January-March 2005

UNITED STATES ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

COMMANDANT

Major General

Randal R. Castro

MANAGING EDITOR

Shirley Bridges

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS

Karin Gan

Cheryl Green

Penny Moats

Kathy Webber

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Jennifer Morgan

Front Cover:

Cover illustration by Alan

Speer - Multimedia Visual

Information Service

Center

Back Cover:

Photographs courtesy of

US Army and other

sources.

DEPARTMENTS

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers

Headquarters, Department of the Army Volume 35 PB 5-05-1

FEATURES

4 Developingthe Right Skills and Tools- As a Team!

By Major General Randal R. Castro and Lieutenant Colonel Paul L. Grosskruger

7 Communication-The Key to Our Success

By Lieutenant Colonel Paul L. Grosskruger

9 Training leaders for Combat

By Lieutenant Colonel Shawn Howley

11 IntegrationofTopographicEngineeringSkills and Tools-Providing Assured

Mobility with C2 Systems

By Mr. Ken Bergman

14 UsingTopographicEngineeringto Achieve Dominance in Urbanand Complex

Terrain

By Mr. Ken Bergman

18 Warrior Ethos,Tasks, and DrillsSpiral Into Initial-EntryTraining

By Major Janet Kirkton

22 TaskForce Trailblazer:ProvidingAssured Mobility

By Major Paul D. Harron

28 lED Defeat:ObservationsFrom the NationalTraining Center

By Lieutenant Colonel Thomas H. Magness

32 CounteringIEDsand ExplosiveHazards

By Mr. Robert G Baker and Mr. Dorian V. D'Aria

37 Heavy Rescue Operations DuringOperation Iraqi Freedom

By Major Adam S. Roth

40 EODand Engineers"Closethe Gap"

By Lieutenant Colonel Craig Jolly

49 Antipersonnel Obstacle Breaching System

By Mr. Bobby Skinner

50 Equippingthe FutureForce Sapper

By Captain Michael P. Frank

53 Combat Service Support to the Future Engineer Force: A Modular Approach

By Major Brian D. Slack

59 The FutureArmyTactical Fire FightingTruck

By Major Mollie Pearson and Mr. Michael Bonomolo

2 Clear the Way

By Major GeneralRandal R. Castro

3 lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major Clinton J. Pearson

25 Personnel Notes - "Officer Professional Development"

By Chief Warrant Officer 4 Frederick Kerber 54

26 Personnel Notes - "Enlisted Career Progression" 55

By Sergeant First Class David Hatch

35 Personal Viewpoint - "Command and Control of

Construction Assets in Iraq"

By Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey R. Eckstein

46 CTC Notes - "lED Defeat Training"

By Captain Andrew Liffring, Captain Jason

Railsback, and Captain Matthew Louvet (NTC)

Dedication

Personal Viewpoint - "Theater Engineer

Transformation"

By Colonel Gerald Lago

January-March 2005 Engineer 1
xx Engineer January-March 2005

Throughout its history, the Engineer Regiment has

distinguished itself, time and time again, by its support

to our Nation. And at this point in our history, we stand

together at a crossroads of relevance. We must select the

right fork in the road—that which takes us toward developing

relevant skills and tools for our units and staffs. We must

quickly address capability gaps in urban and complex terrain.

We must ask ourselves “Do they have the tools they need?”

“Are we skilled to accomplish the tasks required?” “Do we

have the right organizations?” It is up to us to seize the initiative

and make this happen!

Challenges and Opportunities

Today’s landscape is changing by the minute. It’s filled

with quickly evolving technologies, instantaneous

global communication, and increasingly complex urban

population centers and terrain—together with highly adaptive,

deadly, motivated, and elusive enemies who play by their own

rules. In response, the Army has begun to adapt to meet the

challenges with more responsive, specialized, modularized,

effects-based organizations or modules. These capabilitiesbased modules—centered upon the brigade combat team, the

units of employment-tactical (UEx), and units of employmentoperational (UEy)—are right for our Army.

Taking the concept of modularity to completion will reduce

the number of engineer battalions. However, the Regiment

you see as a result of modularity is not the Regiment of

tomorrow. Several Department of the Army-level studies have

shown that future engineer requirements have actually

increased. These requirements, coupled with numbers of

engineer headquarters based on a “bottoms-up” process,will

ultimately require more engineer structure than we had prior

to modularity. At the brigade level is where we will mix and

match modules. From the brigade level on down, we will be

better able to provide a full range of support to our Army and

to our Regiment. The message is loud and clear: “We’re coming

back!”

A New Approach

The doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leader

development, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF)

assessment approach has served the Army and the

Engineer Regiment well and is the foundation for the future.

But we have to be much better at getting the skills and tools to

our engineer Soldiers, staffs, and units to keep them

indispensable to the land component maneuver commander.

Our focus needs to be on continual “gap analysis” of engineer

support to maneuver in complex and urban terrain. This

approach also continuously incorporates today’s lessons

learned and provides refinement in placing the right mix of

skills and tools into our Future Engineer Force. This concept

focuses our limited resources, maximizes our use of

collaboration across the Regiment, and sets forth short- and

long-term goals.

Skills

We must strive to ensure that our skills are relevant today

and tomorrow and that they are indispensable to the land

component maneuver commander. We have focused our

efforts for years on engineer skills supporting maneuver in

open and rolling terrain. Operations in complex and urban

terrain—today and in the future—demonstrate the need for

getting better skills for our Soldiers and staffs to enable

mobility in conjunction with maneuver in such terrain. Soldiers

must first be warriors, fully versed in battlefield fundamentals

of “shoot, move, and communicate” and in expertly executing

their military occupational specialties—from the moment they

leave one-station unit training (OSUT) and advanced individual

training (AIT). Sappers must be skilled in pattern analysis,

change detection, search, reconnaissance, and terrain

visualization. We all must be trained to expertly predict, prevent,

detect, and avoid today’s improvised explosive devices (IEDs),

bridge the gaps, ensure security of lines of communication,

and many other engineer-unique missions. Specialized training

such as the Sapper Leader Course, Urban Mobility Breacher

By Major General Randal R. Castro and Lieutenant Colonel Paul L. Grosskruger

Developing

the Right Skills

and Tools—

As a Team!
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

Course, search courses, and specialty courses must be

standards for our Soldiers and leaders. Finally, we must tighten

the linkage between our Soldiers, leaders, and staffs in combat

and our institutional schools and laboratories. Skills must also

be linked with building future modular units. This must be a

continuous approach where we constantly assess our current

skills and update the training of our Soldiers, leaders, and

staffs.

Tools

Our tools are—and always will be—our credentials and

“stock in trade.” They are inseparable from our skills and the

lessons learned from today’s operations and lead to the right

effects for our Army. As with our skills, our tools have been

designed to dominate open and rolling terrain. But today’s

operations require our engineer tools to address the immense

challenges of complex and urban terrain in addition to open

and rolling terrain.

We are finding major equipment capability gaps for our

Soldiers and units in providing assured mobility in complex

and urban terrain. Some tools are out there—such as urban

breachers, mine detectors, specialized explosives, mine and

search dogs, RG-31 and Buffalo armored vehicles, and

reconnaissance tools. In addition, the Digital Terrain Support

System and TeleEngineering Kits are making great impacts.

All engineers must seek out and obtain these emerging tools.

Much more work is needed in getting the right tools to our

units and engineer staffs and making them more indispensable.

Efforts in networked air and ground technologies to detect

and neutralize explosives and other hazards are needed. Also,

we need to pursue modernizing equipment for our sapper

modules and for construction equipment in building and

maintaining lines of communication (ports, airfields, and roads),

logistic support areas, and lodgment areas.

Lessons Learned

We cannot develop relevant skills and tools for our Soldiers,

leaders, and units without incorporating observations, needs,

and lessons learned. Our manning and equipping strategies

must be closely linked with the Total Engineer Force,

continuously gaining feedback and sharing developments. It

is critical for our units to forward lessons learned and

recommended solutions to our institutions, because they

provide an incredible windfall of information to develop

solutions for better skills and tools. This not only yields better

Soldiers and units but also provides invaluable feedback to

our concepts teams as we craft the Future Engineer Force.

Future Engineer Force

We continue the massive efforts associated with

transforming the Engineer Regiment into a more responsive

and effective organization for our Army. The future engineer

structure will provide more leadership challenges,

opportunities, and professional development for our Soldiers

and leaders than we have had in the past. Our Future Engineer

Force is a total, top-to-bottom design of the Regiment that—

 Is capabilities- and module-based.

 Brings to bear the entire Regiment.

 Provides professional growth.

 Mixes and matches the right effects for the operation from

across the Regiment.

(need a caption)
xx Engineer January-March 2005

This is an exciting period in our history. We are about to

bring to life the concept of the Future Engineer Force by

activating and converting units this summer. The complete

transformation of our Regiment will take a little more than five

years. Our organizations will be more versatile and

responsive—capable of providing all facets of engineer

support. Our command and control capabilities will be greatly

expanded and—perhaps the best news for our Regiment—we

are fixing the logistical support to our organizations. Our

battalions in the Future Engineer Force will have a forward

support company in addition to a headquarters and

headquarters company. We have worked very closely with

the US Army Combined Arms Support Command (CASCOM)

in developing a very capable support structure that will serve

us well into the future.

People

Our Regiment is people—our Soldiers, Department of

the Army civilians, leaders, allies, and families must

always be the centerpiece of our actions if we want

continued success. They ultimately put the skills and tools

together to produce the desired effects for our Army. We must

provide defined career paths, opportunities for professional

growth, and missions filled with challenges and rewards in

order to acquire and retain quality Soldiers, leaders, and civilian

employees. Also, we must solidify programs to address needs

and concerns of our families. To accomplish this, we must

constantly and effectively communicate both internally and

externally in this rapidly changing world.

One Regiment

With such a diverse organization filled with talented

people, our goals of providing the absolute best

skills and tools for our Soldiers, leaders, and units

can certainly be realized. A thought process where we gauge

our progress and win as a team is needed. It is clear that the

Engineer Regiment has an incredibly bright future. Let’s work

together to pave the way for those to follow! Essayons!

Major General Castro is the Commandant, US Army

Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Lieutenant Colonel Grosskruger is the Chief of Staff, US

Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Soldiers from the

9th Engineer Battalion, 2d Brigade, 1st

Infantry Division,

engage in house-tohouse fighting in

Samarra.

Photo by Sergeant First Class Johancharles Van Boers
xx Engineer January-March 2005

Teaching, coaching, and mentoring are basic blocking

and tackling tasks of leader development, and that’s

what the “Dragon Battalion” is all about! The 554th

Engineer Battalion conducts training and leader development

to produce technically and tactically competent, adaptive,

disciplined, and fit engineer officers for the Regiment. The

battalion trains both Active Army and Reserve Component

officers in the Engineer Officer Basic Course (EOBC), Engineer

Command and Staff Course (ECSC), and the Pre-Command

Course (PCC) and trains warrant officers in the Warrant Officer

Basic Course (WOBC) and Warrant Officer Advance Course

(WOAC). The primary mission of the 554th is to train engineer

lieutenants for combat. The battalion has transitioned the

training and education of the lieutenants in four distinct ways:

 Started small-group instruction for the EOBC.

 Redesigned both the tactics and engineering blocks of

instruction to better focus on urban and complex terrain.

 Redesigned the field training exercise (FTX) to be an allencompassing exercise, stressing the officers in troopleading procedures, tactical skills, and engineering skills.

 Sent qualified lieutenants to follow-on combat preparatory

courses on their way to their next unit of assignment. The

overarching focus for the lieutenants is to be able to “shoot,

move, communicate, and engineer.” (Yes, the lieutenants

do qualify on their M16, land navigate both dismounted

and mounted, communicate tactical tasks on the radios,

and build and blow up stuff in this battalion!)

The current organization and focus of the 554th is in an

interim stage as the Army transitions in March 2006 to the new

Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC). BOLC (Figure 1) has three

phases:

 BOLC I is the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) and

Officer Candidate School (OCS) commissioning source.

Training Leaders

for Combat

Lieutenant Colonel Shawn Howley

BOLC Model

Legend:

ABN = airborne

MOUT = military operations in urban terrain

STX = situational training exercise

USMA = United States Mlitary Academy
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

 BOLC II is a combined arms training phase focused on

small-unit tactics.

 BOLC III is technically focused (for engineers) on assured

mobility and field force engineering.

The 554th is currently training about 80 percent of the

curriculum that will be used in BOLC III. It is continuing to

refine and improve the instruction as it incorporates

observations and lessons from the field. The battalion is

currently in a transition point between decades of “that’s the

way we’ve always done it” and “shaping” the training and

education methods that will allow it to execute the BOLC III

mission, while simultaneously preparing leaders for combat.

On 15 November 2004, the battalion began training EOBC

lieutenants at the small-group level with captains as smallgroup instructors (SGIs). The method is much the same as the

way we train captains in the ECSC with small-group leaders

(SGLs). The SGIs are selected from a graduating ECSC class

and are placed in an “SGI Academy” much like and Observer/

Controller-Trainer Academy at one of the combat training

centers. While in the SGI Academy, they attend the Instructor

Training Course (ITC) and become familiar with the processes

that support EOBC and instructional blocks they will teach to

the lieutenants. A typical EOBC class of 70 officers is divided

into four teams of approximately 16 to 17 lieutenants. An SGI

is responsible for training, educating, and developing each

team. The training and education is coordinated with the largegroup “platform” instructors from the Tactics and Engineering

Division in the academic section of the battalion to ensure

that the appropriate method of instruction is used based on

the subject to be trained. Close coordination with the largegroup instructors and the SGIs also supports the consistency

in the instruction between the small groups.

The tactics and engineering blocks of instruction have been

refocused to better train the lieutenants in urban and complex

terrain. The battalion has incorporated lessons learned from

current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into lesson plans

to better prepare the officers for their “first unit of

assignment”... in your platoons! Some of the improvements

made in the tactics block are improvised explosive device (IED)

awareness, urban breaching techniques, and assured mobility

fundamentals. Improvements in the engineering blocks include

force protection, quality control, infrastructure reconnaissance,

and reinstituting “hands-on construction” in Fire Base

Thunder, the battalion forward operating base in the Fort

Leonard Wood training area. Senior officers will remember this

as “Project Hammer” training, during which there was “handson construction” training for lieutenants. The purpose of

restarting this training is to familiarize the junior leaders with

quality control and project management of a construction

project.

The FTX is the “capstone” event for the lieutenants’

training in the Dragon Battalion. The lieutenants execute a

2-week exercise during which they plan, prepare, and execute

tactical and engineering missions. Some of the missions are

route reconnaissance, bridge reconnaissance, react to contact,

airfield reconnaissance, and infrastructure reconnaissance—

all consistent with a Southwest Asia area of responsibility.

There is a common training theme in which the instruction

taught in the tactics block will be revisited in the FTX, as well

as the engineering block. The Opposing Force (OPFOR) is

dressed in a mix of old military uniforms and/or “Arabic

regional-style clothing” such as the Arabian salwar kameez,

a very long shirt and pants.

The 554th further prepares junior leaders for combat by

coordinating directly with the Engineer Branch to attain slots

for the Ranger School, Sapper Leader Course, and Airborne

School, just to name a few. The battalion has been successful

in these courses and continues to strive to get lieutenants in

other courses to better prepare them for their units. Other

courses being planned for lieutenants to attend are the Cavalry

Leaders Course and the Bradley Leaders Course.

Teaching, coaching, and mentoring are still the foundations

upon which we train and educate leaders for our Regiment.

The 554th Engineer Battalion is totally dedicated to ensuring

that officers it trains are as prepared as it can possibly make

them—for your unit, the Regiment, and the Army.

Lieutenant Colonel Howley is the Commander, 554th

Engineer Battalion, and Chief, Department of Instruction,

US Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He

previously served with the 130th Engineer Brigade, Camp

Victory, Iraq; 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas; 3d

Infantry Division, Schweinfurt, Germany; and the 10th

Mountain Division, Fort Drum, New York. He holds a master’s

in human resource development from Webster University.
xx Engineer January-March 2005

US maneuver warfare concepts have been developed

and used very effectively over the past three decades

to achieve unprecedented levels of success in

Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and Operation Iraqi Freedom

in 2003. Much of the combat in these conflicts entailed

operations in open and rolling terrain. The reason we dominate

maneuver in such terrain is largely due to the fact that we

dominate the information in that environment, and we are able

to deploy weapons systems and maneuver platforms that

overcome threat forces before they can interdict our forces.

In contrast, complex urban terrain presents a more challenging operating environment in that threat forces can get

closer to our soldiers before we can bring superior combat

power to bear. Unless we are properly prepared, threat forces

can make devastating attacks on our units in this type of terrain.

The threat can employ explosive devices and snipers to hit

allied targets of opportunity and can also employ suicide

bombers in vehicles.

Information dominance and dominant maneuver are harder

to achieve in urban terrain, but there are measures we can take

to give our soldiers important advantages. Engineer solutions

include physical measures to interdict threat forces, such as

countermine operations and building barriers, as well as

command and control (C2) measures that can enhance our

information dominance. This article focuses on how the

topographic engineering component of information dominance

helps achieve dominant maneuver in complex urban terrain.

C2 capabilities are closely associated with any information

dominance solutions. The “observe, orient, decide, act (OODA)

loop” is a simple model for understanding C21

. The OODA

loop is used unconsciously by competing opponents. The

Army military decision-making process is a very detailed

version of the OODA loop. At a very basic level, the OODA

loop can be compared to a boxing match: A combination of

speed and a variety of different punch combinations (as well

as defensive parries)— delivered at a high tempo—can rapidly

overcome an opponent. Extrapolate the OODA loop to a

brigade or higher echelon, and the level of complexity of

divergent decision trees grows exponentially. Geospatial

information and services (GI&S) provide the foundational

basis for C2 decisions in all phases of the OODA loop, helping

soldiers understand the lay of the land and act on that

understanding, in both open and rolling terrain and complex

urban terrain.

Solutions Available Now

Combat field commanders are very focused on rapid

solutions to meet their C2 needs during their tenure

of field command (typically two years). There are

several topographic engineering tools available today that

can help soldiers achieve a better understanding of the terrain

and make better decisions. Each of these capabilities can be

employed to help warfighters achieve assured mobility in

complex urban terrain with an accelerated and more effective

OODA loop.

Urban Tactical Planner (UTP). This is a useful tool for

terrain understanding, but many people are still unfamiliar with

this very capable, user-friendly product. It is a planning tool

intended to support military operations on urban terrain

(MOUT). UTP provides an overview of the urban terrain in

the form of maps, imagery, elevation data, perspective views,

handheld photography, video clips, scanned building plans,

tables, and text. It provides three-dimensional (3-D)

visualization of key aspects of the urban environment—

including buildings, roads, railroads, streams, forests, marshes,

water bodies, and vertical obstructions (see Figure 1, page

xx). UTP is intended for rapid dissemination on a compact disk

(CD) and Intelink-S. The product can be built on short timelines

to meet contingency planning requirements as they arise.

TerraExplorer® is a software package used to run UTP. The

TerraExplorer viewer file runs on any laptop or personal

computer, with no license fees; it can therefore be copied as

often as needed and disseminated to as many users as

required. Dissemination in the field is limited only by security

procedures. UTP allows users to view the terrain numerous

times before deploying to an area. The US Army Corps of

By Mr. Ken Bergman
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

Engineers® Engineer Research and Development Center

(ERDC) Topographic Engineering Center (TEC) builds and

disseminates UTP over many key urban areas.

TEC builds a separate custom product (regional flythroughs) that use the same TerraExplorer software found in

UTP. This standalone product uses elevation data, imagery,

feature data, and annotated points of interest to provide users

with terrain understanding over a large area (hundreds of miles).

Regional fly-throughs can consist of a single country or an

entire region. Like UTP, the regional fly-through is easy to use

and runs on any laptop or personal computer. It can be

disseminated using a DVD or a Firewire (external hard drive),

depending on file size. It can be copied for as many users as

needed, without cost, subject to security procedures.

Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Detection – BuckEYE.

Finding IEDs in complex urban terrain is a challenging task,

and geospatial technology is part of the solution. Many

initiatives are in the planning phase or are going through

research, development, and engineering processes. The

BuckEYE program has shown significant success in theater.

Details regarding the program are available from TEC.

Handheld Geographic Information System (GIS) Personal

Digital Assistant (PDA). GI&S tools have advanced to the

point where they can now be deployed on Global Positioning

System-enabled PDAs. Cutting-edge PDAs in the field today

enable users to digitize important features (such as road and

bridge information, minefields, and obstacles). These PDAs

are an early instance of the soldier as a primary source of

digital terrain data. It has been said that every soldier is a

sensor. Handheld PDAs with embedded geospatial software

enable the Army to implement this tenet in digital form.

Terrain Team Support. Terrain teams are the critical links

between GI&S technologies and ground warfighters. The

Army has fielded terrain teams with world-class GIS capabilities

down to the brigade level. Army terrain teams are able to build

rapid-response products that lead to terrain understanding,

which is a key component of information dominance. The Digital

Topograhpic Support System (DTSS) is the C2 system used

by Army terrain teams. The DTSS is supported by the Combat

Terrain Information Systems (CTIS) project office. Terrain teams

produce customized terrain analysis products, 3-D flythroughs, perspective views, masked area plots, line-of-sight

analyses, and hard-copy printouts of custom geospatial

products. Terrain teams in theater have been developing new

methods to address the complex nature of urban terrain with

cutting-edge analysis tools. Additional capabilities are

provided using reachback to terrain teams at higher echelons

(division and corps), theater-level Army assets (Theater

Geospatial Database), TEC, and the National GeospatialIntelligence Agency (NGA). Each level provides support to

terrain teams at the “pointy end of the spear.” TerraExplorer

software was recently delivered to the terrain teams, so they

are now able to edit existing UTP products and regional flythroughs and to build their own fly-throughs in theater from

source data.

It is essential that we continue to sustain these teams with

current, updated hardware and software and—more

importantly—with trained, motivated soldiers who can make

innovative products in the field to support the warfighter,

thereby supporting information dominance. It is also essential

that these teams remain tightly linked to reachback assets to

ensure that they have the very best possible products available

to the maneuver element.

Figure 1. Urban Tactical Planner
xx Engineer January-March 2005

Solutions Available in the Future

New technology solutions will give soldiers increased

information dominance in the future. Some of these

efforts are available today in the commercial world

and need to be packaged for use in the field. Other capabilities

are still in the initial stages of development.

Light Detection and Ranging (lidar) Systems. Lidar uses

an active energy source (laser) to find the range to a distant

object. (This is similar to radar, which uses radio waves to

detect distant objects.) Using the laser time of flight and precise

location of an airborne or vehicle-mounted lidar sensor, this

system can be deployed to collect extremely accurate elevation

data (1-meter post spacing or better). This is a mature

technology that is used throughout the developed world for

detailed terrain understanding and analysis. For example,

cellular telephone companies can use lidar elevation data to

find the optimal locations for towers to maximize

communications coverage for their customers. In the tactical

world, this data set can be used to build a number of useful

products, to include detailed 3-D fly-throughs and line-of sight

analyses; identify ambush sites, dead space, and avenues of

approach; and generate detailed feature data (see Figure 2).

Important engineering tasks can be accomplished using

lidar, to include repair of buildings and precise estimates of

volume and mass in a small hill of gravel or other material. For

example, ground-based lidar was used to measure the size of

granite slabs used to repair the Pentagon after 9/11, and

airborne lidar was used to estimate the amount of material to

be removed from the Twin Towers site in New York City.

Applications for lidar in the tactical environment are readily

apparent.

Urban Terrain Information Constructs (UTICs) -

Battlespace Terrain Reasoning and Awareness (BTRA). This

program is developing automated terrain reasoning tools for

use on digital C2 systems. BTRA uses feature data with

embedded attribution (“right-click”) data and elevation data

to provide live course of action (COA) analyses. The BTRA

program has produced some useful cross-country tools for

warfighters for real-world applications. Emerging BTRA

developments are providing advanced, dynamic terrain

reasoning tools to aid in the preparation, management, and

assimilation of observation, cover and concealment, obstacles,

key terrain, and avenues of approach (OCOKA), as it relates

to intelligence preparation of the battlespace. The intent is to

use both coarse and fine terrain data sets to build tools that

will help achieve assured mobility.

UTICs is an initiative to build BTRA-like tools for terrain

reasoning in the urban battlespace. UTICs will gain major

Figure 2. Tactical Lidar

Ground Control

System
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

computational efficiencies for dynamic situational

understanding of the effects of urban environment by

reasoning against critical geospatial aspects of urban terrain.

By representing the complex urban terrain as network- and

object-based abstractions, soldiers will be able to rapidly make

tactical decisions in a changing tactical environment, thereby

increasing their pace of C2 decision making (achieving a faster

OODA loop). Immense efficiencies can be gained in both the

computation time required to perform COA analyses and the

bandwidth requirements for transmitting/sharing decision

support data. These geospatial capabilities will also provide a

framework to support management of cultural and civil

information that will be needed to support COA analyses

demanded by the command requirements of the “3-block war.”

UTICs endeavor to explore both the establishment of an

abstract representation of urban environments (as well as

develop the tools that will analyze the militarily relevant aspects

of it) and the means to disseminate dynamic information to

platforms on the move (working within communications

bandwidth limitations).

3-D Solid Terrain Models. TEC is building solid terrain

models of several cities, with imagery embedded in the models,

for numerous customers. Individual 3-D buildings are “stood

up,” and avenues of approach are clearly visible and can be

examined from various angles. These hard-surface models are

produced using computerized elevation data linked to a

machine that deposits layers of plaster that represent buildings.

Colored plaster is deposited to represent imagery overlaid on

the buildings. The plaster model is then hardened so it can

withstand normal handling by users. These tools are different

from digital 3-D fly-throughs, since users can handle the model,

view the terrain from different angles, and brainstorm

contingencies in a group setting. Many users employ this

tool—in addition to computer-based visualization—to achieve

better terrain understanding.

Joint Geospatial Enterprise Service (JGES) – Army

Prototype Program (APP). This is an initial effort to leverage

and integrate distributed geospatial capabilities to support

the warfighter. The JGES-APP architecture includes a central

hub at TEC with connectivity to field sites (such as the Terrain

Visualization Center at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri) and

overwatch support for deployed units in theater. Specific goals

in the JGES-APP include understanding how to provide

reachback support to field units; conflation (merging) of

disparate terrain databases; dissemination of new products

using limited bandwidth; and archiving and reuse of terrain

data generated in the field. The JGES-APP is an early instance

of enterprise GI&S support to the field

Conclusion

While American forces have achieved phenomenal

success in dominating open and rolling terrain,

today’s soldiers face significant challenges in

complex urban terrain. Information dominance can help

Many post offices will not deliver mail without a

street address. Please contact us to update

your mailing address if the one we are using for

you does not include a street address. Include

the old address and your telephone number, as

well as the corrected address, and email to

engineer@wood.army.mil.

Attention Units!

overcome these challenges. GI&S capabilities provide a

foundational aspect for our forces to achieve a more rapid and

effective C2 decision cycle (OODA loop). Several tools are

available for use today, while others are emerging from

technology development programs. It is imperative that we

understand and employ appropriate geospatial assets to

achieve assured mobility in complex urban terrain.

Mr. Bergman, a member of TEC, is assigned to Fort

Leonard Wood, Missouri, where he supports the TRADOC

Program Integration Office for Terrain Data. A Naval Academy

graduate, he has a master’s in systems engineering from

George Mason University, and is a former Marine.

Endnote

1 The OODA loop is an information strategy concept for

information warfare that was developed by Air Force Colonel

John R. Boyd (1927-1997). He was instrumental in explaining

and disseminating the concept of “cycle time” and “getting

inside the adversary’s decision cycle.”
xx Engineer January-March 2005

“This complex operational environment offers no relief or

respite from contact with the enemy from the lowest end of

the spectrum of conflict to the highest. Soldiers are and will

be under great stress, physically and psychologically, no

matter what their rank, specialty, or location on the

battlefield. Given this reality, all soldiers must be prepared

to close with and destroy the enemy—all soldiers must be

warriors first.”1

Deriving operational lessons learned almost on a daily

basis, the primary focus in the institutional training

base and initial-entry training (IET) has shifted

dramatically within the past 12 months. Given the harsh

demands of campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and the complex

terrain, IET graduates must be competent and confident

immediately upon graduation. Bottom line: All soldiers must

be warriors first and technical experts second.

Toward this end, the training base has been directed to

increase rigor and implement a training strategy that inculcates

the Warrior Ethos, and as resources are made available, spiral

in the warrior tasks and battle drills. As the term spiral implies,

each training cycle—one-station unit training (OSUT) and

advanced individual training (AIT)—will advance to a higher

level until IET produces soldiers who can perform successfully

in combat.

“With an Army at war, it’s critical that every Soldier, upon

graduation from initial-entry training be prepared for

combat. We’ve increased the rigor, and that puts additional

demands upon our drill sergeants. But it’s worth it for the

men and women of this great country to have the skills and

the intestinal fortitude to go forward and fight, right out of

advanced individual training.”2

Warrior Tasks and Drills

The fundamental changes in IET are a result of Task

Force Soldier. General Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of

Staff of the Army (CSA), initiated Task Force Soldier in

September 2003 for the purpose of equipping, training, and

instilling the Warrior Ethos in soldiers. The CSA wanted to

focus the Army’s efforts on winning the Global War on

Terrorism. He also wanted to ensure that training being

conducted within the institutional training base was relevant

and that every measure was being taken to prepare soldiers

for combat.

Under the direction of Brigadier General Benjamin Freakley,

a Warrior Task Site Selection Board was assembled, with the

primary purpose of defining the goals of Task Force Soldier.

One of the goals was compiling a list of essential tasks and

drills in which all soldiers must be proficient. As recent history

Photo by Pvt. Brandi Marshall
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

has taught us, many soldiers finish IET and deploy within 30

days to a theater of operation. As a result, the selection of

these tasks and drills was critical.

The final product of the Warrior Task Site Selection Board’s

labor is collectively known as the warrior tasks and drills (WT&D).

The intent is to train the WT&Ds during basic combat training

or OSUT. Although training these WT&D has already been

initiated, the program of instruction (POI) and training support

packages continued to be refined. In addition, soldiers will receive

reinforcement training on these tasks and drills during AIT.

Warrior Ethos

Another key initiative is the inculcation of the Warrior

Ethos into IET. FM 7-0, Training the Force, gives the

following definition for Warrior Ethos: “Warrior Ethos

compels all soldiers to fight through all conditions to victory

no matter how long it takes and no matter how much effort is

required. It is the soldier’s selfless commitment to the nation,

mission, unit, and fellow soldiers. It is the professional attitude

that inspires every American soldier. Warrior Ethos is grounded

in refusal to accept failure. It is developed and sustained

through discipline, commitment to the Army values, and pride

in the Army’s heritage”.3

Warrior Ethos is partially defined by the Army as “...a

renewed spirit of fight, teamwork, and commitment. Its tenets,

“We will never leave a fallen comrade behind,” “We will never

quit,” ”Mission first,” and “Every soldier is a warrior”—which

are part of the Soldier’s Creed—are now at the foreground of

training at every level in the Army. These tenets—often hidden

in the background of day-to-day occupational skill duties—are

now first priority for soldiers. Warrior Ethos is part of increasing

the quality of our soldiers in IET and across the force.

The Soldier’s Creed has been redesigned and has become

more than a catch phrase here at Fort Leonard Wood. It is

painted on dining facility walls, hung in offices and barracks,

included in PowerPoint® presentations, and recited during

inspections and graduations. It transcends IET boundaries

into the leadership of the brigade. In addition, the Soldier’s

Creed is anchored around the Warrior Ethos, which states

that we are soldiers first.

“The Warrior Ethos is about being a Soldier first; always a

Soldier. It’s not about being an infantryman; it’s about being a

Soldier. It’s about Soldiers who can fight and win, who can

close with and destroy the enemy, who can engage and kill an

enemy in close combat if they have to.”4

Although the clear focus within TRADOC is on training

and developing combat-ready warriors, the Engineer Regiment

will not be gaining soldiers less proficient in their technical

skills. Instead, the Regiment can expect to receive engineers—

regardless of military occupational specialty (MOS)—from the

training base that are just as technically proficient and better

prepared for combat operations than their predecessors of
xx Engineer January-March 2005

just the past several months. Specifically, future graduates of

IET will be—

 More experienced with US weapons (M16s, MK19s, M2s,

M240Bs, and the Engagement Skills Trainer [EST 2000]).

 Physically fit, courtesy of the standardized physical fitness

program.

 Trained to level 1 in combatives.

 More proficient in detecting explosive hazards.

 More proficient in operating in complex and urban terrain.

 More experienced in a field training environment.

 More experienced with convoy live-fire procedures.

 More confident and committed to the ideals espoused

within the Soldier’s Creed.

In addition, other initiatives in training will transform IET as

shown in the table below.

Changes in Engineer IET

OSUT (MOS 21B/21C) - Mission

Task Force Sapper and Bridger transforms volunteers into

American soldiers, instilled with the Warrior Ethos, through

rigorous and relevant training in basic combat and engineer

skills, producing disciplined and MOS-qualified 21B combat

engineers and 21C bridge crewmembers who are prepared for

combat.

As part of OSUT, combat engineers will train the WT&Ds

during the execution of the 14-week POI, without any additional

time spent at the training base. As a result, there is a significant

increase in training in the field; on checkpoint, urban, convoy,

and patrol operations; on combatives; and on land navigation.

The training units will also initiate a weapons immersion

program, with the overall intent of increasing the familiarity,

accountability, and comfort level of IET soldiers with their

assigned weapons. To the greatest extent possible, soldiers

will carry their weapons with them at all times.

Explosive hazards training is also taught to all engineer

soldiers. The primary focus of this training is on detection by

visual means of both improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and

unexploded ordnance (UXO). During the conduct of this

training, soldiers perform an engineer reconnaissance during

IED lane training, followed with reinforcement training during

a field training exercise (FTX). As part of this training, the

soldiers also execute reaction to attack, including casualty

evacuation.

All MOS 21B OSUT soldiers also receive 3 days of urban

breaching training, which includes three breaching techniques.

The manual technique prepares soldiers to breach doors,

windows, and walls. The ballistic technique involves using a

shotgun to breach a door. The explosive technique uses the

silhouette charge, C-charge, water charge, and window charge.

In addition to the WT&Ds, the 21C POI will continue to

improve in the near future. With the fielding of new equipment,

new training development products must be continually

produced. As an example, all 21C OSUT soldiers will begin

training on the dry support bridge by the third quarter of fiscal

year 2005. A task site selection board is needed for this course,

and the US Army Engineer School plans to hold this in

conjunction with the Warfighter Symposium. (See article on

page xx.)

The training highlight for engineer OSUT is the combat

engineer field training exercise (CEFTX), which is the

culminating event of the course. This exercise is 5 days/4 nights

spent in the field, focused on assessing individual soldier

tasks. Training highlights of this event include convoy

resupply, movement to contact, security patrol, secure an

objective, enter and clear a building, 4-hour mission-oriented

protective posture exercise (MOPPEX), react to contact, react

to ambush, avoid ambush, react to indirect fire, react to chemical

attack, duplicate and military operations in urban terrain

(MOUT) tasks.

Engineer AIT – Mission

Task Force Horizontal continuously transforms basic

combat training graduates at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri,

and Panama City Beach, Florida, into technically competent,

values-based, teamwork-oriented Career Management Field

21 soldiers (21E heavy construction equipment operator; 21F

crane operator; 21J general construction equipment operator;

21G quarrying specialist (Reserve only); 21V concrete and

asphalt equipment operator; 21D diver; and 62B construction

Graduating soldiers who are ready to join a unit

Conducting garrison-oriented training

Focusing on drill and ceremonies

Passing the Army Physical Fitness Test

Qualifying on the M16 rifle

Learning soldierization and the Army Values

Initial-Entry Training Transformation

Graduating soldiers ready to win and survive in combat

Conducting field-oriented training

Focusing on tactical movements and combat drills

Increasing campaign endurance, combat fitness, and combat drills

Employing weapons found in units

Learning soldierization, Army Values, and the Warrior Ethos

FROM TO
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

equipment repairer), who are prepared to

contribute on Day One in their first unit of

assignment in a contemporary operating

environment.

Task Force Vertical continuously transforms

basic combat training graduates at Fort Leonard

Wood; Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas;

Gulfport, Mississippi; Goodfellow Air Force

Base, Texas; and Fort Belvoir, Virginia, into

technically competent values-based,

teamwork-oriented soldiers (21R interior

electrician; 21T technical engineer; 21K

plumber; 21W carpentry and masonry

specialist; 21M firefighter; 21L lithographer;

21S topographic surveyor; 21U topographic

analyst), who are prepared to contribute on

Day One in a contemporary operating

environment.

Regardless of MOS, all engineer soldiers

will receive reinforcement training on the

WT&Ds as an addition to their current POI. In

fact, all MOSs—except the 21Ds and 21Ms—

will return to Fort Leonard Wood to conduct

this reinforcement training as the culmination

of their IET experience. Although extremely important and

critical to the success of our soldiers in combat, this initiative

presents quite a significant challenge in its execution. Given

the multitude of MOSs that must be trained, and the number

of engineer soldiers trained on an annual basis, the brigade

must conduct an AIT FTX every week, except for the two

weeks during Exodus. As mandated by TRADOC, all those

MOSs whose courses exceed 6 weeks in length will also

requalify on the M16.

In order to execute this training, engineer AIT soldiers will

go through battle-focused training (BFT) rather than common

engineer training (CET). The resources associated with CET

will be transformed in order to execute BFT. Initially, this training

will remain 5 days, but will grow to 8 training days by fiscal

year 2006. Additionally, to capitalize on their technical training

and prepare them for combat operations, soldiers will attend

BFT after their MOS technical training. Although soldiers are

already executing BFT, most are still doing so before their

technical training. However, the transition of BFT to posttechnical training began in the second quarter of fiscal year

2005. The goal is to be completely online with this initiative by

the start of the next fiscal year.

In addition to M16 requalification, some additional training

highlights of BFT include forward operating base procedures,

checkpoint operations, vehicle operations focused on IED defeat,

urban operations, movement to contact, convoy live fire, crewserved weapons reinforcement, and 48 hours of field training.

As indicated by the training listed above, there are

substantial resources being allocated to the training base. In

support of the WT&Ds, numerous forward operating bases,

MOUT sites, a convoy live-fire range, and other ranges and

training areas are being constructed at Fort Leonard Wood. In

addition, we are receiving new equipment, weapons, and the

additional time to train.

As the Warrior Ethos and WT&D continue to spiral in at a

rapid pace, Fort Leonard Wood’s 1st Engineer Brigade is

committed to producing engineer soldiers that are world-class.

As the Regiment, we expect you will notice a difference in

these men and women who will be joining you. A significant

investment is being made to ensure that our IET graduates are

ready. As the brigade responsible for their training, we stand

ready to take your comments and feedback as to our success.

Major Kirkton is the Brigade Operations Officer, 1st

Engineer Brigade, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. She has

had numerous assignments, including Assistant Professor at

the United States Military Academy and Chief of Engineer

Doctrine, US Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood.

She is a graduate of the Command and General Staff Officers

Course at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and holds a master’s in

education from the University of Virginia.

Endnotes

1 Warrior Ethos Web site at <http://www.tradoc.army.mil/

pao/TNSarchives/March04/036504.htm>.

2

 General Kevin P. Byrnes, Commanding General, US Army

Training and Doctrine Command, June 2004.

3

 Field Manual 7-0, Training the Force, 22 October 2002.

4

 General Byrnes, February 2004.

Task Force Sapper soldiers conduct MOUT operations during a CEFTX.
xx Engineer January-March 2005

T.

ask Force Trailblazer is an adaptation of a longstanding engineer mission—providing assured

mobility. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, the primary

obstacle to assured mobility for US and coalition forces is the

improvised explosive device (IED). IEDs are improvised mines,

and Trailblazer performs nonstandard minefield clearance.

The Task Force Trailblazer mission was originally

conducted by the 14th Engineer Battalion (Corps)(Wheeled),

a multicomponent battalion with three Active Army companies

and one Army National Guard company. The battalion was

respected theaterwide for its efforts in keeping the main and

alternate supply routes safe. It established tactics, techniques,

and procedures (TTP) that were passed on during a relief in

place with the 141st Engineer Battalion (Corps)(Wheeled),

North Dakota Army National Guard, in April 2004. In Iraq, the

141st is attached to the 264th Engineer Group, Wisconsin

National Guard, which directly supports the 1st Infantry

Division.

Mission

T.

railblazer involves clearance and sanitation of main and

alternate supply routes to provide assured mobility

for 1st Infantry Division elements.

Clearance, which is observing and removing possible IEDs

and unexploded ordnance (UXO), is performed on both sides

of the road and the median, if applicable. When specialized

equipment is used, it covers 4 meters of the roadway. A foot

patrol covers as much as 300 meters of the roadway.

Sanitation involves identifying and eliminating potential

IED emplacement sites and hide sites used by anti-Iraqi forces.

There are two types of sanitation: hasty and deliberate. Hasty

sanitation is the removal of debris and trash within 5 meters

of the roadway to reduce the ability to disguise an IED.

Deliberate sanitation is a more extensive effort that focuses

on the area within 300 meters of the roadway. Conducting this

type of sanitation denies the enemy the ability to conduct

By Major Paul D. Harron

Task Force Trailblazer:

Providing Assured Mobility
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

attacks from well-disguised positions. Deliberate sanitation in

this type of environment requires a combined arms effort; it is

necessary to have maneuver support to provide security as

sanitation operations are conducted. The enemy, just like in a

traditional battlefield, looks for favorable terrain. In this type

of environment, the enemy looks for terrain that allows him a

tactical advantage for the emplacement of IEDs and the ability

to hide and detonate them or provide an ambush overwatch.

Intelligence Support

Upon arrival into theater, the 141st prepared to receive

its equipment, while an advance party traveled to

Forward Observation Base Speicher to begin the relief

in place. The battalion’s S2 and S3 traveled north to conduct

initial coordination for this process and familiarize themselves

with the terrain. During this initial visit, the unit realized the

critical nature of intelligence in the

assured mobility fight—so critical

that the S2 remained in Iraq to

continue to learn mission, enemy,

terrain, troops, time available, and

civilian consideration (METT-TC)

for Trailblazer.

As in any operation, intelligence plays an important role

in determining the task organization. It became evident that

enemy actions and terrain would

drive the battalion’s efforts to

reduce and eliminate IEDs within

its area of operations. Using

METT-TC analysis, named areas

of interest (NAIs) were

established that allowed Trailblazer patrols to focus their

efforts. The contemporary operating environment (COE) teaches

that the enemy is a learning and changing enemy. This requires

constant reevaluation and adjustment of TTP in order to remain

effective in the counter-IED fight and keep our soldiers safe.

Anti-Iraqi forces initially surface-emplaced IEDs, which were

easy to identify visually. These IEDs were also commanddetonated with a visible wire leading to the anti-Iraqi force

member with the detonator. As Operation Iraqi Freedom

continued, IEDs became more sophisticated. Anti-Iraqi forces

started burying IEDs and remotely detonating them. Now the

141st looks for an antenna sticking out of the ground, rather

than a round with wires running from it, which makes the task

more difficult. As this TTP developed, an Interim VehicleMounted Mine Detection (IVMMD) System was included in

our patrol set. The IVMMD System allowed soldiers a greater

level of force protection and the ability to detect mines by

Charlie Company, 141st Engineer Battalion, conducts a patrol near Baqubah, Iraq.

A soldier places charges on UXO found on a Trailblazer Patrol.
xx Engineer January-March 2005

more than visual observation. As the enemy changes, so does

the mission, so the ability to be flexible is critical to success.

The battaion’s initial equipment set used high-mobility

multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs) and 5-ton dump

trucks, which were effective for identifying IEDs. Additionally,

M1114 up-armor HMMWVs and add-on armor kits for

HMMWVs improved safety while conducting route clearance

operations.

Combined Arms Effort

Task Force Trailblazer truly needs to be a combined arms

effort. Due to the constant presence required on the

roadways to be effective, it is critical to have good

relationships with the task forces that own the terrain, as well

as with air assets, if they are available.

One of the most important lessons the 141st learned from

the 14th was the importance of face-to-face coordination with

the landowning task forces. While conducting Trailblazer, there

were many occasions when it was necessary to call a task

force to assist a Trailblazer patrol with quick reaction forces

(QRFs). Coordination ahead of time was essential.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, explosive ordnance

disposal (EOD) teams, who dispose of the IEDs, were located

with the task forces. The task force QRF is responsible for

escorting the EOD teams to the site. To reduce the possibility

of fratricide, the task force must know that Trailblazer is in its

battlespace.

Another consideration in the combined arms fight is the

need for mechanized and armor support for our patrols. By

integrating these assets into patrols, it is possible to take a

more active stance when engaged by the enemy. There were

also several occasions when Trailblazer relied on air QRF to

support operations when Trailblazer elements were attacked.

Conclusion

As we enter the next phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom,

there will be several changes in Task Force Trailblazer

operations. The most notable is that the task force is

beginning to train Iraqi security forces to conduct route

clearance operations. Initially, it includes joint patrols to ensure

their capability and safety. As Iraqi forces become more

confident, it is likely that the Trailblazer mission will expand to

include patrols by Iraqi forces on their own. There are many

hurdles on the way to making this transition, but the goal is a

free Iraq, capable of maintaining democracy. To achieve this,

the Iraqi people must take ownership and pride in their own

country.

Major Harron is the intelligence officer for the 141st

Engineer Battalion, deployed to Iraq in February 2004. His

past assignments include battalion S2, air defense artillery

platoon leader, executive officer,

communications officer, and S4. He

holds a bachelor’s in criminal justice

studies from the University of North

Dakota.

Endnote

1

Task Force Trailblazer is the

brainchild of Colonel Christopher J.

Toomey of the 555th Engineer Group—

now the 555th Maneuver Enhancement

Brigade (Provisional), 4th Infantry

Division (Mechanized). During

Operation Iraqi Freedom, Colonel

Toomey identified the need for assured

mobility due to intelligence and enemy

tactics that were being used, primarily

the IED.

This article is dedicated to four

engineer soldiers who lost their lives

while conducting the Task Force

Trailblazer mission. They are

Specialist Phil Brown, Specialist

James Holmes, Staff Sergeant Lance

Koenig, and Specialist Cody Wentz.

 A soldier from Bravo Company, 141st Engineer Battalion, carefully handles a

remote detonator from an IED.
xx Engineer January-March 2005

There is no silver bullet. Try as we might, there is no

single tool capable of defeating the use of improvised

explosive devices (IEDs) on the battlefield—whether

in Iraq, Afghanistan, or at the National Training Center (NTC).

No amount of armor plating or distribution of electronic

countermeasure (ECM) devices will guarantee the safety of

our soldiers and the freedom of maneuver of our forces. Old

school thinking assumes that the enemy will be successful

and friendly forces must be prepared to react—at the point of

blast.

 Leaders at all echelons who seek proactive IED defeat

solutions should consider the following nine observations.

Based on trends at NTC and framed by the fundamentals of

assured mobility, they are a combination of those things that

engineer units and leaders (as part of combined arms teams)

do well, and must sustain—and do not do well, and must

improve. They all carry with them a consistent theme: skills

and tools. These are the elements that make engineer soldiers

unique. They are the special “brand” that are applied across

the entire combat team by those whose principal focus from

sunup to sundown is enabling mobility in concert with

maneuver. They produce a mentality that resonates throughout

the entire formation: We are all soldiers. We are not all infantry.

We are uniquely skilled and equipped for some specific,

challenging missions to include addressing the No. 1 threat

to the mobility of the force—IEDs. We are combat engineer

sappers!

Predict. Predict actions and circumstances that could affect

the ability of the force to maintain momentum.

Observation No.1: Prediction begins with rigorous pattern

and terrain analysis.

Databases of IED events must be linked vertically and

horizontally. They must be searchable and queryable to

facilitate analysis at the tactical level. This is not something

that is reserved for some theater-level intelligence cell. The

need for real-time intelligence and enemy patterns requires

tactical-level information management systems and leaders

comfortable with the exploitation of this analysis. There is

clearly more we can and must know about the enemy and how

he fights. Tactical leaders must demand accurate and consistent

reporting from every IED incident, as well as every route

reconnaissance and clearance mission. Pattern analysis is only

as good as the data that feeds it. At a minimum, tactical reports

must include the location; date/time; friendly target; IED

components; initiation system; friendly/enemy battle damage

assessment (BDA); friendly/enemy actions; names,

descriptions, and addresses of suspected or known

insurgents; and observations and key lessons learned.

 Our terrain analysis must be focused to facilitate not only

“seeing the terrain” but also “seeing the enemy (who is using

IEDs...on the terrain.” Our own observations at NTC indicate

an erosion of terrain visualization skills and of confidence in

our visualization tools. Soldiers and leaders must be able to

use tools such as TerraBase, FalconViewTM, Digital

Topographic Support System (DTSS), and Urban Tactical

Planner to identify terrain that favors the enemy’s use of IEDs.

They must be able to import imagery, video, and digital

products to facilitate real-time “change detection” (the ability

to identify differences and possible IED indicators along or

adjacent to a route). Topographic products must allow the

commander to see the enemy’s patterns of IED employment

on the terrain that favors their use. As new tools are developed

for urban terrain visualization, engineers must be the terrain

visualization masters. (See articles on pages xx and xx.)

Observation No.2: Conduct postblast reconnaissance.

Too often our IED event databases lack the necessary

information to facilitate detailed analysis. We cannot miss the

critical step of postevent analysis. Determine the necessary

components of postblast reconnaissance and train our

engineer soldiers, if not the entire combat formation, on the

fundamentals of this requirement. This is evidence collection—

a technical reconnaissance task, not higher-level analysis such

as that conducted by an EOD technician. Units regularly leave

the blast site and assume that the already-stretched EOD

assets cannot accomplish this low-priority task. There is much

to be gained from each event if a trained analyst has access to

digital photographs, measurements, residue, detailed reports,

and patrol backbriefs. Again, the output from our enemy

pattern analysis is only as good as the input.

Detect. Detect early indicators of impediments to battlefield

mobility, and identify solutions through the use of intelligence,

surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets.

Observation No.3: Follow the rules of Reconnaissance

and Surveillance (R&S) 101.

Pattern and terrain analysis, along with other intelligence

products and data, must result in a focused tactical R&S plan.

This is no change from the way we have conducted tactical

By Lieutenant Colonel Thomas H. Magness

IED Defeat

Observations from The National Training Center
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

operations for years. Areas in which the terrain favors the

enemy’s use of IEDs, and that are consistent with previous

patterns, become named areas of interest (NAIs). Observers

(scouts, patrols, unmanned aerial vehicles [UAVs], and aerial

observers) must be specifically tasked to answer IED-specific

priority intelligence requirements (PIR). Command posts

manage the execution of this focused R&S plan and provide

vertical and horizontal situational awareness of the results.

Similarly focused targeting processes must result in PIR/NAI/

observer linkages tied to proactive reconnaissance of IED

recruiters, trainers, suppliers, financiers, bomb makers, and

leaders in the IED “food chain.” We do not need new doctrine

in this area—we need the focus and execution embraced by

our current field manuals.

Engineer staff officers bring focus to this process. Engineer

leaders leverage all of the reconnaissance tools and special

equipment within their respective organizations (see Figure

1). Terrain visualization products are developed to facilitate

the proposed observer plan. Patrol debriefs and other

intelligence from subordinate units conducting route

reconnaissance provide updates to the R&S plan as it is

developed. The technical analysis of IED patterns; bomb

making material; initiating systems; and enemy tactics,

techniques, and procedures (TTP) help focus NAIs and

observers at points far “left of blast.”

Observation No. 4: Conduct focused route reconnaissance.

Each combined arms formation must have dedicated units

in which unique skills and tools for the reconnaissance task

reside. These units should be experts in the various

reconnaissance and react-to-contact battle drills associated

with this mission. They must know their route intimately from

multiple repetitions of disciplined travel. They must be “human

change detectors.” They are drilled in the ways of the enemy

and regularly updated on enemy patterns and emergent friendly

and enemy TTP. These units are the first to gain the skills

associated with the Explosives Ordnance Control Agent

(EOCA) course that spans the gap between combat units and

EOD and are prepared to respond to some battlefield explosive

threats. These units are the first to receive the equipment and

associated training to conduct this focused task to include

ECM devices, robotics, and mobile counter-IED technologies.

These skills and tools cannot be randomly distributed across

the formation. Nor can this critical reconnaissance mission be

randomly assigned to units that lack the skills and tools for it.

Engineer reconnaissance and clearance units and sapper

organizations focused on these tasks must be formed, focused,

resourced, and trained now.

The IED Task Force offers the following suggestions for

preventing IED emplacement:

 Develop good relationships with the local populace.

 Coordinate with local police; conduct joint patrols.

 Use patrols, observation points, and checkpoints; deny

access to key terrain.

 Use counter-IED—ambush teams and scout-sniper teams.

 Reduce availability of bomb making materials.

 Clean routes of trash, brush vegetation, and abandoned

vehicles.

Prevent. Prevent potential impediments to maneuver from

affecting the battlefield mobility of the force by acting early.

Observation No. 5: Focus your targeting.

The most effective way to prevent the effects of IEDs on

friendly forces is to deny the enemy the opportunity to ever

get an IED on the ground. Be proactive. Focus the targeting

Figure 1. Conducting route clearance in a Buffalo mine-protected vehicle
xx Engineer January-March 2005

process on insurgents and enemy operatives associated with

any link in the IED chain (see Figure 2). Use terrain and pattern

analysis tools and products to focus operations to deny the

enemy the use of key terrain to his advantage. Combined arms

organizations must own their respective battlespace. Do not

cede it back to the enemy.

 Engineers must be engaged in the targeting process,

especially at the brigade and task force levels. Masters of the

terrain help planners visualize key areas for R&S. Engineer

leaders bring a detailed understanding of key routes from

repetitive reconnaissance by subordinate units. They also

leverage a “family” relationship with the EOD community and

bring an understanding of technical explosives issues to the

targeting process, as well as current and projected EOD unit

capabilities.

 At NTC, the No. 1 predictor of the ability to prevent the

enemy use of IEDs is the quality and depth of relationships

within the communities of the friendly unit area of operations.

Human intelligence networks will identify insurgents and the

locations of their bomb making supplies. Local leaders will

root out troublemakers within their towns and villages. Build

and maintain efficient, two-way communication channels, and

provide incentives for informants. Include these key

relationship elements in the lethal and nonlethal targeting

processes.

Avoid. Avoid detected impediments to battlefield mobility

of the force, if prevention fails.

Observation No. 6: Develop and maintain information

management systems.

Our ability to see first, understand first, act first, and finish

decisively is directly related to our ability to develop and

maintain information management systems. The technology

exists now to provide critical mobility information (route status,

known and suspected IED locations, and enemy IED templates

based on terrain and pattern analysis) as input into the

common operating picture (COP). The Army Battle Command

System (ABCS), when fully leveraged, gives commanders and

leaders the ability to provide relevant, near-real-time

information about the battlefield. Engineer leaders must

consider the following:

 Do we have staff engineers at all task force and higher

command posts to facilitate vertical and horizontal

information flow?

 Do we have clearly understood reporting requirements and

a headquarters empowered to demand timely and accurate

reports from (maneuver and engineer) subordinate units?

 Do we have a common understanding of route status

assessment criteria?

 Do route status changes result in action by maneuver units

to confirm, deny, or mitigate the impediment to friendly

maneuver?

 Are route statuses serving as input to the targeting and

planning processes?

 How do we alert friendly units to the change of the mobility

picture? Do we have redundant digital and analog means

to alert all friendly units—to include adjacent and higherechelon units operating in our battlespace?

Neutralize. Neutralize, reduce, or overcome (breach)

impediments to battlefield mobility that cannot be prevented

or avoided.

Figure 2. Components of an IED life cycle
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

Observation No. 7: Integrate EOD units into brigade combat

team operations.

Maneuver units continue to be challenged with the

integration of EOD units. For most organizations, whether

deploying to NTC or into theater, the first opportunity to work

with these professionals is upon arrival. Engineer leaders, as

the closest “relative” to an explosives technician with whom

most maneuver units will habitually train and work, must take

some degree of ownership of EOD and its associated tactical

mobility implications. Whether a combat engineer battalion or

brigade troop battalion, there must be a node resourced and

trained to be the socket into which units like EOD can plug.

Engineer units and leaders must be comfortable operating with

EOD units and accounting for their unique battlefield

requirements.

Effective EOD integration requires a dedicated security

element. EOD personnel cannot secure themselves during

tactical employment for an IED event. The security force must

be sufficiently briefed on known or suspected threats, wellrehearsed on all react-to-contact and IED event battle drills,

and appropriately resourced with firepower and counter-IED

tools for this critical mission. Units that approach the security

requirement as a low priority or assign random units often

regret having done so. Maneuver units are forced to “wait for

EOD”—painful words for friendly forces who themselves

become vulnerable in likely enemy target or ambush areas.

Protect. Protect against enemy countermobility effects.

Observation No. 8: Moving target versus a stationary

threat.

At NTC, this is where we are seeing units having measurable

success in countering the enemy’s intentions for his use of

IEDs. Disciplined soldiers, realistic training, and the hard work

of our noncommissioned officer corps are daily proving the

value of these tactical considerations to protect the force:

 Treat every movement as a combat patrol. Prepare and

rehearse accordingly.

 Be deliberate about the positioning of key systems and

vulnerable team members within the formation.

 Maintain low profiles in vehicles and appropriate vehicle

spacing within moving formations.

 Use all available protective gear, to include body armor,

eye and hearing protection, and seat belts.

 Rehearse, rehearse, and rehearse. Prepare for reacting to

all forms of contact. Ensure that all members of the patrol

understand the mission, the threat, and all contingency

plans. Assume nothing.

 Ensure that load plans are standardized and enforced. Tie

down all loose equipment.

 Communicate—before, during, and after each combat

patrol. Identify redundant means of communication along

routes and within urban population centers.

 Identify all echelons of medical support available to the

combat patrol. Resource combat lifesavers and medical

personnel with the best available medical gear. Check and

replenish all medical stocks immediately upon returning

from each trip “outside the wire.”

Observation No. 9: Moving threat versus stationary

personnel and facilities.

A desperate enemy is increasingly leveraging the vehicleborne improvised explosive device (VBIED) against coalition

forces. Friendly units must continue to maintain vigilance

against a mobile enemy weapon that can be experienced

anywhere on the battlefield. Key tactical considerations

include standoff, while conducting operations such as patrols

and checkpoints, and heightened situational awareness built

on known VBIED indicators and enemy pattern analysis.

Soldier discipline and the items mentioned above for combat

patrols will also protect soldiers on the battlefield against a

mobile threat.

Summary

Recent battlefield lessons have also been a classic

opportunity to showcase “One Regiment, One Fight”

and leverage the knowledge and expertise of the US

Army Corps of Engineers® to protect facilities and equipment.

Personnel at the Engineer Research and Development Center

(ERDC) have done some terrific work to develop plans and

specifications for hardening entry control points and

vulnerable facilities. They have also tested a variety of materiel

solutions, many of which are now being used to protect soldiers

and their equipment. Fundamental considerations of material

strength, explosive resistance, flame retardants, access control,

standoff, and hardening—areas of expertise in various centers

and cells across the Engineer Regiment—are daily proving

their importance in protecting the force.

Observations at NTC confirm that successful units take a

holistic, proactive, broad-based approach to IED defeat

solutions based on the fundamentals of assured mobility. And

while the various responsibilities nested within the

fundamentals of predict, detect, prevent, avoid, neutralize, and

protect are distributed across the combined arms team, it is

the engineer—the Chief of Mobility—who pulls it all together

and employs the tools and technologies, appropriately

focused, to defeat the IED threat. There truly is no silver bullet,

but there IS a silver castle! Train the Force!

Lieutenant Colonel Magness is the Senior Engineer Trainer

(Sidewinder 07) at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin,

California. Prior to this assignment, he served as district commander

for the Detroit District, US Army Corps of Engineers. He is a

graduate of the United States Military Academy and the Command

and General Staff College. He holds a master’s from the University

of Texas and is a licensed professional engineer in Virginia. 

Note: This article reflects the personal opinions of the author

and are based entirely on lessons learned at NTC.
xx Engineer January-March 2005

As revealed in history, our military

becomes increasingly better and

more agile with each battle. Ours

is the most dynamic and powerful

country on this earth, because our

military is willing to adapt and evolve.

Change and advances in technology

enable our country to continue to

prosper and take the lead in the

Global War on Terrorism. Since the

Countermine Task Force was formed

in 2001 (by the direction of the

Commanding General, US Army

Training and Doctrine Command

[TRADOC]), the US Army Engineer

School has been instrumental in

developing the tools and skills needed

to enable mobility through complex

terrain and urban environments. This

was accomplished while negating

explosive hazards (EH) such as mines,

booby traps, unexploded ordnance

(UXO), and improvised explosive devices

(IEDs). This article describes current

initiatives and contains an overview of

the collaborative agencies working to

combat this threat.

The Countermine/Counter Booby

Trap Center, which was created in

January 2002, changed its name to the

Counter Explosive Hazards Center

(CEHC) in April 2004. The CEHC was

formally recognized and approved by

Headquarters, Department of the Army,

on 18 November 2004 to function as the

US Army integrator for all countermeasures involving EH (including mines,

IEDs, and other EH that threaten US and

allied forces). A key element is the

prediction, detection, avoidance, and

neutralization of EH, so commanders can

maneuver unencumbered through

complex and urban terrain.

The CEHC provides expertise not

provided elsewhere in the Army’s institutional training base. Additionally, the

CEHC bridges the gap between emerging

warfighter requirements and institutionalized training. Based on comments and

mission analysis from the field, the CEHC

develops new or improved capabilities,

as well as the requisite tools to equip our

soldiers, to counter EH on the battlefield.

The CEHC conducts explosive

hazards awareness training (EHAT) to

deploying forces, develops EH countermeasures, conducts new equipment

training for commercial-off-the-shelf

equipment, produces training aids and

programs of instruction, and assists in

the identification and fielding of viable

countermeasure solutions. In addition,

the CEHC develops the intellectual and

situational superiority of combat units

through handbooks and new tactics,

techniques, and procedures (TTP) to

Active Army and Reserve Component

units, government civilians, contractors,

other US services, and allied forces. The

CEHC provides eleven courses, which

are used to train approximately 4,000

students annually. Several are trainthe-trainer-type courses to empower

units to rapidly spread the latest TTP

and engineer knowledge. Additionally, it assists with the integration of doctrine, organization,

training, materiel, leader development,

personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF)

assessments across the five tenets of

IED defeat—predict, detect, prevent,

neutralize, and mitigate—that were

initially derived from the five fundamentals of assured mobility.

In addition to resident instruction,

the CEHC develops exportable

countermeasures, which are provided

directly to field units for rapid implementation, as well as institutionalized

into soldier, noncommissioned officer

(NCO), and officer educational programs

of instruction, new functional courses,

training materials, field manuals, and

emerging doctrine. The CEHC’s Intelligence and Technology Branch

continually searches to identify and

anticipate evolving EH threats.

Another area where the CEHC is

breaking new ground is in the

development and training of counterterrorist military search techniques. This

effort is in response to needs from the

field to safely and methodically search

for explosive materials and bomb making

contraband, plus the requirement to

locate and preserve forensic intelligence

to crack terrorist infrastructures. The

Countering IEDs and

Explosive Hazards

By Mr. Robert G. Baker and Mr. Dorian V. D’Aria
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

search kit that would be available through

the regular supply system. This

particular materiel solution crosses three

of the five tenets of IED defeat—predict,

detect, and prevent.

The Engineer School and CEHC have

championed the establishment of a mine

detection dog program and specialized

search dog program. This effort led to

the establishment of the 67th Engineer

Detachment (Mine Dog), part of the 577th

Engineer Battalion, 1st Engineer Brigade,

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri—and the

creation of the “K9” additional skill

identifier (ASI) for engineer soldiers

trained as mine detection dog handlers.

The specialized search dog program

utilizes nonaggressive explosive detection dogs, which operate off-leash to

search buildings, routes, vehicles, or

other venues for explosive devices,

weapons, or contraband. The Engineer

School has already deployed mine dog

and search dog teams into both Iraq and

Afghanistan with resounding success.

During one specific house search of a

suspected vehicle bomb maker, a

specialized search dog alerted on the

explosive scent off an automobile starter

located in the suspect’s garage. At the

conclusion of the investigation, it was

revealed that the suspect had bomb

residue on his hands. He had transferred

primary focus of this training is to teach

the searchers to identify bomb makers

and bomb making materials—prior to

detonation—and preserve the evidence

found.

Based on proven British techniques

against terrorists in Northern Ireland,

Bosnia, and elsewhere, the CEHC

training is designed to provide US forces

with the technical skills, doctrinal

capability, and tools to safely execute

counterterrorist search missions. It has

spiraled into a 15-day course, called Unit

Searcher, with four main objectives:

protect potential targets, gain evidence,

gain intelligence, and deny enemy

resources. During this course, and a

second 15-day course called Unit Search

Advisor, the students undertake a

number of practical search exercises: in

person, vehicle, area, route, and occupied and unoccupied building search.

Additionally, the search advisors

concentrate on the planning cycles that

are crucial to ensuring successful

searches missions. To equip soldiers to

perform these tasks, the CEHC has

prepared a specialized man-portable

search kit, which contains all the tools

and equipment search teams require to

execute this mission. The CEHC is

continually refining this kit and

endeavoring to establish a standardized

the residue to the starter while removing

it from his car, after completing another

project—making a bomb.

The CEHC also developed the

doctrine and training for the Mine and

Explosive Ordnance Information

Coordination Center (MEOICC) in Iraq.

This is the US military’s first effort to

develop a standardized doctrine,

training, and organizational structure to

track explosive threats in an area of

responsibility. The MEOICC is our

military counterpart to the national or

regional Mine Action Centers (MACs)

that are used during demining operations

within a country. The MEOICC

specifically supports military operations

and objectives, provides a common

operational picture (COP) of EH on the

battlefield (using the Tactical Minefield

Database [TMFDB]), and provides an

interface with the MAC and nongovernmental organizations operating

within the common battlespace.

The TMFDB is an automated tracking

system to record, geographically locate,

and display all known EH in the Iraq or

Afghanistan theaters. This provides a

COP for commanders/decision makers, a

database for analysis, and maps and

overlays to warn of danger areas and

allows the sharing of information

A man-portable kit contains specialized tools and equipment for search teams.
xx Engineer January-March 2005

between US military and coalition

partners or humanitarian/nation building

agencies.

To accommodate all the training that

is evolving, the CEHC will develop a

state-of-the-art training center to be

completed in fiscal year 2006. The

Engineer School’s efforts have had

congressional support, resulting in the

appropriation of $10.4 million for the

construction of a CEHC and $3.7 million

for mine dog kennels to begin in fiscal

year 2005. This is Phase I of an $18 million

construction effort to establish a

permanent counter-EH training complex.

It will provide specialized training areas

and classrooms, search villages, a motor

park for nonstandard counter-IED/mine

equipment, and permanent mine dog

facilities. It will also have adequate space

for route and area clearance, enhancing

the overall realism of the training. Until

it is institutionalized throughout the

force, operator and maintainer training

for nonstandard counterexplosive

equipment will be taught at this facility.

All the activities will be colocated in one

area on Fort Leonard Wood—the

Humanitarian Demining Training Center,

the 67th Engineer Detachment, and

possibly a Department of Defense (DOD)

mine dog training academy—which will

provide better fusion and integration of

the CEHC, forming an Counterexplosive

Hazard Center of Excellence.

A major effort has been directed

toward fighting the war on IEDs, and the

Army was tasked to develop a

DOTMLPF-integrated IED defeat

strategy. To that end, TRADOC was

designated as the Army’s specified

proponent for IED defeat, and TRADOC

designated the US Army Maneuver

Support Center (MANSCEN) as the

proponent for IED defeat DOTMLPF

integration on 29 September 2004.

MANSCEN then directed the CEHC to

take the lead on this action and put

together a DOTMLPF assessment and

action plan, which eventually led to the

development of the Integrated Capability

Development Team (ICDT). The ICDT is

responsible for evaluating capability

gaps and ensuring proper vision on

emerging countermeasures and institutional success in all efforts.

As part of the combined arms team,

CEHC and the Engineer School work with

numerous external agencies—such as the

Rapid Equipping Force (REF) and the

Joint Improvised Explosive Device

Defeat Task Force (JIEDD TF)—to

develop and field innovative counterIED solutions. In October 2003, the Chief

of Staff of the Army directed the

formation of a JIEDD TF to orchestrate

Army efforts to eliminate IED threats.

The CEHC became a member of the

advisory committee and works closely

with the JIEDD TF. In June 2004, the US

Army Central Command (CENTCOM)

commander asked the Secretary of

Defense for a synchronized DOD

response to the IED threat. On 17 July

2004, the Deputy Secretary of Defense

established an Army-led joint Integrated

Process Team (IPT)—organized around

the existing Army JIEDD TF—to focus

DOD efforts to defeat the IED threat. The

IPT identifies, prioritizes, and resources

materiel and nonmateriel solutions in a

synchronized response across the

services and DOD, in coordination with

interagency and international partners.

The task force, augmented by joint

services staff, continues to accomplish

the counter-IED operational mission and

provides necessary staff support to the

IPT. Working together, CEHC, the

Engineer School, and MANSCEN are

part of a joint, interagency, and multinational counter-IED effort that integrates intelligence, training, technology, and materiel solutions into a

holistic program.

As IED countermeasure solutions are

developed by the REF and JIEDD TF,

the CEHC helps develop operational

TTP, training packages, and other

Hunter-Killer Team
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

DOTMLPF integration requirements.

One system under development that

covers a combination of DOTMLPF

integrations is called the “Hunter-Killer.”

This system is an enhanced route

clearance concept, consisting of mineprotected vehicles (the RG-31 and

Buffalo) along with an interim vehiclemounted mine detector (IVMMD) and

supporting vehicles.

The Hunter-Killer project covers all

five of the tenets that the JIEDD TF

targets. It primarily detects EH through

visual means and by metal detection with

the IVMMD. The EH may be interrogated

by the Buffalo and destroyed or

neutralized by sappers or explosive

ordnance disposal (EOD) personnel.

Additionally, it can detect certain types

of radio-controlled IEDs through the use

of sensors and jamming capabilities.

Finally, it has the ability to destroy EH at

standoff distances, using lasers or

remote weapon stations.

Hunter-Killer incorporates the

integration of EOD and engineers

working in concert on a specific system.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, a gap

was identified between EOD and

engineer capabilities. (See article on page

xx. - Close the Gap) The Engineer School

and US Army Ordnance School have

been working together to integrate EOD

and engineer skills on the battlefield.

One such effort is the explosive

ordnance reconnaissance agent (EORA)

course. This course is non-military

occupational specialty (MOS)-specific,

but has specialized training that

enhances the ability to identify, mark,

and report EH that will eventually be

included in route clearance platoons of

clearance companies.

The next level in the EH tiered training

approach is the explosive ordnance

clearance agent (EOCA). This program

trains an engineer NCO in limited

battlefield disposal of EH, and upon

graduation, the soldier is awarded an

ASI. There is an annual proficiency

requirement to retain the identifier.

Other EOD/engineer integration

efforts include the Explosive Hazards

Coordination Detachment, which is

responsible for analyzing EH incidents,

providing technical advice on EH, and

creating and maintaining EH databases.

The detachment includes the Explosive

Hazards Coordination Cell and the

Explosive Hazard Team (EHT). Each EHT

is led by an EOD branch-certified captain

and assisted by an EOD sergeant first

class.

These are a few of the initiatives that

CEHC and the Engineer School are

engaged in to help our military defeat

IEDs and EH, while they fight the Global

War on Terrorism. A common component

of asymmetrical warfare is that the threat

will continue to change and evolve as

new tactics, techniques and devices to

defeat US forces are explored. To predict

and anticipate threat, our development

of countermeasures must remain a

constant evolution. Each of us can make

a difference, and we must continue to

evolve in order for our nation to remain

a global leader of democracy. Change is

an ongoing project that has no end: each

battle fought relinquishes lessons

learned and a better approach for the next

battle.

Mr. Baker is the liaison officer for

the Counter Explosive Hazards Center

to the Joint Improvised Explosive

Devices Defeat Task Force in Washington, DC. He served 21 years in the

Army as a combat engineer. He holds a

degree in human resource management

from Park University.

Mr. D’Aria was the US Army

Engineer School and Training and

Doctrine Command senior engineer

threat intelligence analyst, from 1988,

until his recent assignment as the

technical director for the Counter

Explosive Hazards Center. He served 10

years in the Army as a military police

officer and Army aviator. His background is in combat developments,

instruction, and training development.
xx Engineer January-March 2005

Bombing in Baghdad! You have probably heard that

often in the past year or so and seen images of people

digging through rubble with their bare hands to help

those who are trapped in a building partially destroyed by a

bomb. But after the bombing of the United Nations compound

in the summer of 2003, we knew that something had to be done

to protect the force during incidents such as this. We needed

to be able to react appropriately in a chaotic situation and turn

it into a managed process. The purpose of this article is to

show how the 458th Engineer Battalion (Corps)(Wheeled) took

a division-directed mission and turned it into a force multiplier

for the 1st Cavalry Division.

Battalion Structure

The 458th, an Army Reserve unit from Johnstown,

Pennsylvania, was alerted and mobilized in support of

Operation Iraqi Freedom in November 2003. The

battalion consists of a headquarters and headquarters

company, three line companies—each with three line platoons

of combat engineers transported by 5-ton dump trucks—and

a support platoon with a complement of heavy construction

equipment. The unit’s wartime higher headquarters, the 1st

Cavalry Division, directed heavy rescue training as a

component of consequence management, resulting from

vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs) or other

catastrophic incidents in the division sector. The 458th is

ideally suited to perform these functions due to the following

organic assets:

 An ample supply of highly adaptable combat engineers

 Heavy equipment

 Experience in identifying and clearing unexploded ordnance

(UXO) and improvised explosive devices (IEDs)

 Skills acquired from civilian experience

Mission

A team of battalion personnel who have civilian-acquired

skills in heavy rescue, firefighting, emergency

management, and US Army search and rescue

performed a mission analysis. This team has experience at the

11 September 2001 Twin Towers and Pentagon attacks. The

mission of the 458th—the Rescue One organization—is to

conduct initial consequence management operations in

response to a civil disturbance, weapon of mass destruction

(WMD), or VBIED mass casualty incident in the 1st Cavalry

Division area of responsibility, providing heavy rescue and

urban search and rescue assistance in a tactical environment

to solve or mitigate the incident.

By Major Adam S. Roth

Heavy Rescue Operations

During Operation Iraqi Freedom

Photo by Major Adam S. Roth
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

Vision

The training vision that emanated from this mission

statement was a platoon for each of the three line

companies capable of performing initial incident

command and search and rescue assistance at a secure site.

The core of Rescue One’s leadership started to come to grips

with a mission that has no formal US Army mission training

plan. We relied on our collective experience and basic

fundamentals from the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA). We developed a four-phase training program

with assistance from the Fort McCoy Fire Department while

Rescue One was at the Fort McCoy Mobilization Station. The

program included a selection process, classroom instruction,

lane training, and confined-space training. The selection

process included both technical skills and mental evaluation

(for the stresses that the rescuer would experience). Classroom

instruction focused on incident command, planning and

organization, search and rescue techniques, basic rescue

knots, shoring and cribbing, and patient packaging. Lanes

training included surface search procedures for victims,

confined-space rescue, and low-angle victim extraction using

rope rescue techniques. The culmin-ating event was a fullblown incident simulating a three-story building destroyed

by a VBIED with full incident command and search for victims.

Confined-space training focused on a low-light constricted

environment with small search teams.

The Rescue One officers then developed follow-on training

and sustainment training in theater that included mission

readiness exercises, brigade-level rock drills, incident

preplanning, and incident scenarios. Mission readiness

exercises focused on being able to move out with all equipment

and personnel—implementing the lariat advance (alert advance

call)—used in Cold War Germany. The brigade-level rock drill

rehearsed a major high-value target, including all subordinate

staff down to the squad leader level. Incident preplanning of

high-value targets included all required coordination between

landowners, facility owners, staff, and emergency managers.

Incident scenarios were coordinated with landowning Brigade

Combat Teams (BCTs).

Organization

The Rescue One organization is broken into three

separate alarm responses: Alpha, Bravo, and

Charlie.

Alpha Response

This is the initial response where all Rescue One officers

respond to the incident scene, once dispatched by the 1st

Cavalry Division. The primary purpose of the Alpha response

unit is sizing up the initial incident and determining additional

resources. The incident commander makes two critical

determinations upon arrival: expected duration of the incident

(longer or shorter than 12 hours) and overall incident site

security. The primary concern when operating in central

Baghdad, instead of downtown New York City, is that security

is crucial in all vehicular movements. Driving with lights and

sirens is not possible.

Bravo Response

This is a single sapper platoon of search-and-rescue

specialists, transported in organic vehicles. The Bravo

Rescuers employ

airbags to free a

trapped victim.

Photo by Major Adam S. Roth
xx Engineer January-March 2005

response unit can perform search-and-rescue operations and

shoring.

Charlie Response

The Charlie response unit—the remaining two platoons from

each of the line companies—sustains operations for a longer

duration. The unit brings life support items such as tentage

and lighting for sustained operations in a secure location.

Incident Command

A secure scene is key to a successful deployment. There

must be 360-degree security around the incident scene

prior to employment of rescue personnel. This is

normally provided by the landowning BCT. Once the site is

secure, each element is assigned a sector by the incident

commander and maintains radio communications with all

employed search teams during the entire operation.

Accountability of personnel, tools, and equipment

(controlled through regulated access to the site) and rescuer

safety is critical for the incident commander. He must also

manage many external assets contributed by US military,

coalition, and host nation forces:

 Firefighting forces

 Police and security forces

 Hazardous material (HAZMAT) and nuclear, biological, and

chemical (NBC) agents

 Public Affairs Office

 Host nation government

 Local utilities

Unity of command is imperative in this structure so all

components are working toward the same goal. The use of

interpreters is also critical when working through the myriad

of issues that the host nation can assist with.

Actions on Scene

Once incident command is established, as with all

military operations, a priority of work is established.

The steps, generally followed in this order, are site

survey, surface search, confined-space rescue, and high- and

low-angle rescue.

 Site Survey. After arriving on scene, the officers of Rescue

One quickly ascertain which portions of a structure, or

structures, are accessible.

 Surface Search. The Halo search method (systematic

calling and listening) is used.

 Confined-Space Rescue. Once it is determined that a victim

is in a confined space, rescuers use a combination of

mechanical tools, air monitoring equipment, and hand tools

to enter the confined space. With a combination of

searching and shoring, the team enters the void and extracts

the victims.

 High- and Low-Angle Rescue. Frequently, the effects of

bomb blasts will either create a deep crater or take out

normal means of egress (such as a stairwell).

Training

The battalion’s heavy rescue unit has conducted

numerous training events in conjunction with the

supported BCTs. Training always begins with an alert

phase, followed by either a ground or an airmobile movement

of the Alpha and portions of the Bravo response units to the

incident location. Due to heightened security concerns postblast, we are often forced to travel via air since ground main

supply routes and entry control points are frequently secured.

The scenario includes employment of the Charlie response

unit staging of equipment for later employment. Training

scenarios also included integration of supporting firefighting

organizations (fighting real fires developed for the scenario)

and medical organizations (establish a casualty collection

point, conduct triage, and transport casualties) under the

incident command of Rescue One. Rescuers have the

opportunity to perform technical rescue operations.

Employment

The battalion’s heavy rescue unit met with many of the

supported BCTs within the Task Force Baghdad area

of responsibility very early in the deployment and

conducted site assessments of major high-value targets.

Critical structural, contact, and accountability information

saves time in the event of an actual incident. Rescue One

supported postblast consequence management at two

vehicular bombings and assisted in numerous vehicular

entrapments and mass casualty events as a result of VBIEDs.

Summary

The 458th Engineer Battalion provides a substantial

capability, tackling a nonstandard—but very critical—

mission for forces entering a battlespace lacking the

infrastructure (either coalition or host nation) to conduct rescue

operations in the event of WMD/VBIED incidents. This

enhances force protection for the entire force and is a force

multiplier for all maneuver commanders in a postblast

environment with multiple entrapped casualties. The

framework of Rescue One provides a critical asset to the

maneuver commander in an expeditionary theater and, given

the current operating tempo and threat, should be considered

as a primary mission in Future Force development and

deployment decisions.

Major Roth is the executive officer of the 458th Engineer

Battalion and the battalion chief of Rescue One. He is also a

volunteer firefighter in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. He has

commanded a combat heavy company and has served in

numerous staff and leadership positions. He holds a master’s

in mechanical engineering from Boston University.
xx Engineer January-March 2005

Today’s construct for operating in explosive hazard (EH)-

contaminated theaters fails to provide maneuver

commanders the freedom of action to accomplish

missions effectively in the contemporary operating

environment (COE). The problem has many aspects: an EOD

construct based on Cold War doctrine, an enemy able to press

home an asymmetric advantage through the gap caused by

this doctrine, and a world increasingly filled with EHs. Many

would say that an easy fix is to transfer proponency for EOD

to the Engineer Regiment. However, ownership does not

correct the root causes of the problem, which are a lack of

integrated EH planning and a graduated response to EH

contamination. On 1 September 2004, the Commanding General

of the US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)

approved a solution—hammered out over an 18-month period

by the Ordnance and Engineer Branches—to bridge the EH

capability gap. In order to understand the solution, we must

first examine the problem and its causes. This will provide a

framework to outline the approved course of action that will

provide assured mobility to the force in an EH-contaminated

environment.

Background

After the Vietnam War, the focus of the US Army was

the conduct of operations, on a linear battlefield,

against a peer or near-peer adversary. The operational

synergy developed between the Engineer and Ordnance

Branches for the conduct of EOD operations during the

Vietnam era eroded as the Engineer Regiment concentrated its

attention on breaching linear obstacle belts.1 This approach

created a mobility support architecture that was effective

during the Cold War but is dysfunctional in relation to the

assured mobility concept developed for current operations.

This gap is illustrated at Figures 1 and 2, page xx.

The US Army Legacy Force (now known as the Current

Force) was developed to counter the Cold War threat. The

Vietnam-era requirement to clear explosive ordnance (EO) for

safety and immediate tactical movement is no longer trained

due to the doctrinal approach of warfighting that was

developed in the 1980s. The art of disrupting booby traps and

UXO clearance has eroded to the point that no institutional

knowledge exists in the Engineer Regiment. An example of the

current asynchronous environment is the conduct of area

clearance operations in Afghanistan, which have been slowed

dramatically by the requirement for EOD technicians to deal

with each item of UXO encountered.2

 Clearing mines and

booby traps is the responsibility of engineers, providing they

have been trained. However, engineer elements have not been

trained to complete the entire task of UXO clearance.

Currently, engineers can be called on to reduce or clear

non-mine UXO hazards, on a limited basis, under the direct

technical guidance of EOD forces.3 The current paradigm is

that direct technical guidance requires the direct supervision

of an EOD technician. However, sending a highly trained EOD

technician forward to deal with a mortar round or simple blast

mine is analogous to sending a brain surgeon to stitch a finger.

It is clear that just as calling for indirect fires is a task shared

by forward observers and infantry section commanders, certain

aspects of EOD should be shared tasks on the battlefield.

Since close combat in tunnel systems, booby-trapped weapon

caches, and military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) over

a dirty battlefield are now the reality—and the doctrine exists

to enable engineers to conduct limited UXO clearance—why

is there a problem?

In the early stages of both Operations Enduring Freedom

and Iraqi Freedom, the assets allocated to conduct mobility

support tasks were not adequate in quantity or coordinated in

time and space to adequately meet the maneuver requirements.4

By Lieutenant Colonel Craig Jolly

EOD and Engineers “Close the Gap”

“The artificial separation between explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) personnel and combat

engineers MUST end—combat engineers will deal with unexploded ordnance (UXO) whether we want

them to or not—just a matter of inadequate EOD troops to the UXO task. This is a structural deficiency

that it is imperative for us to fix.”

Brigade Commander

3d Infantry Division, Iraq
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

Figure 1. The Gap

Figure 2. Interpretation of the Gap

Sustainment

Area

Legend:

AO = area of operation

FLOT = forward line of own troops

LOC = lines of communication

OBJ = objective

Legend:

CBRNE = Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosives

IEDD = IED Defeat

RSP = Render-Safe Procedures
xx Engineer January-March 2005

As limited EOD assets were held at the highest levels, maneuver

commanders were faced with the decision to either sacrifice

tactical and operational momentum for safety or utilize their

embedded assets to get on with the job. When these tasks

were performed as part of an operation to maintain operational

areas (for example, route or area clearance operations), clear

coordination of the engineer and EOD effort was required. But

without embedded EOD planning staffs, this did not occur.

This can be directly attributed to EOD personnel not being

integrated into the planning process, and it is considered to

be the cause of the perceived lack of responsiveness of EOD

personnel5 and the EOD-engineer tension in theater6.

The Solution

On 19 March 2004, the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA)

directed TRADOC to investigate the advisability of

assigning proponency for EOD to the US Army

Engineer School. The question the CSA directed to TRADOC

had been under consideration for more than 12 months by an

EOD-engineer working group cochaired by the Ordnance and

Engineer Schools. It was determined that a simple change of

proponency did not address the root cause of the problem—

a dysfunctional planning process combined with an EH

reduction construct based on Cold War doctrine. The

integration of EOD planning into the mobility, countermobility,

and survivability (M/CM/S) Battlefield Operating System

(BOS)—combined with the development of a complimentary

set of EOD and combat engineer skills to deal with EO—had

already been identified as the appropriate solution.

To counter the threat, EOD capabilities must be integrated

among the various units participating in any operation.7

Doctrinally, it appears that this issue is clear-cut.8,9,10

Organizationally and operationally, this planning does not

occur adequately and is based more on the personality of the

EOD commander. The integration of this capability into the

M/CM/S BOS is imperative; otherwise, command, control,

coordination, and synchronization of capabilities cannot be

achieved. The first step to bridging the gap is to synchronize

EOD capabilities on the battlefield, ensuring uninhibited

mobility in order to maximize combat power at the decisive

time and place.11 Organizationally, this is to be achieved by

the establishment of EOD staff cells combined with the

establishment of explosive hazard coordination cells (EHCCs)12

and explosive hazard teams (EHTs)13 within the Engineer

Regiment to apply the appropriate effects on the battlefield.

Examples of how EOD could be synchronized through the

M/CM/S BOS are as follows:

 Developing a common operational picture (COP) through

an understanding of EO hazards and their effect on

maneuver combined with predictive analysis to identify

probable contaminated areas.

 Selecting, establishing, and maintaining operating areas

through avoiding or reducing EO hazard risk.

 Attacking the enemy’s ability to influence operating areas

by synchronizing EO clearance capabilities on the

battlefield to mitigate risk and reduce EH in areas we wish

to operate.

 Maintaining mobility and momentum through the provision

of the right level of EOD support for breaching and UXO

clearance operations.

How these staff cells are to be integrated with the M/CM/

S BOS is depicted graphically at Figures 3 and 4, page xx.

While it is clear that the M/CM/S planning capability must

be rectified, training must also be conducted to tackle the

functional gap between EOD and engineers. As the COE is

not characterized by the United States having a peer adversary,

enemy forces must use asymmetric approaches to negate US

superiority. The second component of the solution is the

establishment of an EH-reduction construct to provide a

graduated response on the battlefield. A truly graduated

response requires the force to deal with EH, within their

limitations, at each level and is analogous to the soldier-combat

medic-doctor-surgeon construct for the treatment of casualties.

The current capability set is outlined below:

Warfighter. The warfighter must be able to identify and

react to UXO and react to IED.

Explosive Ordnance Reconnaissance Agent (EORA). An

EORA can be trained by an EOD company, on request, and is

responsible for “the investigation, detection, location, marking,

initial identification, and reporting of suspected EO, in order

to determine the need for further action.”14 Although this

course has been developed, there have been an extremely

limited number of individuals trained. This capability is very

similar to the Explosive Hazard Awareness Training (EHAT)

conducted by the Counter Explosive Hazard Center at the

Engineer School, which is given to deploying engineer units

and selected other individuals as part of their predeployment

training. This capability is considered to be the next level in

the continuum.

EOD Technician. An EOD technician is capable of “the

detection, identification, field evaluation, rendering-safe,

recovery, and final disposal of UXO. It may also include the

rendering-safe and/or disposal of EO which has become

hazardous by damage or deterioration, when the disposal of

such EO requires techniques, procedures, or equipment which

exceed the normal requirements for routine disposal.”15

Bridge to the EH Capability Gap

It is the delta between the highly trained EOD technicians

(who conduct both the render-safe and disposal of munitions),

the EORA- or EHAT-trained soldiers (who conduct

reconnaissance), and the Engineer Regiment’s current

capability that is the functional gap in the current EH construct.

To fill this gap, the following skill has been identified and the

new construct depicted graphically at Figure 5, page xx. An

explosive ordnance clearance agent (EOCA) is an engineer
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

Figure 3. EOD Staff Integration

Figure 4. EOD Coverage in the JOA

Legend:

UEy = unit of employment-operational

UEx = unit of employment-tactical

ME = maneuver enhancement

UA = unit of action

FDU =

MAN = maneuver

EN = engineer

BCT = brigade combat team

BTB =

Asst ops = assistant operations

Legend:

JOA = joint operations area

UEy = unit of employment-operational

UEx = unit of employment-tactical

ME = maneuver enhancement

BCT = brigade combat team

MAN = maneuver

EN = engineer

BTB =

EMF = engineer mission force

OPCON = operational control
with an additional skill identifier who is capable of investigating,

detecting, locating, marking, reporting, and preparing of

protective works for UXO. It also includes the disposal in

place—when authorized by the EOD staff cell—of UXO

identified in draft Technical Manual 093-89D-02, Explosive

Ordnance Clearance Manual,16 and theater-specific UXO,

after risk analysis and positive identification.17

Assured Mobility

S

o how does this tie to assured mobility? Assured mobility

is the Engineer Regiment’s cornerstone doctrine and

outlines how the Regiment interacts with other BOSs

and supports maneuver on the battlefield. The assured mobility

concept requires engineers to be capable of integrating EOD

capabilities into their operations to reduce EH in the battlespace

in order to provide force protection and tactical mobility to the

maneuver force. This is based on intelligence and integrated

EOD planning and results in the right EH-reduction effect—

coordinated in time and space—available to the maneuver

commander for the conduct of operations. This facilitates

tactical maneuver and immediately reduces the risk to the force

from EO. When planned correctly, the maneuver commander

is provided with an immediate measure of force protection and

the capability of making an informed decision to either—

 Ignore the threat and continue the operation, accepting

the potential consequences.

 Avoid the threat by diverting the operation and accepting

the disruption to the plan.

 Destroy the EO in place, using his embedded engineer

asset or allocated EOD element, which may impose a

temporary halt to operations but decrease the risk to the

force.

 Remove the EO, on advice from EOCA or EOD, if it is safe

to do so.

 Render-safe the EO, if it poses a significant risk to the

force, then remove for safe disposal. This option will impose

the greatest time delay and will require the deployment of

specialist EOD resources.

This approach as been accepted and approved by the

Commanding General of TRADOC. A pilot Explosive Ordnance

Clearance course is proposed to be conducted in Afghanistan

in early 2005, with the first course at Redstone Arsenal,

Alabama, commencing 1 March 2005. EOD planning cells are

established in theater and will be expanded in concert with the

developing explosive ordnance clearance (EOC) capability.

Conclusion

Engineers are on the battlefield now, destroying mines

and UXO to meet operational requirements. They are

meeting this operational necessity with minimal training

in mine warfare and none in UXO clearance. Operations

Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom provide clear indications

as to the types of environment that US forces are likely to

conduct operations in the future and signify the detrimental

effect on the mobility and tempo caused by a lack of integrated

EOD planning.

Given the amount of high-tech ammunition used by

coalition forces, EOC is a priority force protection issue now.

The conduct of EO reconnaissance and in situ disposal of

UXO is essential to protect the force and provide freedom of

maneuver to the commanders on the ground. To meet this

challenge, the force requires a multiskilled soldier who is

capable of facilitating mobility and providing immediate force

protection and EH reduction advice. This must be combined

with the development of habitually associated EOD planning

cells to synchronise the EOD effect at all levels. This serves to

coordinate EOD effects on the battlefield, fully enable the EOD

component of the force, and focus the efforts of the EOD

Figure 5. Approved Explosive Hazard Reduction Construct

xx Engineer January-March 2005
technicians to where they are most required—dealing with

complex weapons that pose a high threat. EOD personnel and

engineers must maintain a set of different, but complimentary,

skills to assure the mobility and protection of the force. Today’s

construct for operating in EH-contaminated theaters fails to

provide maneuver commanders the freedom of action to

accomplish missions effectively in the current operating

environment. However, tomorrow’s construct will not only

“close the gap” between EOD and engineers, it will close the

gap that our enemies have been exploiting and save soldiers

lives.

Lieutenant Colonel Jolly is an infrastructure project

manager with the Australian Defence Organisation (ADO).

He was previously the chief of the Engineer Command and

Staff Course Division at the US Army Engineer School, Fort

Leonard Wood, Missouri. He has served in a wide variety of

engineer command and training assignments within the

Australian Army. Command appointments include both the

35th Field Squadron and 23d Support Squadron, and his

instructional appointments include a posting to the School

of Military Engineering, where he served as the course

manager for both the Regimental Officer Basic and Advanced

Courses. He is a graduate of the Royal Military CollegeDuntroon and the Australian Command and Staff College.

He holds a master’s in management and defence studies from

the University of Canberra.

Endnotes

1 Major Craig Jolly RAE, US Army Engineer School “Closing

the Gap” White Paper, March 2003.

2

 Interviews with Major Mark Griffin RE and WO2 Tony

Quirk RAE from the Countermine, Counter Booby Trap Center

(now the Counter Explosive Hazard Center), US Army Engineer

School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

3

 Field Manual (FM) 3-100.38, Multiservice Procedures for

Unexploded Explosive Ordnance in a Joint Environment, 23

August 2001, Chapter III, p. 2.

4 Every commander commented on the requirement for a

greater synchronization of EOD/engineer activities to provide

assured mobility and force protection during the Operation

Iraqi Freedom Engineer After-Action Review conducted in

Baghdad, May 2003. Source After-Action Review video viewed

by the author 12 May 2003.

5 On many occasions, EOD personnel were conducting

higher-priority tasks. However, this was not evident to lower

echelons of command because there was no command and

control or communication established to facilitate this flow of

information.

6 Engineer/EOD conference “Closing the Gap,” Redstone

Arsenal, Alabama, 9-11 December 2003.

7 FM 9-15, Explosive Ordnance Disposal Service and Unit

Operations, 8 May 1996, pp. 1-2.

8 The Army Universal Task List, Chapter 5 – Mobility/

Survivability BOS, outlines the following: ART 5.3 Conduct

Survivability Operations – ART 5.3.4 Provide Explosive

Ordnance Disposal Support. 5-49. Neutralize domestic or

foreign conventional, nuclear, chemical, and biological

munitions and improvised devices that present a threat to

military operations and military civilian facilities, materiel, and

personnel, regardless of location.

9 The Joint Universal Task List has no mention of EOD

tasks except under SN 1.1.4 Provide for Engineer Route Support

and Clearances – Determine the need for EOD support.

10 FM 9-15, pp. 1-2.

11 Ibid.

12 The EHCC has a similar role as the Mine and Explosive

Ordnance Information Coordination Center (MEOICC), which

is currently deployed on Operation Iraqi Freedom and has

integrated EOD planners.

13 An EHT is deployed with clearance modules and provides

technical advice and assists in planning clearance operations.

In peacetime, this organization is also responsible for training,

sustaining, and certifying EOCAs.

14 Army Regulation 75-14, Interservice Responsibilities for

Explosive Ordnance Disposal, 14 February 1992, p. 1.

15 Ibid.

16 This manual is being developed by the Ordnance School,

based on generic munitions, and will be supplemented by

theater-specific addendums as authorized by the theater EOD

staff cell.

17 This definition is to be articulated in all EOD-related

doctrine.

January-March 2005 Engineer xx
xx Engineer January-March 2005

The Antipersonnel Obstacle

Breaching System (APOBS) will

soon be available for light

engineer unit training. The training

strategy can be found in Department of

the Army Pamphlet 350-38, Standards in

Weapons Training. The strategy is

designed for all 21B combat engineers

in light engineer platoons to fire one live

APOBS annually. Other light units (11B

infantryman, 19D cavalry scout, and 18C

special forces weapons sergeant) will fire

a live APOBS while training at the

National Training Center or Joint

Readiness Training Center.

The APOBS is a two-soldier, portable,

linear demolition charge that is used

against antipersonnel mines and wire

obstacles. It consists of five major

components: a rocket motor, a fuse, a

25-meter line charge consisting of 60

grenades and detonating cord, a 20-

meter line charge consisting of 48

grenades and detonating cord, and a

container for shipping or storage. The

APOBS has two molded plastic

prepackaged backpacks to hold the line

charges. The 65-pound backpack

contains the front 25-meter line charge

and the line-charge connector and has a

provision to hold the rocket launch rod.

The 55-pound backpack contains the rear

20-meter line charge. The two users open

the backpacks, connect the two line

charges, emplace the rocket on the

launch rod, aim, and ignite the rocket

motor, which launches and carries the

two connected line charges across the

obstacle to be breached. A drogue

parachute, attached to the end of the 20-

meter line charge, provides stability

during flight. When the 45-meter line

charge is directly over the obstacle, the

fuse ignites the detonating cord, which

Antipersonnel Obstacle

Breaching System

By Mr. Bobby Skinner

activates the grenades. The APOBS can

be fired in either command mode or delay

mode. The system includes a tool kit

with spare parts, a screwdriver, earplugs,

and a field card that provides technical

data.

The US Army Engineer School

Standards in Training Commission

Manager can be contacted at 573-596-

0131, ext 3-6243 or DSN 676- 6243.

Mr. Skinner is the US Army Engineer

School Standards in Training Commission Manager. He served in the US

Army for 26 years, with 23 years as a

12B combat engineer. He has had

various assignments, including Leadership Task Force for the Chief of Staff of

the Army, and Assistant Commandant

of the Libby Noncommissioned Officer

Academy. 

APOBS
xx Engineer January-March 2005

By Captain Michael P. Frank

What makes the Future Force sapper a unique soldier

on the battlefield? What capabilities will he bring

to the warfight? This article highlights some of the

capabilities and systems that will make sappers indispensable

and relevant to Future Force operations.

Assured Mobility

Key to the success of the Future Force will be its ability

to maintain an unprecedented level of freedom of

maneuver. This will be accomplished by using

emerging technologies, some on maneuver platforms and some

manned by sappers. To provide assured mobility, we must see

first, understand first, act first, and finish decisively. The Future

Engineer Force (FEF) will add increased mobility and enhance

the combined arms force to move across the battlefield with

increased survivability. The FEF will be able to quickly locate

and neutralize all antitank and antipersonnel mines and other

explosive hazards to enhance mobility and force protection.

Counter Explosive Hazards Capabilities

The FEF will see significant increases in counter explosive

hazards capabilities through significant technological

advances and changes in organizational design. Technological

advances include predictive tools, standoff detection,

command and control, increased situational awareness,

robotics, and enhanced force protection. Organizational design

changes are focused to support modularity, and they

significantly differ from any changes throughout our

Regimental history. These changes will enable maneuver,

maneuver support, or maneuver sustainment operations by

allowing our forces freedom to maneuver when and where

they want by denying an opponent’s ability to use explosive

hazards against them.

The Future Force Brigade Combat Teams (BCT), equipped

with the Future Combat System, will use its embedded

technologies to provide assured mobility in support of

maneuver. The BCTs are also a significant organizational

change as sappers are replaced by embedded capabilities

provided by technology. The embedded technologies of the

BCT are enhanced situational awareness and prediction tools

linked to standoff detection and neutralization capabilities,

enabled through robotics. The more effective prediction

capabilities will allow the FEF to focus the employments of

detection technologies on the high-risk and high-payoff areas

of interest required to support maneuver. Enhanced command

and control capabilities and real-time situational awareness

will enable commanders to make informed decisions on bypass

or precision maneuver. Robotics will be used to reduce the

workload and to perform dangerous and hazardous tasks.

Technological advances and organizational design changes

will also enable sappers to provide assured mobility for

maneuver support and maneuver sustainment operations. The

fielding of our objective capabilities change detection and

standoff neutralization, and enhanced individual and platform

protection will significantly improve our route and area clearing

capabilities. Until these technologies mature and are fielded
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

across the force, we will provide the initial capability through

commercial-off-the-shelf systems and the creation of the

engineer clearance company. The future engineer clearance

company will consist of a headquarters section, three route

clearing platoons, and an area clearing platoon. The route

clearing platoon will be equipped with a vehicle-mounted mine

detector, a mine-protected interrogation vehicle, and a medium

mine-protected vehicle.

Similarly, the future area clearing objective capability is an

autonomous or semiautonomous robotic day and night area

clearance capability. Until the required technology matures,

we will equip the area clearance platoons with medium and

mini-mechanical flails, mechanical proofing, enhanced

neutralization capability, and mine-protected command and

control platforms similar to those in use by sappers supporting

current combat operations. Mine detection dog teams will

provide additional proofing capability (see Engineer, JulySeptember 2004, page 18).

This combination of new technologies and future

organizational changes will assist in denying an opponent the

ability to use explosive hazards as antiaccess or area denial

capabilities. However, sappers will always be required to

counter existing and future explosive hazard threats to meet

the commander’s intent. The FEF will be equipped and

organized to provide these critical capabilities.

The FEF has a new piece of robotic countermine equipment,

the Mechanical Antipersonnel Mine Clearing System

(MAPMCS), a system used in current combat operations. The

working principle is based on simultaneous use of two tools,

the flail and roller, providing highly reliable mine clearance.

The flail rotor has a number of chained hammers to conduct

mine clearing. The flail hammers are made of high-quality

material that is heat-treated and wear-resistant. The chained

hammers and high rotational speed of the flail enables the

machine to dig and powder antipersonnel mines until detonated

or shattered. The machine is remotely controlled from a safe

distance or an armored vehicle. The system is employed

remotely to antipersonnel minefields and activates trip wires.

The Matilda, a small, man-portable robot that includes a

manipulator arm, fiber-optic control kit, and extended-run

batteries, is also in the FEF tool bag. The robot is used for

military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) and tunnel and

cave missions. The Matilda provides standoff capabilities that

keep soldiers out of danger areas for long periods of time

while performing hazardous missions.

Demolitions Capabilities

Demolitions, another area where sappers bring a critical

capability to the warfight, will be used in a variety of roles,

from assuring mobility in MOUT, to destroying improvised

explosive devices (IEDs). An assessment of demolitions

capabilities for sappers determined that current capabilities

are spread across many different systems and require improved

handling characteristics like portability, rapid emplacement and MV-4 Medium Mine Flail

Matilda Robot

RG-31 Medium Mine-Protected Vehicle
xx Engineer January-March 2005

execution times, ease of operation, and reduced minimum safe

distances (MSD). The Tactical Explosives System (TES), a

“system of systems,” is the future of Army explosives. The

TES consists of two primary subsystems, a family of initiators,

and a modular charge capability. The initiators will be

controlled via a man-in-the-loop, the Tactical Internet using

battle command capabilities, or programmed smart algorithms.

The TES will follow a spiral development approach to maximize

the availability of current and future technologies while

providing incremental but satisfactory capabilities that support

the sapper.

The FEF requires a remote command-initiation capability

for demolition missions. The TES uses the Remote Activation

Munitions System (RAMS) as a springboard to develop the

TES remote initiation capabilities for the family of initiators.

RAMS provides the sapper the capability to remotely initiate

munitions and propagate an untethered line-of-sight (LOS)

and non-line-of-sight (NLOS) signal to deliver the desired effect

through an asymmetric battlespace. Through technology

improvements, RAMS integrates several technologies to

provide an untethered remote LOS and NLOS initiation

capability. RAMS uses one modular system for demolition

initiation tasks, which improves portability and decreases the

soldier’s vulnerability to threat fires by lessening exposure

time. Furthermore, RAMS significantly lightens the load the

soldier has to carry to employ demolitions and reduces

breaching times during urban operations. This retains the

element of surprise from the forced-entry technique and allows

the soldier to engage hostile targets with greater tactical

advantage. RAMS can be hand-emplaced and emplaced by

unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) and unmanned aerial

vehicles (UAVs).

The TES incorporates the capabilities of a special operations

forces demolition kit (SDK) and an urban operations set (UOS)

as the first modular charge capability. The SDK-UOS provides

the capability to tailor charges to the target and eliminates the

various adhoc charges currently being constructed for various

missions. The SDK-UOS allows the sapper to construct the

smallest, lightest charge feasible that allows tailored standoff

distances suitable for specific missions and maximum precision

for numerous types of targets and mission scenarios.

Additionally, the SDK-UOS provides state-of-the-art methods

to attach charges to targets. The SDK-UOS modular charges

can be hand-emplaced and emplaced by UGV and UAV,

providing the sapper the first capability to neutralize targets

from a standoff.

The SDK-UOS also provides stand-alone capabilities to

the sapper that will ultimately reduce MSDs in Army doctrine

to safely perform breaching operations through hearing, blast,

and fragmentation protection devices. Furthermore, the SDKUOS provides a capability to nonexplosively cut through

material when explosive breaching is not permitted.

Finally, the rapid wall breaching kit (RWBK) is a manportable, rapidly deployable system that provides an organic

capability to gain forced entry into buildings to maintain

freedom of maneuver and to shape the battlespace for friendly

forces in an asymmetric battlespace. The RWBK provides a

capability that is preformed, prepackaged, easily and rapidly

employed, lightweight, and safe.

Conclusion

This combination of new technologies and future

organizational changes will assist in denying an

opponent the ability to use explosive hazards as antiaccess or area denial capabilities. The technologies provide

an increased level of safety by using unmanned vehicles

(robots), giving Future Force sappers a standoff capability,

enhancing their ability to breach obstacles, and continuing to

provide assured mobility for maneuver. The FEF will be

equipped and organized to provide these critical capabilities.

These are just a few of the capabilities and systems sappers

will bring to the future battlefield. These capabilities are not

generally transferable to a maneuver platform, and even if they

were, infantry and armor soldiers will not have the time to train

to proficiency on executing these missions and operating these

systems to achieve the desired effect. So it is safe to say that

the Future Force sapper will be a critical enabler of assured

mobility and mission success in Future Force operations.

Captain Frank is a field artillery officer working in the

Acquisition Corps, Program Management Functional Area,

as a team chief for Mine/Countermine, Robotics, and

Demolitions in the US Army Engineer School, Directorate of

Combat Developments, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Rapid Wall Breaching Kit
xx Engineer January-March 2005

By now, almost everyone in the

Army has heard of the terms

modularity and expeditionary.

Most of the uncommitted Army (not

currently deployed or preparing to

deploy in support of the Global War on

Terrorism) is consumed with transforming its Cold War formations into

brigade combat teams (BCTs), units of

employment (UEs), and support

brigades. As the Army moves along its

transformation path, a fundamental

change in how these new organizations

are supported will be required if they are

to be truly modular and expeditionary.

The concept of modularity is predicated

on units that are flexible and agile:

scalable formations that can be missiontailored for specific operations. For these

units to be sustainable, a new modular

approach to combat service support

(CSS) is needed. In conjunction with the

US Army Engineer School, the Combined

Arms Support Command has developed

a modular support organization for the

Future Engineer Force (FEF) that is

modeled after the CSS being provided

inside the new BCTs. The forward support

company (FSC) is the corner-stone of

sustainment for the FEF (today’s

corps- and theater-level engineer battalions). The figure below shows an example of an engineer battalion with its FSC

and forward maintenance teams (FMTs).

The concept of maintenance support

for the FEF starts with uniquely

designed FMTs that are organic to each

engineer company. These FMTs perform

field-level maintenance (previously

referred to as organizational- and directsupport maintenance) under a two-level

maintenance concept. In the two-level

concept, the FMT is manned and

equipped to perform both organizationalBy Major Brian D. Slack

Engineer Battalion

CL = class

des = design

distro = distribution

horiz = horizontal

HQ = headquarters

maint = maintenance

surv = survey

vert = vertical

Legend
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

and direct-support maintenance. In

garrison, FMTs plug into the maintenance platoon of an FSC that is organic

to each engineer battalion. If an engineer

company gets task-organized with a

different deploying engineer battalion,

the engineer company’s FMT also gets

task-organized under the gaining

engineer battalion’s FSC maintenance

platoon. Each FMT—equipped with its

own Unit-Level Logistics SystemGround (ULLS-G) and prescribed load list

(PLL)—performs all repairs, parts requisitioning, dispatching, and services

for its engineer company. This plug-andplay concept of maintenance support

truly enables sustainment of any

combination of forces tailored into an

engineer mission force (EMF). The base

maintenance section of the FSC is

designed to provide maintenance support for the engineer battalion headquarters and any specialty platoons/

sections, as well as the FSC. In the

maintenance control section (MCS) of

the maintenance platoon, a maintenance

control officer and two warrant officers

(senior automobile maintenance officer and

engineer equipment repair technician)

provide maintenance management of the

engineer battalion’s equipment.

Concerning the remaining areas of

CSS, the FSC is designed to provide a

90 percent solution for the sustainment

of an engineer battalion composed of

five to seven engineer companies

combined into an EMF. The field-feeding

section is equipped to provide mess

support for five to seven engineer

companies. The distribution platoon

orders and distributes all classes of

supply within the battalion or EMF. It

carries the sustainment stocks that

exceed the organic carrying capability of

the engineer battalion for three days of

high-intensity conflict or seven days of

low-intensity conflict. Medical support

is provided by organic medical assets in

each engineer company headquarters

and a medical treatment section in the

engineer battalion headquarters. Combat

engineer companies are supported by a

senior medic and one trauma specialist

per line platoon. Construction engineer

companies are supported by one trauma

specialist. The engineer battalion

medical-treatment section is composed

of a physician’s assistant, a trauma

sergeant, two trauma specialists, and a

four-litter ambulance.

Based on a still-developing concept,

future engineer brigades will receive CSS

on an area support basis from a combat

service support battalion (CSSB). The

CSSB will provide the link between the

FSCs that support each battalion-sized

EMF and higher-level sustainment

forces in the theater support command.

As required, the CSSB will augment FSCs

with maintenance, transportation, and

other logistical support. The combination of FSCs and CSSBs will provide

sustain-ment across the full spectrum of

operations for the FEF and would be in

concert with the Army’s construct for

support of the total Army force.

Major Slack is an engineer concepts

officer in the Directorate of Combat

Developments, US Army Engineer School,

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. His past

assignments include engineer observercontroller at the Joint Readi-ness Training

Center; commander of A Company,

70th Engineer Battalion; and Task Force

Engineer for 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry

Regiment, and 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute

Infantry Regiment, in Alaska.

The following members of the Engineer Regiment have been lost in the Global War on Terrorism since the last issue of Engineer.

We dedicate this issue to them.

Second Lieutenant Christopher W. Barnett 1st Battalion, 156th Armored Regiment Shreveport, Louisiana

Specialist Justin B. Carter 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment Fort Benning, Georgia

Staff Sergeant Joseph E. Rodriguez 8th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Specialist Bennie J. Washington 44th Engineer Battalion, 2d Infantry Division Camp Howze, Korea

Specialist Johnathan Castro 73d Engineer Battalion, 25th Infantry Division Fort Lewis, Washington

Private First Class Lionel Ayro 73d Engineer Battalion, 25th Infantry Division Fort Lewis, Washington

Sergeant Lynn R. Poulin 133d Engineer Battalion Belfast, Maine

Specialist Thomas J. Dostie 133d Engineer Battalion Portland, Maine

Sergeant First Class Sean M. Cooley 150 Engineer Battalion, 155th Armor Brigade Lucedale, Mississippi

Specialist Robert A. McNail 150 Engineer Battalion, 155th Armor Brigade Lucedale, Mississippi

Specialist Nicholas C. Mason 276th Engineer Battalion West Point, Virginia

Specialist David A. Ruhren 276th Engineer Battalion West Point, Virginia

Specialist Lyle Rymer 239th Engineer Battalion Fort Chaffee, Arkansas

Staff Sergeant Johnathan R. Reed 1088th Engineer Battalion New Roads, Louisiana

Specialist Michael S. Evans II 1088th Engineer Battalion New Roads, Louisiana

Specialist Christopher J. Ramsey 1088th Engineer Battalion New Roads, Louisiana

Dedication
xx Engineer January-March 2005

The Future Army Tactical

Fire Fighting Truck

On 29 January 2005, the 406th Engineer Fire Fighting

Detachment, 89th Regional Readiness Command,

received the first M1142 Tactical Fire Fighting Truck

(TFFT). This new fire truck replaces the 20-year-old Amertek,

Incorporated, Military Adaptation of a Commercial Item

(MACI) 2500L. The Army will purchase more than 100 of these

new fire trucks over the next five years.

History

On 5 April 1974, the Department of the Army (DA)

approved a Required Operational Capability (ROC)

document for a family of fire fighting equipment. The

ROC stated that this new type of TFFT would have the

capability to combat three types of fires: structural (military

buildings, troop housing, and storage areas), brush, and

aircraft crash/rescue (small and intermediate). The determined

materiel solution was the MACI 2500L, fielded from the early

to mid-1980s. The MACI, a commercial fire fighting vehicle

adapted for tactical use, had its share of mechanical problems.

The MACI was unreliable and difficult to repair. A major

contributing factor for the poor maintenance and lengthy repair

times was that as the last MACI was fielded, Amertek divested

itself of its fire truck production line. As a result, repair parts

became scarce and often required off-line manufacturing.

Second, the MACI’s ability to effectively carry out three

missions was considered a limiting factor for the Future

Engineer Force (FEF), which is expanding the fire fighting tasks

from three to five. A third factor was the truck’s lack of water

capacity. According to Army Regulation 420-90, Fire and

Emergency Services, an aircraft rescue fire fighting vehicle

must carry a minimum of 1,000 gallons of water to support

Army tactical airfield operations. Air Force fire test site results,

using empirical calculations adapted from the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA),1

 determined that tactical airfields

supporting 46 missions or more per day—or servicing CH-47

aircraft or larger—require fire trucks with a water capacity of

at least 1,000 gallons. Unfortunately, the MACI’s lower water

capacity of 660 gallons requires that there be two trucks onstation when supporting airfield operations.

By Major Mollie Pearson and Mr. Michael Bonomolo

Passenger-side view of the M1142 Tactical Fire Fighting Truck
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

Development

I

n 1995, having read feedback from field units, personnel

from the US Army Engineer School determined that the

aging and unreliable MACI should be replaced. Before

development could begin, a user requirements document was

needed to justify the expense of purchasing a new fire truck.

The document articulated user requirements to the materiel

developer, who translated approved user requirements into a

fire truck blueprint releasable to industry. The Engineer School

chose to express its user requirements via a Statement of

Continuing Needs in 1996 and 1997; two were drafted and

subsequently approved in late 1997. The materiel developer

then deciphered the user requirements into engineering

standards that industry would understand—a Request for

Proposal (RFP). In 1999, the materiel developer released the

RFP, soliciting the design solution from industry.

The TFFT contract was awarded to Pierce® Manufacturing,

Incorporated, of Appleton, Wisconsin, in mid-2000. The

mobility Battlefield Operating System of the Army’s Program

and Objective Memorandum allocated no funding for research

and development. Therefore, it was decided to use known

components to put the TFFT together, and an Army heavy

expanded-mobility tactical truck (HEMTT) was mated to a

commercial fire fighting package. The project manager

consulted subject matter experts (Army firefighters) from the

US Army Training and Doctrine Command and the US Army

Reserve about parts required, as well as field demands

emplaced on a TFFT, to ensure the best design possible.

It was decided early in the process that commercial fire

fighting standards according to the National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA) would be used as a guide, and strict

adherence would not drive the development of the TFFT. There

were many reasons for this. The TFFT is a multifunctional fire

fighting truck envisioned to combat five types of fires/hazards

encountered by firefighters in the field: wildland; structural

(limited to two stories or less); petroleum, oil, and lubricants

(POL) and hazardous materials (HAZMAT); tactical vehicle;

and aircraft crashes. Designing the fire truck to meet all five

missions to NFPA standards would significantly increase cost,

require a larger vehicle, and increase engineering and

development time.

Design Challenges

The TFFT user requirements challenged Pierce to come

up with a unique design. Among the many technical

challenges to overcome, the following were the most

noteworthy:

Expanding the HEMTT crew carrying capacity from two to

six. Pierce placed an air-conditioned four-man crew cab just

to the rear of the HEMTT engine. Communication between

the driver’s compartment and the crew cab is accomplished

via a vehicular intercom system.

Providing the pump operator with an unimpeded 360-

degree view of a fire or crash scene. The pump panel was

placed forward of the four-man crew cab on top, facing toward

the front of the vehicle. Access to the pump panel is through

the crew cab’s removable roof, and a recessed shelf provides

a place for the operator to stand.

Sustaining uninterrupted water pressure to the outlets

and water cannons for pump-and-roll capability, as the vehicle

altered its speed. Coupling the 1,000-gallons-per-minute water

pump to the transmission-driven power takeoff meant that

less energy was received by the pump, which lowered the

water pressure to the water cannons as the HEMTT slowed.

Aircraft crash rescue techniques, or pump-and-roll, require

the fire truck to maintain continuous water pressure to

overcome the intensity of a fuel fire. Pierce surmounted this

deficiency by adding a second engine, a 200-horsepower (hp)

Deutz® pump engine, to exclusively power the water pump. It

was located forward of the four-man crew cab just below the

pump panel. The second engine can be started at any time

and is not affected by the speed of the truck, assuring nonstop

power to the water pump. There are maintenance access panels

on both sides and an inherent exhaust pipe, though fuel is

drawn from the HEMTT’s fuel tank.

Maintaining command and control among the TFFT crew,

both for fire fighting and day-to-day operations. The TFFT

was provided with a set of four frequency-modulated (FM)

handheld radios and one cab-mounted, very high-frequency

(VHF) base radio. This allows the on-site fire chief to communicate with his team at a fire or crash site. Communicating

between the two cabs is accomplished via a Fire Com 3020R

intercom set. Additionally, a Single-Channel Ground-to-Air

Radio System (SINCGARS) provides command and control

with the maneuver commander’s forces.

M1142 Tactical Fire Fighting Truck versus the Military Adaptation of a Commercial Item 2500L
xx Engineer January-March 2005

Overcoming the front cab’s narrow steps to accommodate

the width of the firefighter’s boot. The ability to modify the

HEMTT chassis was limited by regulations. A human factors

engineering modification was submitted by the Army Research

Laboratory and is being evaluated as a general fix for all

HEMTTs.

Overcoming the lack of comprehensive basic issue items/

components of end items fire fighting equipment currently

on the fire team’s table of organization and equipment. The

project manager purchased commercial-quality fire fighting

equipment and made it part of the technical data package that

is required to support the TFFT.

Storing the additional equipment procured for the TFFT

in the limited storage areas. Pierce designed storage areas

on both sides of the TFFT.

Operational Test

The TFFT was subjected to an operational test at Fort

Huachuca, Arizona, from July to August 2003. An

overall summary of the test reached this conclusion:

“Soldiers from four different Regional Readiness

Commands from across the United States successfully used

the TFFT to conduct all firefighting missions prescribed in

the TFFT operational mode summary/mission profile (OMS/

MP) during the Initial Operational Test. Missions consisted

of structural fires, aircraft crash rescue fires, vehicle-HAZMAT

fires, vehicle rescues, and wildland fires. Computercontrolled, propane-fed simulators were used to simulate the

structural and aircraft crash fire missions. Both crews

conducted each mission successfully

during daylight and hours of darkness.

Salvage vehicles were used to conduct the

vehicle rescue and vehicle-HAZMAT

missions. Both firefighting teams

successfully executed these missions

during daylight and hours of darkness. A

5-acre wildland fire was ignited in the local

training area and successfully contained

and extinguished by the two firefighting

teams working in tandem. The TFFT

proved to be highly mobile throughout the

test and provided the soldiers with ready

access to all equipment necessary to

execute each mission. The soldiers were

unanimous in their opinion that the TFFT

is far superior to systems currently

assigned to their units.”2

The Future

Fielding of the TFFT, to the engineer fire fighting teams—all

components—and to Ordnance

Ammunition Company fire fighting teams

will be completed in fiscal year 2007.

Revisions to the DA-approved distribution

Left, side view of current TFFT step; right, a view of the proposed larger step to accommodate the

firefighter’s boot.

Members of the 89th Regional Readiness Command with the Army’s

newest fire truck.
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

schedule are being staffed at this time, with the revisions

necessitated by the ongoing deployments and redeployments

of engineer fire fighting teams.

The Project Manager (PM), Heavy Tactical Vehicles (HTV),

is committed to providing soldiers the best possible equipment,

consistent with the requirements of the Engineer School. As

this system is fielded, PM HTV will welcome comments from

the field concerning product improvements or modifications

for inclusion in future production or for consideration as field

retrofits. Information on this feedback system will be provided

to soldiers of gaining units during new materiel introductory

briefings.

The Engineer School—along with PM HTV and industry

partner, Pierce Manufacturing, Incorporated—have worked

together over the last seven years to develop, build, test, and

procure a fire fighting vehicle to meet the multiple, varied

missions required of an engineer firefighter. With our combined

teamwork, we have produced a TFFT unmatched in its abilities

to support the Current and Future Engineer Force.

Major Pearson is Chief, Engineer Support Branch,

Materiel Division, Directorate of Combat Developments, at

the US Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Mr. Bonomolo is a combat developer in the Directorate of

Combat Developments, US Army Engineer School, Fort

Leonard Wood, Missouri. He has had numerous assignments

in the military as a company commander, platoon leader, as

well as battalion maintenance office communicationselectronics staff officer for both an armor and engineer

battalion.

Endnotes

1 FAA Advisory Circular 150/5210-6C and the NFPA formula,

Appendix A, National Fire Protective Association 418, pp.

418-9.

2

 Test Report for the TFFT IOT, test #2003-OT-E/CS-1960,

HQ, US Army Test Command (OTC), 19 September 2003.

The Engineer Writer’s Guide

Engineer is a professional-development bulletin designed

to provide a forum for exchanging information and ideas

within the Army engineer community. We include articles

by and about officers, enlisted soldiers, warrant officers,

Department of the Army civilian employees, and others.

Writers may discuss training, current operations and

exercises, doctrine, equipment, history, personal viewpoints, or other areas of general interest to engineers.

Articles may share good ideas and lessons learned or

explore better ways of doing things.

Articles should be concise, straightforward, and in the

active voice. If they contain attributable information or

quotations not referenced in the text, provide appropriate

endnotes. Text length should not exceed 2,000 words

(about eight double-spaced pages). Shorter after-actiontype articles and reviews of books on engineer topics are

also welcome.

Include photos (with captions) and/or line diagrams that

illustrate information in the article. Please do not include

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

them as a separate file. Do not embed photos in

PowerPoint. If illustrations are in PowerPoint, avoid excessive use of color and shading. Save digital images at a

resolution no lower than 200 dpi. Images copied from a

Web site must be accompanied by copyright permission.

Provide a short paragraph that summarizes the content

of the article. Also include a short biography, including

your full name, rank, current unit, and job title; a list of

your past assignments, experience, and education; your

mailing address; and a fax number and commercial daytime telephone number.

Include a statement with your article from your local

security office that the information contained in the article

is unclassified, nonsensitive, and releasable to the public.

Not only is Engineer distributed to military units worldwide,

it is also available for sale by the Government Printing

Office.

We cannot guarantee that we will publish all submitted

articles. They are accepted for publication only after

thorough review. If we plan to use your article in an

upcoming issue, we will notify you. Therefore it is important

to keep us informed of changes in your e-mail address or

telephone number. All articles accepted for publication are

subject to grammatical and structural changes as well as

editing for style.

Send submissions by e-mail to <engineer@

wood.army.mil> or send a 3 1/2-inch disk in Microsoft Word,

along with a double-spaced copy of the manuscript, to:

Editor, Engineer Professional Bulletin, 320 MANSCEN

Loop, Suite 348, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8929.

Note: Please indicate if your manuscript is being

considered for publication elsewhere. Due to the limited

space per issue, we seldom print articles that have been

accepted for publication by other Army professional

bulletins.
xx Engineer January-March 2005

Warfighter Symposium attendees will have a unique

opportunity to directly impact the future of the

Engineer Regiment. One of the breakout sessions

will provide a forum to discuss critical training tasks for the

Future Engineer Force: common engineer tasks, military

occupational specialties (MOSs) 21B combat engineer and

21C bridge crewmember tasks, and engineer lieutenant tasks.

Participants in the session will develop a recommendation for

the critical tasks that should be trained in each of these three

areas. After the symposium, that recommendation will be

staffed to the US Army Engineer School Commandant for

approval.

Critical Task Selection Board

The selection of critical tasks is the foundation of the

Army’s training development system. The process, as

described in US Army Training and Doctrine Command

(TRADOC) Regulation 350-70, Systems Approach to Training

Management, Processes, and Products, is used to determine

the tasks that a job incumbent must perform to accomplish his

or her duties, as well as survive in the full range of military

operations. A board of subject matter experts, known as a

critical task selection board (CTSB), determines the critical

tasks for a job or MOS. Engineer School training developers

use these tasks to craft learning objectives and training

materials, which ensure that each critical task is trained in

some fashion. The CTSB also provides a recommendation as

to where each of the tasks should be trained (a resident-based

environment or in the unit). The training developer uses this

recommendation to finalize the overall training design for an

MOS.

Training developers have some flexibility in how a CTSB is

conducted. In the past, the Engineer School has used on-site

subject matter experts, electronic surveys, and teleconferences

to conduct the board. In July 2003, TRADOC released

additional guidance to ensure operational coordination

between TRADOC and other major commands during CTSBs.

This guidance requires that all voting members be

representatives from operational units in the US Army Forces

Command (FORSCOM), US Army Reserve Center (USARC),

or Army National Guard (ARNG).

Since the Warfighter Symposium provides an excellent

opportunity to capture the knowledge and experience of our

By Mr. Daniel Goff

Defining Success

for Engineer Soldiers and Leaders

Regiment’s activities throughout the Army, a breakout session

was established to conduct a CTSB. The three areas that will

be discussed in the breakout session were selected for a variety

of reasons, with the common factor in each being the critical

nature of the associated skills in an Army at war. Participants

in the breakout session will be asked to discuss the following

questions:

 What engineer tasks are common to all noncombat engineer

MOSs?

 What tasks should be modified, added, or deleted from

the MOS 21B and 21C task lists?

 What tasks must engineer lieutenants master to

successfully lead soldiers in wartime?

Common Engineer Tasks

There are currently 20 of these tasks trained in the Common

Engineer Training (CET) course. This course is a prerequisite

for most noncombat engineer Advanced Individual Training

(AIT) soldiers, as well as a phase of engineer reclassification

training. In December 2004, TRADOC mandated that all

proponent schools incorporate the warrior tasks and battle

drills into AIT. The Engineer School accomplished this

mandate by redesigning the CET course to focus on the warrior

tasks and drills. The redesigned course, retitled Battle-Focused

Training, will be offered in AIT only, but not as a component

of reclassification training. The cost of this redesign was the

elimination of all but three common engineer tasks from the

curriculum:

 Prepare an AN/PSS-12 Mine Detector for Operation.

 Locate Mines With the AN/PSS-12 Mine Detector.

 Install Wire Obstacle Materials.

Any additional common tasks identified by the 2005 CTSB

will be incorporated into the Battle-Focused Training Course

or the AIT courses for each MOS.

MOS 21B and 21C Tasks

The tasks associated with MOS 21B were last reviewed

and approved in 2003, and the tasks associated with MOS 21C

were last reviewed and approved in 1998. Actions completed

in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, particularly in the areas

of urban operations and improvised explosive device (IED)
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

detection, suggest that a review of both critical task lists is

necessary. In addition, 21C tasks associated with the addition

of the dry support bridge will be discussed.

Engineer Lieutenant Tasks

The critical task list for lieutenants was last reviewed and

approved in 2003. The Army is prepared to implement dramatic

changes in lieutenant training in fiscal year 2006, with the

stand-up of the Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC). BOLC is

divided into three phases, with the first two phases conducted

at sites other than the Engineer School. BOLC I is the

lieutenant’s precommissioning, and BOLC II is a common

curriculum designed to instill the Warrior Ethos. BOLC III will

provide proponent-specific training. BOLC III is projected as

a 14-week phase that will employ a tracked curriculum to

provide assignment-oriented training to engineer lieutenants.

The design of the phase is ongoing, and the Warfighter

Symposium CTSB will provide the final opportunity to cement

the critical tasks to be trained before BOLC III implementation.

(See article on page xx for more information.)

The review of the critical tasks in these three areas is

significant and cannot be accomplished without gathering data

before the symposium. During the months of February and

March, the Engineer School Department of Training

Development (DTD) sent out surveys to the Regiment

requesting input on the tasks associated with common

engineer skills, combat engineers, and engineer lieutenants.

DTD compiled and analyzed the results and will present them

at the breakout session. These results will serve as a

springboard for the discussion of critical tasks, with the overall

goal being task lists that can be submitted to the Engineer

School Commandant for approval.

Ensuring Success

The success of the CTSB also depends on the

participation of individuals who represent all aspects

of our Regiment, both Active Army and Reserve

Component. Participants must be able to speak to the essential

tasks required for engineer leaders and soldiers.

The Engineer School is dedicated to providing the skills

and abilities that our Regiment must possess to fight and win.

No one knows those skills better than the men and women

who are employing and leading soldiers today. The breakout

session on critical training tasks is an exciting step forward for

the Engineer School, ensuring that we capture the voice of the

Regiment in our training. Come join us at the Warfighter

Symposium and help define success for the Army engineer.

Mr. Goff is the Director of Training Development for the

US Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He

has more than 15 years of experience in training and leader

development for the US Army. In 2002, he received the

National Award for Education, Training, and Career

Development from the American Society of Military

Comptrollers.
xx Engineer January-March 2005

The Engineer Regiment is a “Team of Teams,” a diverse

organization comprised of Reserve, National Guard, and

Active Army units; the US Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE); engineer leaders in our major commands, joint

commands, combat training centers, and industry; and

engineers in our allied forces and our sister services. If

harnessed, the possibilities of information sharing and

collective problem solving across our organization are endless.

While simultaneously engaged in operations and

transformation, communication within our Regiment is more

essential than ever! Our major efforts in strategic

communication in 2004 centered on visits to engineer

commands around the world, the ENFORCE Conference, the

Councils of Colonels, the Commandant’s video teleconferences

(VTCs), the Engineer Professional Bulletin, and hosts of

conferences both here at Fort Leonard Wood and in the field.

We must, however, do much better with communication and

harnessing our finite resources of funds and time in 2005.

Some work was done within the US Army Engineer School

on collaborative techniques to

more effectively communicate with

the field, but much more needs to

be done. The Army Knowledge

Online (AKO) collaborative Web

site, located under the US Army

Training and Doctrine Command

(TRADOC)/Engineer School, will

take more shape in the months

ahead. The goal is for all leaders

of the Regiment to use this tool

often for getting the most current

information, providing comments

for various initiatives, and

providing up-to-date responses to

requests for information. A goal in

2005 and beyond is to work more

on using collaborative feedback

with the Total Engineer

Regiment—utilizing the phenomenal levels of expertise and

insights of our soldiers and

leaders.

US Army Corps of Engineers

The Engineer School and the USACE Public Affairs Office

are teaming in 2005 on periodic newsletters and

updates periodically sent out via email. This systematic

“push” of information gives the members of our Regiment the

most recent situational reports (SITREPs), messages, briefings,

and actions with the purpose of keeping current on “bigpicture” developments. Additionally, beginning this year, the

Engineer School will publish a Regimental Letter from the

Commandant that is intended to inform every Soldier in the

Regiment.

Engineer School Web Page

T.

he nonsecure Internet protocol router (NIPR) Web page

will continue to provide up-to-date, open-source

information on the Engineer School’s mission and

vision, the directorates, and course information. This will

continue to be used to disseminate information on general

Communication—

The Key to Our Success

By Lieutenant Colonel Paul L. Grosskruger

Engineer School Home Page
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

topics such as upcoming events and points of contact and for

collecting requests for more information. Check this site for

periodic messages and themes to the Regiment from the

Engineer School.

Army Knowledge Online

An area packed with potential

is the Army Knowledge

Online (AKO) Collaborative Knowledge Center. Under

TRADOC, the Engineer School has

a site that has general, “For Official

Use Only (FOUO)” information and

has files for staffing and collaboration between the Engineer

School directorates and leaders of

the Regiment. More collaboration

at the FOUO level within our

Regiment—using this site—may be

our “way ahead” in harnessing our

limited time and resources while

simultaneously ensuring that all

stake holders share in the

development of holistic solutions.

Secure Web Sites

There is a tremendous amount

of information on the

secure Internet protocol

router (SIPR) knowledge sites

within our major commands and

functional task forces, such as that

on improvised explosive device

(IED) defeat. Expanded use of SIPR

by our institutional base “operationalizes” the workstations of

our decision makers across the

Regiment. This means of secure

collaboration tackles the challenges of coordinating operations

across the globe, while also

addressing the critical need for

constant operational security. It is

definitely only the beginning, since

collaborative capabilities on SIPR

knowledge sites are improving

dramatically.

Lieutenant Colonel Grosskruger is the US Army Engineer

School Chief of Staff. Previous

assignments include command of

the 94th Engineer Combat

Battalion (Heavy), V Corps

Assistant Corps Engineer, S3 of the

36th Engineer Group, and executive officer of the 317th

Engineer Battalion (Mechanized). He also commanded the

535th Engineer Company (Combat Support Equipment) and

Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 82d Engineer

Battalion (Mechanized).

Engineer School Web Page

Army Knowlege Online Home Page
xx Engineer January-March 2005

The world has changed. The monstrous complex

obstacles we faced in training exercises for the last

fifty years have largely been replaced by point

obstacles, usually in the form of an improvised explosive device

(IED), small arms ambush, or a combination of the two.

Although we may face the mines/wire/tank-ditch monolith

again someday, we now have to focus our efforts on defeating

the current threat. Too often our instinct is to rewrite

doctrine—to start from scratch—when all that is really needed

is a new look at the skills and tools we already have. The

fundamentals of assured mobility are a case in point: this

relatively new doctrinal framework simply codifies things we

already know.1

 We have to be able to see and understand the

battlefield faster than the enemy, and we must act in such a

way that we affect the opponent’s decision cycle rather than

react to him. This article discusses trends identified at the

National Training Center (NTC) and presents straightforward

techniques that engineer staffs can use to implement the

fundamentals of assured mobility on today’s battlefield.

Focus on the Target

The six fundamentals of assured mobility are predict,

detect, prevent, avoid, neutralize, and protect. The

first three are purely offensive—they seek to determine

the enemy’s course of action ahead of time and interdict those

actions. The last three are more defensive—the enemy has

already been able to influence the battlefield, and we must

now react in such a way as to preserve combat power and

mitigate enemy action.

The mechanism for achieving the first three fundamentals

is the targeting process. Many engineers (in fact, many of the

key players on organizational staffs) are unfamiliar with this

process because it has always been the domain of the

artilleryman. Targeting is nothing more than “the process of

selecting targets and matching the appropriate response to

them.”2 We must be alert to enemy patterns of behavior and

then allocate assets accordingly in order to disrupt those

patterns. This lack of successful interdiction is also seen at

NTC. Over the last year, the Opposing Force (OPFOR) has

routinely emplaced IEDs at the same location at the same time

of day over a several-day period. Each time, the unit was slow

to react—patterns were not identified in a timely manner, and

assets were not allocated to interdict the enemy. The problem

is twofold: We fail to see first and understand first, and then

we miss the opportunity to act first. So how do we overcome

this challenge?

Effective targeting requires accurate information

management. The close working relationship between the staff

intelligence and engineer sections is imperative. During a

rotation at NTC, the brigade engineer section will receive an

incredibly high number of IED reports. Only a small number of

these are actually enemy devices; the remainder are simply

meals, ready to eat (MRE) boxes that fell off trucks or other

trash that routinely litters the battlefield. Often, the intelligence

section will conduct analysis of raw data, and engineers fail to

advise them of these false reports. The result is that we conduct

analysis based not only on enemy actions but also on the

strength of our load plans. Obviously, this leads to improper

analysis. Based on this, we may wind up setting an observation

post to overwatch a bumpy section of road rather than the

actual location of enemy activity!

Information management systems must be able to efficiently

process data. The Pattern Analysis Plot Sheet (often referred

to as the pinwheel)3

 is usually developed by the intelligence

section. A graphic representation of incidents complements

the pinwheel and facilitates hasty identification of enemy

patterns. Terrain analysis teams can produce products to

support this process. Where these assets are not available,

the same can be accomplished by posting sticky notes to the

map. The key is to determine the minimum amount of data that

indicates patterns and establish a system to effectively display

that information.

Once enemy patterns have been identified, they should

become the subject of the targeting process. As previously

stated, the purpose of this process is to allocate available

assets in such a way as to have the most damaging impact on

enemy operations. Targeting is often categorized as having

lethal (kinetic) and nonlethal (nonkinetic) effects. The former

is a matter of identifying locations of enemy activity and

identifying assets to observe targets and take appropriate

action once detection is successful. Nonlethal effects is a

relatively new process and is not as clearly defined. The intent

is to incorporate all available assets into the concept of

operations—whether they are civil affairs teams, Army

Practical Application

of the Fundamentals

of Assured Mobility

By Major James M. Ahearn
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

engineer construction assets, available contractor support, or

even nongovernmental organizations. To understand how

such assets contribute to assured mobility, consider the

identification of recurring IED activity in or near an area that

has less than optimal social conditions—such as a lack of

electricity, insufficient sewage systems, or substandard medical

care. By addressing such concerns, units can potentially deny

the enemy success by robbing him of his legitimacy. As the

average citizen comes to the realization that life is better without

conflict, he is more likely to cooperate with friendly forces or

at least discourage enemy activity in his area.

Establish a Common Operating Picture

A key element of assured mobility is a unit’s ability to

establish a common operating picture (COP).

According to Field Manual 3-90, Tactics, “The

commander can reduce the risk associated with any situation

by increasing his knowledge of the terrain and friendly, neutral,

and enemy forces. He has a greater risk of making a poor

decision if his situational understanding is incomplete or

faulty.” 4 This is crucial on today’s battlefield. Units routinely

operate in urban environments, where observation is limited

to a few blocks and unit boundaries are routinely crossed.

Systems must be in place to transmit situational understanding

to the lowest level. There are two primary challenges associated

with establishing the COP: battle drills to receive and

disseminate information and battle tracking systems that are

easy to understand and update. By addressing these issues,

units are better able to establish situational awareness across

the entire formation, enabling soldiers to become aware of

threats as they occur and avoid danger.

A critical challenge is the ability to alert units to developing

situations. In order to maintain situational awareness, units

must be made aware of the boundaries they will cross and

contact procedures for each unit whose area they will travel.

All of this must be done before leaving their point of origin

and should be covered in premission briefs and rehearsals.

Another area of concern is mobility battle tracking.

Successful units find ways to present pertinent information in

a manner that is simply understood. An effective technique

for managing information makes use of a common numbering

system that identifies obstacles on the route status chart, the

obstacle tracker, and the map board (see Figure 1, page xx).

The ability to manage the processing, analysis, and

dissemination of information enables leaders at all levels to

make informed decisions and negates the enemy’s ability to

influence operations.

Get EOD Into the Fight

Following the initial analysis and dissemination of

information, neutralization efforts must be coordinated.

Although efforts are underway to develop a graduated

response to the IED threat, explosive ordnance disposal (EOD)

teams are currently our only asset for disposing of explosive

hazards. Too often at NTC, this valuable asset is not effectively

integrated into operations due to the lack of dedicated security

and ineffective systems for prioritizing EOD effort. Engineer

staffs are well-positioned to rectify this situation. (See article

on page xx.)

The solution is not difficult. Units must be tasked well in

advance to provide security for a specified period of time,

with the understanding that this security element will not leave

the EOD team until the tasking is complete. One technique is

to rotate the tasking among all subordinate maneuver units on

a regular schedule. This technique has two advantages: it

provides predictability as units determine their troop-to-task

matrix, and it enables a systematic response to all levels of

explosive hazards.

EOD classifies all incidents according to four categories.5

Category A incidents require an immediate response, while

Categories B, C, and D imply a lesser degree of urgency. As

the owners of battlespace, maneuver units will almost always

have unexploded ordnance (UXO) incidents in their area of

operations. By tasking each maneuver unit with security, they

can link up with EOD and “clean up” these Category B, C, and

D incidents in their area for the duration of the tasking. If a

Category A incident occurs, whether it be within their

boundaries or those of an adjacent unit, the security

detachment and the EOD team immediately respond to the

higher-priority incident. Once complete, they can return to

work in their own area of operation.

EOD response must then be further prioritized. What does

EOD respond to if there are two or more Category A incidents

at the same time? One technique is to develop a commander’s

critical asset list (CCAL), which lists all of the things that the

commander determines are most critical to the success of his

mission. For example, in the days leading up to an election,

polling sites might be at the top of the list, followed closely by

routes that enable voters to travel to the polls, and then main

supply routes (MSRs) (see Figure 2, page xx). This list must be

“The six fundamentals of assured mobility are predict,

detect, prevent, avoid, neutralize, and protect.”
xx Engineer January-March 2005 Figure 1. Mobility tracking systems that use a common numbering system allow the user to quickly cross-reference information and develop situational awareness. MRS Status Incident Report Mobility COP
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

reviewed and updated on a regular basis, as priorities will

change constantly.

Summary

I

t is clear that the Army is fighting a new enemy, and

battlefield mobility has become more important and more

challenging than ever before. By leveraging the targeting

process as an ongoing part of the military decision-making

process, units are better able to make the most efficient use of

all available assets in a continuous operations environment.

By becoming an integral part of this process, engineer staffs

can guide the effective use of assets to implement assured

mobility. Establishing a COP is paramount. Systems that

accurately portray the entire battlefield at any moment enhance

situational awareness and facilitate better decision making at

all levels. We will never completely destroy the enemy’s ability

to emplace obstacles, but successful use of limited assets

such as EOD mitigates his effectiveness. By focusing the skills

and tools available on assured mobility, engineers significantly

contribute to victory on the front lines of today.

Major Ahearn is the Assistant Brigade Engineer Trainer

at the National Training Center. Previous assignments

include Assistant Engineer Operations Officer, Eighth US

Army, Yongsan, Korea; and Commander, Bravo Company,

10th Engineer Battalion, 2d Brigade, Third Infantry Division,

during the invasion of Iraq. He is a graduate of the Engineer

Officers Advanced Course.

Figure 2. Commander’s Critical

Asset List

1. Key Infrastructure

2. Government Offices

3. Main Supply Routes

 Bull Run

 Long Island

 la Drang

 St Mihiel

 Lexington

4. Cultural Sites

5. Mosques

Endnotes

1

 FM 3-34, Engineer Operations, January 2004, paragraph

3-40, <http://atiam.train.army.mil/portal/atia/adlsc/view/

public/300211-1/fm/3-34/ch3.htm#p3 >.

2

 FM 6-20-10, The Targeting Process, May 1996, Chapter 1;

<http://atiam.train.army.mil/portal/atia/adlsc/view/public/

296978-1/fm/6-20-10/Ch1.htm#ch1>.

3

 FM 34-130, Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield,

July 1994, Figure 3-3-12; <http://atiam.train.army.mil/portal/

atia/adlsc/view/public/296806-1/fm/34-130/Ch3.htm>.

4

 FM 3-90, Tactics, July 2001, paragraph 1-32, <http://

atiam.train.army.mil/portal/atia/adlsc/view/public/297119-

1/fm/3-90/ch1.htm>.

5

 FM 9-15, EOD Service and Unit Operations, May 1996,

Chapter One, <http://atiam.train.army.mil/portal/atia/adlsc/

view/public/296899-1/fm/9-15/Ch1.htm#top>.
xx Engineer January-March 2005

This quote from the new version of Department of the

Army (DA) Pamphlet (Pam) 600-3, Officer Professional

Development and Career Management (tentatively

scheduled to be published in March 2005), first paragraph of

Chapter 16, provides a great overview for our new engineer

officers. Branch qualification is no longer used for the

professional development of officers. The Army Chief of Staff

did not like the “lily-pad” ideology to success and wants skills

and experiences—rather than assignments—to drive

professional development. Officers must take a commonsense

approach to their own professional development.

Under the new DA Pam 600-3, three professional

development tracks have been established for engineer

officers:

 Tactical Command Professional Development Progress.

Typical assignments start in sapper and Stryker companies

with follow-on assignments for majors, lieutenant colonels,

and colonels being unit of action (UA) engineers, UA/

maneuver enhancement (ME)/unit of employment-tactical

(UEx) plans engineers, brigade troop battalion commanders,

UEx commanders, and ME brigade commanders.

 US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Command

Professional Development Progress. Typical assignments

start in modular combat engineer commands, vertical and

horizontal companies, and battalion and brigade staffs, with

follow-on assignments for majors, lieutenant colonels, and

colonels being deputy district engineers and district

commanders.

 Nonspecific and Command Professional Development

Progress. Typical assignments are in the US Army

Recruiting Command (USAREC) and training commands,

with follow-on assignments for majors, lieutenant colonels,

and colonels being engineer brigade staffs, S3s/executive

officers, engineer battalion commanders, garrison

commanders, unit of employment-operational (UEy) plans/

operations engineers, brigade commanders, and district

commanders.

The new version of DA Pam 600-3 will include warrant

officers, who are undergoing an education and training

redesign with the integration of the Warrant Officer Educational

System (WOES) into the Officer Educational System (OES).

Currently, the US Army Engineer School’s Directorate of

Training and Leader Development (DOTLD) is conducting an

analysis of “integration,” where the term integration is as

follows:

 Integrated Training. The environment (classroom) is the

same, and terminal learning objectives (TLO) are the same.

 Shared Training. The environment is shared, but TLOs

are different.

 Shared Curriculum Training. The environment is not

shared, but TLOs are the same.

 Warrant Officer-Specific Training. The environment and

TLOs are completely different and separated.

 Engineer warrant officers are not striving to be commissioned officers or limited duty officers but will continue to

be the Army’s technicians.

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Kerber is the Warrant Officer Coordinator

and Chief Warrant Officer of the Branch (CWOB) in the Engineer

Personnel Proponency Office, US Army Engineer School, Fort

Leonard Wood, Missouri. He has also served in combat engineer

battalions and combat support hospitals. He has more than 30 years

of active federal service, with 22 of them as an engineer warrant officer.

By Chief Warrant Officer 4 Frederick Kerber

“The Corps of Engineers provides the Army and the nation with officers trained and experienced in providing essential

engineer support in many different forms. Engineer officers perform missions that span the entire military and civil engineering

spectrum while serving our Army and nation in war and peace. Engineer officers should strive to obtain and excel in the

tough assignments; this is the fundamental tenant of successful career progression in the transforming Engineer Regiment of

the 21st century.”
xx Engineer January-March 2005

The US Army Engineer School’s Engineer Personnel

Proponency Office recently completed a draft revision

of Department of the Army (DA) Pamphlet (Pam) 600-

25, US Army Noncommissioned Officer Professional

Development Guide, which is being reviewed at the US Army

Human Resources Command (HRC). Prior to fiscal year 2005,

engineer military occupational specialties (MOSs) were

separated into three career management fields (CMFs):

 CMF 12, Combat Engineering

 CMF 51, General Engineering

 CMF 81, Topographic Engineering

Information on these CMFs was further spread through

three chapters in DA Pam 600-25. With the consolidation of all

engineer MOSs into CMF 21, there are still three distinct

categories within the engineer field—combat engineering,

general engineering, and topographic engineering—but they

are now in one CMF for ease of management. Information on

all Army engineer MOSs will be located in one chapter in the

revised DA Pam 600-25.

Additional revisions have linked each engineer MOS and its

duty description from DA Pam 611-21, Military Occupational

Classification and Structure, to DA Pam 600-25. The major duties

and responsibilities of each MOS and grade are outlined and

a list of professional reading is suggested for each skill level,

since some reading may not be appropriate for all skill levels.

These revisions will provide soldiers and noncommissioned

officers additional direction, guidance, and assistance in

managing their professional development.

A career model for each MOS, such as the 21B combat

engineer model in the figure on page xx has been included in

the draft revision of DA Pam 600-25. The model shows typical

career progression and authorized duty titles and grade,

according to DA Pam 611-21. The career model will allow

soldiers to track their individual progression to see where they

are and where they should be at any given time in their career.

The duty positions and titles found in the career model are

linked directly to senior noncommissioned officer promotions.

Recommendations from the Engineer Personnel Proponency

Office are provided to board members concerning leadership

and career-enhancing positions, as well as recommended time

in leadership positions.

As the Engineer Regiment transforms to modularity, soldiers

in the Regiment must also transform. Soldier transformation is

taking place in the form of several ongoing personnel actions

within the Engineer Personnel Proponency Office. These

include the creation of an additional skill identifier (ASI) for

combat engineer soldiers who have successfully qualified as

explosive ordnance clearance agents (EOCA). An EOCA is a

soldier who has a limited ability to dispose of certain types of

unexploded ordnance (UXO). This skill will enhance the ability

of engineers to influence mobility on the battlefield, freeing

explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) personnel to concentrate

on high-payoff targets and further bridge the gap between the

engineer and EOD communities.

Consolidation of MOSs 21U topographic analyst and 21L

lithographer is in the works, with the end result being an ASI

to designate personnel qualified as lithographers. Also

ongoing is the consolidation of MOSs 21T technical engineer

specialist and 21S geodetic surveyor, resulting in the deletion

of MOS 21S and creating a 21T multifunctional surveyor. MOSs

21F crane operator and 21J general construction equipment

operator will consolidate in fiscal year 2006, resulting in MOS

21J becoming a general construction equipment operator.

Another consolidation under consideration is the combination

of MOS 21J with 21E heavy construction equipment operator

to create a 21E construction equipment operator. This

consolidation is being reviewed by the Engineer School and

the US Army Training and Doctrine Command to resolve

funding issues.

The Engineer Regiment is changing daily, with the

implementation of the new engineer force structure. The

consolidations that are currently in progress will greatly

enhance the capabilities of the Engineer Regiment for current

and future operations.

Sergeant First Class Hatch is an engineer career manager in the

Engineer Personnel Proponency Office, US Army Engineer School,

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Previous assignments include a tour

in Germany and three tours in Korea. He has held numerous

leadership and instructor positions, which include platoon sergeant

at Fort Polk, Louisiana, and in Korea.

By Sergeant First Class David Hatch
January-March 2005 Engineer xx Legend: M/CM/S = mobility/countermobilty/survivabilty FAST = Functional Academic Skills Training

An example of the proposed MOS 21B Career Model
xx Engineer January-March 2005

At a time when construction

capability within the Regiment

is limited and in high demand,

here are some thoughts on different ways

to approach future task organizations.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom,

construction assets—consisting of

combat heavy battalions and group

headquarters—were equally distributed

to the divisions and to the corps. Each

division had its organic battalions, an

attached group with a combat heavy

battalion, and a wheeled battalion. At

corps level, there were two group

headquarters, a combat heavy battalion,

a wheeled battalion, a combat support

company, and two combat support

equipment companies. This allocation

resulted in the inefficient use of forces

to accomplish engineer work. During my

experience in corps-level combat heavy

units, we did work adjacent to other

combat heavy battalion areas, but it was

usually at a distance from our base. The

converse was also true. Divisional units

executed missions adjacent to another

base, traveling some distance to the

mission site. This created a burden on

the unit conducting these remote

missions, as well as a command and

control problem with coordinating

movements, security, and logistics

support.

Allocating construction capability

across the theater based on assessed

work requirements, to include civilmilitary projects, is a possible solution.

Designate group headquarters to

facilitate command and control of

multiple engineer battalions over a

dispersed area. This construction

capability would be subordinate to the

theater engineer brigade, not the

divisions. The boundaries for the group

headquarters would not necessarily

match the existing divisional and brigade

boundaries. A group provides area

support to the units within its

boundaries, some of which are the

division headquarters. This allows the

construction capability in the corps to

focus on corps priorities and distributing

construction capability throughout the

corps area of operations.

The corps-level units could execute

the large concrete work, road and airfield

repairs, and projects that would improve

the local Iraqi communities. If a project

exceeds a division’s capability, it

requests corps assistance. The engineer

brigade, as directed by the corps,

assigns the mission to the group

responsible for that area. With the

shortage of combat heavy battalions in

the force, combat engineer battalions

cannot be allowed to ignore simple

engineering tasks, such as filling Hesco®

bastions, constructing berms, digging

trenches, and constructing simple wood

buildings and tent pads. Any type of

engineer unit with the proper equipment

can execute these missions.

An alternative to retaining the

construction assets at corps level is to

allocate the units to the divisions based

on estimated work in their area of

operations. Corps-level missions are

then assigned to the divisions to execute

at a higher priority than their own

construction missions. This provides

the divisions optimal engineer effort for

their integration at the lowest level. It

also allows the corps the flexibility to

assign high-priority missions to the unit

that owns the battlespace. The risk with

this task organization is that the divisions

may redirect engineer units to execute

nonengineer missions.

The divisions have their organic

engineer battalions. Additionally, during

Operation Iraqi Freedom, most divisions

have a corps wheeled engineer battalion.

This gives the division three to four

engineer battalions. If properly equipped

with power tools and generators, these

engineers can provide a majority of the

division’s construction needs within a

base camp or forward operating base.

Large projects on a base are typically

executed through local contracts or

through the US Army Corps of Engineers® area offices. Combat engineers

are fully capable of constructing simple

wood-framed buildings and tent pads,

constructing berms, and filling Hesco

bastions. The wheeled engineer battalions have the capability to do those

tasks, as well as haul and spread gravel.

 An engineer group headquarters can

command and control five to seven task

By Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey R. Eckstein

Command and Control

of Construction Assets in Iraq

Personal Viewpoint
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

organized subordinate units. During

Operation Iraqi Freedom, most groups

controlled no more than four subordinate

units. The two groups subordinate to the

theater engineer brigade collectively

controlled three battalions and two

separate companies. Additionally,

engineer battalions command and

control five to seven subordinate

companies or detachments. During

Operation Iraqi Freedom, the two

divisions each had two colonel-level

engineer headquarters. This lends itself

to stovepiping of engineer effort: One

headquarters deals with certain missions

while the other headquarters deals with

other missions. One engineer headquarters could synchronize work

between all engineer assets within the

division and ensure that maximum effort

is applied to the division and corps

priorities.

Within the Regiment, there is a

tendency to think of ourselves as

sappers and the other guys. We must

realize that there is one engineer.

Sometimes the focus is on sapper

missions, and sometimes it is on

construction missions. There are

numerous examples from Iraq of the great

work engineers are doing outside of their

traditional missions while assigned to a

specific type of unit. Being flexible

enough to execute the mission of

another branch is not the road to

relevancy. That is the road to manpower

reductions in order to buy manning for

the other branches. We must always look

to execute engineer missions. That is

where we add value to the Army. To stay

relevant, we must stay focused on all

engineer missions.

Lieutenant Colonel Eckstein is the

commander of the 84th Engineer

Battalion (Combat) (Heavy), Schofield

Barracks, Hawaii. He has had numerous

operational deployments, including

Operations Desert Shield and Desert

Storm, Somalia, and Operation Iraqi

Freedom. He is a graduate of the United

States Military Academy and holds a

master’s in civil engineering from the

University of Washington.
xx Engineer January-March 2005

IED Defeat Training

By Captain Andrew Liffring, Captain Jason Railsback, and

Captain Matthew Louvet

How is the National Training Center (NTC) adapting to the

threats encountered by coalition forces in the Global War on

Terrorism? The training center is continuously changing to

meet current threats. In the past few years, NTC has evolved

and now offers urban and subterranean training areas and a

civilian populace on a noncontiguous battlefield with no

suspension of battlefield effects.

NTC spirals in lessons learned from theater, feedback from

combatant commanders, and observations from the

Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Task Force—to name just

a few—to develop relevant, threaded rotational scenarios and

events. Each rotation is 14 days of continuous operations

against a free-thinking and adaptive enemy. This enemy

employs current enemy tactics, techniques and procedures

(TTP), and each rotation is given a role in which it acts and

responds accordingly.

One of the most prevalent and deadly threats on today’s

battlefield is IEDs. They are replicated at NTC by a variety of

means, and NTC provides great opportunities for fullspectrum, multiechelon training to defeat them. From the

sensor in the observation post and squad on the ground, to

the battalion and brigade battle staffs and their commanders,

defeating IEDs requires an integrated approach across the

breadth of the organization.

The following paragraphs briefly highlight some of the many

initiatives and training opportunities that NTC offers rotational

units to assist and train them in IED defeat at NTC.

IED Training Aids

The Opposing Force (OPFOR) at NTC attempts to replicate

current enemy TTP in the manufacture and emplacement of

IEDs. The OPFOR has the capability to initiate IEDs by either

hardwire or by remote control. IEDs are divided into two main

subcategories—detonating and nondetonating.

 Detonating IEDs are simply constructed and designed

to test the unit’s battle drills, reporting procedures,

and casualty evacuation and vehicle recovery operations.

 Nondetonating IEDs are more complex and have all the

components of an actual IED. They are designed to provide

a more realistic and sophisticated device to train rendersafe procedures to EOD technicians, as well as better

replicate visually what is found in theater. During each

rotation, EOD personnel have the opportunity to use all

their tools, including live demolitions, to neutralize

explosive hazards.

 Vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs) are

also replicated on the NTC battlefield. They consist of a vehicle,

a smoke signature (such as a smoke generator or smoke pots),

and an artillery simulator. Units have the opportunity to

interdict, destroy, or react to the blast. Once a VBIED is

detonated, postblast analysis or evidence collection may be

conducted to determine the components and other

characteristics that may be tied to an intelligence thread.

IED Indicators Lane

NTC offers an IED indicators lane that a unit is able to

negotiate beginning on reception, staging, onward movement,

and integration (RSOI) Day 1. This lane is set up by observercontrollers using indicators seen in theater. The lane is

approximately 3 miles long and contains five to eight IEDs. It

is designed to show participants signs that might indicate an

IED along the route.

 The brigade is issued a sample order and an answer key

that shows the indicator and location of each IED along the

route. The unit executes the lane at its discretion. The lessons

learned from this lane are taken and used throughout the

rotation. Units that take advantage of this opportunity show a

greater likelihood of detecting IEDs and taking appropriate

action before they detonate.

National Training Center
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

Route Reconnaissance/Combat Patrol Force-on-Force and

Live-Fire Lanes

There are two specific training events in which rotational

units are guaranteed an opportunity to react to an IED: the

combat patrol force-on-force lane and the combat patrol livefire lane. During each of these lanes, the combat patrol

encounters a myriad of events requiring actions and decisions,

including enemy contact and react to an IED. The element can

put to use its IED detection skills from the indicators lane, as

well as exercise its IED battle drills, casualty evacuation, and

reporting procedures.

 During the live fire, units conduct similar tasks, but do so

using live rounds. This trains and stresses to the unit the

importance of, among other things, direct-fire planning, fire

control and distribution, muzzle awareness, and risk

management.

 For engineers, these lanes are an opportunity to conduct

IED-focused route reconnaissance. They are able to hone their

unique skills and tools because the lanes are specifically

designed to increase repetitions and provide a higher density

of IEDs for the engineer element to encounter.

Free Play/Mission Rehearsal Exercise

During each rotation, the unit’s tactical operations center

(TOC) is provided with detailed intelligence and data of past

enemy activity to allow them to develop patterns to predict

future enemy activity. Before a unit’s 14-day training rotation,

the staff is given information on enemy activity with respect

to—among other things—IEDs. As the rotation plays out,

units will further develop enemy patterns, allowing the unit to

predict future OPFOR IED placement methods and locations

and prevent these placements by either interdicting the

construction, setup, or initiation of the IED.

New Equipment

Recently, NTC acquired the MATILDA I robot that units

can draw and employ during their rotation. Units can request

to have classes taught during RSOI on its operation,

capabilities, and limitations. This device will then be available

for issue to rotational units.

 The MATILDA’s primary use is for reconnaissance, and it

can be employed in urban environments or on route

reconnaissance when identifying possible IEDs. The color

and black-and-white cameras allow for remote-control use,

increasing standoff and allowing for quick identification of

objects. The manipulator arm allows the operator to move

objects, and the attached zoom camera allows for even more

standoff when identifying suspected explosive devices.

 NTC also offers rotational units the opportunity to improve

force protection and project planning using HESCO® bastions,

IED Indicators Lane at NTC

LSA

(RUBA)

Tree NV 3063 0018

Berm NV 3082 9979

Sticks NV 3117 0047

Tire tracks around IED

NV 3117 9978

Trash NV 3108 0075
xx Engineer January-March 2005

New Jersey barriers, Class IV supplies, and other materials

that are available to units in theater.

EOD Integration

Typically, the rotational brigade is augmented by one

explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) company. This usually

translates to a headquarters/operations section and one to

two EOD teams, each consisting of two to three EOD

technicians. While the EOD team is given an opportunity to

train its military occupational specialty (MOS)-specific skills

with respect to IEDs on the battlefield, the brigade hones its

ability to integrate this critical combat multiplier into its

formation. Since this may be the first time the brigade has

worked with EOD, perhaps one of the most difficult lessons

learned is the need to provide dedicated security for the EOD

team(s). NTC attempts to show cause and effect so the hard

lessons are learned before arriving in theater.

 Another unique opportunity at NTC is live demolitions for

all EOD operations. While EOD renders safe or neutralizes

explosive hazards throughout the brigade’s area of operation,

the brigade is trained on all the coordination, management,

and procedures required to perform live demolitions in its

maneuver space.

IED Defeat Seminar

NTC—along with the Army Engineer Association—will

host an IED Defeat Seminar at Fort Irwin from 13 to 17 June

2005. There will be briefings, guest speakers, vendors, live

demonstrations, and breakout sessions—all focused on

defeating IEDs. NTC will showcase some of the tools and

training that rotational units receive when deployed to the

training center. POC for this event is Captain Railsback at

<sw12@irwin.army.mil>.

Captains Liffring, Railsback, and Louvet are currently

serving as engineer company trainers at the National

Training Center. All three are former engineer company

commanders, are advanced course graduates, and have led

combat engineer units during deployments for Operation

Iraqi Freedom. For further information, contact them via

email at—<Andrew.Liffring@us.army.mil>; <Jason.

Railsback@us.army.mil>; <Matthew.Louvet@us.army.mil>

.

Endnote

1

 HQDA Improvised Explosive Device (IED)Task Force

Training Advisory Team “Commander and CSM Seminar,”

dated 27 November 2004.
xx Engineer January-March 2005

The Future Force is quickly transforming into the Current

Force. Throughout this transformation, engineer

support has not been a primary consideration for Army

modularity. Over the past year, new Army concepts and

organizations have regarded engineer requirements as little

more than an afterthought. From the brigade combat teams

through the unit of employment-operational (UEy), the Army

has been left with stripped-down organic engineer units and

minimal engineer staffing. Fortunately, the Engineer Regiment

has been successful in complementing the Army modularity

efforts with its own modular-designed engineer units and

command and control (C2) structure (also known as the Future

Engineer Force) and addressing these underresourced

requirements in support of the warfight. The Engineer Regiment

has successfully integrated the vast array of engineer

disciplines throughout the battlespace, except in one key

area—the theater.

There are still wide engineer staff, C2, and technical gaps at

the UEy and the Regional Combatant Command (RCC) that

need to be satisfied. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

and the existing Engineer Commands (ENCOMs) can possibly

fill these gaps. However, they need to be organized in such a

way that they are not only responsive to the commander’s

changing needs, but also so they can add value effectively

and efficiently. This author proposes that a new organization

be designed to leverage the existing capabilities and provide

the much-needed synergy to the theater-level engineer support

effort.

Future Force Environment

Based on the concepts under development, the UEy

has an assigned sustainment, network, intelligence,

and civil affairs headquarters. But that is it! All

additional requirements are drawn from available units out of

a force pool. Within the UEy organization, 37 of the 50 engineer

staff members reside in its sustainment directorate. With the

scope and volume of engineer-related responsibilities

assigned to the UEy, these engineer staffs are too severely

undermanned to handle such a diverse load.

In the joint environment, we continue to experience a lack

of synergy in planning, prioritizing, managing, and executing

the joint commander’s operational and strategic missions. No

joint functional engineer headquarters exists for orchestrating

theater-assigned units and activities throughout the region.

Given the wide spectrum of tasks required, joint doctrine does

not adequately assign responsibility to engineer theater-level

operations. Not unlike the UEy, much of the theater-level

Photo courtesy of US Army
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

engineer missions become the responsibility of the logistics

staff section (J-4), which is fundamentally different and

impractical from what is demanded of engineer support through

the various phases of contingency operations.

In both of these cases, there is also a significant shortfall in

the technical capability to conduct ongoing, constantly

changing, and sometimes unique theater missions, particularly

in the areas of major construction, infrastructure revitalization,

real estate activities, and environmental support. Such expertise

is usually brought from various sources, creating ad hoc

entities and theater-wide gaps and redundancies with no

central control or interface.

Alternatives

The following paragraphs offer several alternatives to

the problem:

Engineer Brigade

A simple fix would be to augment the UEy and the joint

headquarters with an engineer brigade to take care of this

shortfall. However, the engineer brigade is an entity with a

tactical, rather than an operational and strategic, focus. Nor is

it designed with the technical capacity (breadth and depth) to

plan and execute the disparate UEy infrastructure-enabling

missions, whether in battle or in peacekeeping. There is also

the issue of understanding and executing missions involving

multiple services, contractors, other agencies, and the host

nation. Clearly, we are talking about a totally different operating

environment.

Engineer Command

Although originally designed as a C2 headquarters in

support of a full-scale major contingency operation (MCO),

ENCOMs, over the years, have developed unique and

essential capabilities that have ensured theater-level success

to ongoing operations. During both Operations Desert Storm

and Iraqi Freedom, the 416th ENCOM led theater-level engineer

efforts and are continuing the reconstruction support today.

Based on the ENCOMs’ long-standing planning efforts and

habitual relationships with the unified commands, their unique

ability to leverage and apply high-demand civilian/commercial

engineering skill sets to military situations, and their seniorlevel breadth and experiences, they have emerged as invaluable

force providers of specialized skills to support the operational

commander in war or peace.

The ENCOM table(s) of organization and equipment (TOE)

already charters them as the headquarters that commands and

controls all Army engineer assets (to include other services

and allied/coalition and contract construction) and provides

engineer operational-level planning, supervision,

coordination, and technical services supporting Army Service

Component Command (ASCC) or joint task force (JTF)

headquarters requirements. However, as has been seen

elsewhere, missions and capabilities do not always match.

First, the ENCOM currently is an Army-only organization.

Second, not all of the stated missions are covered with enough

depth to successfully execute (for example, contract

construction and topographic support). Third, it is organized

and deployed based on a conventional war scenario, starting

with a cross-disciplined early-deployment cell that later

becomes overlaid with more of the same, but expanded,

capabilities as the conflict escalates. In each phase, the

ENCOM maintains its one-location, jack-of-all-trades posture.

Any deviations on the employment requirements necessitates

ad hoc task organizing: stripping out disciplines from existing

teams. This organizational-employment pattern is not

conducive to modularity and getting the right capabilities to

the right place at the right time.

Field Force Engineering

On the other side of the coin are the USACE field force

engineer (FFE) teams, who through recent events have brought

invaluable technical engineering expertise into numerous

situations, solving local- and national-level contingency

problems. During both Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi

Freedom, their forward engineer support teams (FESTs) have

been materially involved supporting stability operations and

support operations, as well as making significant contributions

to combat operations. Through their experiences and expertise

in national infrastructure engineer planning, design, and

management, FESTs were responsible for the assessment,

design, and planning of numerous base camps, logistics-base

facilities, and transportation nodes and networks. They have

the unique ability not only to work with outside agencies and

other governments to accomplish their mission but also to

reach back and tap into an immense intellectual pool of

engineering experts throughout our nation to produce

engineering solutions to any problem, no matter how obscure.

Although the USACE FFE teams have been working side

by side with the military at numerous levels, they have not

been a formal component of a unified effort. Technically, they

are not a military organization. Many of the FFE teams are

made up primarily of USACE volunteers who are assembled,

as required, for deployment. There are no preestablished tables

of distribution and allowances or TOE FFE organizations. The

FFE support structure is basically taken out of hide to meet

contingency requirements.

The Solution

Together, the ENCOMs and the USACE FFE teams have

much of the capability needed to fill the wide-and-deep

capability gap requirements that are necessary to run

theater-level operations. They complement each other in the

capabilities and skills required to achieve the engineer support

aspect of the joint commander’s overarching objectives.

This author proposes creating a theater-level engineer

organization that not only merges the unique existing

capabilities of the ENCOM and USACE FFE organizations but

also enhances the structural mix with joint-capable staffing
xx Engineer January-March 2005

and a modularized organization. This organization would be

capable of supporting both a joint and an Army headquarters

simultaneously, and perhaps independently, while providing

the right technical expertise as the situation dictates. A single

military organization, integrated with other services and

organized in a modular fashion, could provide a powerful

engineer multiplier to the theater commander.

The Organization

Rather than combine the two entities and then tweak

the results, a deliberate bottom-up approach needs to

be taken to build a new organization. This consists of

articulating the gaps, applying required capabilities to fill these

gaps, and organizing these capabilities to ensure that the right

amount of ordinance is delivered with a fair amount of precision.

Much of this work has already started. Gaps and capabilities

have been documented. The personnel resources have also

been broadly identified. However, what joint assets are needed

to round out this new organization and to ensure that decision

superiority that positively impacts all services can be

achieved? How will they be integrated? And most importantly,

Figure 1. A Concept of Theater Engineer Contingency Support

how does this new theater-level organization employ during

contingencies to meet the changing requirements of a joint

operation and an Army UEy operation at the same time or

more than one operation, if required?

Having a working knowledge of the capabilities of the

engineers of the other services is paramount. Also,

understanding how the other services operate is vital to

orchestrating theater-level missions. Making decisions and

planning the design of an air base, executing a logistics-overthe-shore operation, or effectively repairing a port requires

firsthand experience that can only be achieved by embedding

the right service skill sets into the organization, not as

augmentation upon deployment, but as an ongoing practice.

In other words, the organization needs to be joint from the

start. Joint staffing of this organization must also be robust

enough to cover any situation.

In order to provide the right engineer support at both the

RCC and the UEy, while ensuring response to a second

contingency, this author believes that this new engineer

headquarters could be organized around three modules. These

modules would consist of a joint mobile command group (MCG)

Legend:

FEST-En = forward engineer support team-energy

TCM-C = theater construction managment-contract

TCM-T = theater construction management-troop
January-March 2005 Engineer xx

Figure 2. A Modularized Headquarters Organized for Support

and a joint deployable command post (DCP) for RCC support

and two ASCC-/UEy-oriented DCPs. One DCP would support

a win-decisively (WD) campaign, and the other would be used

for a swiftly defeat (SD) campaign (or as a rotational asset).

Technical modules from this organization would also be

employed and moved to whatever level necessary to deliver

engineering capabilities. In addition, already established military,

USACE, and civil organizations could be plugged in for augmentation on a temporary basis, if required (Figure 1, page xx).

Within this organizational structure would be embedded

technical USACE FFE modules as stand-alone entities,

performing specific functions. Examples include contingency

real estate teams (CRESTs), forward engineer support teamsadvance (FEST-A), and environmental-support teams

(EnvSTs). Other FFE capabilities and personnel would be

absorbed into various staff elements throughout the

organization, such as the forward engineer support teamslight (FEST-L) personnel becoming part of the earlydeployment detachment (EDD) of the DCPs. Members from

other services would be incorporated into key and workinglevel staff positions throughout the organization. They would

be heavily assigned in the MCP and RCC DCP and have a

lighter presence throughout the rest of the organization,

depending on the function (Figure 2). For those organizations

where augmentation is likely, training associations would be

encouraged.

Conclusion

This author suggests this proposal as a starting point

for further evaluation and analysis. All of the

components that are discussed are necessary to solve

the theater-level engineer capability gap. Is there a better

solution? Probably. For the sake of the future, is this worth

pursuing? Definitely!

Colonel Lago has had three ENCOM assignments, totaling

almost eight years. He is the Deputy Assistant Commandant,

US Army Reserve, for the US Army Engineer School, Fort

Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Legend:

CGMP = collection, generalization, and management platoon

EHCC = explosive hazards coordination cell

FEST-En = forward engineer support team-energy

FSC = forward support company

TCM-C = theater construction managment-contract

TCM-T = theater construction management-troop

TRO = training and readiness oversight