easily adaptable to our 

officers' needs, regardless of their 

undergraduate academic backgrounds. Hand-in-hand with this, 

we are also developing a data 

base of suitable environmental 
engineering programs. This is in 

recognition of the Corps' growing 

role in protecting the environment 

and repairing facilities the Army 

will close in the next five years. 

In the warrant officer arena, 

TFUDOC recently directed the 

transfer of proponency for MOS 

213A (Engineer Equipment 

Repair Technician) from the Engineer School to the Ordnance 

School. A memorandum of understanding between the two proponents was recently completed 

which calls for this action to be 

finished by July 1993. 

One of our main concerns is to 

ensure that the certification and 

senior 213A training courses 

remain viable and effective during 

and after the transition period. 

Indeed, one fall-out of this transfer 

of proponency is that both 

programs of instruction (POIs) 

may actually be expanded and 

strengthened-for the betterment 

of future 213A warrant officers. 

On the enlisted side of the 

house, the standing lists for attending our basic noncommissioned off~cer course (BNCOC) 

and advanced noncommissioned 

officer course (ANCOC) are currently being examined to determine if engineer soldiers are 

having to wait unacceptably long 

periods of time to attend either of 

these courses. Remedies, if 

needed, might include expanding 

class size or increasing the frequency of classes. 

Distribution 

This function gets EPPO 

close to the assignments 

business-not on an individualby-individual basis (that's the job 

of the assignments branch at 

PERSC0M)-but rather on an 

aggregate basis. In this day and 

age of often-changing personnel 

policies, EPPO is periodically 

called upon to provide recommendations regarding assignment practices, individual and 

unit stabilization policies, branch 

and MOS transfer programs, and 

other policies affecting the distribution of engineer soldiers. 

Presently, Army force reductions are proceeding at a rate 

much greater than our personnel 

reductions. As a result, several engineer enlisted MOSs will be significantly overstrength by the end 

of FY 92, and, in some cases, 

beyond. This fact is not unique to 

engineers; many MOSs in the 

Army will be in the same situation. In our case, the MOSs 

projected to be significantly oversubscribed are 12B, 51B, 51K, 

62H and 6W.Because of these excesses, many engineer units will 

be at 125 percent or more in 

selected MOSS for some time to 

come. It will take a couple of years 

for a number of realignment actions, ranging from natural attrition and deliberate under-accessing to forced reclassification and 

DA-controlled reenlistment procedures to properly redistribute sufficient numbers of soldiers in 

overstrength MOSS to balance the 

engineer force. In all cases, no action will be taken without ample 

advance notice to the field. 
. 
 pany grade officers is the designation of a functional area (FA) 

in the fifth year of service. The 

FA designation process is completed for all Year Group (YG) 86 

officers (the results were 

scheduled for release by the time 

you read this). As the importance of certain FAs, such as 49 

(Operation Research Systems 

Analysis), 54 (Operations, Plans, 

and Training) and 97 (Procurement) grows, engineer representation in such FAs becomes 

more essential. Thus, more and 

more engineer officers will be assigned FAs. Over time, we will 

move from an engineer officer 

force with a single-tracked (ST) 

(holding only an engineer 

specialty) to FA ratio of 60:40 to 

a force more distinctly FAoriented. The target ratio for 

YG 86 is 50:50 and the longrange aggregate target ratio is 

40:60. 

Another important distribution consideration, for both officers and enlisted personnel, is 

the quantity and quality ofinterchangeable positions (those 

which may be filled by either 

male or female soldiers) in the 

engineer force structure. In 

terms of quantity, we want to 

provide female engineer soldiers 

with sufficient interchangeable 

assignments to ensure proper 

opportunity for career progression. Quality means providing 

our female engineers with challenging, professionally-enhancing assignments-in a variety of 

units. 

Female soldiers, both officer 

and enlisted, are an integral 

part of the engineer force. Additional engineer MOSS are opening up to them, with the position 

of diver (OOB) being the most 

recent example. EPPO is presently exploring the appropriateness of opening up bridge 

company and other unit positions to women soldiers. 

Deployment 

ith Operations Desert 

Shield and Desert Storm 

successfully completed, a myriad 

of lessons learned are currently 

being recorded and analyzed. 

One critical area in which EPPO 

is particularly interested is the 

effect of the mobilization process 

on the personnel system (and 

visa versa, for that matter). The 

turbulence created within the 

personnel system by the deployment to Southwest Asia was 

truly far-reaching. Our collective 

ability to document those procedures which worked the best will 

make future deployments more 

efficient and less disruptive. 

A relatively unique kind of 

Udeployment," the permanent 

movement of units due to the restationing of a number of engineer 

battalions being realigned under 

ERI, is presently underway. This 

undertaking, too, is causing turmoil within the engineer personnel system (both for those who 

wear the uniform and their 

families). Recording lessons 

learned and those procedures 

which "work the bestn may prove 

invaluable during future iterations of the Army's drawdown. 

Sustainment 

As the drawdown progresses, PPO'Srole in sustainment 

of the engineer force will assume 

ever-increasing importance. Our 

greatest staff responsibility in 

this arena is establishing and 

maintaining communications 

with engineer soldiers. This edition of ENGINEER represents 

such an effort. Our interest in 

the communication arena includes providing factual updates 

to the field, suppressing rumors, 

and fostering a positive attitude 

toward the personnel system and 

its programs. 

In the enlisted arena, EPPO is 

... 
 tion of continuation, reenlistment, 

and retention rates in engineer 

career fields. At this writing, DA 

has announced a revision of reenlistment control points (RCPs) applicable to all soldiers in selected 

wades across the entire force. We 

monitor the officer arena in a 

similar fashion, recommending 

criteria for the retention and 

rebranching of officers under the 

conditional voluntary indefinite 

program. 

For both enlisted soldiers and ofticers, EPPO is involved in briekg 

DA-centralized promotion selection 

boards. In the case of senior enlisted (SFC, MSG, and SGM) 

promotion boards, an EPPO representative briefs the board members 

on issues pertinent to the Corps of 

Engineers. EPPO provides similar 

input to PERSCOM for inclusion in 

briefings to DA officer promotion 

boards. 

Another important aspect of 

sustainment is maintaining the 

health and welfare of the civilian 

workforce. As the proponent for 

the Wage Grade 77 career field 

(Facilities Operations and Maintenance), the Corps of Engineers is 

responsible for ensuring the 

proper representation and sustainment of this important and 

diverse group of government 

employees. EPPO has the lead in 

coordinating this effort. 

Professional 


Development 


f the eight life-cycle 

management functions, 

professional development ranks 

high on EPPO's list of priorities. 

Indeed, it is the umbrella function, for if the first six life-cycle 

functions are properly executed, 

sound and effective professional 

development is fostered. 

We are presently updating the 

Enlisted Professional Development 

Guide, which provides engineer 

6Engineer 
~~ 

soldiem with a single-source profensional development document. Similarly, EPPO is preparing to participste in the DA-level updatingof 

DA PAM 600-3, Weer Professional 

Development-the updated version 

(a publication date has not yet been 

set by DA) will establish more 

detailed professional development 

goals for all otlicers, in -tion 

of the factthat many otlicers do not 

follow the traditional "command . - track" 

While on the aubject of professional development, allow me to 

put in a "plug" for duty at the 

Engineer School. From the 

standpoint of broadening one's 

professional knowledge, and 

simultaneously having a hand in 

ensuring the future ofthe Corps of 

Engineers, I can't think of a better 

place to spend a tour of duty. 

Teaching our up-and-coming noncommissioned officers and commissioned officers presents daily 

challenges, leaves one with a 

tremendous sense of self satisfaction, and provides instructors the 

opportunity to fine-tune skills and 

expand horizons. 

One particular program that is 

truly rich in professional development opportunities is Project Warrior. Officers and noneommissioned officers enrolled in this 

program work as observer/controllers at the National or Joint Rsadiness Training Center for two 

years. They then transfer to the 

Engineer School for an additional 

two years where they instruct future engineer leaders. Asuper program by any measure, Project 

Warrior is open to branchqualified captains, along with E-7 

NCOs who have served as successful platoon sergeants. Call your 

PERSCOM assignment officer or 

the EPPO stafffor details. 

Separation 

e eighth and final lifecycle management function 

"ASthe 

build-down 

proceeds...tough 

decisions have 

already been 

rnadesamandmore 

Will Surely follow." 

is the one we generally prefer 

not to think about too much: 

separation from the service. 

However, given the Army's drawdown, this fun~tion is present?Y 

one of the most critical of the 

life-cycle management process. 

The EPPO st. continues to be 

involved in evaluating proposed 

changes to retirement policies 

and separation procedures. 

As the proceeds and 

external pressure builds to reduce 

the Army force structure further 

(below a force of 535,000), the 

EPPO staff will almost certainly 

be engaged in evaluating a host of 

early-out options, changes to reenlistment procedures, and other 

force-reduction options. Some 

tough decisions have already been 

made at Dh and more will surely 

follow. The opinion of all the personnel proponents is ohn sought 

by DA and TRADOC, and final 

decisions regarding separation 

policies are not made without considerable deliberation. 

In this article, we've taken a 

look at the objectives of the Personnel proponency system and 

delved in some detail into the 

eight life-cycle personnel functions which receive much 

EPPO's attention. At this point, 

You might askUJust who are these 

folks in EPPO who are doing all 

this analysis, studying, researching, andrecommending?" 

Well, it's a relatively small 

staff-there's just 15 of us. 

Eleven of us wear the Army 

uniform, and between us, we 

represent all the engineer career 

management fields (interestingly One of us is an in- fantryman-assigned, undoubtedly, to keep our APFT scores at 

a high level!). None has a "personnel backgroundn-except 

myself. All are truly "of the 

troops and for the troops" (to borrow a phrase from the Military Police corps). We are eager, dling to explore any possibility, 

nnd cnrinv. 

Our five civilian employees 

have, between them, more than 69 

years of government service. The 

tremendous institutional knowledge and insight they possess collectively and individually are virtually indispensable to the 

functioning ofour 

The Engineer Personnel Proponency Office to serve you. 

~f you have any questions, cornments, or suggestions regarding 

engineer-related personnel issues, 

please call or write us. The personnel field is the focal point for many 

decisions being made relative to 

the hfsdrawdown. The mis- 

,ion ~ppois to serve as your 

ombudsman, t~ represent your 

concerns, and to provide the engineer personnel perspective to 

the ~ ~of the A ~~ ~ 

working together, we can shape 

the future. Y 

hieUtenant colonel ~~~k is 

chief of the Engineer School's 

,yngineer personnel proponency 

Office. He previously served as 

commander of the 589th Engineer Battalion. Other assignments include Career Pro. 

grams Officer and Lieutenant 

colonel ~ ~officer at ~ 

the Military Personnel Center. 

H, was also executive officer of 

the 78th Engineer Battalion, 

and DEH operations officer in 

Karlsruhe, Germany. He is a 

graduate of the Armed Forces 

Staff College. 
Cllcar the Waw C for


By Cynthia Mathews 

n 1987, the Army Chief of Staff approved the 

recommendation of the Civilian Personnel Modernization Project to integrate civilian employees into the 

Arrnv Personnel Prownent Svstern. As a resul, the 

~epbtyChief of staff for personnel 

(DCSPER) directed the implementation of 

the Civilian Integration into the Personnel 

Proponency System (CIPPS). 

ClPPS was introduced in a three-phase 

program. Phase Igrouped all civilian occupational series by career fields and designated a proponent for each field. Military occupational skills (MOS) were used as the 

basis for this proponent assignment. This 

effort resulted in 59 distinct career fields to 

be managed by 35 proponent offices. Twenty-four of these offices are co-located with 

their military proponency counterparts and 

11 are civilian unique proponencies. During 

Phase 11, 14 volunteer proponencies established pilot programs to test the roles and 

responsibilities of civilian proponency. 

We are now in Phase Ill, which culminates the proponency initiative of the 

Civilian Personnel Modernization Project. 

Final revisions of AR 600-3, The Army Personnel Proponent System, are now being 

made and civilian proponency offices are 

beina activated Armv-wide. 

~ttheEngineer Gchool, the Civilian I 

Proponency Branch is part of the Engineer 

Personnel Proponency Office. Joint efforts 

on behan of military and civilian personnel 

in the engineering field will provide 

economy of operations and consistency in 

professional development. ClPPS will add 

cohesion to the engineer work force by affirming the 

total Army principle of one integrated force while 

protwting greater understanding of both military and 

civilian svstems. 

..,,a,. .' .. 

l

1 , ,*-;a : : 

s,, ,:,..,,. t:~$$& fa....,- , 

! 

:.,?!,:<>., $*' , - "IS -, ., 

.: 

< .&&,,: .. y qmh ‘;., . , i-,a' .I^. , .-$ 

c?:,3 ,I .- -;a- ..- p,&
 bb;i; m a, ..' 

*.-

8Engineer 
Career 

Series 

WG 2801 

WG 2005 

WG 2810 

WG 2854 

WG 3501 

WG 3502 


WG 3508 


WG 3566 


WG 3801 


WG 3802 


WG 3803 


WG 3604 


WG 3805 


WG 3MXI 


WG 3M)9 


WG 3610 


WG 3611 


WG 3653 


WG 3808 


WG 3807 


WG 3808 


WG 3618 


WG 4101 


WG 4102 


WG 4103 


WG 4104 


WG 4201 


WG 4204 


WG 4208 


WG 4601 


WG 4604 


WG 4605 

WG 4607 

WG 4618 

WG 4639 

WG 4741 

WG 4742 

WG 4749 

WG m1 

WG 5x2 

WG 5003 

WG 5028 

WG 5042 

WGm 

WG 5309 

WG 5313 

WG 5318 

WG 5324 

WG 5328 

WG 5401 

WG 5402 

WG 5403 

WG 6400 

WG 5407 

WG 5408 

WG 54W 

WG 5413 

WG 5415 

WG 5419 

WG 5426 

WG5430 


WG 5433 


WG 5438 


WG 5179 


WG 5706 


WG 5716 


WG 5725 


WG 5720 


WG 5nt 


WG 6903 


Field 77 - Facllltles Opemtlons and 

Marntenance 

Misosllanews EMd Installationand Maintenance 


Elecbidan 


Electriaan (High Vollqe) 


EMcal Equipment Repajring 


Miantlianeous Manual Labor 


Laboring 


Pipeline Working 


Custodial WorYng 


Msmiianeous Masony. Rasering 8 Rmfino 


Csment Finishino 


Masonry 


Tile Setting 


Plastering 


Rwfing 


Flmr Mverlng Installing 


Insulating 


Glazing 


Asphalt Working 


Sheet Metal MBchanic 


SvuRuraVOTnamental Imn WorCing 


Boilermaking 


Spring Making 


Miscellaneous Palming 6 Paperhanging 


Phnting 


Paperhanging 


Sign Painting 


Msmllaneous Rpefitting 


Pipefitting 


Plumbing 


Misdlaneous Woodwolkiw 


Wmd Wdng 


Wmd Craffing 


Camannv 

--7- .-, Wmd WoMng Machine Operating 

Tlmber Working 

General Equipment operatiw 

Utillty Systems Repairing CQemting 

Maintenance Mhanlc 

Mvdianeous Aoriwirral. Foresw 8 Klndred Operabb ns 

Farming 

Gardening 

Pest ConMng 

Tree Trimming and Remwing 

Air Conditioning Equipmsnt Mechanic 

Heating and Boiler Plant Equipment Mechmlc 

Elevator Mechanic 

Lad and Dam Repair 

Powerhouse Equipment RePrino 

hawbridge Rewring 

Mac Fixed lndusaial Equipment Operatimi 

Boiler Plmt Operating 

Incinerator Operating 

Utility Systems Oprafing 

Electric Power Conbolling 

Waste Water Treannent OperaUng 

Water Treannent Plant Operating 

Fuel Distribukn System Operating 

Alr Condibniw Equipment Operating 

Sfadonary-Engine Operating 

LC& and Dam Operating 

Drawbridge Operating 

Gas Generating Plant Cperating 

Elevator Operating 

Dredging Equipment Operating 

Road Sweeper Operating 

Enginsering Equipment Operating 

Crane Operating 

Drill Rig operating 

MiningITunneling Machine CQemting 

MalUnloader Operating 

The commandant of the Engineer School is the 

proponent for Career Field 77, "Facilities Operations 

and Maintenance." We are the advocate for all 

civilian personnel who hold the engineer wage grade 

occupational job series and titles shown at left. Engineer positions are categorized under 13 different 

trade and labor job families. Engineer employees 

hold positions in the following 13 trade and labor job 

families: 

Electrical installation and Malntenance 

General Sewlces and Support Work 

Structural and Finishing Work 

Metal Worklng 

Palntlng and Paperhanging 

Plumbing and Plpeflttlng 

wood work 

General Malntenance and Operations Work 

Plant and Animal Work 

industrial Equipment Maintenance 

Industrial Equlpmeni Operatlon 

TransportationlMobile Equlprnent Operation 

Warehouslng and Stock Handllng 

About 31,000 wage grade employees fall under the 

auspices of the engineer civilian proponency. These 

employees are assigned to every Army major command and almost every geographic location where 

the Army serves. Two-thirds of these employees are 

assigned to CONUS. Total numbers are depicted by 

CONUS regions on the next page. The remaining 

10,000 employees are assigned OCONUS in Alaska, 

Belgium, England, Germany, Hawaii, Italy, Japan, 

Korea, and Panama. Career Field 77 employees are 

serviced by 155 Civilian Personnel Offices. 

The Lie Cycle Management Model has proven effective in the personnel administration of the military 

wolk force and will be equally effective for civilian personnel management. A synopsis of the civilian 

involvement in each of the seven life cycle management functions follows: 

S~NC~UIW 

Recommend new, or changes to, classification 

standards. 

Assist in developing standard job descriptions. 

Establish career progression patterns. 

Acqulsltlon 

Forecast recruitment needs. 

Recommend recruitment sources and applicant 

evaluation criteria. 

Develop affirmative action plans for acquiring 

employees. 

Engineer 9 
Wenern Reglon CeMrnl Reglon 

CONUS By R-n 

20,092 

Wage grade englneer employee populatlon 

Tralnng, Education And Pmfe58Ional 

Development 

Develop training plans for each occupation in the 


career field. 


Incorporate supervisoly, managerial and leadership 


core requirements. 


Determine the need for competitive development 


groups. 


Dlstrlbutlon 

Identify key positions and methodology for filling 


them. 


Develop candidate evaluation criteria for required 


competencies. 


Recommend new, or changes to, qualification 


standards. 


Determine need for employee mobility. 


Deploment 

Provide recommendations on civilian work force 

mobilization planning and management. 

Evaluate the effects of mobilization on the 

proponent system. 

Sustalnment 

ldentiiy competencies for each occupational series 


level. 


Assess quality of work force, personnel programs 


and systems. 


Recommend policy and procedural changes. 


Separation 

Recommend minimum performance standards. 

Recommend changes to retirement, reduction-inforce and service obligation policies. 

Soutmaai Rqlon 

by CONUS reglon (as of 1 September 1991) 

Several local initiatives are underway to enhance 

engineer civilian work force efforts. An engineer data 

base is being developed from the Army Civilian Personnel System (ACPERS). information in the data 

base will be used to diagnose problems and project 

trends within the engineer work force. This data base 

will enable us to analyze recruitment, retention, policy 

and program changes, training, integration and total 

work force stnrcture. 

Civilian employees constitute 38 percent of the DA 

Active Force (as of 30 June 1991). The goal of 

civilian proponency is to enhance this integral part of 

the Army team. Today's proponency efforts will be imperative to the success of the down-sized Army of 

tomorrow. Drastic and far-reaching changes are expected in the Army personnel structure and 

proponent offices will continue to have direct impact 

on them. As the ombudsman for the Engineer Corps, 

we will do everything possible to ensure that the 

civilian work force is trained and ready to support the 

engineer mission. w 

Ms. Mathews is chief of the Civilian Proponency 

Branch, Engineer Personnel Proponency Office at the 

Engineer School. She previously served as an 

analyst for the Directorate of Combat Developments 

and the Directorate of Resource Management. Ms. 

Mathews is past president of the Ozark Chapter, 

American Society of Military Comptrollers. She holds 

a bachelor's degree in business administration, a 

master's degree in management, and is a graduate of 

Command and General Staff College. 

10 Engineer 
Computerized 


Combined Arms Training 


By Captain Toby A. Hale 

sophisticated equipment 

alone does not guarantee 

victory on today's high-tech, 

high-tempo battlefield. Success 

also requires well-trained leaders 

who understand the complexities 

of synchronized, combined arms 

operations. Using sophisticated 

computer simulation techniques, 

the Engineer Officer Advanced 

Course (EOAC) provides students training in combined arms 

operations at battalion and 

brigade levels. The vehicle for 

this training is a three-day command post exercise (CPX) focusing on the planning, preparation 

and execution of a brigade defensive operation. This article outlines the steps of the CPX from 

start to finish. 

Prior to the CPX, students 

receive classroom and field instruction on threat organizations 

and doctrine, defensive and offensive maneuver doctrine, fire sup 

port operations, the engineer estimate process, and engineer 

support to defensive and offensive 

operations. kom this, students 

get a feel for the nature of combined arms operations, along with 

experience as members of brigade 

and battalion staffs. This instme 

tion includes two tactical exercises 

without troops CTEWTs) covering 

the same terrain used during the Students In the Engineer Officer Advanced Course (EOAC) dlrect a tactical 

CF'X. operatlons scenario using Janus computer simulation (Photo by Phil Howell). 

Engineer 11 
1 

CPX Phases 

I Phase 1 - Day 1. Planning 


Phase 2 - Day 2. Battlefield Preparation 


Phase 3 - Day 3. Execution (am) 


Phase 4 - Day 3. After-Action Review (pm) 


During the TEWTs, students 

are out on the actual terrain conducting reconnaissance. These 

classes are early in the course and 

represent approximately onethird of the total EOAC. The culminating point for all tactical instruction is the CPX. 

At the beginning of the CPX, 

instructors assign each student to 

one of the primary staff positions 

of a brigade headquarters, or to 

one of its three attached maneuver 

battalions. These positions include XO, S-114,S-2, S-3, FSO, and 

engineer. When available, actual 

battalion commanders from units 

on Fort Leonard Wood serve as the 

brigade and battalion commanders. Otherwise, maneuver 

branch instructors fill these roles. 

The CPX is divided into four 

phases (shown above). During 

Phases 1and 3, students work in a 

simulated tactical environment 

that includes realistic mockups of 

each Tactical Operations Center 

(TOG). 

During Phase 1, the brigade 

commander provides the "staff 

with his intent and general concept of operations. From this initial guidance, the student sWissues a warning order to the 

battalions and develops a scheme 

of maneuver for a brigade defense 

in sector, including a battalionsized counterattack. Once complete, the brigade staff backbriefs 

the brigade commander, who 

either approves the plan or 

modifies it to meet his intent. Following necessary changes, the 

12Engineer 

I 

brigade staff presents the completed plan to the battalion staffs 

in a brigade operations order 

(OPORD) briefing. 

ARer the brigade OPORD brief, 

each battalion staff repeats the 

process followed earlier by the 

brigade: receiving the commander's initial concept and intent, developing a tentative 

scheme of operations, backbriefing the commander, and modifying 

the plan as required. The battalions are now ready to proceed to 

Phase 2, Battlefield Preparation. 

To provide a degree of realism, 

the CPX uses the Janus combat 

simulation as the arbitrator. 

Janus is named after the twofaced Roman god of doors who was 

able to look both ways at once. 

Janus is a two-sided, free-play 

simulation with a "man-in-theloop" opposing force. It is a high 

resolution simulation capable of 

replicating the full spectrum of 

combat, combat support, and combat service support systems and 

functions. 

In this way, it reinforces the importance of synchronization in 

combined arms operations. Janus 

also includes an analysis function 

that allows instructors to record 

and replay the battle. This is extremely useful in the after-action 

review process in Phase 4. 

With their plans complete, the 

battalions are ready to begin battlefield preparation. In the CPX, 

this translates to inputing their 

maneuver, engineer, fire support, 

air defense, and combat senice 

su~~ort - - plans into Janus. Under 

maneuver, students designate 

each weapon system, from individual infantrymen to tanks and 

other heavy weapons, an initial 

location and sector offire, and pro- vide routes to subseauent and alternate positions. 

In the engineer plan, students 

decide where to position all 

obstacles, insure they cover each 

obstacle with direct andlor indirect fires, and select which 

weapon systems to dig in. For the 

fire support plan, students can 

preplan artillery and mortar fires, 

and plan for the use of close air 

support and attack helicopters. 

Air defense input includes 

positioning air defense weapon systems, designating sectors of fire, 

and determining if any air defense 

weapons require survivability positions. Finally, students input the 

location of ammunition pre-stock 

points, battalion combat trains, and 

again determine the survivability 

level required for combat service 

support assets. Because Janus is a 

high resolution simulation, sindents must plan the use of each 

separate entity, be it machine gun 

team, tank, road crater or fuel 

tanker. 

During the battlefield preparationldata input phase, maneuver 

and engineer instructors are 

available for guidance and to assist in modifying the plans if required. Some common modifications required are the shifting of 

battle positions, adjustments to 

engagement areas, and relocation 

of obstacles to make maximum use 

of terrain. This is an excellent 

replication of the types of changes 

a real plan might undergo in the 

field. Battlefield preparation is 

complete once students finish inputing their various plans. 

Execution of the plan takes 

place the following day. At the 

beginning of Phase 3, students can 

make last-minute changes to their 

plan prior to execution. At LD (line 

of departure) time, students move 
Worklng in a mockup of a tactical operations center (TOC), EOAC students control 

the actions of a simulated combat arms brigade (Photo by Phil Howell). 

to their TOC and conduct final 

communications checks with their 

Janus workstations. Each workstation represents one maneuver 

battalion. A separate workstation 

controls the brigade's fire support 

assets, artillery, close air support 

and attack helicopters. 

As the battle unfolds, each 

workstation reports the actions 

occurring on its screen to their 

TOC and executes inst~ctions 

from the staff. Based on input 

from their workstation, students 

make decisions during the battle. 

Some of the types of decisions include: when and where to shift 

priority of fires, when to launch 

counter-attacks, when to withdraw to secondary positions, and 

when to conduct resupply of fuel 

and ammunition. During the battle, the opposing force players 

also make decisions to stay with 

their initial plan, or modify it 

based on the changing situation. 

The execution phase normally 

lasts between four and five hours. 

The final phase of the CPX is 

the after-action review (AAR). At 

the beginning of the AAFt, instructors ask each battalion commander to restate their mission 

and give their opinion as to the 

measure of success in their mission. Examples include defending 

in sector, destroying a motorized 

rifle regiment, or conducting a 

counter-attack and destroying a 

enemy battalion. 

Next, the students watch a 

replay of the battle showing both 

the red and blue actions as they 

occurred. After that, instructors 

lead a discussion covering each of 

the seven battlefield operating 

svstems: intellieence. -
 maneuver. 

support, fire support, 

defense, combat service support, 

and command and 

During this discussion, instmctors ask students to provide their 

impressions of the positive aspects 

of their plan, things they would 

want to sustain, negative aspects, 

and things they would like to improve. The AARs usually last from 

an hour b an hour and a and 

mark the end of the CPX 

After the CPX, students have a 

better understanding of how the 

various components of the combined arms team must work 

together to achieve a common 

goal. They also develop an increased awareness of the speed, 

complexity and lethality of 

modern combat operations. 

In today's environment of increasing training costs and limitations, events such this CPX 

provide broad-based, realistic 

training at a fraction of the cost 

and with none ofthe limitations of 

a field training exercises. Y 

Captain Hale, an armor officer, is a 

combat simulations analyst with 

the Engineer School$ Modeling 

Branch, He preuiously as a 

combined arms instructorlwriter 

for the school, other assignments 

include cornDan,, comnander. assistant battalion "5.2 IS-3, co&any 

executive officer, and platoon leade,: 

He is a graduate of the Combined 

Arms and Seruices Staff School, 

and and Staff 

College. He holcls a bachelor's degree in forestry management fim 

University of Wisconsin. 

Engineer 13 
The Platoon Streamer 


By Captain Tony Vesay 

eaders who have been around for a while know 

athat the Army "train" moves fast and never 

stops. And to make it even more fun, just when you 

are getting comfortable with the train you're or4hey 

change the conductor. 

The end result of these multiple stops-and-starts is 

a daily operations routine that is often conducted in 

an unsystematic, inefficient, and even painful manner. 

Further, the closer you get to where the mbber meets 

the road, the more chaotic it gets. Unfortunately, this 

is exactly where most of our junior leaders reside-- 

along with our future. 

Ifound a need for some sort of regimen that allows a platoon to systematically meet the boss's expectations, while allowing consistent progress toward 

combat readiness and team unity. 

My answer is the Platoon Streamer Program. It incorporates the commander's intent, unit SOP 

guidance, and even allows for those ever-present '81- 

ligators." It also sustains the unn's battle focus. This 

program is an effective, low-cost method of corn 

municatlng guidance, setting standards, and recognizing soldiers for doing a good job. In short, it gets the 

platoons fired up, fine-tuned, and "on board." 

Making It Work 

The program sets its sights on 14 sustainment 

areas: 

Caring. Does the platoon leadership have a handle on the healh and welfare of each soldier? 

Safety. Is a proper safety program in place, stress. 

ing awareness and training? 

Reenlistment. Does the platoon have a program 

to retain high-quality soldiers, as well as eliminate 

poor performers? 

Supply. Has the platoon documented accountability and responsibility (all the way from barracks 

rooms to the motor pool)? 

PT. Does the platoon have a total fitness program 

that complements its combat engineering missions? 

Educatlon. Are effective professional development and job proficiency training programs in place? 

M16M203. Are training systems in place to ensure qualified, cunent, and trained operators can accomplish their Shoot" mission? 

MM). Same criteria as for M16lM203. 

Platoon Rollout. Has the platoon met or exceeded the battalion's standards for no-notice combat 

readiness evaluations? 

NBC. Has the platoon demonstrated its abiliy to 

operate on a "dirty" battlefield? 

Communlcatlons. Are adequately trained soldiers 

with proper securiiy clearances proficient in communications operations? 

Training. Is there a Train for war" mentality in the 

platoon? Does the platoon conduct a proper risk 

analysis, while maintaining a METL focus on all missions? 

Maintenance. Is the platoon ensuring that all 

MTOE equipment is fully mission capable? Are 

qualified and responsible soldiers operating the equipment? 

Squad Readiness. During a one-day, top-to-bottom combat readiness inspection, has each squad in 

the platoon demonstrated Its war preparedness? 

The criteria listed for these areas are designed to 

meet four major objectives: standards, combat readiness, team cohesion, and recognition. 

Standards 

qtandards must be clearly stated and under- 

%? stood. The criteria are established by the company leadership. Each month, during the company 

training brief, platoon leaders brief the company 

14 Engineer 
commander on their streamer status. The commander, XO and first sergeant then decide which 

platoons will receive a streamer or which will have 

one taken away. 

Examples of typical measurements for each area 

include: 

w The platoon conducted a health and welfare inspection during the past month. 

w No EERs or PCS awards were late during the 

last three months. 

At least 90 percent of the platoon participated in 

a community sewice event during the past 

quarter. 

safety: 

w The platoon has at least one combat lifesaver 

per squad. 

w 100 percent of the platoon's POVs were inspected during the last quarter. 

Reenlistment: 

w The platoon leader maintains a current list of the 

top five soldiers physically qualified for reenlistment (Pls). 

w The platoon's assigned reenlistment goal, in all 

categories, was met during the last quarter. 

PT: 

w The platoon maintains a 250 average score, 

with no failures, and 5 percent have PT patches. 

Tralnlng: 

w The platoon maintains a 90 percent green rating 

on priority A METL tasks, with no less than a 75 

percent rating on priority B tasks. 

Maintenance: 

w The platoon has at least one master driver. 

w The platoon leader, platoon sergeant and squad 

leaders are licensed on all types of equipment 

assignedto them. 

All vehicleslequipment have assigned, licensed 

operators and assistant operators. 

Each of the 14 areas has four to six measurable 

criteria that must be met before a platoon proficiency 

streamer is awarded. If a platoon has already been 

awarded a streamer but subsequently falls below the 

established standards, it is given one month to meet 

the criteria. If it fails to do so, the streamer is taken 

away. Standards are reviewed periodically to ensure 

they represent realistic goals. 

Combat Readiness 

The intent of the program here is to instill an attitude of sustained readiness, along with continuous improvement. This minimizes the old "spitand-polish attitude. It also eliminates the "Chinese 

fire drill" method of preparing for inspections--with 

the usual last-minute rush to get things in order. 

While such 11th-hour efforts are usually successful in 

getting a unit through an inspection, they are of little 

long-term value. The streamer program stresses continuous preparedness, allowing units to avoid peaks 

and valleys in their readiness. 

Team Cohesion 

Asoldier without a defined mission detracts from 

the unit's chances for successful operations. 

Under the streamer program, each soldier knows his 

role and how he fits into the larger scheme of things. 

Soldiers know that they depend on each other, and 

they work to strengthen the bond between them. 

Everyone in the platoon knows that there is no "I"in 

the word T-E-A-M, and that each indivfdual's goals 

must coincide with unit goals. The end result is a 

sense of worth among individual soldiers and a strong 

"relay team" effort toward mission accomplishment. 

Under the streamer program, the 'Top-down," 

authoritative leadership style was replaced with the in. 

teractive, participative, and delegative styles. Leaders 

were forced to power down, and accomplish the mission at the lowest possible level. Soldiers displayed a 

greater sense of responsibility as a result of being 

trusted to do the job right-and then being held accountable for the results. 

Recognition 

LPake it meaningful and highly visible. v Streamers are awarded to platoons in company formation by the commander. Each program 

evaluator is then called to the front of the formation, 

where he outlines the accomplishments of the winning platoon. And while teamwork is emphasized, exceptional individual efforts are also recognized. The 

awards ceremony is held within 24 hours of the inspection, with families and battalion staff in 

attendance. 

Even ifplatoons do not meet streamer standards 

during each inspection, they still win. The team pride, 

sense of individual worth, and the esprit de corps 

gained through the program is well worth the effort. 

The streamers are displayed in the company orderly room on a 4 foot-by-4 foot platoon streamer board, 

which is topped by miniature platoon guidons. 

Engineer 15 
Inspectors 

4

I, nspectors come primarily from company headquarters, and evaluations mirror their usual day-today responsibilities. For example: 

Area Evaluator 

Caring First Sergeant 

Safety Safety Officer 

PT Operations NCO 

supply Supply Sergeant NBC NBC NCO 

The company executive officer plays an important 

role in the streamer program by overseeing records 

and sewing as a problem-solvingombudsman. 

Benefits 

Aside fmm unit recognition, the streamer inspections sewe several purposes. For evaluators, 

the inspections allow them to keep a handle on the 

status of their areas of responsibility. 

Likewise, it gives each platoon leader regular feedback on the readiness of his unl. For new soldiers, including leaders, it gives a clearcut definition of standards within the company. 

The streamer program also: 

Allows all soldiers the opportunity to be winners, 

since they're competing against a standar* 

and not each other (at least officially). The pmgram allows the same streamer (safety, for instance) to be awarded to more than one platoon 

at a time. 

w Transcends personnel turnover by ensuring consistent, measurable standards. 

Forces leaders to systematically anack problem 

areas with long-lasting solutions that materially 

improve readiness--rather than short-term fixes 

that simply make the unit look good. 

With the help of the Platoon Streamer Program, 

the platoons-and the company as a whole--

achieved some impressive resuns: 

w A sustained 300 percent reenlistment rate. 

w The 1989 Department of Defense Maintenance 

ExcellenceAward. 

New combat engineering records at the National 

Training Center. 

A 90 percent operational readiness rate on all 

equipment. 

w A toprated family and community support group. 

The streamer program also serves as a valuable 

counseling tool, and is an innovative way to reward 

those who meet the standard. Unit performance improves, and team cohesion is strengthened because 

all soldiers know what is important. Evaluators become experts in their inspection areas, and junior 

leaders quickly understand what is expected of them 

and their units. Together, they form a true team working toward a common cause. 

Costs 

As with any new program, there are some costs. 

These include: 

Selllng the progrem. Change usually meets with 

resistance and creates confusion. Overcome this by 

explainingthat this is not really an "add-on" program, 

but a systematic and innovative way of achieving unit 

missions. 

Stat? up costs. It's critical to accurately answer 

the What's important" and "what's the standard questions. Be fair and realistic. The presence of a professional streamer board not only adds to the orderly 

room's professional appearance, but also attests to 

the platoons' readiness. 

Melntenence costs. Keeping the program current-and the books updatedis critical. Experience 

has shown that leaders want to include too many 

criteria and set standards too high. Particularly at the 

start of the program, limit criteria to critical items, 

keep things short term, and be relatively generous 

about presenting streamers. 

The Bottom Line 

The Platoon Streamer Fmgram is a garrison sustainment system that builds units to field excellence and toughness. It's a proven system that 

provides healthy competition with clear and 

measurable standards. Under this program, leaders 

learn to establish systems, set standards, inspect 

them, and take corrective action. Everyone knows 

their specific responsibilities as part of the team effort. They are held accountable for their actions, leam 

quickly that they can't do it all alone, and develop a 

great sense of spirit and confidence. In short, the 

streamer program makes sure that even if the train is 

moving fast--everyone is aboard and moving in the 

right direction. Y 

Captain Vesay is a graduate student at Pennsylvania Slate 

University. He previously Se~edas commander of A Company, 14th Combat Engineer Battalion. Other assignments 

include platoon leader, executive officer, battalion maintenance officer, and aide-de-camp. 

16 Engineer 
- - 

Letters fo fhe Edifor 


Engineer Obs~wations 

Iam writing in reference to the article, "Initial Observations by Engineers in the Gun War" by Mr. Vem 

Lowrey, which appeared in the October 1991 edition 

of ENGINEER. Iam concerned in particular about observation #lo, Topographic Support. While Iheartily 

agree with most of the recommendations, the observation and discussion are seriously flawed. 

The observation that topographic survey support 

and map production failed to meet the requirements 

of units at corps level and below is not only false, but 

it maligns the exceptional performance by 

topographic engineers during Operations Desert 

ShieldIStorm. In fact, topographic surveyors met all 

survey requirements in spite of inadequate TOE 

equipment because they deployed nondevelopment 

items such as the GPS receivers. The production of 

special map products was both extensive and timely. 

thanks in part to deployed non-development items. 

Map production, which is not a topographic engineer 

mission, was handled very well by the Defense Mapping Agency despite rapidly changing requirements 

over an enormous area of interest. 

The requirement for rapid, down-sized, and tailored 

map production capabilities to support commanders 

at division level and below Is unclear and therefore 

the claim "that non-developmental systems capable 

of meeting those needs are not tactically feasible" is 

also unclear. The non-developmental B&W copiers, 

desktop computers and even digital imagery processing systems (Corps and EAC) performed superbly 

under tactical conditions. 

The recommendation that topographic survey 

capabilities should be retained in the force structure 

to allow engineers to map and update potential contingency theaters is technically incorrect. Surveyors do 

not map, they survey. 

Iagree whole heartedly that topographic rnodemization is required. But please, lets get that point 

across without making it sound like we failed in the 

Gulf. The topographic support provided by the dedicated soldiers of the 30th Engineer Battalion (T), 

A1649th Engineer Battalion (T), and the division terrain teams backed-up by the Defense Mamina Aaency, the Topographic ~ngineering Center, and many 

others is a major success story. Top0 overcame antiquated TOE equipment by rapidly adapting nondevelopment items to provide timely and tailored support for commanders. 

Let's acknowledge the success of topographic sup 

port to the Gun War and build on the lessons learned 

using new technologies to integrate the required technology, equipment and training into the engineer 

topographic force structure. 

Malk A. Fornwalt 

Lieutenant Colonel 

132 Engineer Detachment 

Fort McPherson, GA 

Mr.Lowrey replies: 

The U.S. Army Engineer School agrees with LTC 

Fornwalt in that the topographic engineer did not actually fail in its support to Operations Desert 

Shield/Storm. All topographic engineers and, in particular, the topographic surveyors, demonstrated extreme resourcefulness and flexibility in meeting mission requirements. Observations from the field 

indicate, however, that topographic engineers were 

not fully prepared to provide needed topographic support to the combined arms team at the start of Operation Desert Shield. in August 1990. 

Existing standard topographic products and digital 

data bases for the Kuwaiti Theater of Operations 

(KTO) were very limled. Additionally, the topographic 

surveyors were not adequately equipped to provide 

the timely and accurate positional information initially 

required for this theater. Both of these problems were 

overcome by the efforts of topographic engineers 

from survey and production squads to corps, 

echelons above corps, and CONUS based topographic engineers all working together to provide 

needed equipment and supplies to the theater. 

Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm 

provided much needed visibility to the topographic requirements of today and the future. Topographic engineers did not fail in the Gul War. In fact, they 

demonstrated the ingenuity, adaptability, and bravery 

that has been a hallmark of the Corps of Engineers. 

Thank you for taking the time to write. 

POC: Vernon Lowrey, ATSE-ESA, AV 676-5304, 

or MAJ Gary Thompson, ATSE-TDT-ES, AV 676-5440. 

Letters to the editor are welcome. They should be 

addressed to Editor. ENGINEER Professional Bulletin, Am: ATSE-TDM-PB, FortLeonard Wood, MO 

65473-6650. 

Engineer 17 
The Mission and Enlisted 


Career Progression 


By MSG Kathy Kindle, SFC Richard Arsenaulr 

and SFC Larry Robinson 

The Engineer Personnel Proponency Office 

(EPPO) oversees about 27,000engineer soldier 

authorizations located within the combat, general, 

and topographic engineering career management 

fields (CMFs). Each CMF is designed as a manageable grouping of related military occupational specialties (MOSs) that provides for accomplishment of the 

Army's mission and lays down a structure for career 

progression fmm entry level soldier to sergeant major. 

Each CMF is coordinated by a specific senior noncommissioned officer within EPPO who possesses 

one of the MOSs within the career management field 

he oversees. These career management field coordinators evaluate a myriad of personnel issues and 

policies that pertain to one or more engineer MOSs. 

Their goal is to ensure that proposed personnel actions and initiatives cause as little adverse impact as 

possible on engineer soldiers, and yet support the 

Army's mission. They diligently monitor these actions 

so that the end resun provides every soldier an opportunity for professional development, career enhancement, and career progression. 

Congressional legislation has mandated a manpower reduction in the Army. This reduction will ultimately create a smaller and leaner engineer force. 

Combat support and combat service support units will 

draw down in proportion to the wmbat force. The 

most significant reductions will occur in Europe, leaving the majority of Army units based in the wntinental United States. 

The downsizing effort represents a significant challenge to the engineer force. The present and 

proposed out-year authorization levels for each engineer CMF are: 

CMF FY 91 FY 92 FY93 

12 15,845 13.840 12,549 

51 10,107 8,092 7,774 

81 1,213 1,179 925 

MOS 

625 3,201 2,753 2,548 

18 Engineer 
, , 

1. 

I p 

~ - ~- ~.. ~

With the leaner engineer force, the Engineer 

School is seeking ways to maintain its present warfighting, construction, and topographic capabilities. 

Two major areas of interest are the Engineer Restlucture Initiative (ERI) and the consolidation of certain 

MOSS within the 12 and 51 CMFs. 

The Engineer Restructure Initiative is undeway to 

realign andlor restructure engineer units. Construction support equipment (CSE) companies will be increased, whereas combat engineer battalions (CH) 

will be reduced. The chart below depicts the number 

of Active, National Guard, and Army Reserve CSE 

and CH units. 

As of May 90 

Unlt Actlve Natlonal Army Total 

Guard Reserve 

CRF --... c " i~ m" A 

- 9cC" 

CH 14 14 17 45 

Projected for FY 95 

CSE 7 18 12 37 

CH 8 14 13 35 

Combat engineer battalions will also undergo a 

major restructuring In accordance with the ERI. 

Divisional combat engineer forces will now consist 

of a headquarters and headquarters detachment 

(HHD) and three redesigned combat engineer battalions. This will place a combat engineer battalion in each maneuver brigade of the heavy 

division. The ERI will significantly improve the 

capabilities of engineer units. 

With little relief in mission responsibilities, engineer soldiers will find themselves performing a 

greater variety of engineer tasks. The Engineer 

School is actively studying the feasibility of consolidating certain MOSs within their CMFs. These 

consolidation initiatives are intended to make sure 

engineer soldiers receive and maintain the training necessary to accomplish the mission, and also 

have an opportunity for career progression. 

One proposal under study recommends consolidating the 128 and 12C MOSs into a single 

MOS currently referred to as MOS 12A. If approved, ail 128 and 12C soldiers would receive 

MOS 12A as their primary MOS. This consolidation would increase the diversity of assignments 

available to combat engineers because 12A soldiers could then be assigned to combat engineer 

or bridge units. The proposal also recommends 

the restructuring of MOS 12F. If implemented, 

MOS 12F would merge into MOS 12A at skill 

level four (sergeant first class). Consolidating 

MOS 128, 12C, and 12F would allow greater 

diversity of assignments and equalize the opportunity for career progression throughout CMF 12. 

Achart depicting the proposed consolidation (which, 

if approved, will be effective in the 3rd quarter of 

FY94) f0ll0ws: 

Current Proposed 

SGM SGM 

MSG MSG 

I A 


'128 12C 12~' 12A 12F 

SFC SFC SFC SSG SSG 

SSG SSG SSG SGT SGT 

SGT SGT SGT 

CMF 12 is not alone when it comes to restructuring. In the General Engineering CMF 51, proposals to 

consolidate selected MOSS are being studied that 

would affect soldiers in the vertical, horizontal, and 

technical engineering skills. 

Because of low densities in the technical engineering s~ecialties (MOS 51G. 818. 828. and 51T). thev ,. , 

a& being considered for consoiidatidn into a single MOS stlucture. The re~tluctured MOS will combine 

Engineer 19 
the skills of the surveyor, draftsman, and materials 

tester into an initial entry occupational identifier of 

Technical Engineering Specialist (MOS 51T10). 

A consolidation proposal for soldiers with vertical 

skills (MOS 518,51K, 51R, and 51H) is also under 

study. It proposes merging the duties of the plumber 

and electrician together as a Utilities Specialist (MOS 

51A) at the entry level. MOS 518 would remain the 

same at the entry level, but each specialty (51A and 

518) would progress to skill level four (SFC). 

Proposals that would affect soldiers with horizontal 

skills (MOS 62E, 62F, 62G, 62H, 62J and 62N) are 

also under study. These proposals address the possibility of reallocating equipment and tasks to provide 

for better utilization of soldiers and their skills. 

Engineer forces are undergoing rapid changes in 

force restructuring. Divisional engineer battalions are 

now in the process of forming into engineer brigades 

under the ERI. This article outlined several of the initiatives and proposals that are under study at the Engineer School, and some may be approved and implemented in the future. The future, at this point, is 

diiicult to picture clearly. 

One thing is certain, however: engineer soldiers 

will go through significant changes. And they will succeed in tne unique mission of modeling and building 

the engineer force of the future. Y 

MSG Kindle is the CMF 81 coordinator for EPPO. 

She previously served as assistant security manager 

for the 45th Support Group. She also served as first 

sergeant of the 70th Engineer Company (TOPO). 

She is a graduate of the Sergeant Major Academy's 

First Sergeant Course. 

SFC Arsenault is the CMF 51 coordinator for EPPO. 

He previously served as a drill sergeant at Fort 

Leonard Wood. He has also served as a platoon sergeant for the 293rd Engineer Battalion (CBTJ (HVY). 

and squad leader for the 27th Engineer Battalion 

(CBT) (ABN). He is a graduate of the Advanced Noncommissioned Officers Course, and hold a bachelor's 

degree in engineering management from Campbell 

University. 

SFC Robinson is EPPO's 629 coordinator. He previously served as the NCOlC Liaison for the Operations Branch of the 800th Material Management Center. He also served as a platoon sergeant with the 

502nd Support Battalion. He Is a graduate of the Advanced Noncommissioned Officers Course. 

Book Review 


The Iranian Rescue Mission, Why It Failed, by Paul B. Ryan, 

1986,U.S. Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland, 116pages. 

Paul Ryan retired as a Navy captain afteralmost 30 years of 

sew&, and bas worked as a maroh fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Remlution, and Peaca at Stanford University 

since 1972.As a naval historian, he collaborated on writing two 

bmks and baa written numemwa articles for the New York 

Times and other publications. 

Mr. Ryan wmte thia bmk to explain, in layman's tern, what 

happened during the aborted attempt to reme 63 American 

hostages in Tehran, in April 1980.His aim waa to educate, not 

to find fault with any individual or gmup. Prior to this bmk, the 

only two documented acmunts of the mission were claasitied 

and unclasaitied versions of a report by the Admiral James L. 

Holloway Review Group. 

Mr. Ryan took an objective, unbiased view of the muses of 

pmblema affecting the rescue mission. His extensive Naval experience, combined with knowledge gained as a hintarian and 

academician, enabled him to pmduee a clear and insighthl acmunt of positive and negative aspects of the operation. 

He lists three major causes for the failed re-e mission. The 

firat was overcampartmentalized security. The President and 

members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were so wncerned about 

secrecy that only a handful of people knew the total plan. Individual elements involved in operational aspots of the mission 

wele given only small parts of the plan. Thus, coordination waa 

extremely difficult and, as a result, many things which should 

have happened did not. For example, fliiht crews did not 

re~iveweather forecasts because the weathermen did not know 

aviatars were involved 

The ~eeond factor was the lack of coordinated planning and rehearsals needed to wnduct a joint venture of this-magni&de. At 

least three major mmponenta of the operational rescue plan practiced individuallv but never tonether or nerformed a rial dress 

rehearsal. Theee"e1ementa we; the ~Gne Corps helimpter 

pilots, who flew the mission fmm the carrier Nimitz to Desert 

One in Iran; the Delta Force, who were to conduct the raid to 

£methe hostages fmm the embaany; and theAir Fom C-130 

pilots, who were to perform the refuel and extradition mission. 

The lack of coordinated joint planning, practice, and rehears. 

al led to the third msjor fador: fragmented command and contml. Marine Corps helicopter pilots were commanded and led by 

Lieutenant Colonel Edward Seiffert, while Delta Force Special 

Operations perso~el were commanded by a full colonel, COL 

Charlie Beckwith. Overall command and wntml waa given to 

Air Force Colonel JamesKyle, wmmander of the C-130 

transporte. In addition to them, Major General Vaught tried to 

maintain control of the operation fmm a point in Egypt, while 

receiving guidance fmm the President and Secretary of State, in 

Washingtnu. D.C. 

Fragmented command and wntml was compounded by the 

compartmentalized secrecy. In short, nohody had a good handle 

on the big picture or could make instantaneous decisions. 

I agree with Mr. Ryan's overall thesis and like hia method of 

presenting factual information in a noncritical manner. The 

author states very clearly that, if existing pmfessional organizations had been called upon to do what they are designed for, the 

mission might have ended differently. 

I recommend this baok to all officers. It presents a claasic example of how not to run a special operations mission in a low intensity envimnment. It gives great perspotive on how the 

decision-making pmcess can be slowed down by layering the 

command and control structure at the point of execution. 

Author's name withheld by request. 

20 Engineer 
Changing the 


Warrant Officer Force 


By Chief Warrant Officer 

Bobbie J. Campbell 

he Army has always looked The implementation of TWOS 

to the warrant officer for "Today's has given the warrant officer force 

technical expertise. But his re- a badly needed boost in professponsibilities don't stop there. warrant ~ ~ sional ~ development e initiatives. r

Today's warrant officer is not Major programs include Warrant 

only a technician, but a soldier is not ~3rd~~ a Ofiicer Classification By Rank 

and officer as well-one who Groups, the Warrant Officer 

plays a critical role in today's technician, but Training Program, and Warrant 

force structure. Officer Career Management. 

This is reflected in the descrip a soldier and Classification By Rank. 

tion of a warrant officer found in Under the Warrant OEcer ClasAR 611-112."An offier appointed offices as sification By Rank Groups, the 

by warrant by the Secretary of the warrant officer's traditional role 

Army, based on a sound level of well- 93 as a technical expert and trainer 

technical and tactical competence. on complex systems remains unThe warrant officer is the highly changed. The warrant officer can 

specialized expert and trainer who, expect to serve in challenging jobs 

by gaining progressive levels of exThe New System at progressively increasing levels 

pertise and leadership, operates, of responsibility-commensurate 

maintains, administers, and TWOS is a relativeb new Per- with his grade and experience. 

manages the Army's equipment, s~nnel management system Tactical training ensures that the 

supper? activities, or technical sys- for warrant ~fficers in the Total warrant officer is also prepared to 

tems for an entire career." h y (Active and Reserve Corn- lead subordinates under modern 

Warrant officers will continue to ~onents). It was implemented as a battlefield conditions. 

assume more and more respon- result of recommendations in the Before TWOS, the "system" did 

sibilities-as we all musb-while Total Warrant mcer Study which not specify what degree of exthe military force structure goes was approved by the Army Chief of perience or skill was required for 

through some dramatic changes. Staff in June 1985. TWOS is a warrant officer positions in specRecently, the very nature of the disciplined, requirements-based, ific units or installations, When 

warrant officer mission was ex- life-cycle management system making an assignment, a personamined by a functional study designed to meet Army require- nel manager referred to authorgroup, which provided much of the ments for warrant officers, fmm ini- ization documents which simply 

foundation for the Total Warrant tial recruitment and appointment reflected the code 'WO," indicatOfficer System (TWOS). thm&retirement and separation. ing that a warrant officer was 

Engineer 21 
analysis technician). 

Career ManageRevised Warrant Officer Training System ment. The TWOS 

has changed perD 

W 

0 

T 


WO 

/ 

Years 0 8 WOa 

needed to fill a particular assignment. This allowed any warrant 

officer, W01 through CW4, to be 

selected to fill any position matching his military occupational 

specialty-regardless of experience or length of service. 

Under TWOS, warrant officer 

positions in Active Component 

authorization documents have 

been coded to reflect one of the 

three rank groups: warrant officer (Wl/W2), senior warrant 

(W3/W4), or master warrant 

(MW). Until legislation is passed 

establishing the grade of W5, 

senior W4s will be selected by 

Department of the Army boards, 

and will be trained, certified, 

promoted to (MW4) and used as 

master warrant officers. This system has enabled assignment 

managers to fill each job with a 

warrant officer who possesses the 

appropriate skills, training, experience and grade required to 

meet the command's needs. 

The regulation governing this 

action is AR 611-112, Manual of 

Warrant Ofiier Military Occupati0~lSpecialties. The regulation 

has tables showing rank codes 

that apply to all positions to which 

a warrant officer may be assigned. 

A separate and distinct rank table 

for each warrant specialty has 

been developed. The tables will be 

reviewed annually to maintain 

their accuracy. 

Wining. Training programs 

22 Engineer 

SW Mw 

I I 12 20 24 

developed by the Training and 

Doctrine Command (TRADOC) 

have been designed specifically for 

each rank grouping. The respective branch proponents have functional training courses that support the TRADOC warrant 

training program. This training 

will precede each officer's utilization in the three successive career 

phases (see chart). Officers will be 

certified at each phase to ensure 

they meet appropriate technical 

and tactical standards. 

Under initial TWOS training 

mandates, warrant officer candidates receive officership and 

technical training prior to appointment to jobs coded for 

WliW2. After gaining on-the-job 

experience and selection for 

promotion to CW3, warrant officers attend senior warrant officer training to prepare them for 

jobs at the W3iW4 levels. Successful completion of the master warrant officer course is a prerequisite for warrant officers selected 

for MW/W5 assignments. 

The engineer branch is ahead of 

most proponents in the development of warrant officer training 

courses for both the Active and 

Reserve Components. Certification and senior course instruction 

is now available for all specialties: 

210A (utilities operation and 

maintenance technician), 213A 

(engineer equipment repair technician), and 215D (terrain 

sonnel management 

policies that affect 

schooling, promotion, 

assignments and retirement. Warrant officers are now managed by years of 

I warrant officer ser- 30 
 vice rather than by 

years of active federal 

service. This means 

the personnel management "clock" is 

reset to zero when an enlisted soldier is appointed as a warrant officer. It enables each officer to 

retain seniority for purposes of 

pay and retirement, while affording him the opportunity to serve a 

full 30 year career as a warrant 

officer--or reach the mandatory 

retirement age of 62 (whichever 

comes first). 

Other TWOS changes affect the 

warrant officer force. Warrant officers must be integrated into the 

Regular Army (RA)upon promotion to CW3. Officers promoted to 

CW4 can serve at least 24 years of 

warrant officer serviee. Those 

selected for training and utilization as master warrant have the 

opportunity to serve a full 30-year 

warrant officer career. Along with 

the integration policy, guidelines 

have been established to provide 

mandatory separation for warrant 

officers--much like their commissioned counterparts-after two 

non-selections for RApromotion. 

WOMA 

The next and final staee of 

implementing the TW~S is 

the Warrant Officer Management 

Act (WOMA), designed to improve the professional climate for 

warrants. The current version 

has been passed by the Senate 

and is now under consideration 

by the House of Representatives. 
WOMA has four major components: a single promotion system, management by years of 

warrant officer senrice, selective 

early retirement, and promotion 

to CW5. 

Promotion System. With 

TWOS, warrant officers will be 

promoted under a single promotion system, instead of the present 

dual system. All promotions will 

be permanent. Officers who are 

twice non-selected will be retired 

or se~arated. This is the same svstem used to promote commissioned officers and it goes a long 

way toward leveling the playing 

field for warrant officers. 

Management by Years of Warrant Oficer Service. Despite 

the potential for lengthy service as 

a warrant, normal retirement 

eligibility will not be affected, and 

officers with 20 or more years of 

active federal service mav retire if 

they desire. 

Selectiue Early Retirement. 

Under WOMA, the Army may 

select retirement-eligible RA officers, not on a promotion list, for 

involuntary early retirement. In 

the current downsizing environment, this will allow the Army to 

retain high quality officers not yet 

eligible for retirement while 

selecting officers of lesser quality 

for early retirement. 

Promotion to CW5. Under 

WOMA, the Army will be allowed 

to promote CW4s and MW4s to the 

rank of CW5--with no more than 

5 percent of the warrant officer 

force holding this grade. The CW5 

promotion action will provide a 

badly needed incentive to retain 

high quality, experienced officers. 

---. 


- ZlYA 1

Another signifmmt change impacting on engineer warrants 

is the switch of 213A proponency 

from the engineer branch to the 

ordnance branch This action is the 

direct result of a TRADOC analysis 

of all logistics MOSS, which led to 

the alignment of several combat 

service support MOSS-warrant officer and enlisted-from their 

present branch proponents to 

ordnance. Transitional work groups 

fmm both the Engineer School and 

the Ordnance Center and School 

are now moperating to evaluate the 

requirements of the affected MOS, 

define the transition areas, and 

develop an implementation plan. 

Traditionally viewed as hlghly 

tralned and experienced technlcal experts, today's warrant 

otflcers are seen as wellrounded professionals--

tralned in the tactical as well 

as technical ens (U.S. Army 

photo). 

Today's Warrant Officer 

Force wanant
 merit 

greater challenges, more 

responsibilities, and more opportunities to further contribute to 

the Army mission. Always a 

valuable resource, these new 

changes in warrant officer management programs will make 

these soldiers an even more vital 

part of the Total Army. Y 

CW4 Campbell is the warrant officer specialties coordinator for 

the Engineer Personnel Proponency Wie at Fort Leonard Wood. 

He previously served as training 

committee chief of the Engineer 

Equipment Maintenance Committee, 1st Engineer Brigade. Other 

assignments include logisticslmaintenance technician for Honduras construction projects, and 

battalion maintenance technician 

for combat heavy and division 

combat engineer battalions. He is 

a graduate of the Engineer Warrant Officer Senior Course and 

Master Warrant Course, and 

holds a Master's Degree from 

Webster University. 

Engineer 23 
Personal Viewpoint 

Department of Offense: 


We Must Swing the Pendulum Back! 

By Colonel Robert J. Greenwalt, Jr. 

Editor's note: A different 

perspective on this topic will be 

presented as the Personal View 

point in the April issue of 

ENGINEER. 

years our Army con- IFor 

centrated on the defense. 

Three generations of soldiers 

trained to defend Europe against 

an overwhelming attack-"to 

fight outnumbered and win." 

Through the "mobile and area 

defense," Active Defense, and 

AirLand Battle doctrinal evolutions we emphasized the defense. 

We do so no longer. The Army 

now focuses on the attack. 

In 1985 MG Palmer, 1st Armored Division Commander, lectured that "It will take ten years to 

change the American Army to 

think offense." He was slightly 

pessimistic -we have already arrived. Between Desert Storm and 

the new AirLand Operations, the 

Army is now clearly preoccupied 

with the oKense. We have reached 

the philosophic condition of 

France in 1914, with the potential 

for disaster this implies. Unfortunately, every future enemy will 

not be led by Saddam Hussein! 

The tactical pendulum, swinging 

between offense and defense, is 

out of balance. It has swung too 

far. 

Engineers led the way in 

developing an offensive ability. 

Ten years ago the Army could not 

attack through enemy obstacles. 

We developed techniques and procedures, and embodied them in 

battle drills and counter-obstacle 

teams. We developed doctrine, and 

published it in FM 90-13-1. We 

developed procedures at Fort 

Irwin and Hohenfels to test our 

ability to fight through obstacles. 

We developed leaders and trained 

units at those facilities using the 

new tactics, techniques, and procedures under the new doctrineand we solved the problem. 

By focusingour energies on enabling the force to move, we succeeded. But in gaining the ability 

to attack, we lost the ability to 

defend. 

Obstacles Thought 


Ineffective 


Today we have the techniques to integrate obstacles with fire and maneuver 

in the defense, but the Army is 

no longer interested. The sheer 

exhilaration of charging across 

the desert in invulnerable armored vehicles has warped the 

maneuver view of war. The success of FM 90-13-1 and new 

breaching equipment have convinced the tactical community 

that obstacles aren't effective. 

The Army doesn't realize that 

juvenile Iraqi tactics made 

Iraqi obstacles irrelevant: They 

contributed nothing to the 

defense. Where tacticians formerly didn't understand the 

importance of breaching, they 

now don't understand the value 

of obstacles. 

U.S. Mine Warfare 


Capability Inadequate 


w e have an unworkable 

mine warfare system. It 

feeds the maneuver commanders' 

fear of mines and produces 

ridiculous rules of engagement, 

such as retaining control of scab 

terable mines at Corps or even a 

total prohibition against mining. 

We have unacceptable mine 

hardware--either clumsy, Korean 

War vintage mines or excessively 

expensive and marginally effective 

modern scatterables. We have an 

unworkable minefield marking 

and recording requirement that 

simply adds to maneuver commanders' fear. Today mines bring 

problems with no justifying advantages. 

Engineer Structure 


Inadequate 


nder the engineer restructure initiative (ERI), we 

are losing the ability to establish 

a defense. It is now difficult to 

prepare survivable battle positions, artillery positions, and 

command posts. The ACE has 

marginal digging ability. The 

SEE is gone from the division. 

The bulldozer and bucket loader 

are gone from the division. The 

air compressor with its tools, the 

hydraulic tools of the SEE, and 

pioneer electric tools are gone 

from the division. Installing 

(Continued on page 36) 

24 Engineer 
Terrain Analysis For Desert Storm 


By Warrant Oficer Terri L. Metzger 

ccurate and up-to-date f% obility overlays were 

critical to the success of Desert 

ShieldIStorm operations. But 

making them for maneuver units 

was not easy. Limited availability of current map sheets, 

lack of an up-to-date terrain data 

base, absence of terrain collection equipment, and limited 

training in desert mapping techniques made the job of intelligence and topographic soldiers 

difficult. 

A terrain team from the 513th 

Military Intelligence Brigade, 

based at Fort Monmouth, supported by personnel from the 30th 

Engineer Battalion (Topographic), 

Fort Bragg, used a variety of techniques to overcome these obstacles. Their work provided much 

of the mobility information needed 

by ground commanders in their 

rout of the Iraqis. 

The 513th terrain team, consisting of a warrant officer and five 

enlisted terrain analysts, initially 

deployed to the Gulf on August 29, 

1990. The team quickly began 

developing cross-country mobility 

overlays of the region, using 

LANDSAT imagery, maps and a 

terrain data base that were from 

eight to 20 years old, along with 

written area studies. 

While this initial analysis was a 

"quick and dirty" assessment, it 

proved to be more accurate than 

any other information available at 

the time. For example, our 

analysis directly contradicted the 

existing data base, which depicted 

much of the desert region as 

severely restricted. 

On September 4, the team conducted its first terrain reconnaissance mission. Included was the 

northeast coastline and the 

Kuwaiti border east to the Wadi A1 

Batin (near the tri-border region). 

The team did not have any cone 

pentrometers or soil collection 

kits, so it used four-wheel drive 

vehicles instead. Simply driving 

across the terrain several times 

helped to determine trafficability, 

and the terrain's ability to support 

military operations. From its observations, the team made estimates of trafficability for both 

heavy wheeled vehicles and tracked vehicles. 

The recon efforts, documented 

with 35mm photography, paid off. 

While the surface of the desert appeared hard, off-road driving 

created enormous dust signatures. And the Wadi Al Batin, previously described as a steep-sided 

gully that could not he easily 

crossed, was, in fact, avery gently 

rolling plain-barely noticeable as 

a distinct geographic figure. 

All together, the team conducted 

six ground and three aerial reconnaissance missions. Information 

was cross-checked with available 

LANDSAT images, and with 

evaluations made by other terrain 

teams accompanying coalition forEngineer 25 
~~p 


Further refinement and pro- ,. *, . ,-. , 

4 duction of overlay materials 

went beyond the terrain team's 

capabilities, and the group was 

augmented by personnel from 

the 30th Engineer Battalion 

(Topographic). Their combined 

efforts provided coalition forces 

with trficability updates, briefings, recon missions, and overlays showing pipelines, oil wells, 

enemy obstacles, and roads. The 

group also provided briefings for 

field commanders which detailed 

mobility issues within their 

sector. 

In addition to mobility overlays, the terrain team prepared 

obstacle overlays for maneuver 

forces. They plotted the locations 

of minefields, fire trenches, antitank ditches, wire emplacements, and berms. Probable 

breaching sites were imaged and 

the photos turned into useable 

products by the 30th Topo. 

Division templates at a 

1:50,000 scale were plotted on 

mylar, and then overprinted on 

maps. 

Getting the maps was no easy 

task. Up-to-date map sheets 

were hard to come by, and there 

was no current terrain data base 

to work from. Until the Gulf 

crisis, maintenance of maps and 

a data base for the region had 

A LANDSATImage of Kuwait, one of the many used by the terraln team to con- been a low priority. The Defense 

struct and verlfy moblllty overlays for coalltlon combat forces (U.S. Army Photo). (DMA) produced quick-response 1:100,000 

LANDSAT images, and with operating in the Gulf region, and color image maps based on 

evaluations made by other terrain intelligence sources were con- LANDSAT images. Concurrently, 

teams accompanying coalition for- sulted for more terrain data. The the agency proceeded with work 

ces. Once information was fully Kuwaiti military was also a valu- on 1:50,000 maps needed for 

analyzed, the team produced a able source of information. The maneuver operations. 

cross-country mobility overlay for team debriefed Kuwaiti artillery Working in a desert environuse by tracked vehicles during the and armor personnel who were ment also took some getting used 

region's dry season. The recon and familiar with the areas being to. Before Desert ShieldIStorm, 

evaluation process was repeated studied. First-hand information training emphasis at the Defense 

with the amval of the wet season. was also obtained from Bedouin Mapping School was geared 

Because there were still some tribesman who traveled extensive- toward terrain information in 

areas with questionable traf- ly throughout the region. This in- areas like Germany and Korea. 

ficability, the team sought assis- formation was used to refine the The region backdrop raised relatance and advice from various overlay, which was briefed to the tively unfamiliar issues of desert 

sources. Additional imagery was coalition commander on Novem- trafficability, desert terrain feaobtained from camera platforms ber 7. ture terminology, and new map 

26 Engineer 
symbols. The 513th terrain team 

had some experience interpreting 

multispectral imagery, but desert 

imagery was new to them. Constant comparison of map sheets 

with LANDSAT imagery was 

necessary to ensure accurate terrain depictions. In one case, an 

area was labeled as linear dunes, 

when in fact the dunes were scattered. Without the use of 

LANDSAT, maps given to maneuver forces would not have been 

as accurate as they needed to 

be. 

During Desert Shieldstorm, 

terrain data information evolved 

rapidly. Accurate and timely information collection and close coordination of effort between terrain 

teams were important factors in 

the success of the terrain analysis 

effort in the Gulf. 

The Iraqis were formidable engineers and made significant 

changes in the desert landscape. 

In addition to extensive minefields 

and other obstacles, new and improved roads began to appear soon 

after the invasion of Kuwait. Initial reports on these new highways sometimes conflicted as to 

the exact location of the roads, and 

often did not contain important information on alignment, surface 

materials, width, or vehicle traffic. 

Requests for additional, follow-up 

information took too long (4 to 10 

days) to process, and hindered the 

production of up-to-date overlays. 

To improve the accuracy and 

timeliness of terrain products, the 

team requested that the various 

reporting sources include more 

detailed information with each of 

their reports, and, if photographs 

were available, include location 

coordinates directly on the photo. 

Additionally, to double-check the 

accuracy of reports, the team requested "change pairs" of 

LANDSAT images (images of the 

same area taken on two different 

dates, and compared for changes 

in terrain features). 

In a further effort to keep 

abreast of field activities, terrain 

teams at every echelon maintained contact with each other to 

share information and techniques. 

Terraln team members conduct a 

ground recon of an 

area near the 

Saudl-lraql border. 

Such recons 

helped the team to 

quickly complle 

and update lnformation for 

maneuver overlays 

(U.S. Army photo). 

Such coordination also helped to 

make sure products were standardized and work duplication was 

kept to a minimum. To help the 

teams, XVIII Airborne Corps, the 

513th, and the 30th Topo sponsored regular terrain conferences 

to discuss problems and compare 

products. 

While the desert backdrop 

provided some new challenges for 

terrain analysis, the 513th Terrain Team, along with the 

30th Engineer Battalion (Topographic), succeeded in providing 

timely and accurate mobility 

overlays for combat forces. Terrain information gathered during 

the operation is now being used to 

refine the Gulf terrain data base, 

and the units' experience is being 

tapped to improve desert analysis 

operations. Y 

Warrant Oficer Metzger is a terrain analysis technician assigned 

to the 1st Infantry Division. 

During Desert Shield /Storm, she 

served as a terrain analysis technician with the 513th Military Intelligence Brigade. 

Engineer 27 
-- 

LESSONS LEARNED: /!/ 


Handling Unexploded Ordnance 

By Mr. Vernon Lowrey, Lieutenant Colonel Ha 

and Captain Paul Adkins 

The follourin~Lessons Learned annlv to sol- " 1L diem who confront unexploded ordnance 

CrrxO) in training or on the battlef7wld. They are 

based on engineer observations made during Operation Desert Storm. For more information, write to 

Commandant, U.S. Army Engineer School, ATSEESA, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473-6630. Or, call 

(314) 563-5304, DSN 676-5304. You may also write 

the Director, Explosive Ordnance Disposal Center 

for Training and Technology, U.S. Army Ordnance 

Materiel and Munition School, Attn: ATSK-X, 

Redstone Arsenal, AL 35897-6801; or call (205) 

876-1921,DSN 746-1921. 

ISSUE: The large number of UXO found in Iraq 

and Kuwait caught U.S. and allied forces by 

surprise. Because lessons from past conflicts were 

not learned, we sustained an unacceptable number 

of casualties among our soldiers, allies, and 

civilians. Combat engineers with limited training 

were tasked to clear large areas of UXO. 

DISCUSSION: Unexploded ordnance are 

military munitions (tank and artillery rounds, 

bombs or bomblets, submunitions, missiles, rockets, 

etc.) that have failed to detonate by malfunction or 

design. They are sometimes called "duds." When a 

potential for UXO exists, soldiers must perform 

several tasks to predict, identify, mark, report, and 

remove them. 

Prediction. Allied forces must predict possible 

locations and quantities of UXO as soon as areas 

are known or suspected. Most of the UXO found 

during Operation Desert Storm were either cluster 

bomb unit (CBU) submunitions dropped by allied 

air force bombers, or field artillery dual purpose 

improved conventional munitions (DPICM). Both 

types had dud rates ranging from 2 to 10 percent. 

~mldD. Moore, ij/ 

UXO "footprintsn (areas of possible UXO concentration) were not tracked; therefore, information 

about their whereabouts was not available to 

mobility planners. Information about UXO concentrations was only available when reconnaissance units stumbled upon CBUs and DPICMs. 

The need to gather UXO information was not specified in maneuver unit reconnaissance collection 

efforts. 

Identification. Adequate training on how to identify UXO was not conducted prior to the ground assault. Training aids such as inert devices, booklets, 

and posters, were not available until after the 

cease fire. Numerous casualties occurred when soldiers picked up UXO and moved them. Vehicles 

were damaged and tires were blown when vehicle 

operators drove into UXO areas not knowing munitions were scattered on the ground. 

Marking. No standard marking systems were in 

place prior to the start of the ground war. After 

UXO areas were identified, marking normally consisted of placing tape and U-shaped pickets around 

the area. Some individual munitions were also 

marked with tape. Current minefield marking sys! 

tems were inadequate or not available, forcing 

units to use field expedient measures. 

Marking was critical because shifting sands 

covered and uncovered UXO areas. Not all UXO 

concentrations were marked by U.S. forces before 

they left Iraq and Kuwait, leaving dangerous areas 

for the civilian populace. 

Reporting. Reporting procedures for UXO from 

units to explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) teams 

were confusing. Some units reported UXO using 

scatterable mine reporting formats. Others created 

their own. Some areas were cleared or marked but 

28 Engineer 
were not reported. Others were reported but were 

not cleared or marked. 

Removal. The magnitude of UXO overwhelmed 

EOD assets. There were not enough EOD teams to 

clear the large areas of LXO encountered. Therefore, maneuver units tasked supporting combat engineers to mark and clear large areas of UXO 

under the technical guidance of EOD. Engineers 

cleared areas with manual techniques such as 

demolition "pop and drop," using a block of explosive that had been primed with nonelectric initiating systems. The fuze lighter was pulled 

(popped), which ignited the time fuze, and the 

charge then was placed (dropped) near the UXO, 

causing a detonation. Vehicles such as the MB Armored Combat Earthmover (ACE) were used to 

push soil containing UXO out of the way. Some engineers were killed when they failed to ask for or 

follow EOD guidance or use common sense. The 

remaining UXO in the Kuwaiti Theater of Operations are being removed under contracts between 

U.S. firms and the host nation. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: All commanders must 

consider the impacts of large quantities of UXO on 

the modern battlefield when they plan maneuver 

and logistics support operations. The UXO problem 

is not just an engineer or ordnance problem, it is 

an Army, Joint Chiefs, and allied problem. 

Army doctrine calls for maneuver forces to attack through areas contaminated with duds left by 

aircraft and artillery preparatory fires. Logistics 

forces may need to establish bases in areas contaminated by UXO. This means that land forces 

will continue to find UXO when they maneuver 

and sustain forces on future battlefields. The following recommendations are currently being 

studied by the U.S. Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal Center for Training and Technology and U.S. 

Army Engineer School. All units must heed these 

recommendations to ensure troop safety in training and when confronted with UXO on the 

battlefield. 

Prediction 

Short Term: Air Force CBU and Field Artillery 

DPICM footprint information must be made available to mobility planners during the intelligence 

preparation of the battlefield (IPB) process. Planners must include munition dud rates when estimating UXO concentrations. They must identify 

UXO footprint areas, consider them obstacles to 

mobility, and deal with them. They must include 

the gathering of UXO information in reconnaissance plans. 

Long Term: Combat developers must integrate 

footprint information into the maneuver control system (MCS). They must develop munitions with a 

self-destruct capability, which will preclude most 

problems with friendly UXO concentrations. The 

development of inert rounds for bombing or artillery firing will relieve the contamination of hazardous live munitions on training ranges. 

Identification 

Short Term: All units must develop training 

plans that will ensure their soldiers can identify 

friendly and threat ordnance. Training aids such as 

posters and inert devices should be available to 

units for ordnance identification training. Combat 

training centers should provide UXO identification 

training opportunities. 

Dual-purpose imoroved conventional 

munltion (DPICM)

fired from friendly artillely systems. Unexploded ordnance 

can come In any shape or size. Don't 

pick them up1 Mark 

them and report them! (U.S. Army photo) 

Engineer 29 
Lung Term: UXO identification must be 

incorporated in the common task training (CW) 

portion of the skill development test (SDT), and in 

Initial Entry Training (IET) and officer basic courses. All skill level one soldier training should focus 

on safety awareness and initial reporting procedures. Training for skill level two soldiers should 

focus on the items for skill level one, plus how to 

supervise soldiers using rifles to detonate UXO 

from a safe distance. Skill level three training for 

combat arms, ammunition handling, military 

police, and combat engineer soldiers must include 

the previous items plus advanced UXO recognition 

and destruction techniques. Formal unexploded 

ordnance agents (UXOA) training should be 

developed and identified in AR 350-1. Also, the 

Army should create an additional skill identifier 

for soldiers with UXOA training. 

All units that deploy in support of contingency 

operations should conduct refresher UXO identification training either at their home station or immediately upon amval in theater. This training 

should emphasize theater-specific ordnance. 

Marking 

Short Term: Units must stock field-expedient 

marking materials, such as fluorescent tape, pickets, barbed wire, chemlights, et~. Theater, corps 

and division headquarters must develop and train 

standard UXO marking procedures. 

Long Term: Engineer and ordnance communities must develop doctrinal UXO marking procedures and lightweight marking materials. 

Reporting 

Short Term: Theater, corps and division headquarters must develop standard UXO reporting pro. 

cedures. They may accomplish this by modifying 

current scatterable minefield reporting procedures 

for UXO. 

Long Term: Combat developers must integrate 

UXO reporting procedures into the maneuver control system. 

Removal 

Short Term: 

a. Self-Extraction. All units must be prepared 

to extract themselves from UXO without assistance. Self-extraction includes reconnaissance and 

clearance of egress routes using manual and 

mechanical techniques. Units must develop techniques based on the materiel and personnel available, and incorporate these techniques into battle 

drills. For example, firing rifles to detonate UXO 

from a safe distance. 

b. Mobility Operations. Combat engineers will 

continue to be tasked to support mobility operations in breaching obstacles containing UXO. They 

will also clear UXO from main supply routes, combat roads and trails, airfields, command and control nodes, and logistics bases. 

c. Render Safe Operations. Engineer and 

maneuver units can blow in place about 99 percent 

of UXO using rifles and demolitions. EOD retains 

the primary responsibility for turning off and 

rendering safe the remaining 1percent using special tools, equipment, and skills, so that the UXO 

do not explode and destroy friendly targets nearby 

This is important when UXOs threaten materiel, 

personnel, operations, and facilities critical to the 

war effort. 

d. Clearance. Removing all UXO in administrative areas is an EOD supervisory function, with assistance provided by host country or contracted 

forces. 

Long Term: 

a. Amechanical, self-extraction capability is 

needed for all units. A lightweight plow mounted 

on unit vehicles may be adequate. 

b. The U.S. Army Ordnance Materiel and Munitions School and joint and allied agencies must 

review, update, and publish current UXO removal 

doctrine and training policy. 

CONCLUSIONS: Unexploded ordnance will 

continue to be a problem on the battlefield. All soldiers must be able to identify, mark, and report the 

location of UXO. All units must be able to extract 

themselves from UXO concentrations. Most UXO 

can be blown in place by maneuver and engineer 

forces. Removal of critical UXO remains an EOD 

responsibility. Combat engineers may be tasked to 

breach UXO as part of mobility operations. 

As improved conventional munitions (ICM) continue to proliferate worldwide, UXO incidents on 

the battlefield will increase. Because threat forces 

are using more ICMs, unexploded ordnance 

remains a killer on the battlefield. The Army cannot continue to ignore the lessons from Operation 

Desert Storm and past conflicts. 

The bottom line is: We Must Keep 'em Safe! 

Vernon Lowrey is chief; Analysis Division, Directorate of 

Evaluation and Standardization, at the U.S.Army Engineer SchooL Lieutenant Colonel Harold Mwre is director, Explosive Ordmnee Disposal Center for Training and 

Technology, at Redstone Arsenal. Captain Paul Adkins is 

a concepts officer in the Directorate of Combat Developments at the Engineer School. 

30 Engineer 
Engineer Safety 


Are TheyA Death Trap? 


By Captain Miguel Torres 

AMccidents involving the113 armored personnel 

carrier (APC)have plagued the 

Army for several years. During 

fiscal years (FY)1989-91, M113 

accidents drained more than $5 

million from Army funds. Nineteen soldiers, including two in 

the Engineer Branch, lost their 

lives. As with most accidents, 

human error was the major 

cause or was a contributing factor to them. 

This information is of special 

significance to our branch because 

the Engineer Branch is moving 

toward mechanization at an accelerated pace. The MI13 APC is 

replacing our old work horse, the 

5-ton dump truck, and will be used 

as a prime mover as well as a combat vehicle. Many engineer units 

are now expected to provide structured training on how to operate 

these vehicles. We canhelp you set 

up a training plan that will 

promote safe operating procedures and reduce or eliminate this 

type of accident. 

Part of this article identifies sources for haining standards. The rest 

dds hazards identified fmm historieal data in the Army's safety information data &. 

There are several sources for 

the standards and criteria used to 

identify, select, and train operators, commanders of tracked 

vehicles, instructors, and examiners. Field Manual (FM) 21-

17,Driver Selection, Daining and 

Supervision for Ducked Combat 

Vehicles, produced at the Armor 

Center and School, should he 

availahle to every unit using 

tracked vehicles. Another source is 

Training Circular 21-306, Dacked 

Combat Vehicle Driver Daining, 

which is scheduled for distribution 

in the second quarter of FY 92. 

(Continued on page 40) 

An out-of-control 

tracked vehicle often 

rolls over. When It 

starts to roll, get Inside. Your chances of 

survlvlng with only 

mlnor Injuries are a lot 

greater when you are 

inside and can brace 

for the Impact (US. 

Army photo). 

Engineer 31 
By Major Richard A. Wagner, Jr. 

46 In years past, 

instruction in.the 

art ofleadership 

WBR SGRITC, and 

consisted prirna.rj.lg 

06 reading ahout the 

exploits of 

succcssf~~l leaders." 

istorically, leadership has 

been considered to be a 

somewhat obscure science. Conventional wisdom has held that leaders 

are either born with a natural flair 

for leadership, or somehow develop 

the ability through years of wellplaced experience. In years past, instruction in the art of leadership 

was scarce, and consisted primarily 

of reading about the exploits of successll leaders. 

Since the Vietnam conflict, however, the Army has made a 

deliberate effort to teach leadership in the same way other 

military subjects have been taught 

throughout the years. To facilitate 

that effort, the Army wrote two 

leadership manuals. FM 22-100, 

Military Leadership, is a valuable 

resource that all soldiers should 

read and understand. It offers 

many tools and techniques that 

will enhance the leadership 

abilities of any soldier. 

However, I find that the manual 

does not provide a complete 

framework for the subject of 

leadership. It does not define exactly what a leader must do and 

how he should go about doing it. 

After going through the manual, a 

young sergeant or lieutenant is 

still left wondering exactly what it 

is that he should be doing. I 

believe that leadership is aprocess 

that, properly outlined, can give 

the inexperienced leader a start in 

the right direction. 

I'm not saying that leadership is 

simple-it is not. Portions of the 

leadership process can be very 

complicated. But the overall 

process is simple to comprehend 

and provides the needed framework to bring existing leadership 

doctrine together into one focused 

concept. 

The second leadership manual 

is FM-22-103, Leadership and 

Command at Senior Leuels. I find 

the mere existence of this manual 

to be a little puzzling. It implies 

that leadership in the senior 

grades is so different from the 

rank and file that a totally 

separate manual is needed. To the 

contrary, I believe that leadership 

remains essentially unchanged as 

a leader progresses in rank. 

Senior leaders use the same 

~rocess-and manv of the same 

junior leaders. 

The Process 

irst, let's examine the leadership process FM 22-100 defines military leadership as 'a 

Process by which a soldier influences others t. accomplish the mission" by providing purpose, direction, and motivation. However, the 

process is not described. 

To fill this gap, I offer a definition of the leadership process. I 

believe that leaders go through 

this process at all levels and in all 

32 Engineer 
situations. This mocess tells the 

leader what he must do at the 

most fundamental levels. Under- The Leadership Process 

standing the process and its situational nature is the first step 

towards being an effective leader. 

The process is modified depending 

on the situation, but the basic 

process endures. Here it is. 

The leader must first decide 

what to do. Then, he must decide 

how to do it. Lastly, he must ensure that it gets done. 

Simple and easy to remember. 

Let's take the basic idea and flesh 

it out just a bit more. 

A leader must: 

1- Set the goalhnission. 

2 - Develop a plan. 

3 - Communicate the plan. 

4 - Supervise execution of the 

plan. 

5 - Continually build a motivational climate. 

Figure 1depicts the process and 

it's accompanying subprocesses in 

more detail. FM 22-100is a fine 

collection of tools and techniques. 

Many of these subprocesses are 

explained in great detail in the 

manual. Now, let's take a look at 

those main steps. 

The first step of setting the goal 

gives the organization its direction. It answers the "what to do" 

question. It must be realistic and 

obtainable. The second answers 

the "how to do it" question. A plan 

to achieve the goal is developed 

and refined. The leader should 

consider several plan alternatives 

to ensure that all possibilities are 

evaluated and personal prejudices 

are minimized. The leader should 

use the problem-solving process 

and the ethical decision-making 

model, as explainedin FM 22-100. 

Communicating the plan and 

goal to those who must executeitis 

a particularly critical step. Failure 

to communicate will cause 

problems, delays, and even failure. 

Badcommunicationisperhapsthe 

most common cause of mission 

failure. Good leaders are excellent 

communicators. FM 22-100pre-

?r:e goaVmissbn. 

r

2. Develop a plan. 

IT3. Communicate the plan. 

Subprocosseo 

> 
 - problem-solving process 

- ethical dedsbn making 

T - probiem-solving process 

-the command estimate 

-technical proficiency 

- tactical proficiency 

? - communication model 

4. Supervise execulion. *

Always build the motivational climate. > - ethical behavior 

-cohesive units 

-trust and confidence 

-take care of the soldier 

Flgure 1 

sents many helpful techniques for 

effective communication, 

Once the order is given, the 

leader muat supenrise execution of 

the plan. He has the ultimate 

responsibility to ensue that it gets 

done right, and he must follow up 

to ensure that orders were properly understood. If mission changes 

are received, the plan may need to 

be If so, then further 

decisions are made and communicated. The leadership process is 

cyclical, as illustrated in Figure 1. 

At any point in the pmcess, the 

leader may be forced to drop back 

a step or two and stad over. 

The last step is not really a step 

yet itis the most importantpart of 

the process. Leaders must always 

work to build a motivational 

climate in which their subordinates will strive to accomplish 

the mission. 

Motivation 

Motivation is the key to efhfective leadership. Motivating soldiers to accomplish the 

mission is the most difficult and 

important part of leadership. It 

is the element of leadership that 

differentiates it from mere 

management. Management is a 

subset of leadership. Managers 

make decisions and formulate 

plans. They allocate resources 

and decide how they will be 

used. Leaders must also manage, 

but they are faced with an additional challenge. They must 

motivate their subordinates to 

follow the plan, use the resources, and ultimately accomplish 

the mission. That's the really 

tough part. It doesn't matter if 

you have the best-trained men, a 

Engineer 33 
fool-proof plan, or the best equipment. If your men are not motivated to perform-you're not 

going to get the job done. 

Conversely, motivated soldiers 

can overcome much adversity and 

even bad planning. Military officers and NCOs must be particularly concerned with motivating their soldiers. We must be able 

to ovemde the natural self- preservation instincts that soldiers feel 

in combat. That is a considerable 

challenge, to say the least. 

Your men will follow you prima& 

for fm reasons. First, they have 

trust and mnfidence in your &ties 

as their leader and in themselves as 

soldiers. They know that you win 

make the right decisions and do the 

right thing.And this trust does not 

mme autmnati* You must em it. 

Their self confidence mmea fmm 

good training. m*,they are part 

of a team. Again, this is something 

you must build Next, they have intense personal pride and believe in 

what they are doing. You must strive 

to build the selfesteem of every soldier in your unit My, they fear 

punishment This is the worst way to 

motivate soldiers. It pmmotes minimal performance. The more P0s;tive 

means of motivation foster a maximum effort fmm wery man and 

gives the unit the Btrength that 

mmes frmn a combined team effort. 

You should practice the 

first three and reserve the last one as 

a final resort Now, let me offer some 

ideas on building a good motivational 

climate. 

Ethical behavior is essential to 

creating a good motivational 

climate. Gainyourmen's trust and 

confidence by always acting in an 

ethical manner. You will instantly 

lose it if you lie, cheat, or steal. 

Would you follow a dishonorable 

man? I wouldn't. And neither will 

your men. An unethical man will 

not be able to lead his men-and 

therefore cannot be tolerated. Unethical behavior undermines and 

ultimately destroys the motivational climate. 

34 Engineer 

Leadership Styles Leadership 

'How do I molivate?' 

Situational Leadership i w i 


"Howmuch do lparibipahr 


in me process 1' 


(Sf- 2, 3.6 4) 


Flgure 2 

Build a cohesive team at all 

levels. The team gives the individual soldier a strength far 

beyond his individual limits. The 

team allays his fears. A cohesive 

unit works better, withstands the 

rigors of combat better, and survives longer on the battlefield. Always strive to have your units 

work together as aunit. Get a mascot. Develop a unit motto. DOanything to help the soldier identify 

with the unit. Make it his second 

family. 

Take care of the soldier. He 

must feel that you genuinely care 

about his well being. If you do not 

genuinely care, you should not be 

an Army leader. There is a fme 

line between learning to train 

under adverse conditions and 

simply practicing to be miserable. 

Find that line and stay away from 

the misery side. Take care of the 

soldier's family. His family is his 

primary concern. So make sure it 

is one of Your primary concerns. 

When leaders take care of their 

troops, troops will have trust and 

confidence in their leaders. 

Be technically and tactically 

proficient. If your troops discover 

that you don't understand basic 

knowledge and doctrine, they will 

lose--or never developtrust and 

confidence in you. They will justifiably fear that you will make the 

wrong decision and get them 

killed. No one will follow a man 

who doesn't know what he's doing. 

Situational Leadership 

'Pe process that I have just 

described is situational. Much 

has been said about situational 

leadership types. Different leadem 

exercise different types of leadership (authoritative, participative, 

and delegative) depending on time, 

people, and the task. These leadership types merely refer to varying 

amounts of active leader participation in the leadership process. As 

the situation warrants, some steps 

of the process are skipped entirely 

or given less emphasis by the 

leader. 

The authoritative leader makes 

all of the decisions. He commmicates the plan himself and he supervises it closely. He works 

through the entire process in 

detail. The participative leader allows his subordinates to make 

some decisions and partially supervise activities. The delegative 

leader allows the leadership 

process to be carried out primarily 

by his subordinates, while he 

retains ultimate responsibility and 
- - 

approval authority. However, are both compatible with the motivational climate, respectively. 

regardless of the style used, the leadership process. They are sub- The manual talks about situationleader must always define the mission and build the motivational 

climate. 

The situational nature of the 

leadership process includes 

leadership at senior levels. A 

leader modifies his application of 

the process as he progresses 

through the ranks-but the basic 

process remains the same. The 

senior leader must still decide 

what to do, how to do it, and then 

ensure that it gets done. 

Perhaps the primary difference is 

that the senior-level leader is unable to get involved in as many 

details because he heads a much 

larger organization. There is 

simply too much to do and he can't 

do everything--so he must adopt a 

more delegative style. Consequently, he will spend much of his 

time defining the mission and setting the goal. FM 22-103calls this 

"vision." He must see the big picture and point his unit in the 

proper direction. 

He also cannot supenise every 

detail of execution but he will still 

supervise from a distance. Most 

importantly, he will strive, just as 

the lieutenant does, to build a 

motivational climate for his soldiers. In principle, he performs all 

the same leadership actions as a 

new lieutenant. But he must do it 

in a more delegative style. 

Leadership Styles 

uch has also been said 

about leadership styles. 

Leadership style refers to the 

means by which a leader chooses 

to build the motivational climate. A positive leadership style 

uses the positive motivational 

techniques that I discussed earlier, while the negative style 

relies primarily on fear and 

punishment. 

The concepts of situational 

leadership and leadership style 

sets of the process (Figure 2). 

Leaders exercise situational 

leadership when they ask themselves, "how much should I participate in the process?" Similarly, 

a leader adopts a style when he 

decides how he will develop the 

motivational climate. 

The Process and 

Doctrine 


Jl agrees with the principles 

laid out in the leadership 

manuals. But while all of the 

steps are addressed in current 

publications, the manuals fail 

to bring everything together 

into a single cohesive framework. The leadership process 

I've outlined does just that. 

Figure 3 illustrates the synergism between the process and existing doctrine. First, let's look at 

FM 22-100,Military Leadership. 

Setting the goal and developing a 

plan is essentially the manual's 

"Providing Direction." The 

manual speaks of "Supervising 

and Evaluating" and "Providing 

Motivation." These correspond to 

the supervision steps, and the 

al leadership in Appendix B. What 

I have called Leadership Types, 

the manual refers to as 'Leadership Styles." My concept includes 

a tailoring of the leadership 

process to account for different 

motivational levels, supervisory 

needs, and the decision-making 

abilities of subordinates. 

The doctrine concerning senior 

leadership is set forth in FM 22-

103.Chapter six discusses how to 

build effective organizations. 

Delegation and team building are 

key points. Chapter four talks of 

the individual skills needed by the 

senior leader. Technical and tadcal competency are the foundation 

of those skills. This manual separates management and leadership 

as being two separate entities. As 

stated earlier, I believe that management is a subset of leadership. 

The doctrine supports my emphasis on delegation of authority 

and building cohesive units. The 

central idea of the doctrinal model 

of senior leadership is vision. It is 

the most essential element of that 

model. While I would agree that 

vision is a very important concept, 

I would include the development of 

the motivational climate as being 

equally important. 

The Process and Existing Doctrine 

Leadership Procass FM 22-100 

1. Goal/mlsslon Provldlng dlrectlon 

2. Develop a plan Rovldlng dlrectlon 

3. Communicate the Factors of leadership and 

plan Leadership competencies 

4. Supervlsa Supe~lslngand avaluatlng 

Mothretlonal cllmate Provldlng motlvatlon 

Figure 3 

FM 22-103 

Vlslon 

Protesslonal skllls 

Professlonal skllls 

The organlzatlon and 

Professional ethics 

Engineer 35 
My emphasis on ethical behavior is mirrored in both 

manuals. However, I believe that 

ethical behavior is required in 

order to earn the trust and confidence of your soldiers. It is absolutely essential in building a 

good motivational climate. The 

manual does not discuss ethics in 

this context. 

The leadership process fits nicely into existing lead&ship 

doctrine. It provides a framework 

for leadership and tells the 

military leader how to go about his 

job of leading. Simply stated, a 

leader must decide what to do, 

how to do it, and then ensure that 

it gets done. It is situational and 

applies to all leadership types and 

styles. This leadership process is 

used by both senior and junior 

leaders. The situational nature of 

the process explains the apparent 

difference between leadership at 

different levels. 

It is the big picture that has 

been missing from the doctrinal 

manuals. The leadership process 

I've presented here-combined 

with existingdoctrine--presents a 

unified, comprehensive framework of leadership that offers all 

leaders concrete methods by 

which to lead our modern Army. 

Y 


Major Wagner is senior team leader 

for the Engineer School's Department of Instruction, Engineer Officer Advanced Course division. He 

previously served as assistant 

professor of physics at the United 

States Military Academy. He has 

also serued as a company cvmmander for the 2nd Engineer Battalion, and assistant division engineer for the 2nd Infantry 

Division. Other assignments include assistant 93, company XO, 

and platoon leader, He is a 

graduate of West Point, Combined 

Arms and Services Staff School, 

and Command and General Staff 

College. He holds a mter's degree 

in physics from the Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology, and is a 

registered professional engineer in 

Virginia and New Hampshire. 

(Persod Viewpoint continued) 

obstacle systems, a skilled manpower-intensive task, takes far 

longer than it did formerly. Combat engineer numbers have 

dropped dramatically-from 24 

to 18 platoons. With the loss of 

the bridge company, the division 

can no longer haul its obstacle 

materials. It has also lost the 

ability to construct anti-tank 

ditches. 

Between the current infatuation 

with the offense and our engineer 

Uimprovements,"we can no longer 

establish a credible defense. 

We Must Fix the 


Problem 


The new mine effects .simulator, when used with 

skill, will reacquaint maneuver 

commanders with the mine 

threat. We must educate them to 

the mine opportunity. A combined arms obstacle manual is 

essential for them to take ownership of an integrated obstacle, 

fire, and maneuver battle. We 

must teach maneuver commanders obstacle tactics, and sell 

them on the importance of 

obstacles. We must be goodvery, very good--at our craft. 

We need to change our mine 

warfare research and development process now! For two 

decades we have chased the holy 

grail, looking for an effective scatterable mine system. While the 

Volcano and the WAM give us an 

unprecedented capability for 

situational obstacles and antiarmor ambushes, they are too 

complex and expensive. We must 

reserve these systems for special, 

high-payoff tactical opportunities; 

we can't afford the quantities 

needed for run-of-the-mill 

obstacles. 

What we really need is a cheap, 

effective mine (without bells and 

whistles) that we can produce and 

employ by the millions. As a start, 

we could buy those molded plastic 

Italian mines, which are a three 

generation improvement over conventional U.S. mine hardware. An 

even simpler fix would he to package combat demolitions the same 

way we package small arms ammunition: two 20-pound containers 

packed in a case. If the containers 

were made of plastic instead of 

metal, with nylon carryinghandles 

and a fuse well molded into the 

side, they could be converted to 

mines. A magnetic fuse, which 

several firms would like to sell the 

Army today, would make a mine 

when necessary. This solution is 

cheap, flexible, and effective. 

We need to re-examine our 

structure under ERI. Reducing 

the division to two-thirds of its engineers and one-fourth of its digging capability is not an improvement. We have a better command 

and control structure but have lost 

the muscle it's supposed to control. 

We have peaked on assault 

mobility--now we must look at our 

other missions. Desert Storm 

division commanders bought into 

and argued for an ERI that had 

twice the number of engineers 

they will get under the approved 

ERI design. They expect the 

capability they saw in the desert. 

They need this capability to provide adequate engineer support to 

the combined arms team for both 

offensive and defensive operations. We owe it to them! 

As the French learned at the 

start of World War I, focusing only 

on the attack is a deadly trap. Our 

Army will eventually learn this as 

the euphoria of Desert Storm 

fades. Once again engineers must 

lead the way-to balance the tactical pendulum. 

Colonel Greenwalt is commander 

of the 937th Engineer Group (Combat) at Fort Riley. He serued as 

regimental engineer of the 1st Infantry Division in Operation Desert 

Storm. He has also commanded 

combat engineer companies in Germany, Vietnam, and Fort Polk. 

36Engineer 
And The Bridge Came 


Bumbling Down 


By Bob Harris 

Engineer 37 
hen the Corps of En-	 Corps, Air Force, Canadian 

gineers decided to de- 	 Military Engineers, the Naval 

molish an old bridge located in Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), 

the impoundment area of a new and the Engineer School 

"The opportunity reservoir, they called on Ken- (USAES). 

tucky National Guard sappers to The Carter Bridge was a 242- [for engineers] to do the job. foot-long, single-lane, steel 

The Carter Bridge in eastern bridge with one through truss. destroy a standing Kentucky was deemed by the The substructure had several 

~untin&n District of the corps types of piers, including one bridge does not of Engineers as a potential safety I steel, two concrete columns, two 

and navigation hazard to future cut stone piers, one quarried 

'Ome in boaters on the reservoir. stone pier, and one reinforced 

When asked if demolition of the concrete pier. The superstruc- peacetime." 	 bridge might provide a good train- ture was constructed of steel 

ing opportunity for engineer sol- stringers with one through steel 

diers, the Kentucky National truss and a wooden deck. 

Guard jumped at the chance. The The 2Olst engineers were given 

2Olst Combat Engineer Battalion extensive instruction in the Sheffrom Ashland, Kentucky, was asfield Method of bridge demolition 

signed the job of taking down the by experts from the Engineer 

School's Department of Instmc- bridge in March, 1991. tion. The demolition plan called To maximize the bridge's useful- for the bridge to be taken down in 

ness, it was also decided to use the four phases. The first was to drop bridge as a research vehicle for the through truss and cut the 

new methods of bridge demoli- steel pier which supported the 

tions. Other players in the project far shore spans. Next, explosive included the Waterways Experi- formed penetrators were used 

ment Station (WES), the Marine against the cut stone piers and 

38Engineer 
Above: One of several exploslve formed penetrators (EFPs) used on the brldge's concrete 

columns and piers. The davlce, still under development, can cut both concrete and reinforcing 

bar at the same tlme (U.S. Army photo). 

Farleft: Sappers from the 201st Englneer Battallon prepare C4 charges to cut the bridge's 

structural members durlng the flrst phase of demolltlon (U. S. Army photo). 

concrete columns. Phase three 

called for the use of two 1,000 

pound Air Force bombs against 

the reinforced concrete pier and 

the quarried stone pier. The last 

phase was demolition of any 

remaining structures. 

The through truss and steel pier 

members were rigged with C4, 

based on the steel cutting formula 

P=3A/8. 'Ib ensure that the truss 

would drop straight down without 

hanging up, the sappers needed to 

produce a clean cut of all structural members. 

'Ib do this, each cutting charge 

was divided in half and offset on 

opposite. sides of the steel beams to 

produce a shearing effect. 

All charges were initiated with 

an exploding bridgewire cap attached to det cord set up as ring 

mains. The sappers and other 

participants took an observation 

position about 3,000 feet away to 

view the successful first-phase 

destruction. 

With a slight change in the 

phase sequence, the sappers 

employed experimental demolition methods over the next four 

days against the remainder of the 

bridge superstructure and piers. 

Two 1,000 pound Air Force bombs 

were hand-emplaced by the 201st 

sappers. One bomb was used 

against the reinforced concrete 

pier and one against the quarried 

stone pier. Each bomb was positioned at an angle and placed at 

the penetration depth it would be 

expected to obtain if dropped from 

an aircraft. 

WES technicians used strain 

gauges, accelerometers, and highspeed cameras to measure and 

record the destruction of the concrete pier. Additional visual observations were planned, but the explosion threw the entire 10-ton 

abutment about 50 feet in the air 

and into the river. Both piers suffered massive destruction from 

the bomb blasts. 

Also tested was a demolition 

device called the explosive formed 

penetrator (EFP), which was used 

against all the remaining concrete 

columns and piers. Developed by 

NSWC, the EFP consists of a concave copper disc about a quarterinch thick. A charge of C4 is packed against the convex side of the 

disc. On detonation, a copper slug 

is fomed and propelled into the 

target. 

Maximum effective range of the 

EFp is 100 times the disc 

diameter, and minimum standoff 

is one to one and one-half times 

the disc diameter. The EFPs used 

on the Carter Bridge ranged from 

Engineer 39 
6 to 22 inches in diameter, using 5 

to 33 pounds of C4. This is approximately a 1-to-1 ratio of explosive-to-disc weight. The EFP, 

which is still under development, 

is designed to be a stand-off 

demolition which will cut reinforced concrete. Currently, engineers do not have a fielded 

munition which will cut both concrete and reinforcing bar at the 

same time. 

Flash flooding during the 

project added an extra challenge 

to demolition efforts. High water 

denied access to the two cut stone 

piers, so the EFP was employed 

against the piers from distances 

up to 75 feet with good results. 

The opportunity to destroy a 

standing bridge does not come 

along ohn in peacetime. And the 

combined efforts of the 201st Engineer Battalion and the other 

project participants made sure 

that both training and research 

were well served when the bridge 

came tumbling down. Y 

Mr. Harris is a civil engineer 

for the Engineer School's Combat Construction Diuision. He 

previously served as a materials analyst for the school's 

Directorate of Combat Developments. A retired Army National Guard colonel, he also 

served as commander of the 

203rd Combat Heavy Engineer 

Battalion, the 135th Engineer 

Group, and Division Support 

Command, 35th Infantry Diuision. He is a graduate of Command and General Staff College, and holds a bachelor's 

degree in ciuil engineering 

from the University of Missouri at Rolla. He is a registered professional engineer 

in Missouri. 

is ess 

to ant 

ards

... 

humr 

He 

head, 

LL- -

(Engineer Safety continued) 

This ( rovides in I 

units develop I 

vehicle urlver crainingprugmln. rc 

iential thr I

d enforce 

and techr ,.. , . 

3t our lea, 

the updal 

~iquesde I 

tnis pwlicatlon. 

For an accidentprevennon plan 

to be successful,operators and supervisors must become familiar 

with the hazards associated with 

vehicle. In this case, we can link 

the hazards to specificparts of the 

m anaton 

,ad. We ! 

the body i 

me ~IIOS~ injuries uur~ug~VUM "Lciden , lacerate 

and a I the head 

when rney are rnrown about 

during an accident sequence: 

when the vehicle rides over bumps 

or comes to a sudden stop. Rollover accidents are the major cause 

of fatal head injuries. Unsecured 

hatches are another significant 

cause of head injuries. 

Preventive measures include: 

ts. Soldie 

~dercon1 ., 

1Y. 

!'I1 begin 

r part tha ^- .I..-:-.. 

rs bruise: 

tusions ta >, 

formation 

a tracked I' 

ders train 

ted stand. 

scribed in 

with thr 

t receiver 

.*fl,,., -" 

Enforcing speed limits I 

Enforcing the use of safetj 

belts 

Ensuring that passengers and , 

crew members wear helmets 

and know imminent roll-ovei 

procedures 

Ensuring supervisor 

the positive lockin 

latch on all hatches t 

during vehicle operat 

,s inspect 

kg safetj 

)eforeanc 

ion 

!any back 

^n.."nA I.. 

tonm 

plan 

tactic 

Back and Neck. Er 

and neck injuries are L~U..U UJ' 

the samefactors that contribute to 

head injuries. Soldiers who connect or disconnect trailers to the 

MI13 are also prone to back injuries. In addition to the preventive measures listed above, proper 

supervision and ground guides 

can help prevent these accidents. 

Back and Rib Cage. Soldiers 

'm8, 

!em. Mc 

r injuries

.. . . 

before s 

:the cor 

, proper .:-- --a 

Hands, 

)st arm, 1 

are caus " 2 7. 

are secur 

,eve facto . ~ ~~~~ 

sudden stop or drives over mugh terrain. Speed mntml, route i 

and use of safety belts a t 

most of thee injuries. 

AT ureJ 

Fin8 hand, and 

finge ,ed by unsecurea natcnes. aolaiers whoperform maintenance such as installing, removing, or assemblingparts 

on the M113, also injure these 

body parts. Preventive measures 

include protective equipment such 

as gloves and goggles,proper planning tarting a mission, 

using rect tools for each 

task. supervision, and 

check^^^^ WLU rechecking hatches 

sure they *ed. 

~ilethe ak rs account 

xor most injuries, some soldiers 

who were not passengers or crew 

members have been maimed by 

the M113APC. For example, some 

dismounted soldiers elected to assume hasty fighting positions in 

the path of an M113, and some fell 

asleep in areas trafficked by these 

vehicles. Such needless and tragic 

accidents can be avoided if units 

use ground guides in bivouac, canent, and motor pool areas; 

actions during unexpected 

:al halts; and brief soldiers 

aaout selecting safe sleep areas. 

ny safety statistics show that 

Cngineer Branch has successintegrated safety into most 

day-to-dayoperations. But we must 

not rely on our record. We must 

continue to incorporate safety in all 

that we do. Commanders and supervisors must continue to ensure 

that unit-level training occurs 

regularly and that operators, instructors, and crew members meet 

the standards provided in FM 21-

17 and TC 21306. They must concentrate prevention efforts toward 

educatingsoldiers about equipment 

hazards and the countermeasures 

needed to ensure safe working 

conditions. 

40 Engineer 

who mPY the tank-mander 

poaition receive back and rib cage injuries when the vehicle oomes to a 

Captain Miguel Torres is the Engineer Branch Safety Manager at 

Fort Rucker. 
ENGINEER UPDATE 


Autovan numbers are 676-XXXX and commercial numbers 

am (314) 563-XXXX unless olhemise noted. 

Directorate of Training and 1992 Senior Engineer Leaders Tralnlng Conference (SELTC) 

Doctrine (DOTD) 	 Planned. The 1992 SELTC for Active and Reserve Component 

senior leaders will be held on April 21-25 at the Engineer Center. 

A District Commanders Conference is scheduled for April 21-22; 

registration begins on April 20. SELTC activities will be on April 

23-25, with the Regimental Dinner on April 24. Invitations will be 

mailed early in February. POC is MAJ Joseph Schuessler, -5335. 

Topographic Master Plan Published. The coordinating draft 

of the "Amy Topographic Master Plan" is scheduled for distribution in February 1992. This plan will be the base document used 

to develop topographic support to AirLand Operations, assess our 

capability to provide topographic support, and identiiy solutions to 

deficiencies through the doctrine, training, leader development, organization, material, or soldiers (DTLOMS) process. POC is LTC 

Schnabel, -5435. 

MllItary QualIfIcatlons Standards (MQS) Update. Students attending the Engineer Officer Basic or Advanced Courses (EOBC 

and EOAC) or the Command General Staff Officer Course 

(CGSOC) will be required to verify their proficiency on MQS. A 

trial program to verify MQS I (Pre-Commissioning tasks) began In 

EOBC class 2-91. A test to verify MQS II - Tier I (lieutenant tasks) 

is scheduled to begin with EOAC Class 6-92 (22 May 1992). 

CGSOC engineer students participated in a test of MQS iI - Tier II 

(captain tasks) in December 1991. The Engineer School will 

analyze test results and make necessary revisions. References 

are: 

b 	STP 21-I-MQS MOS IManual of Common Tasks (Pre-Cornmissioning Requirements), May 1990 

b 	STP 21-II-MQS, MOS 11 Manual of Common Tasks (For 

Lieutenants and Captains). January 1991 

b 	STP 5-21-ll-MQS, MOS I1 Engineer (27) Company Grade 

Officer's Manual, March 1991 

The Combined Arms Command is developing an MQS Ill (field 

grade officer) common task list. POC is CPT James Price, -7787. 

Combined Arms Tralnlng Strategy (CATS). Resident training 

for CATS will reflect training as it exists at Fort Leonard Wood. 

This strategy will provide unit commanders with a single source 

document listing the tasks and standards to be trained. it will also 

show specialized training, such as MILES, a soldier or officer 

received here. August 1992 is the target date for submission of 

Engineer 41 
CATS resident training to the Combined Arms Command (CAC). 

They will review all submissions and determine a plan for fielding 

CATS. POC is CPT James Price, -7787. 

Fratrlclde Pmventlon. As a result of experiences in Desert 

Storm, the Engineer School is part of a TRADOCIAMC team 

tasked to address casualties by "friendly fire." The school position 

is that engineer forces inflict fratricide primarily through mine warfare. The school is reviewing doctrinal and training materials that 

influence the control, reporting, recording, and marking of friendly 

minefields, especially scatterable mines. Changes to doctrine will 

be included in school instruction and in the next revislons of 

MTPs, FM 20-32 (FY 92), and FM 5-102 (FY 93). POC is CPT 

Bruce Chesne, -7784. 

Directorate of Combat tieavv Assault Brldae -. IHAB) and MI Breather. The HAB

Developments (DCD) 	 and MI- reacher have been designated as project managed systems, acquisition category Ill. The HAB program will develop an 

MLC 70 bridge (24 meter gap crossing capability) on an M1 chassis. Initial operational capability (IOC) for the HAB is FY 97. The 

MI Breacher will have the capability to breach complex obstacles. 

It will have a full-width mine-blade with automatic depth control, a 

power-driven arm, and a 2-man crew. IOC for the Mi Breacher is 

FY 97. Both vehicles will have the mobility, su~ivabilty and supportability of the MlAl main battle tank. POC is CPT Ted Rausch, 

-7339. 

VOLCANO Flelded. The 13th Engineer Battalion, 7th Infantry 

Division, was the first unit to receive the VOLCANO, on 6 December 1991. Light engineer units in the XVlll Airborne Corps will 

receive the system and 5-ton dump truck mounting hardware 

M-I Braacher 	 during the remainder of FY 92. Heavy divisions will receive the 

system with M548 mounting hardware in PI93-94. Aviation units 

will receive the system with UH-60 mounting kits in FY 95. Systems will be fielded to the rest of the Army in FY 96-98. POC is 

Mike Bonomolo, -7978. 

Engineer Personnel Warrant Offlcer Management Act (WOMA). New legislation 

Proponency Office (EPPO) that provides a lite-cycle management system for warrant-officers 

becomes effective in Februaw 1992 (see article. Daae 21). The .. ., system has four major components: a single promotion &stem, 

management by years of warrant officer service, selective early 

retirement, and promotion to Chief Warrant 5. WOMA will offer full 

career potential to all warrant officers and provide the Army with 

enhanced readiness based on a better qualified, more experienced 

warrant officer force. POC is CW4 Bobbie Campbell, -5353. 

42 Engineer 
Engineer Branch Safety 

Office (EBSO) 

Project Warrlor Opporfonltles. Engineer officers and NCOs 

who participate in Project Warrior will spread the expertise learned 

as observerslcontmllers at combat training centers (CTC) to the 

rest of the force. After 2 years at a CTC, Project Warrior participants are assigned to their branch school, where they add current warfighting experience and practical application of doctrine to 

the instruction of junior leaders. Engineer captains serve as tactics 

and training instructors. EOAC small group instructors, or engineer 

combat operations doctrine writers at the Engineer School. Engineer NCOs (SSWSFC) are assigned as instructors at the Libby 

Non-Commissioned Officer Academy or as EOBC platoon trainers. 

Contact your assignment personnel for more information about this 

challenging program. POC is CPT David Kramer, -5362. 

Anny To Cease Uslng Halon. The Secretary of Defense has 

directed that the Army stop using Halon as a fire suppressant. 

Halon must be completely eliminated from the Army inventory by 

October 2000. 

Units are directed to immediately stop the practice of bleeding 

fire suppressants into the atmosphere while performing rnaintenance. Beginning in July 1992, penalties will be imposed on units 

that do not comply with this directive. POC is Mark Totzke, -7346. 

Safety-Ot-Use (SOU) Messages. A study conducted by the 

Amr School indicates that SOU messages often are not received 

on a timely basis. Recent SOU messages are: 

b TACOM 91-26 (29 Nov 91) Towbar, motor vehicle. NSN 4910- 

00-433-7094, procured under contract DAAA09-61-C-4279. 

Use should be discontinued immediately. Company commanders should contact their TACOM LAR for further instruction. 

b MEP-24-91 (26 Nov), Model 2500 L Firetruck, NSN 4210-01- 

193-3621 (limited one-time inspection). Possible fuel leak in the 

WEBASTO heater. POC is Gary Horton, AMSTR-MEPP, DSN 

693-9396. 

Safety Vldm Tapes. Units can use two new video tapes to 

upgrade their safety training programs. Both tapes focus on the 

leader's role in promting safety awareness, and are available at 

local Training and Audio-Visual Support Centers (TASC): 

"Reducing Risks in Training - Its Nobody's Fault," PIN 706456, 

NT 20-932. 

b "Maintenance Safety," PIN 706034, T\TT 20-933 

POC is Paul Rusinko, -5002. 

Engineer 43 
Reserve Component (RC) EOAC-RC Pmgram Changes. Officers are still required to take 

all four phases of EOAC-RC. Officers who have not taken the 

Common Core (Phase IIA) from Fort Eustis as of 1 October 1991, 

must take Phase I, CAS3-RC, from Corresponding Studies at Folt 

Leavenworth. To enroll, send a DA Form 145 to Commander. 

USACGSC, Ann: ATZL-SWE-R, Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027- 

6900. A new two-phase program is scheduled for FY 93. 

Officers who have completed the Advanced Course from 

another branch must take three phases of EOAC-RC. Normally 

these are Phase I: Company Command Module, Phase 118: Engineer correspondence, and either Phase IIIA: Combat Engineer 

or Phase 1118: Sustainment Engineer. 

There is a change concerning Phase I. An officer who has had 

two years of successful command is no longer required to take 

Phase I, if his rater sends us a memo stating that he had two 

years of successful command. That is all the memo needs to say; 

no details are required. Upon receipt of this memo, the offlcer will 

take Phases llB, IIIA, and IIIB. Address memos requesting this 

exception to policy to: Commander, USAES, Ann: ATSE-ESR, Fort 

Leonard Wood, MO 65473. POC for USAR is COL Shoff, -6336. 

POC for ARNG is LTC Juneau, -7742. 

News and Notes Soldier Hotllne Established. A new hotline at Fort Benning 

gives soldiers and commanders a voice in deciding the equipment 

they will use in the field. Recommendations to improve battlefield 

capabilities of lethality, command and control, survivability, sustainment, and mobility are requested. To make recommendations, 

call (404) 545-1245 or AV 835-1234. 

Blaster's mining Seminar. A Blaster's Trainlng Seminar is 

scheduled for 24-26 Febnrary, 1992, at the University of MissouriRolla. The seminar includes 20 hours of instruction. For more information, call (314) 341-4317. 

Senior Officer Loglstlcs Management Course (SOLMC). 

SOLMC offers commanders and primary battalion- and brigadelevel staff an opportunity to update their knowledge in the logistics 

arena. The one-week course at Fort Knox encompasses maintenance, supply, and transportation procedures, and hands-on experience with vehicles, weapons, ammunition, medical, communications, NBC, and quartermaster equipment. It is open to officers in grade of major or above in the active and reserve Army, 

US Marine Corps, and allied nations; and civilians in grades GS11 and above. For information, call (502) 624-7133. 

44 Engineer 
- - 

Past in Review 


The Evohtiort of Engineer Officer 


By Dr. Martin Reuss 

q".
he Corps of Engineers 

is apmduct of the West 

Point Military Academy." So begins chapter one of Arthur Morgan's polemic against the 

Corps, Dams and Other Disasters. 

Morgan's assertion is not far off the 

mark. West Point's educational 

system has profoundly affected 

both theprofessiondappmach and 

general outlook of engineer officers, who historically came from 

the top 10 percent of each graduating class. Except for those Chief 

Engineers who were already in the 

Army when West Point was estab 

lished in 1802, all Chiefs of Engineers in the 19th century, and all 

but two in the 20th century 

(Reybold and Pick) have been 

alumni of "the Point" 

However, it is also true that an 

engineer officer's professional advancement depended on showing 

mastery of many subjects learned 

in military and civilian institutions &r graduation from West 

Point. These subjects included 

civil works, military construction, 

and combat engineering. The aim 

was to produce an officer who 

showed management and leadership abilities and had substantial 

engineering skills that could be 

used in a wide variety of peacetime and wartime missions. 

Today, as the Army is being 

reshaped in response to changing 

geopolitical and economic realities, 

it is important to recall that historicdly the education of engineer 

officers has always striven to identify those who were both talented 

Education 


and flexible enough to work in 

many darerent environments. 

What sort of education did early 

West Point cadets receive? In the 

early 19th century, it was definitely an education based on FrancoItalian theory and technical literature. Of the 943 books in the West 

Point library in 1822, 63 percent 

were in French. Of the engineering books, 82 percent were in 

French. "All the cadets at the end 

of the second year read French 

with facility," wrote Major Joseph 

'Ibtten of the Corps of Engineers in 

an 1821 letter. The French stand 

so confessedly above all their 

neighbors in many departments of 

science (that) it is unquestionably 

necessary to reach thus far." 

!he to the French approach, 

West Point cadets spent much of 

their academic life studying mathe 

matics. In 1823, 36 out of a weekly 

total of 54 hours of study were 

devoted to mathematics in the first 

and second years. Basic engineering was learned from a limited 

number of texts, at first entirely 

French. An 1824 West Point regulation put engineering and the 

science of war into a single course 

that embraced field fortification, 

permanent fortification, science of 

artillery, grand tactics, and civil 

and military architecture. Included 

in civil and military architecture 

were canals, bridges, and other 

public works. Beginning in 1827, 

with Dennis Hart Mahan's Elementwy Course of Civil Engineering, 

cadets used some textbooks written 

in the United States. 

At the end of the 19th century, 

mathematics remained the major 

subject during the first two years 

at West Point. Cadets studied 

military engineering in years two 

and three and for half of the final 

year, when it shared equal time 

with civil engineering. That halfyear civil engineering course was 

the cadet's sole exposure to the 

subject. 

At the end of the half year, each 

student needed to pass an oral examination, at which time the instructors also graded various engineering drawings. Should a 

student fail this examination, he 

might be required to take a written test. Generally, the examination was considered "doubtful" if a 

student failed to achieve twothirds of the total mark. 

For most young engineer officers after the Civil War, postgraduate education began at the 

Engineer School of Application, 

which was established at Willets 

Point, New York, in 1866. There, 

West Point graduates had an opportunity to command a company 

of enlisted men (three to five companies were in the engineer battalion) and to hone skills learned 

at the academy. 

Most of the work conducted at 

Willets Point dealt with combat 

engineering problems and submarine mining, although surveying and tidal and current 

measuring received some attention. Normally, officers spent approximately two and one-half 

years at Willets Point. 

Engineer 45 
Class of 1904 West Polnt cadets working with models (U.S. Army photo). 

In 1901,the school wasmovedto 

Washington Barracks (now Fort 

McNair), in Washington, D.C. 

There young lieutenants took 

courses in "civil engineering, lighthouse construction, mechanical 

and electrical engineering, seacoast defenses and permanent fortifications, including land defenses of important harbors." The 

school was officially renamedThe 

Engineer School in 1904. After 

World War I, it was moved to 

Camp Humphreys, now Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

In 1909, the part of the Engineer School curriculum that applied to the mobile Army was 

transferred to the newly established Army Field Engineer 

School, at Fort Leavenworth. The 

purpose of that school was to instruct engineer officers in their 

46 Engineer 

military engineering responsibilities and to provide military 

engineering instmction to Army 

Senrice Schools. 

A department of engineering offered courses in such fields as mapmaking, fieldfortifications, lines of 

communication, and the organization, duties, and equipment of engineer troops. The department of 

military art taught tactics, military history, conduct of war, horsemanship, and current military issues. The language department 

offered a required course in 

Spanish (the United States had 

gained several Spanish-speaking 

possessions following its victory in 

the Spanish-American War, and 

engineer officers were working in 

the Panama Canal). If a student 

already knew Spanish, he was required to take French or German. 

The Field Engineer School was 

transferred back to Camp Humphreys in 1920,and its courses were 

reincorporated into the curriculum 

of the Engineer School. 

Beginning in the early 192(Ya, 

the Corps began sending young officers with high potential to oub 

standing universities and colleges 

to further their engineering education. In this country, MIT, Comell, 

University of California, Berkeley, 

and Iowa were the preferred universities for civil engineering. Some 

fortunate and highly talented engineers could pursue their education abroad, often at outstanding 

universities in Germany. 

Until the onslaught of public 

works projects during the New 

Deal years, a West Point graduate 

had a long wait before being given 

control of a river or harbor project. 
In the immediate 

post-Civil War period, 

he was expected to go 

first to the School of 

Application. Then he 

sewed as an assistant 

engineer for several 

years to gain practical 

experience. Only after 

attaining the rank of 

captain and passing 

some dmcult promotion examinations was 

he given charge of a 

public works project. 

An officer often did 

not gain this opportunity until he had 

been out of West Point 

for nearly 15years. Nineteenth century West Point classroom scene (U. S. Army photo). 

In 1909. the normal 

0f6cer career progres- ants assigned projects. and World War I, the examining sion was changed slightly &r After a year's exposure to the board inquired about the manner graduating fmm West Point, each en- full range of civil works activities, in which an officer discharged his gineer &cer immediately joined an a lieutenant attended the En- duties, his Army school reeord, and engineer district to gain practical ex- gineer School at Washington Bar- his familiarity with technical perience under the engineer &m in racks. After completing those literature. charge.TheCorpstriedtoarrangeit 

so that egch new graduate spent 	 courses satisfactorily, he was as- For promotion to first lieusigned to civil works and military tenant, the officer might be exsome time working on the Panama 

Canal, on breakwater or jetty work, duty as an assistant to more amined on various West Point 

and on river imprwements. In each senior officers. A young officer textbooks, astronomy, familiarity 

spent at least four years with en- with various instruments, field 

ease,the &cer was expected to write gineer troops and at least one at reconnaissance, methods of ada "ddptive memoir upon the the Army Field Engineer School. ministration and construction, works observed, which shall include 	 Only after this time could he ex- and disciplinary and drill proce- a comparison ofthe theory and prae 	 pect to receive the rank of captain dures. For captain, he needed to tice of the work under observation" 	 and be given authority over a civil know about coast and harbor The Engineer Schd Board reviewed works project. defense, principles of civil en- these memoirs and gave an &cer Promotions were agonizing. A gineering involved in river and school credit if his memoir was 

deemed satisfactory. 	 promotion board examined each harbor improvements, surveying, 

When reporting to his first duty candidate orally for at least 6 and if he had sewed with troops, 

station, a lieutenant was expected hours and sometimes for more something about their duties and 

to bring with him about half a 

than a day. The board examined engagements. To become a major, 

dozen books prescribed by the Chief the candidate's notebooks and the candidate could he examined 

memoirs and assigned a memoir on any of the above subjects and of Engineers that pertained to ac-	 subject for the candidate to com- was expected to know about the tivities in that region These might plete within a week. The officer organization of armies, especially include B.F. Thomas and DA Watt, had to pass all phases of the ex- engineer forces in the field, show Impmement of Rivers; LF. Vernon amination. If he failed, he could familiarity with modern American Hamout, Riuers and Canals;WII- not be re-examined for a year. A liam Starling, Fhds of the Missis-	 and European military literature, 

sippi River; and Mansfield Mer- 	 second failure ended in discharge and have some knowledge of the 

riman, Zkatise on Hydmulics. The from the Corps. important features of the Civil 

District Engineer could modify the Exact procedures and subjects War. While the board usually did 

mding assignments to accommw covered in the examinations not question the officer on all subdate requirements of the lieuten- changed over time. Generally, in jects, the candidate had to prepare 

the period between the Civil War for all possibilities. 

Engineer 47 
IfWest Point was the first step 

on the military career ladder, the Engineer School Directory other steps fell into obvious place 

for junior engineer officers: attendance at the Engineer School, 

learning practical engineering at 

the district level, perhaps publishing some articles, command experience over engineer troops, attendance at a top-notch engineer 

college and Fort Leavenworth, 

and passing the promotion board 

examinations. In the end, an engineer officer had not only obtained a respectable engineer 

education (a process which West 

Point only began), but also had 

learned to be a manager. 

Today the Corps of Engineers 

prides itself on its ability to 

manage all kinds of engineering 

actinties, from the smallest to the 

biggest andvery expensive maw* 

engineer projects. This pride and 

capability are the natural consequences of more than 175years of 

Army engineer education. 

source.: 

Calhoun, David Hovey. The American 

Civil EngiMec Oiigina and Conflict. 

Cambridge;The MIT Ress. 1960. 

The Centennial of Che Unifed States 

Military Academy at West Point, New 

York, 1802-1902, Vd.1: Addresse~and 

Histories. Washington. D.C. U.S. 

Government Printing Office,1904. 

Floyd, Dale. me Army Field Engineer School". Unpublished manuscript, Officeof History, Headquarters, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Harman, Michael Murrin. 'The Formation of the Engineer School of Ap 

plication and Its Early Hisbry, 1866 

1896". Master of Arts thesis. George 

Washington University, ad. 

Shdlat, Todd Arkin. 'St~ctures in 

the Stream: Water, Science, and the 

Civil Activities of the U.S. Army Corpa 

of Engineers". PhD dissertation, CarneljaMellon University, 1985. 

D,: Martin Reuss is a Senior Historian in the Office of History, 

Headquarters, U.S.Army Corps of 

Engineers. 

48 Engineer 

Commandant 

MG Daniel W. Christman 

ATSE-Z 

AVN 676-61 16 

(314) 563-6116 

Engineer Center Command 

Sergeant Major 

CSM Richard N. Wilson 

Am-CG-SM 

AVN 676-6149ffi151 

(314) 563-614916151 

Assistant Commandant 

BG Joe N. Ballard 

ATSE-AC 

AVN 676-71 17 

(314) 563-7117 

Deputy Asslatant Commandant 

COL Henry S. Miller, Jr. 

ATSE-DAC 

AVN 676-6330 

(314) 563-6330 

Directorate of Tralnlng and 


Doctrine (DOTD) 


Director 

COL Robetl N. Mattin 

ATSE-TD 

AVN 676-7740 

(314) 563-7740 

Segeant Major 

SGM Donald E. Rasmus 

ATSE-TD 

AVN 676-7528 

(314) 563-7528 

Directorateof Evaluation and 

Standardization (DOES) 

Director 

LTC(P) William T. Maddox 

ATSE-ES 

AVN 676-5270 

(314) 563-5270 

NCOlC 

MSG Archard Utlley 

ATSE-ES 

AVN 676-531 0 

(314) 563-5310 

Directorate of Combat 


Developments (DCD) 


Director 

COL Frederick J. Charles 

ATSE-CD 

AVN 676-7955 

(314) 563-7955 

Sergeant Major 

SGM Serbrempster Hewitl 

ATSE-CD 

AVN 676-7880 

(314)563-7880 

Departmentof lnstructlon 

(DOI) 

Director 

COL Charles R. Huggins 

ATSE-DO1 

AVN 676-5683 

(314) 563-5683 

Setgeant Major 

SGM Audley G. Hendon 

ATSE-DO1 

AVN 676-5652 

(314) 563-5652 

Engineer Personnel 

Proponency Offica (EPPO) 

Director 

LTC R. 0.Buck 

ATSE-EP 

AVN 676-6337 

(314) 563-6337 

Sergeant Major 

SGM John Cooper, Jr. 

ATSE-EP 

AVN 676-5354 

(314) 563-5354 
BRIDGE THE GAP 


By Command Sergeant Major Rlcha~dN. Wllson 

U.S. Army Englneer School 

lexibility and the ability to respond to unexpected 

Fevents are crucial components of every noncom 

missioned officer (NCO). As leaders, we must provide 

the training our soldiers need to build the skills and 

techniques they will use to survive in an increasingly 

complex environment. Our job is to develop new 

leaders-soldiers who have pride in our Army, t~st 

and confidence in their abilities, and the will to win 

against any odds. 

Leader development is critical for the future of the 

Corps of Engineers and is one of the most important 

challenges facing us today. To develop high quality 

new leaders, we must first build competent warfighting and leadership skills. We must understand the importance of leader development and provide the support and emphasis needed to sustain it. And, we must 

develop an all encompassing program for training that 

will guide and assist every NCO throughout his or her 

career. 

Leader development for NCOs is structured around 

three pillars: institutional training, operational assignments, and selfdevelopment. Each pillar plays a critical role in an NCO's professional development. 

Institutional training, the first pillar, focuses mainly 

on the NCO Education System (NCOES). It begins 

wlh the Primary Leadership Development Course 

and culminates with the Sergeant Majors course. 

Other programs of instruction, such as the Battle 

Staff Course and First Sergeants Course, provide 

excellent training within the institutional development process. 

A primary component of successful institutional 

training is our abillty to select the best NCOs to attend these courses, and to ensure that those selected 

are fully prepared and motivated to attend and complete them. During this period of shrinking resources, 

we must ensure that every training dollar is spent 

wisely. Unfortunately, we still find instances where 

NCOs who are overweight, can't pass the Army physical fitness test, or have some other disqualification, 

report to NCOES schools. This is totally unacceptable! As leaders, we must do better in this area. 

The second pillar, operational assignments, 

provides opportunlles for leaders to refine skills, 

broaden knowledge, and shape attitudes gained in institutional training. These assignments provide NCO 

leaders with opportunities to gain on-the-job experience that prepares them for progressively mre 

difficult duty positions. 

To fulfill this part of the development process, we 

must make NCO leader development a priority unit 

mission. We must clearly define and expand duty 

position requirements and be actively involved in assigning the best qualified NCOs to progressively more 

diiicuil duty positions. We must be creative when 

developing assignments, and find ways for NCOs to 

build the skills needed to respond to unexpected situations. We must mentor subordinate NCO leaders, accurately access their performance, and be honest and 

constructive when counseling them. 

Each unit must prepare and implement a developmental program for their NCOs that supports the 

unit's mission and prepares them for future assignments. This program should point NCOs toward the 

third pillar: self-development. 

Selfdevelopment works hand-in-hand with the 

other pillars. it does not happen in a vacuum. Every 

NCO must demonstrate the motivation and ability for 

selfdevelopment. But, we cannot expect our soldiers 

to develop themselves unless we provide an honest 

assessment of their abilities and potential through 

mentorship and counseling. 

We must all accept the challenge to improve our 

leadership abiliies. And we must challenge others by 

helping them establish a course of action for their selfdevelopment. We must encourage our NCOs to 

prepare for self-development tests (SDT) and to irnprove their technical competence through military and 

civilian education. Taking the Test of Adult Basic 

Education (TABE) enables an NCO to establish a 

starting point from which he or she must work. 

Let us make leader development our primary mission for 1992. 1 challenge each of you to prepare and 

implement a leaderdevelopment plan for your unit. 

Engineer 49 
Improved Inert Mine Clearing Line Charge (EX421127) I 

ch.ncterI8tks: 

Mentlul M68AZ flrlng produre 

3 Inch rockol and 7/16 inch daomn mpe 

H Reducedrange safety fen (800 yds) 

H Permksmultiple firing 

FkIdhg Data: 

H Scheduled for FY 93 

H One-for-onereplacement for 

the M66A2 

... :..:....