United States Army Engineer School

573-563-8080 / DSN 676-8080

COMMANDANT

MG William H. McCoy

563-6116

<william.h.mccoy@us.army.mil>

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

BG (P) John E. Sterling, Jr.

563-6192

<john.e.sterling@us.army.mil>

REGIMENTAL COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR

CSM Clinton J. Pearson

563-8060

<clinton.pearson@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

COL Lou L. Marich

563-8080

<lou.marich@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–USAR

COL Loretta Deaner

563-8045

<loretta.angela.deaner@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–ARNG

LTC Dennis V. Smith

563-8046

<dennis.v.smith@us.army.mil>

CHIEF OF STAFF

LTC Alfred Pantano

563-7116

<alfred.pantano@us.army.mil>

TRADOC SYSTEMS MANAGER – ASSURED MOBILITY

COL Robert Nicholson

563-4081

<robert.nicholson@us.army.mil>

TRADOC PROGRAM INTEGRATION OFFICE–TERRAIN DATA

COL Thomas Crabtree

329-1908

<thomas.crabtree@us.army.mil>

COMMANDER, 1st ENGINEER BRIGADE

COL Bjarne Iverson

596-0224, DSN 581-0224

<bjarne.iverson@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND LEADER DEVELOPMENT

COL Paul W. Kelly

563-4093

<paul.w.kelly@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION

Dr. Rebecca Johnson

563-4129

<rebecca.johnson1@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF FUTURES CENTER–ENGINEER

COL Richard M. Hornack

563-7955

<richard.hornack@us.army.mil>

HUMANITARIAN DEMINING TRAINING CENTER

Mr. Rodney A. Robideau

596-3870

<rodney.a.robideau@us.army.mil>

COUNTER EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS CENTER

LTC Kent D. Savre

593-4085

<kent.savre@us.army.mil>

Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is prepared quarterly

by the United States Army Engineer School, 320 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 348, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

65473-8929. Periodicals postage is paid at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and additional mailing offices.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to United

States Army Engineer School, ATTN: ATSE-DP (Engineer), 320 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 348, Fort Leonard

Wood, Missouri 65473-8929.

CORRESPONDENCE, letters to the editor, manuscripts, photographs, official unit requests to receive

copies, and unit address changes should be sent to

Engineer at the preceding address. Telephone:

(573) 563-4104, DSN 676-4104; e-mail address:

<engineer@wood.army.mil>; Internet home page:

<http://www.wood.army.mil/engrmag/default.htm>.

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

engineers informed of current and emerging developments within their areas of expertise for the purpose of enhancing their professional development.

Views expressed are those of the authors and not

those of the Department of Defense or its elements.

The contents do not necessarily reflect official U.S.

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

items constitutes neither affirmation of their accuracy

nor product endorsement. Engineer reserves the right

to edit material submitted for publication.

CONTENT is not copyrighted. Material may be reprinted if credit is given to Engineer and the author.

OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION is targeted to all engineer and engineer-related units.

PERSONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS are available for

$19.00 ($26.60 foreign) per year by contacting the

Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15250-7954.

ADDRESS CHANGES for personal subscriptions

should be sent to the Superintendent of Documents, ATTN: Mail List Branch, Mail Stop SSOM,

Washington, D.C. 20402.

By Order of the Secretary of the Army:

PETER J. SCHOOMAKER

General, United States Army

Chief of Staff

Official:

JOYCE E. MORROW

Administrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army 0631302
 Engineer 1 October-December 2006

COMMANDANT

Major General

William H. McCoy

FEATURES

040.Brigade Special Troops Battalions – Part II: Synergy

 By Colonel Thomas H. Magness

07 Staying Ahead of Change

 By Captain Stephen T. Peterson

10 Construction Engineers: Committed to Making a Difference

By Captain Samuel Dallas Jr., First Lieutenant Jonathan E. Rushin,

and Second Lieutenant Kevin W. Wooster

12 Engineers Maintain Balance in Iraq

By Captain Michelle L. Vargo

14 Survivability Planning as a Staff Process

By Major Andrew N. Liffring

16 Reserve Engineers Lead the Way for Urban Operation Construction at NTC

By Master Sergeant Tony A. Knecht

19 Operation Together Forward

By First Lieutenant Kurtis J. Schaaf and First Lieutenant Michael P. Casey

20 Marine Combat Engineers Repair Iraq’s Roadways

By Corporal Stephen Holt

22 Blue Hole Project

By First Lieutenant Trent D. Geisler

24 Army Divers Conduct a Pier Rehabilitation Mission

By First Lieutenant Timothy M. Mitroka

26 Pohakuloa Training Area Celebrates 50 Years of Service to the Military

By Mr. Robert H. McElroy

27 411th Engineer Battalion Trains at Pohakuloa Training Area

By Mr. Robert H. McElroy

29 Summer Training at the United States Military Academy

By Captain Ryan J. Morgan

40 Innovative Methods Save Vermont Recreation Area

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

43 Restoring and Enhancing Historic Property

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

46 Force Provider Demonstration

By Mr. Michael T. Wolford

October-December 2006 Headquarters, Department of the Army Volume 36 PB 5-06-4

Front Cover: The 544th Light

Diving Team platoon sergeant

provides security during a

recovery operation. Photo by Staff

Sergeant Kurt Langley.

Back Cover: 2007 Best Sapper

Competition poster designed by

Captain Seth Wacker.

NGI EThe Professional Bulletin of Army EngineersNEER

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

By Major General William H. McCoy

03 Lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major Clinton J. Pearson

28 News and Notes

32 Dedication

38 Book Review - “Building for Peace: U.S. Army

Engineers in Europe, 1945-1991”

Reviewed by Lieutenant Colonel Stephen V. Tennant

(Retired)

39 Book Review - “Tiger Force: A True Story of

Men and War”

Reviewed by Mr. Jeffrey L. Rosemann

39 Military Review 2007 Writing Competition

48 Past in Review - “Honoring a Patriot”

By Captain Darrin W. Haas

51 Engineer Update

52 Subscription Order Form

Inside Back Cover - “Sacrifices for Freedom” Illustration

By Staff Sergeant Carlos Arguello

CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

Jennifer Morgan

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Kathy Webber

MANAGING EDITOR

Shirley Bridges

EDITOR

Cheryl Green

UNITED STATES ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL
2 Engineer October-December 2006

Clear The Way

By Major General William H. McCoy

Commandant, United States Army Engineer School

J.

ill and I are honored, privileged, and

excited to return to Fort Leonard

Wood, Missouri. We cherish this opportunity to serve with a remarkably proficient, innovative, and enthusiastic engineer team. The diversity, commitment, and

professionalism of the team (including Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, civilians,

community members and leaders, and all

their respective family members and loved

ones) make this a great place to train, work,

and live. Our engineers’ effectiveness is

rooted in the training, doctrine, and materiel development occurring here daily. I

would like to commend former and current

key leaders of the Engineer School: Brigadier General Todd Semonite; Brigadier General (P) Jack Sterling; Command Sergeant Major Clint Pearson; the command

team of 1st Engineer Brigade, including Colonel Mike Iverson

and Command Sergeant Major Ioakimo Falaniko; and our

dedicated service members, civilian employees, and families

for their selfless, tireless, and innovative efforts to train,

transform, deploy, and take care of our engineer team.

Our Army and Regiment are experiencing one of the most

challenging, dynamic, and rewarding periods in their history. The selfless service and sacrifice of our Soldiers, civilians, and families in support of the GWOT is exemplary and

a testament to their commitment to defending peace, liberty,

freedom, and democracy. Support from families, FRGs, rear

detachments, and communities are paramount to our success and ability to persevere in this challenge. Jill and I are

incredibly touched and moved by the personal examples of

courage, commitment, and selfless and patriotic service we’ve

observed since the inception of this war. Each day we witness acts of kindness, strength, and passion which truly

make our Army Strong.

Our Regiment’s ability to support the incredible

OPTEMPO associated with the GWOT—equating to multiple deployments by our engineer forces from Active Army,

Reserve, and National Guard forces, while simultaneously

accelerating transformation of some units—is indicative

of the resolve, innovation, and flexibility of the total team.

The fusion cell continues to serve as an outstanding means

to affect transformation while sustaining support to the

war in a synchronized and integrated manner. I’m inspired

by current efforts to establish and sustain a fusion cell

process for Reserve engineer forces integrated with efforts to transform the Active Army. Ongoing efforts by

Active, Reserve, and National Guard engineer forces to train and transform themselves

while simultaneously supporting the GWOT

is vital to our ability to provide timely, relative, and responsive support.

Leader development is an absolute investment in our force and future. Quality leadership is essential to winning the war, transforming the force, and preparing for the

future force. I encourage leaders at every

level to seek and support developmental opportunities for themselves and their Soldiers

through assignment opportunities or schooling. I recognize and appreciate the challenges

associated with manning the engineer force

in support of the ARFORGEN model. My challenge to engineer leaders is to allow Soldiers to attend and

complete leader development opportunities despite the pressures of our existing OPTEMPO. We must address this challenge proactively and in parallel with crucial family and personal time during appropriate periods of the ARFORGEN model.

The United States Army Maneuver Support Center and the

United States Army Engineer School are using every available

resource to train, equip, and protect Soldiers. Leaders at all

levels are passionately and aggressively committed to

DOTMLPF integration and ensuring the timely development of

the right doctrine and materiel to fight the current and future

war. Efforts by organizations such as the Counter Explosive

Hazards Center (CEHC) to address current challenges, such as

IED defeat, at an unprecedented rate are indicative of the resourcefulness, initiative, and innovation necessary to accomplish the mission while safeguarding and protecting our forces.

The Engineer School is the subject matter expert in mine detection and specialized search dogs, a proven capability in the

theater of operations. The solutions are innovative, complex,

and dynamic, much like the threat. Technology and materiel

alone can’t resolve the challenge. Leadership is the critical component to addressing these challenges as we’ve seen demonstrated time and time again since the beginning of the war. I

applaud the efforts by our engineer leaders and Soldiers to

establish, sustain, and enforce the standards and discipline to

counter the threats to our forces, reduce and eliminate our vulnerabilities, and care for our Soldiers and families.

I ask that we continue to remember our Soldiers and civilians

who have made enormous sacrifices in the service of our nation. Please reflect on their service and join me in keeping our

brave deployed service members and their families foremost in

our thoughts and efforts.
Lead The Way

By Command Sergeant Major Clinton J. Pearson

United States Army Engineer School

October-December 2006 Engineer 3

I

 .hope that all of our engineer Soldiers

and families had a happy and safe holiday season! As I reflect back on the

many accomplishments of the past year, I

am constantly reminded of the tremendous

contributions and sacrifices made by our

Active, Guard, and Reserve Soldiers and

their families while our nation is at war. And

as we begin the new year, I would like to

welcome Major General William McCoy and

his wife Jill back to Fort Leonard Wood as

the Maneuver Support Center (MANSCEN)

commander and commandant of the Engineer School.

In our continuing efforts to Transform,

Train, and Take Care of the Regiment, I will provide you

some insight by addressing the Noncommissioned Officer

Education System (NCOES), situational awareness, and

modularity.

NCOES. As we continue to transform the Regiment in concert with the Army, we are constantly adjusting our NCOES

by implementing current lessons learned in our programs of

instruction (POIs). Our goal is to maintain information relevant to missions our NCOs are performing. I am pleased to

say that the engineer Advanced Noncommissioned Officer

Course (ANCOC) and the Basic Noncommissioned Officer

Course (BNCOC) are meeting this challenge head-on.

The continued construction of the MANSCEN NCO Academy forward operating base (FOB) by engineer NCOES students has added a great sense of realism to all tactical training, serving as an outstanding base of operations as well as

providing realistic conditions for vertical and horizontal construction missions. In addition, ANCOC and BNCOC are continuously updating course material to keep up to date with the

fielding of new equipment and techniques.

Soldiers enrolled in ANCOC and BNCOC will also have the

opportunity to receive portions of the Search Advisor Course

and will receive emphasis on sewage, water, electricity, academics, and trash (SWEAT); vertical and horizontal construction projects; lessons learned; and counterinsurgency operations. Lastly, to aid our leaders in training, we are leveraging

the assets on Fort Leonard Wood by integrating search and

mine dogs through demonstration and implementation during

the special training exercise (STX).

Situational Awareness. One of the many

challenges facing our Soldiers on a daily

basis is situational awareness. To combat

the information gap, the NCOES is testing

recognition of combatants in urban environment, (ROC-U), recognition of combatants and improvised explosive devices

(ROC-IED), and recognition of combatant

suicide bombers (ROC-SB). These programs

are designed as virtual trainers that a Soldier can use as a situational awareness training model dealing with combatants, IEDs,

and suicide bombers.

The NCOES is working hand in hand

with the Night Vision Laboratory to develop

what may become one of the single most important

predeployment training tools to help Soldiers and leaders know

what’s taking place on the battlefield. In addition, all Soldiers

attending ANCOC and BNCOC will receive exposure to three

programs and provide feedback directly to the Night Vision

Laboratory to make the product better. Eventually, the ROC-U,

ROC-IED, and the ROC-SB will be a Web-based individual

self-development tool that every Soldier can access to train

on virtual scenarios that they may be faced with while deployed. The training tool can be updated as the environment

and conditions change.

Modularity. The Fusion Cell continues to facilitate weekly

discussions on engineer units that are converting, activating

to the new modular design with help from FORSCOM, HRC,

and DA. The activations of the 4th Engineer Battalion, Fort

Carson, Colorado; 7thEngineer Battalion, Fort Drum, New York;

and 326th Engineer Battalion, Fort Campbell, Kentucky, in

October bring the total number of modular engineer battalions

to seven. The 11th Engineer Battalion, Fort Benning, Georgia;

5th Engineer Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri; and

14th Engineer Battalion, Fort Lewis, Washington, will become

modular units within the next few months.

In closing, I am extremely proud of our Regiment’s Soldiers

for their contributions and positive impact over the past year.

I am especially proud of the sappers who are deployed around

the world in harm’s way. To those who have paid the ultimate

sacrifice in the cause of freedom, justice, and the American

way of life, neither you nor your families will be forgotten.

God Bless America!
Synergy

4 Engineer October-December 2006

T.

..his is the second of a two-part discussion on the

brigade special troops battalion (BSTB). The first

part,“All the Way In,” appeared in the July-September

2006 issue of Engineer and highlighted the need for full

commitment to this new way of conducting maneuver support

operations and the value added to the supported brigade

combat team (BCT). This second article describes the specific

behaviors that must be present within the BSTB in order for

its diversity to be a strength and for these disparate units to

fight and win as a team of teams.

T.

he United States Army has recently formed a new

combat organization within its fighting brigades—the

special troops battalion. Created by joining signal,

intelligence, engineer, chemical, military police, and other

specialized maneuver support units under a common command,

this unit’s leaders face a daunting task—build a team of teams

out of these diverse functions. Somehow they must combine

these dissimilar units into a cohesive, fighting organization

and make them better than when they operated independently.

The mission—for leaders ready and willing to step up to it—

is to create synergy.

Many Army leaders and BSTB team members continue to

be challenged, however, to embrace the promise of this new

organization. They are seemingly encumbered by memories of

life as an independent. They cannot yet comprehend, for

example, the advantage of replacing independence with

interdependence. They do not know the potential greatness

of the new team. They have not yet seen the value of working,

fighting, and succeeding—as a synergized team of teams—

together.

Successful BSTB leaders quickly realize that it takes more

than a common headquarters for combat units to fight as a

team. Commanders quickly recognize that T-shirts, logos, and

battalion coins don’t create synergy. Accomplished team

builders know that much more is required. Successful mergers

and acquisitions, even in the military, don’t happen by

themselves. Nope...that’s the leader’s job. This article then is

a challenge to leaders to understand the concept of synergy,

accept the absolute requirement for it within the ranks of the

BSTB as the enabling characteristic for success, and put the

appropriate energy behind measures to make it a reality.

Synergy

S.

ynergy can be reduced to a simple mathematical

equation: 1 + 1 + 1 > 3. The whole is made greater than

the sum of the parts. Leadership is the action verb

(made greater) that enables this possibility. Synergy, like so

many other products of effective leadership, is only enabled

by dynamic, visionary, positive leaders. Without leadership,

you’ll end up with acquisitions that never quite fit together (in

a business sense, think of AOLTM TimeWarner) and an

organization whose parts may actually decrease the value of

the sum.

BSTB leaders are uniquely positioned and specifically

trained and employed to add value to the team, to create

functional, effective teams of teams. Leadership is the grease

that eliminates the friction inherent in team building. It is the

forcing function which ensures that the BSTB team of teams

is, in fact, better than its former condition—more efficient,

more productive, and a true combat multiplier for its supported

BCT. But putting a group of separate companies and small

units together under one roof does not guarantee synergistic

success. Bigger is not better. Better is better! BCTs must be

better served with the BSTB than without it.

Common Vision/Common Goals

L.

eaders must create the common purpose for which the

team will fight—together. Groups, no matter how

mature, must have a reason for working together that

makes sense to all team members. Without common goals,

organizational tendencies are to form stovepipes, build up

barriers, and focus on themselves. The fact is, without the

synergy that comes from working together, BSTBs are not

able to deliver for their supported BCTs critical battalion

missions such as—

By Colonel Thomas H. Magness

Brigade Special Troops Battalions

Synergy Synergy

Synergy – The interaction of two or more agents

or forces so that their combined effect is greater

than the sum of their individual effects.

www.Dictionary.com

Part II:
October-December 2006 Engineer 5

 Route reconnaissance and clearance and assured mobility

operations.

 Command and control of detainee operations.

 Nonlethal effects and targeting.

 Reconstruction and essential services project management.

 Forward operating base (FOB) defense.

 Support and secure BCT command and control nodes.

 Sensitive site exploitation (SSE).

Synergy comes from teams and team members who are truly

committed to team play. Note that every mission on the list

above requires multiple elements of the BSTB—working

together to support the BCT. BSTB leaders must forge the

overarching organizational vision that describes the intended

end state and the accomplishment of team goals. Leaders

provide the vision of how great the team can be under these

new conditions. As is always the case with “the vision thing,”

leaders must believe it themselves and then share it

(frequently...and with passion), first with internal customers

(get your team to believe) and then with everyone else.

BIG TEAM – Little Me

S

ynergy is created when BSTB team members subordinate

their personal and small-unit goals to those of the bigger

team. They must have the belief and understanding that

they are successful only if the team is successful. The old way

of doing business must be replaced with a new way—better

and fully integrated into the BSTB and its supported BCT.

Emphasize team goals at every opportunity. Use team

rewards to highlight the benefits of working together. Reinforce

behaviors that demonstrate the desired corporate mindset.

The challenge for BSTB leaders is to balance the need to work

as a team while still sustaining the competitiveness that drives

subordinate units to do their best.

Synergy is achieved by teammates who seek ways to do

their best while striving to make each other better. Streamlined

processes and efficiencies are realized by team members who

look outside themselves to help others. Information and

lessons learned are shared. The whole is greater than the sum

of the parts.

Interdependence

Synergy is only made possible by teams that replace

independence with the newness of interdependence.

Organizations whose members are mutually dependent

on each other’s unique skills, experiences, and capabilities are

more inclined to work together toward a common, higher goal.

They are also less inclined to grow in size and scope versus

leveraging unused capacity elsewhere in the organization.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers® serves as an

example of an organization working through the implications

of interdependence. In its case, current budgets no longer

afforded each regional organization to create fiefdoms known

as “districts” with full functionality whose sole focus was

internal—district goals and district customers. Now, regional

and national centers of expertise are available to each Army

Corps district, with designs for projects in one district

completed by teams with unique capabilities in another.

Business processes have been modified to reflect the

elimination of stovepipes and local behavior. Not only does

interdependence make better business sense, it produces a

better product and leads to a more satisfied customer. The

Army Corps is working hard to do more—and do it better—

with less. That is synergy.

In the BSTB, interdependence might lead to better

intelligence sharing between tactical human intelligence

(HUMINT) teams (THTs) and engineer and explosive ordnance

disposal (EOD) units regarding improvised explosive devices

(IEDs). The signal company leverages its capabilities to

facilitate THT and civil affairs (CA) team reporting. Resources

are pooled to create security elements to enable the battlefield

circulation of small maneuver support units such as THTs,

CA, SSE, and EOD teams.

BSTB leaders must grow interdependent organizations that

share everything—resources, information, skills, people, and

facilities. It is only in doing so that the new organization is

made greater than the sum of its parts. BSTB leaders must

continually “wire-brush” the entire organization to identify

unused capacity and determine how it can be applied to help

the team, cross-level resources and capabilities between

subordinate teams to meet higher-level goals, and build bridges

and bonds between mutually dependent suborganizations that

will create an effect that exceeds what could be done

individually.

Accountability

Synergy is only realized when the team is literally,

measurably, actually made greater. The parts must

function together to make a better product—faster, more

efficient, more reliable, safer, with a greater degree of mission

accomplishment...better. Economies of scale must be realized.

The supported BCT must see a better product.

The BSTB’s ability to harness the energy of units

that would normally have stayed in their own lane

(signal and military intelligence) while deployed and

use this to enhance the capabilities of the brigade

was phenomenal. The BSTB’s overwatch allowed

me to double my capabilities for routine combat

functions like forward operating base (FOB) force

protection, convoy escorts, and mayor’s cell

responsibilities.

BCT Commander, 3d Infantry Division
6 Engineer October-December 2006

Teams do well at that which a leader measures. BSTB

leaders must develop metrics for the battalion and for each

subordinate organization that can be used for mutual

accountability. Create an environment where subordinates are

free to “look outside their cubicles” while holding each other

accountable for meaningful, quantifiable advancement.

BSTB leaders have the challenge of integrating companysize organizations—each with its own unique, specialized

capability—into a functional team. Synergy is realized, for

example, when military police are looking across the table at

intelligence specialists, questioning various performance

metrics and asking how they can help them do better. This

measure of accountability and interdependence did not exist

in the former organization. The team of teams, to be effective,

must recognize that—despite how effectively one unit may

perform its battlefield function—if one fails, the unit fails.

Together, the whole is so much more powerful.

Team members must be accountable to one another to ensure

a better team. This is only possible when they understand

each other and appreciate how they each uniquely contribute

to their success and the accomplishment of team goals. Use

training opportunities such as officer and noncommissioned

officer professional development programs to grow teammates

who understand the team of teams. Leverage peer reviews to

gain perspective on subordinates who work well within the

team concept. Share best practices across functional areas to

make each component of the whole better than if it were

operating separately. Subordinates who understand that their

success is only enabled by the success of every team member

will begin to think outside themselves to help, and hold others

accountable.

Growth/Maturity of the BSTB

A.

n examination of one critical BSTB mission will

hopefully point to the threads that demonstrate

maturity as a battalion and progress toward making

“the whole greater than the sum of the parts.” A battalion

assigned the mission to “conduct route reconnaissance and

clearance operations” across the BCT area of operations looks

at this not as a mission for its subordinate engineer and

(attached) EOD companies but as a critical mission for the

entire team. The following three levels demonstrate the growth

and maturity of a synergistic organization:

Level 1. Focus the entire staff on a single mission. The

initial steps toward synergy might begin by aligning the entire

staff to focus on the accomplishment of a major team goal,

such as the clearance of routes. Clearly, this is more than a

single company effort and not one that can be passed from

brigade to company without additional analysis (where is the

value added?). The result is a synchronized battalion

mission—and the initial signs of a maturing organization.

 S-1: Develop a casualty evacuation plan.

 S-2: Conduct detailed pattern analysis for IED “hot spots.”

 S-3: Conduct adjacent unit coordination; develop a

synchronized plan.

 S-4: Resource the missions.

 S-6: Develop a communications architecture to support the

mission.

 Battalion maintenance officer (BMO): Establish a regeneration station for quick turnaround of route clearance

equipment.

 Battalion command sergeant major (CSM): Conduct

precombat check (PCC)/precombat inspection (PCI).

Level 2. Focus the entire task force on a single mission.

Further growth and maturity is seen from a task force of interdependent subordinate units, each leveraging their unique

capabilities to enable mission accomplishment.

 A Company (engineer): Conduct IED reconnaissance.

 B Company (intelligence): Conduct focused HUMINT,

signal intelligence (SIGINT), and imagery intelligence

(IMINT) for counter-IED operations.

 C Company: Provide additional communications coverage.

 EOD Company: Conduct rapid IED response.

 Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC)/BSTB:

Fly the Raven unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) over Tier 1

hot spots; integrate military police.

 HHC/BCT: Provide EOD security patrols; make the

chemical platoon available for possible SSE missions.

 CA/psychological operations (PSYOPS): Conduct focused

operations for counter-IED.

Level 3. A fully matured BSTB, with a demonstrated ability

to focus the entire task force on a single mission, can similarly

demonstrate value added for other assigned missions. This is

clearly higher-level operations, but is without question the

only way the battalion can possibly accomplish the more that

is asked of it with the less with which it has been resourced.

But, be sure, this is value added to the supported BCT.

 Base defense.

 Reconstruction command and control/essential services

project management.

 Command and control of detainee operations.

 Training of host nation units (for example, engineer, EOD,

military police).

 Military intelligence and signal operations.

A Challenge to Leaders

W.

.hile jerseys do not a team make, BSTB leaders

must be aware of the need to build a unique brand

around their team of teams. Use cross-training and

developmental assignments between organizations to foster

a better understanding within subordinate units that otherwise

(Continued on page 13)
October-December 2006 Engineer 7

E.

very engineer battalion in the Active Army will redeploy,

restation, or restructure (R3) this year. However, the

94th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy) completed

all three of these transforming actions in the same calendar

year. The 94th redeployed from Mosul, Iraq, in January 2006,

and restationed from Vilseck, Germany, to Fort Leonard Wood,

Missouri, in June 2006. Throughout the entire change, they

restructured from a three-company engineer battalion (combat)

(heavy) to a modular five-company construction effects

battalion. This combined effect is best visualized by Figure 1,

BG Todd Semonite’s “Perfect Storm” slide.

Staffing and decisions for these three separate actions go

through different commands and agencies without systemic

coordination at the Army level. Decisions made through one

process have effects on the other two; thus, changes are

inevitable.

Keys to Staying Ahead of R3

C.

hange is not the enemy or a threat; lack of proactive

planning and execution is! Dynamic changes create

dynamic fusion opportunities and continuity challenges. Just as we must stay one step ahead of the threat

in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaders must proactively plan

and execute to stay one step ahead of change. As the

94th modularized, it learned the value of staying one step ahead

of change.

Proactive Planning

The battalion conducted an effective and deliberate military

decision-making process (MDMP) for redeployment that

clearly integrated battalion staff and company operations.

However, the battalion did not use the same level of planning

for restationing or restructuring. Actions in one phase had

Staying Ahead of Change

By Captain Stephen T. Peterson

Figure 1
8 Engineer October-December 2006

effects on the others. One operation order must address R3 as

three separate lines of operation that are executed

concurrently—a higher-level MDMP and planning process.

The sheer planning requirement outweighed the experience

and capabilities at the battalion level.

The greatest hindrance to a deliberate MDMP for

restationing was the inability at the battalion level to change

key assumptions to facts. Key assumptions dictate multiple

branch plans. The best example of a key assumption is “unit

move” versus “cadre move.” The Department of the Army

had to decide if it would be a unit move (everyone goes with

the unit to Fort Leonard Wood) or cadre move (10 percent of

the battalion moves to Fort Leonard Wood and 90 percent

changes duty station based on the Army’s needs). The final

decision was made a month before the move, with the Army

compromising between the two.

Instead of restationing with a coordinated plan, the move

was executed from daily audibles. The battalion’s main focus

was clearing Vilseck, so more focus was needed on planning

and coordinating the move to Fort Leonard Wood. The

advanced echelon (ADVON) must establish a substantial

presence at least six months prior to better assist in the planning

of the move.

Restructuring was an underlying line of operation that

started in Iraq and finished with fielding new equipment to the

battalion. The end state was clearly defined in the approved

modular modified table of organization and equipment (MTOE).

However, the process of getting from the old MTOE to the

new one was cumbersome, complicated, and covered in supply

transactions. The 94th went from a headquarters support

company and two line companies to a headquarters and

headquarters company, a field service company, a vertical

company (77th Engineer Company), two horizontal companies

(103d Engineer Company and 232d Engineer Company), a

concrete detachment (83d Concrete Team), and a survey and

design team (156th Survey Team) and added the Fort Leonard

Wood firefighter detachment (562d Firefighter Detachment) in

October 2006. The number of lateral transfers of personnel

and equipment was monumental. Although the battalion

property book office effectively spaced the requirements over

16 months, it was supply-centric and not directly synchronized

with other staff sections or battalion lines of operation. Never

delay a supply or restructuring action if it can be done

immediately.

Fusion

Through early identification of the “perfect storm” condition

for the 94th and the creation of the United States Army

Engineer School Fusion Cell, the Engineer Branch maximized

opportunities and found funds for the tremendous cost of R3.

Military and community leaders on both sides of the ocean

took progressive action to ensure the success of the

94th Engineer Battalion upon restationing. The battalion

received a warm welcome from both the military community of

Fort Leonard Wood and the surrounding areas.

Based on proactive and forward-thinking leadership, the

battalion set conditions for success at Fort Leonard Wood in

2006 while still deployed in 2005.

 Companies began lateral transfers of equipment to the new

modular MTOE based on directives from the property book

office.

 The battalion commander requested and received approval

from the United States Central Command, the United States

European Command, and the United States Forces

Command to ship equipment straight from Iraq to Fort

Leonard Wood.

 They carefully designated the cadre of leadership—

an invaluable officer or noncommissioned officer in each

staff section—that would take the battalion through the

entire process, ensuring continuity.

The battalion command sergeant major convened a

committee, the post redeployment effects committee for

incident suppression and elimination (PRECISE), that

consisted of first sergeants and junior enlisted who developed

an effective action plan for the battalion’s move from Iraq to

Germany. The priority of effort for restationing revolved around

four mission-essential tasks: welcome, receive, integrate, and

acclimate every Soldier and family member to the new duty

station. Each is a clear and achievable task.

Family Readiness Groups

The battalion Family Readiness Group (FRG) steering

committee and the company FRGs were critical to continuity

during this turbulent period for family members. Accurate and

timely information flow greatly reduced the stress and

uncertainty of R3. The active and responsive chains of concern

and contact lists worked well during redeployment and

restationing. FRGs were the glue of continuity during the unit

move, quickly establishing a sense of community. The battalion

hosted a consolidated FRG meeting in the first three months,

but the companies started their own meetings in the fourth

month. Transferring available FRG funds at the company and

battalion levels provided resources to host events and

welcome families to Fort Leonard Wood.

The significant reduction in pay from deployment to an

outside the continental United States (OCONUS) assignment

to a continental United States (CONUS) assignment created

stress for the families. Also, OCONUS to CONUS moving

expenses averaged twice as much as the dislocation allowance

(DLA). Leaders and FRGs should facilitate financial planning

and budgeting to reduce financial stress and other stresses

inherent with a move.

Personnel

By far, the most stressful factor in the move for leaders,

Soldiers, and family members was the late order process.

Delayed orders meant unnecessary stress on the Soldier, family

members, and the Vilseck community (Stryker Brigade inbound

simultaneously). Once at Fort Leonard Wood, Soldiers and
October-December 2006 Engineer 9

family members were without their

privately-owned vehicles and

household goods for months.

The S-1 is a critical area for transitioning through restationing

effectively. Evaluations, awards, legal

actions, and orders affect all battalion

members, whether leaving the unit or

moving with the unit. Upon restationing, the S-1 must quickly

establish inprocessing procedures,

new unit identification codes, and

new office symbols.

Communications

Shoot, move, and communicate!

These are always the three critical

tasks to every combat operation.

R3 is all about moving and communicating. Similar to deployments,

site surveys and advance parties are

essential. An early and thorough site

survey sets the conditions for

everything that follows. Establish an

ADVON early (180 days prior) with

adequate personnel (at least one

noncommissioned officer per company and staff section), and

ramp-up as the time gets closer. Conduct weekly video

teleconferences between the ADVON and the main body. A

communication breakdown resulted in the battalion loading

six military-owned demountable containers (MILVANs) of

furniture that was covered by a furniture contract at Fort

Leonard Wood.

At company level, the process was extremely challenging

for property and supply accountability. Mass consolidation

of primary hand receipt holders before leaving Iraq was normal.

For example, headquarters and headquarters company went

from 24 primary hand receipt holders to 9 (designated Fort

Leonard Wood cadre). Companies left almost 75 percent of

their rolling stock in Iraq and conducted large-scale lateral

transfers between companies. Lastly, the transition between

unit level logistics system, S-4 module (ULLS-S4) and property

book unit supply enhanced (PBUSE) adds another layer of

property accountability.

R3 Costs

T.

he 94th Engineer Battalion is not the first unit nor will

it be the last to conduct R3 efforts simultaneously.

The 94th will not be deployable for a while. The cost,

monetary and time, of reestablishing all systems (operations,

supply, motor pool, arms room, driver training, standing

operating procedures, additional duties, and policy letters) is

staggering—especially at reduced strength. Although Fort

Leonard Wood and engineer leaders did their best to support

the restationing on short notice, the battalion still operates

out of temporary barracks, motor pools, arms rooms, and

company headquarters. Dealing with new facilities and their

shortages is a massive time and effort requirement for field

grade officers and Soldiers alike. The process requires tactical

patience. Each company has completed at least three

100 percent inventories in the last year, in addition to almost a

100 percent turnover of equipment in lateral transfers. Supply

is the main effort and involves almost 30 percent of the time.

With the personnel changeover rate (see Figure 2), administrative systems must be solid. Leaders must factor and fight

the extraordinary cost of untimely evaluations, late awards,

inadequate sponsorships, delayed promotion boards and

noncommissioned officer education system (NCOES)

opportunities, and incorrect enlisted record briefs (ERBs). Most

importantly, the stress and turbulence experienced is not

directly measurable, but quite evident.

Conclusion

L.

eaders and Soldiers must embrace and plan for change.

Leaders must maintain a positive attitude about

change and highlight the advantages while mitigating

the negative aspects. Our commander’s three critical watch

words successfully guided us through R3: deliberate,

disciplined, and focused.

Captain Peterson is the company commander for

Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 94th Engineer

Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He assumed

command in Mosul, Iraq, in June 2005. He also served in

Heidelberg, Germany; Baghdad, Iraq; Korea; Kosovo; and

Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

Figure 2

R1 – Redeployment

R2 – Restationing

ETS – Estimated Time of Separation

PCS – Permanent Change of Station

CSE – Combat Support Equipment

94th Engineer Battalion Personnel Strength
10 Engineer October-December 2006

W...ith the coordination, detailed rehearsals, and

preparations completed, Alpha Company,

46th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy), was

staged to support a maneuver commander. Just moments after

its mission linkup was established, the synchronized fighting

force of infantry, armor, and engineer Soldiers departed the

comforts and relative safety of Camp Ramadi. As the element

closed on its destination—the dilapidated remains of a water

treatment plant located on the outskirts of Ramadi, Iraq—an

explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) unit confirmed that the

terrain was clear and free of improvised explosive devices

(IEDs) and booby traps.

Does this sound like a situation from a training manual?

Perhaps, for a task force habitually supported by mechanized

or combat engineers—but for the members of a combat heavy

construction company, trailing on the heels of a maneuver

force remains a bit unorthodox.

The mission was to construct Combat Outpost (COP)

Jazirah—the latest in a string of facilities that will sustain the

increased presence of coalition forces and the Iraqi police that

is curbing the ongoing violence on the city streets. COP Jazirah

serves as an important step toward standing up the first police

force in the Jazirah district of Ramadi (the most densely

populated city in Al Anbar) since the fall of the Hussein regime.

Two weeks prior to this mission, the 1st and 2d Platoons of

Alpha Company (vertical construction platoons) were on the

leading edge of the battle with elements of the 1st Brigade,

1st Armored Division, as they conducted counterinsurgency

operations in the heart of Ramadi. This joint, combined, and

multicomponent decisive operation was significant in that it

saw the incorporation of several Iraqi army company tank units

actively engaged alongside U.S. forces. Outfitted in T-72 tanks,

the Iraqi army certainly sent a message to all onlookers.

Consideration for winning the hearts and minds of the people,

an adage implemented many years earlier, was still factored

into the mission plan. This provided some assurance that the

people of Iraq were committed to changing their nation.

In essence, the mission for both vertical construction

platoons was quite similar: construct life-support facilities,

By Captain Samuel Dallas Jr., First Lieutenant Jonathan E. Rushin,

and Second Lieutenant Kevin W. Wooster

A plume of smoke rises from the Jazirah Iraqi Police Station after an attack involving an SVBIED.

Committed to Making a Difference

Construction Engineers:
October-December 2006 Engineer 11

survivability positions, and force protection features for the

COP. With designs in hand, each platoon set out to construct

facilities—which later would be handed over to the Iraqi

army—for the maneuver commanders. Despite daily mortar

attacks, material shortages, sniper fire, and delivery constraints,

the Soldiers of Alpha Company completed their projects in

less than eight days. Lessons learned from these projects

proved vital to follow-on missions for the battalion and sister

units. Minimizing time on the objective was an overwhelming

theme from each platoon. A key solution for meeting this goal

emanated from the junior enlisted: complete the majority of

prefabrication work behind friendly lines.

Armed with hammers and power tools, 2d Platoon set out

to do its part in supporting the mission. Under constant threat

of insurgent attacks, the platoon focused on the tasks at hand

and the mission intent: improve the safety and quality of life

for coalition forces and the Iraqi police. COP Jazirah was

brought to life quickly. The platoon ate, slept, and worked at

the developing facility. In less than a week, the compound was

ready for occupancy by a police force that was still being

assembled.

For the Iraqi police, the completion of COP Jazirah improved

the retention of police recruits. Complete with running water,

electrical power, and air-conditioning, the facility was a step

up in the quality of living conditions for the Iraqi occupants.

Initial recruitment of police candidates was held at the facility,

and the number of recruits was nearly double what the operational environment commander had hoped for. The facility

provided the courageous citizens of the Jazirah district the

opportunity to take back control of their city streets.

Through numerous construction missions, Alpha Company

has become proficient at building bases and outposts that will

withstand enemy attacks. Outfitted with hammers and power

tools and a seemingly endless supply of missions, the

Soldiers from Alpha Company, 46th Engineer Battalion, construct the framework for guard

positions.

company of construction engineers braved the most

dangerous areas in Al Anbar Province to help improve the

safety of coalition forces and the Iraqi police. Implementing

ideas gained from after-action reviews and tactics,

techniques, and procedures not only enabled the unit to

receive maximum benefits for follow-on missions but also

allowed the Soldiers of Alpha Company the opportunity to

take on additional missions, sharpen critical skills, and provide

enduring structures to maintain the Iraqi army and police in

the region.

In 2006, the Jazirah Iraqi Police Station sustained a complex

attack involving a suicide vehicle-borne improvised explosive

device (SVBIED). All of the structures erected by Alpha

Company survived the blast. For now enemy assaults will

continue, but the police force in the Jazirah district of Ramadi

is here to stay—their presence and safety secured by the

work of Alpha Company, 46th Engineer Battalion.

Captain Dallas is the commander of Alpha Company,

46th Engineer Battalion. His previous assignments include

instructor, drill sergeant, drill instructor, S-3 assistant, and

platoon leader. He holds a bachelor’s in business administration from Maryland University and a master’s in public

policy and administration from Webster University.

First Lieutenant Rushin is the battalion intelligence officer

for the 46th Engineer Battalion. He was previously a platoon

leader. He holds a bachelor’s in biology from the Virginia

Military Institute.

Second Lieutenant Wooster is the equipment platoon leader

for Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 46th Engineer

Battalion. He holds a bachelor’s in international affairs from

Georgia Institute of Technology and is a graduate of the

Airborne School.
12 Engineer October-December 2006

By Captain Michelle L. Vargo

A.

t times, it’s hard to be a Soldier, but still they must

learn and execute their mission on the battlefield. They

must sustain the demanding tempo of today’s Army,

sharpness on the battlefield, and endurance for the long fight,

all while preserving a sound lifestyle and balance in their

personal lives.

Every branch of the military is working as a team to win the

Global War on Terrorism. Leaders and Soldiers are developing

their skills and are more technically and tactically proficient

than ever before. Coalition forces are currently executing

Operation Iraqi Freedom (05-07), which includes many Soldiers

who are in Iraq for the second and third time. This time around,

these Soldiers are taking advantage of many resources and

gaining military knowledge.

Education

M.

any Soldiers are using their time off to continue

formal studies or to learn something new. A

battalion promotions clerk studies nightly; she is

taking an eight-week course offered through Central Texas

College and currently has 41 college credits toward her degree.

An operations sergeant completed his associate’s degree from

Central Texas College while deployed.

An assistant construction officer is learning Spanish

through the Rosetta Stone Program, available on Army

Knowledge Online (AKO). A great resource for any Soldier

who wants to learn a language while deployed, AKO aids

comprehension with lessons, pictures, questions, and tests.

In the interest of teaching others, a supply sergeant taught

criminology classes twice a week. His course

prepared Soldiers for their College Level Examination Program (CLEP) exam, and they hope to

obtain a certificate of completion, which in some

cases can be used toward a degree.

Led by excitement from the film release of The

Da Vinci Code, a chaplain held a four-week study

group on the historical accuracy of the book, with

six Soldiers participating. Some read the book or

planned to watch the movie and said that the study

helped shed light on the intriguing mystery behind

the plot.

Physical Fitness

While some Soldiers focus on education,

others work on physical fitness. A

majority of Soldiers are taking advantage of the yearlong time frame to become

more fit. Several participated in biathlons

Engineers Maintain Balance

in Iraq

A Soldier studies for a college class.

Asian-Pacific Heritage Month included cultural dances.
October-December 2006 Engineer 13

organized by Logistics Support Area (LSA) Anaconda’s

morale, welfare, and recreation office. Although initially

apprehensive about participating in the dual event, all

participants finished and vowed to try a biathlon again. In

August, deployed Soldiers participated in the Relay for

Life to raise money for the American Cancer Society.

Soccer, basketball, and volleyball have also been teambuilding sports during the deployment.

Entertainment

O.

n LSA Anaconda, many other opportunities are also

available. For example, personnel took the opportunity to express themselves by playing lead roles in

a play titled Bugs, Brits, Builders, Strange Bed Fellows. A

25-person team performed the theatrical production that lasted

2 1/2 hours, ran for two days, and drew a 250-person audience

on opening night.

Other personnel celebrated Asian-Pacific Heritage Month

by participating in cultural dances from Hawaii, Samoa, and

New Zealand. There was a luau atmosphere and ethnic food

that included a pig roast.

Summary

Even though their primary purpose is to support

Operation Iraqi Freedom, Soldiers in Iraq also need to

maintain personal balance. Exercising the mind through

formal or informal classes, staying physically fit, and

participating in cultural events can help lessen the stress experienced during deployments to areas of conflict.

Captain Vargo is the battalion civil engineer for the

84th Engineer Battalion (Combat). She has served three years

in the 84th and has deployed twice in support of Operation

Iraqi Freedom.

Soldiers perform leading roles in a theatrical production.

might not have reason to interact. Why not assign a military

police E-8 as an engineer company first sergeant? Why

couldn’t a chemical lieutenant serve as the signal company

executive officer? Build a new brand. Celebrate team

accomplishments and organizational progress toward the

common vision.

Synergy is only possible when everyone is involved and is

forged by leaders who get 100 percent from every team member.

Mergers and acquisitions almost universally come with

baggage—suspicions and concerns generated by ignorance

of the potential for the new team of teams. Barriers must be

knocked down, stovepipes eliminated.

Leaders must model the behavior that values the

contribution of every single team member. Identify excess

capacity and determine how to make it available to those who

are overtasked. Think of your organizational diversity as a

strength. Find “outside the box” opportunities to create

synergy.

Synergy is fueled by communication and crosstalk.

Economies of scale and a better use of shared resources will

not generally identify themselves. Leaders must constantly

wire-brush the organization to bring these issues to the surface.

Constant dialogue about best practices and lessons learned,

coupled with teammates held accountable to one another, will

drive growth across the board. The total can exceed the sum

of the parts—many times over.

The leader’s job is to create synergy; to add value; to make

this combination of disparate units better than their former,

independent state. If 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, that’s not synergy. That

result was achievable in the organization’s formerly

independent state, before the creation of the BSTB. Of what

value is a battalion headquarters that shows no value added?

Bigger is not better. Better is better. This kind of measurable

growth does not occur by itself. Nope...true synergy demands

good, old-fashioned, “roll your sleeves up and make it happen”

leadership.

Colonel Magness is an Army War College fellow at the

University of Texas. Previously, he served as an observercontroller at the National Training Center (NTC) at Fort

Irwin, California.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the

author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or

positions of NTC, the Army, the Department of Defense, or the

U.S. government.

(“Synergy,” continued from page 6)
14 Engineer October-December 2006

T.

raditional survivability operations often involved an

M9 armored combat earthmover (ACE) or a D7 dozer

constructing multiple one-tier or two-tier fighting

positions for mechanized forces and a small emplacement

excavator (SEE) digging individual fighting positions for

dismounted infantry. Because the threat has changed in the

Global War on Terrorism, engineers must provide survivability

positions that protect Soldiers from new threats. In recent

years, units reduced the lethal effects of vehicle-borne

improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs), direct-fire engagements, and sporadic mortar fire by constructing guard towers,

bunkers, and entry control points. These survivability

positions have increased the force protection posture of our

force and reduced the rate at which the enemy is draining

combat power, but is it enough?

According to the Department of Defense, more than 2,800

American Soldiers have been killed in Iraq and more than 21,000

have been wounded since the beginning of the war.1

 To reverse

this trend, units should develop comprehensive force

protection plans. Developing a survivability plan is a staff

process that requires input from the S-2, engineer coordinator,

fire support officer, S-3, and S-4 and begins with evaluating

the threat, setting priorities, and synchronizing resources to

ensure that the right resources are requested and delivered in

an efficient manner.

Evaluate the Threat

T.

raditionally, units have been successful at planning

survivability operations when the enemy consists of

a large mechanized force. Units determined the number

of two-tier M1/M2 positions that could be built in a given time

by using the engineer battlefield assessment. Units then used

tools such as a commander’s card and a survivability matrix to

track the status of these positions and reallocated resources

as necessary to ensure that the plan was completed.

Today, the enemy is freethinking and uses its strengths

against a unit’s weaknesses. The enemy targets units that

generally have low force protection measures—units that are

static and predictable in their activities, lightly armored, or not

well armed are vulnerable to attack. To increase its chances of

success, the enemy conducts limited raids, ambushes, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, VBIED attacks, and

sporadic mortar attacks to inflict casualties, disrupt logistical

operations, and force units to commit combat power to protect

supply lines, thus allowing the enemy unrestricted movement

Survivability Planning

 as a Staff Process

By Major Andrew N. Liffring
simple steps are essential in developing plans that are

executable and that allow our forces to gain the advantage

against our enemies.

It is essential that leaders are involved in the process. They

must continuously inspect positions occupied by Soldiers to

ensure that revetments, stringers, and sandbags are adequate,

correctly placed, and do not show signs of structural failure.

Staff officers and the leaders on the ground can make a big

difference in increasing our force protection stature and

decreasing casualties in-theater.

Major Liffring is assigned to Task Force Sinai, Fort Bragg,

North Carolina, as the facilities engineer. He previously

served as an observer-controller at the National Training

Center at Fort Irwin, California; commander of Alpha

Company, 37th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Airborne),

Fort Bragg, North Carolina; executive officer, 10th Engineer

Battalion, Fort Stewart, Georgia; and platoon leader,

82d Engineer Company (Combat Support Equipment), Camp

Edwards, Korea. He holds a bachelor’s in mining engineering

from the Colorado School of Mines and a master’s in business

administration from Norwich University.

Endnotes

1

Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, <http://icasualties.org/

oif/>, accessed on 28 November 2006.

2Merriam-Webster Online, <http://www.m-w.com/

dictionary/synchronize>, accessed on 28 November 2006.

October-December 2006 Engineer 15

in the population centers to further destabilize the local

government.

To protect the force from these attacks, the engineer

coordinator must work closely with the S-2 to determine what

types of weapon systems the enemy may use to attack, and

then design survivability positions that offer protection against

those weapon systems. If the S-2 predicts that the enemy will

raid a guard tower on a forward operating base (FOB) perimeter

with AK-47s, RPK machine guns, and rocket-propelled

grenades, then the engineer coordinator should update the

survivability plan to include an upgrade to the guard tower in

order to meet the threat. If the S-2 templates a mortar attack on

the FOB, then the engineer coordinator should include plans

to build enough bunkers to protect the population of the FOB

and design those bunkers to defeat a mortar. Field Manual

(FM) 3-06.11, Combined Arms Operations in Urban Terrain,

and FM 5-103, Survivability Operations, contain valuable data

that should be consulted when designing specific survivability

structures.

Set Priorities

O.

nce survivability tasks are identified, they should be

consolidated and prioritized. This prevents subordinate commands from competing for the same

resources to complete the same projects. The engineer coordinator sets priorities by determining the greatest threat to

the formation and then develops a survivability matrix showing

the length of time each subordinate unit would receive

survivability assets. The same process can to be done while

fighting in the contemporary operating environment. The

priority of survivability assets should be linked to the unit’s

most vulnerable sites, and a survivability matrix should be

created to show subordinate commands the time, activity, and

location of critical survivability assets.

Synchronize Resources

S.

.ynchronizing resources is one of the most difficult tasks

in executing a survivability plan. Merriam Webster’s®

online dictionary defines synchronize as “to represent

or arrange (events) to indicate coincidence or coexistence.” 2

Materials, equipment, and labor should be arranged so that

each support the execution of the survivability plan. Project

management meetings attended by all parties involved—to

verify work schedules and resource requirements—ensure that

the project is completed on time, issues are addressed quickly,

and communication is maintained. Ultimately, the goal is to

provide Soldiers with the necessary protection to prevent the

enemy from developing and executing plans against

unprotected assets.

Conclusion

T.

o help protect Soldiers from our enemies, units need to

develop survivability plans by evaluating the threat,

setting priorities, and synchronizing resources. These

2007 Engineer Unit Directory

The 2007 United States Army Engineer Unit Directory is available online in Adobe PDF format at

<http://www.wood.army.mil/engrmag/Engr%-

20Unit%20Dir/2007Directoryonline.pdf>. Take a

moment and see if your unit’s listing is correct.

Changes to the Unit Directory can be made by calling (573) 563-7644 or e-mailing <engineer@

wood.army.mil>.
16 Engineer October-December 2006

R.

eserve engineer units are helping make changes to

the training facilities at the National Training Center

(NTC), Fort Irwin, California. Operation Sand Castle,

a coordinated effort between the NTC G-3 office and the United

States Army Reserve Command (USARC), completed its

second year of construction efforts, and Reserve participation

is expected for another eight years. The mission is to provide

upgrades to NTC training facilities and existing urban operation

cities and to complete a new urban operation city—known as

Tiefort City—consisting of 300 to 500 buildings. The new city

will create a premiere training area for an entire brigade combat

team (BCT).

Operation Sand Castle

T.

he 412th Engineer Command is the exercise executive

agent responsible for the planning, logistics, and

training of all participating units. The Exercise Support

Command, the Reserve liaison office at Fort Irwin, provides

assistance to the 412th. Operation Sand Castle provides

Reserve engineer Soldiers the opportunity to train on many

technical and tactical skills in a desert environment.

First Year

Many improvements were made to existing

training facilities downrange—also known as the

“box”—during Operation Sand Castle 2005. The

exercise was conducted over two rotations, with

the 411th Engineer Brigade (Combat) providing

command and control for participating units. The

389th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy) served

as task force commander during the first rotation,

and the 365th Engineer Battalion (Combat)

(Heavy) and the 854th Engineer Battalion (Combat)

(Heavy) shared responsibilities during the second

rotation. Other units participating included the

319th Engineer Company, the 770th Engineer

Company, the 952d Engineer Company (Combat

Support Equipment), the 328th Engineer Company,

By Master Sergeant Tony A. Knecht

Aerial view of Tiefort City
October-December 2006 Engineer 17

the 425th Engineer Company, and the 673d Facility

Engineer Detachment.

Units installed siding on the Langford Well complex

and built windows, doors, and new structures in five

different urban operation cities, making them look more

like structures in-theater. Horizontal construction

included creating a bypass road around Langford

Lake—vastly improving the main supply route and

enabling easier transportation of equipment, supplies,

and personnel to forward operating bases (FOBs)—

and constructing roads and drainage around Eastland

City. Improvements to the old quarry site located on

Tiefort Mountain included tripling its size, building a

wooden headwall structure, and setting up a rockcrushing plant that produced all of the gravel for

Operation Sand Castle 2006. Improvements were not

limited to the “box”; plumbing services were provided

to some of the facilities in the cantonment area,

improving quality of life in those buildings.

Second Year

Operation Sand Castle 2006 broke ground on the beginning

stages of the new Tiefort City site. The 372d Engineer Group

(Combat) was responsible for command and control over

participating units. The 673d, working with the United States

Army Corps of Engineers®, provided construction designs

and data. The 733d Facility Engineer Detachment began

working on the project designs for fiscal year 2007. The

Construction Management Section, 411th Engineer Brigade,

provided quality assurance during all construction phases.

The Soldiers lived in FOB Santa Fe during their rotations, and

the 137th Quartermaster Company provided laundry and

shower support throughout the exercise. The first rotation

consisted of Soldiers from the 368th Engineer Battalion

(Combat) (Heavy), the 961st Engineer Battalion (Combat)

(Heavy), the 321st Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Mechanized),

the 728th Engineer Detachment, and the 718th Engineer

Company (Combat Support Equipment). The second rotation

consisted of Soldiers from the 863d Engineer Battalion

(Combat) (Heavy), the 841st Engineer Battalion (Combat)

(Mechanized), and the 285th Engineer Company (Combat

Support Equipment).

Two 48- by 60-foot pre-engineered buildings, one 24- by

36-foot pre-engineered building, ten concrete masonry units,

and thirteen skid-mounted modular wooden buildings were

Quarry site

where gravel is

produced for NTC

construction

projects

Tiefort City road network
18 Engineer October-December 2006

completed. More than 2.85 miles of slum, residential, and

interstate road network with drainage ditches were constructed,

providing city infrastructure. One of the more challenging

projects was upgrading a well stem drilled the previous year: a

16- by 70-foot discharge pad with 10-foot approach ramps was

constructed, plumbing was installed, a 12,000-gallon storage

tank and perimeter fence was erected, and an electrical box

with service provided by a 10-kilowatt generator was installed.

The 319th returned to NTC and produced gravel for the

construction projects. With help from the 368th, 863d, and

841st, more than 18,000 tons of gravel were produced.

Tactical Training

I

.

n addition to the construction projects, Soldiers were able

to receive tactical training on many of their missionessential tasks. Operating out of an FOB environment,

Soldiers had to cover entry control points, establish base camp

operations, prepare quick-reaction forces, and conduct

perimeter guard duties. One of the tougher jobs in the FOB

was that of the mayor, who had the overall responsibility of

security and all quality-of-life issues. Soldiers practiced many

tactics, techniques, and procedures throughout the exercise

and performed tasks such as jobsite security, improvised

explosive device (IED) detection, IED reaction, route clearance,

convoy procedures, convoy safety briefs, trip tickets, risk

management, reacting to contact, operating a net control

station, operating a retransmission site, reporting procedures,

and warrior task training. Units were able to take advantage of

M16, M203, M249, M9, M2, MK19, shotgun, mine-clearing

line charge (MICLIC), and demolition ranges. Currently, an

average of one unit each year fires on the convoy live-fire

range. Units received feedback from observer-controller/

trainers (OC/Ts) from the 2-310th Training Support Battalion

and 1-347th Training Support Battalion. The OC/Ts worked

closely with the Operations Group Divisional Tactical Operations Center (DTOC) and the engineer Sidewinder element

on Fort Irwin. All leaders and Soldiers learned valuable lessons

during their time at NTC. Training tactically and technically

in a desert environment was challenging and realistic,

incorporating many of the principles found in Army Field

Manual 7-1, Battle Focused Training.

Future Exercises

A.

n equipment pool was acquired and established from

six different regional readiness commands from all over

the United States and is stored for future Operation

Sand Castle exercises at a new equipment concentration site

in California. Units supplemented additional equipment needs

by shipping their home station equipment. Maintenance

and logistical operations were successful, overcoming the many

challenges presented by the terrain and harsh desert environment.

Participating engineer units are setting up the foundation

to improve future training events at the nation’s premier training

center. The new Tiefort City will support all armed services

that conduct training at NTC. Future units will have a bigger,

more complex training facility, which will enhance unit training

and deployment preparation. Overall, the exercise was a

rewarding and educational experience that will benefit leaders,

Soldiers, and units for many years.

Master Sergeant Knecht is the Reserve Component liaison

at the Exercise Support Command at NTC, Fort Irwin,

California. Previous assignments include 952d Engineer

Company (CSE), Paris, Texas; Detachment 1, 952d Engineer

Company, Marshall, Texas; Military District of Washington

(MDW) Engineer Company, Fort Belvoir, Virginia;

84th Engineer Battalion, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii;

4th Engineer Battalion, Fort Carson, Colorado; and

44th Engineer Battalion, Camp Nimble, Korea.

Capital City well site
October-December 2006 Engineer 19

With increasing violence in Baghdad, traffic flow

needed to be regulated between the various areas

of the city. Members of Headquarters and Support

Company, Bravo Company, and Charlie Company, of the

By First Lieutenant Kurtis J. Schaaf

and First Lieutenant Michael P. Casey

84th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy), were

attached to the 62d Engineer Battalion (Combat)

(Heavy), from the 4th Infantry Division, to help

with the mission. A convoy through Baghdad

brought them to Forward Operating Base Loyalty

to conduct Operation Together Forward.

In three weeks, the engineers constructed

vehicle checkpoints on bridges and pedestrian

checkpoints along walkways over the canal.

Soldiers used cranes, loaders, and excavators to

emplace concrete barriers, bunkers, and barbed

wire to control traffic flow. While conducting

these missions, the Soldiers were subjected to

numerous mortar attacks and minor direct-fire

incidents; fortunately, they suffered no

casualties.

Upon return to the Victory Base Complex, engineers from the 84th were once again attached

to the 62d for Operation Baghdad Security Belt.

This operation consisted of blocking positions

and checkpoints around the city to control traffic

flow from areas such as Fallujah, Ramadi, and

Mosul. Operating for extremely long hours, teams

from the 84th emplaced blocking positions and

checkpoints all around the city.

The checkpoints required a logistics support

area because the police officers manned the

checkpoints 24 hours a day. As part of the

operation, buildings were built and placed at

traffic control points to support the Iraqi police. Soldiers from

Charlie Company emplaced the buildings in less than two

hours, getting the mission completed quickly and efficiently.

The engineer support led by the 84th Engineer Battalion, in

conjunction with the 62d Engineer Battalion and Iraqi security

forces, allowed the timely completion of the Baghdad Security

Belt. Operation Together Forward is just one of the many ways

coalition forces strive to make a difference for the Iraqi people.

First Lieutenant Schaaf is the platoon leader for

2d Platoon, Charlie Company, 84th Engineer Battalion. He

is a graduate of the University of Nebraska.

First Lieutenant Casey is the platoon leader for the

Earthmoving Platoon, Charlie Company, 84th Engineer

Battalion. He is a graduate of the United States Military

Academy.

A Soldier ensures that the building floor is level.
20 Engineer October-December 2006

Marine Combat Engineers

Repair Iraq’s Roadways

By Corporal Stephen Holt

T.

he sound of a cement mixer breaks the silence in the

darkness on a lone Iraqi road near the city of Fallujah.

Marine combat engineers are working in what is known

as a “blackout” condition—no light other than the moon and

the occasional glimmer of a flashlight. It’s early morning, and

the Iraqi sun will soon be rising.

This is the time of day when many Americans get up for

work, but the combat engineers have already put in an 8-hour

day. The Marines of Charlie Company, commonly referred to

as “Hell-Bent Charlie,” of Combat Logistics Battalion 5, are

hard at work repairing the roads that intersect the city and

countryside of Fallujah.

Repairing Iraqi streets isn’t quite like repaving a road in the

United States. Instead of fluorescent orange vests and hard

hats, Marine combat engineers carry rifles with optic sights

and wear combat gear consisting of a protective vest, helmet,

and ammunition—for a combined weight of more than 50

pounds. These roads, which are traveled by Iraqi citizens along

with coalition and Iraqi security forces, are constantly damaged

by roadside bomb attacks, and fixing them is crucial to the

movement of supplies and troops in the area. In addition, the

work is helping to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure.

The night repair mission begins right after dusk with a

quick meeting to discuss the mission and the latest intelligence

findings. Last-minute gear checks are conducted before

leaving the security of Camp Fallujah. Charlie Company goes

straight to work, quickly filling two holes as soon as it leaves

the confines of the camp.

Soon the company encounters the very threat it is trying

to fight—an improvised explosive device (IED). Security is

set up, and the explosive ordnance disposal team is called.

The potentially deadly device is neutralized in minutes, and

the Marine road workers press on. These roadside bombs are a

favored weapon used by the enemy to wreak havoc on coalition

forces. The threat of IEDs is one of the main reasons these

Marines are on the road. The roads, which have fallen into

disrepair over the years, are a favorite place for insurgents to

place IEDs.

Various teams within the company have specific jobs and

responsibilities. The teams may be tasked to provide security,
October-December 2006 Engineer 21

Left: A Marine shovels dirt

from the back of a dump truck

during a route repair mission.

Below: Freshly mixed concrete

is poured into a crater created

by an IED.

survey a crater to make sure it is safe to repair, or conduct the

actual repair. For the craters to be repaved efficiently, these

teams must work together while performing their individual

tasks. The Marines have to work fast to avoid being a target

of insurgents and still perform their job with precision. Many

of these missions have been subject to deadly sniper and

mortar attacks.

Surveying is the first step to repairing a road. Many factors

must be calculated to properly repair a crater—size of the hole,

depth of the hole, and time needed on-site. For a crater to be

filled properly, dirt is molded into a foundation and then cement

is poured in. After smoothing off the top of the quick-drying

road patch, Charlie Company searches for the next area in

need of repair.

Working with hundreds of pounds of concrete mix and

dirt, in temperatures well above 100 degrees during the day,

is a physically demanding job for these Marine combat

engineers. But the results of their efforts are evident every

time a convoy travels a road that has been made safer by

their work.

Corporal Holt was temporarily assigned to Camp Taqaddum, Iraq, as a combat correspondent. His duty station is

Camp Pendleton, California.
22 Engineer October-December 2006

T.

he Blue Hole is one of Santa Rosa, New Mexico’s,

greatest natural resources and a geological wonder. It

has a water depth of approximately 81 feet, and the

water temperature stays at a constant 61 degrees Fahrenheit.

An artesian spring from an underground source supplies water

at a rate of more than 3,000 gallons per minute, and this rate of

water flow creates a large amount of natural erosion as rock

and soil are loosened and fall to the bottom. Along with the

natural erosion, a former Santa Rosa city administrator ordered

rock and debris dropped in the Blue Hole to close off the

opening to the cavern system located at the bottom. This

decision was partly to discourage divers from attempting to

navigate the caverns, because many would run out of air or

become lost and disoriented and were unable to find their way

back.

The massive amounts of debris, both natural and manplaced, cut off the artesian water flow into the Blue Hole. But

the debris could not stop the flow for long—the water found

new ways of pouring into the hole. The water soon forced its

way in from the sidewalls, causing an even greater amount of

erosion. This new erosion from the sidewalls deteriorated the

hole’s stability, and it was placed in an emergency state of

repair.

Twenty years after the initial decision to fill in the hole, the

United States Army Corps of Engineers® Albuquerque District

called on Army divers to remove the rock and silt that clogged

this natural wonder. In late Spring 2006, 23 members of the

74th, 86th, 511th Engineer Light Diving Teams and the 569th

Engineer Dive Team from Fort Eustis, Virginia, deployed to

Santa Rosa to conduct dredging operations.

The plan to remove the debris called for three techniques:

manual labor, a hydraulic submersible pump system, and an

By First Lieutenant Trent D. Geisler

Divers prepare to perform in-water checks before leaving

the surface.
October-December 2006 Engineer 23

airlift system. The manual labor technique involved the

strongest divers picking up the larger rocks and placing them

into a basket. The second technique consisted of a hydraulic

submersible pump suspended approximately 40 feet in the

water column with intake hoses extending all the way to the

silt bottom. Divers would call for “switch on,” and the pump

would suck a silt and water mixture at a rate of 800 gallons per

minute. The third technique was a basic airlift consisting of an

8-inch hose that pumped out small gravel and rock. Air was

supplied to the hose at a pressure of 110 pounds per square

inch, resulting in a flow of more than 1,000 gallons per

minute.

Each method was very productive because the divers

worked all three techniques at the same time. The dive plan

called for three divers to dive to a depth of approximately

81 feet for 90 to 100 minutes. At an altitude of more than

4,600 feet, the equivalent diving depth is 100 to 110 feet,

and the decompression schedules were modified

accordingly. Using surface decompression, the divers spent

anywhere from 38 to 51 minutes in the hyperbaric

recompression chamber, breathing 100 percent oxygen to

reduce the amount of time needed to off-gas the residual

nitrogen left in the body.

Due to the dive plan using surface decompression

schedules, the divers were able to complete more than eight

hours of underwater work each day, which resulted in more

than 100 cubic yards of rock and more than 120 cubic yards

of silt being removed after 21 diving days. The mayor of

Santa Rosa and the Corps of Engineers were extremely

pleased with the Army divers’ efforts—they worked longer,

harder, and more efficiently than any commercial dive

company hired in years past. The divers’ hard work and

dedication to the mission assured future training opportunities at the Blue Hole in the years to come.

First Lieutenant Geisler is the team leader of the 74th

Engineer Dive Team (Light) at Fort Eustis, Virginia. He is

a graduate of the United States Military Academy. Tenders, who provide surface support, pull the divers from

the water.

A crane lifts a basket

of rock and debris

from the bottom of the

Blue Hole.
24 Engineer

 October-December 2006

I

.

n July 2006, fifteen divers from the

86th Engineer Team (Dive) traveled to

Jersey City, New Jersey, to conduct a

mission for the United States Army Corps of

Engineers® New York District. The team spent

three weeks rehabilitating the docking piers and

quay walls at the Caven Point Marine Terminal

where numerous Corps vessels—that travel

through New York and New Jersey waterways

collecting or salvaging debris or wreckage and

conducting surveys—are docked.

The mission focus was replacing

98 damaged cross brace support boards under

the piers. The average size of the boards was

8 feet long by 3 inches thick by 10 inches wide.

The removal process consisted of divers in the

water using an underwater hydraulic impact

wrench to loosen and remove hardware, which

was usually covered with barnacles and rust.

Once freed, a line was tied around the board

and a team on the surface lifted it out of the

water. Because some of the hardware was

corroded, an underwater hydraulic grinding

By First Lieutenant Timothy M. Mitroka

A dive supervisor inspects a surface-supplied diving helmet before

deploying a diver into the water to remove debris from under a boat lift.
October-December 2006 Engineer 25

tool or cutting torch was used to cut boards free. Once the

boards were removed and on the surface, another team cut

and drilled holes in new boards to match the old ones. The

new boards were attached using new hardware to keep them in

place for the next few years.

Other tasks included replacing a 40-foot wooden bumper.

The bumper is replaced annually because it functions as a

pivot point on a quay wall for one of the larger vessels. In a

year’s time, the bumper becomes severely chipped, and the

bolts securing it in place begin to protrude and scrape up

against the vessel when it’s docked. The team used a small

crane to recover a submerged 90-foot section of a horizontal

brace that broke off from its support piles. Using the crane,

the team repositioned this large section and secured it so it

would not break off again. Divers, using their surfacesupplied diving gear, sprayed out debris from underneath

the boat lift. The team also installed a buoy 75 feet out from

one of the terminal’s quay walls to warn off boat traffic

from a shallow area that’s piled with rubble from an old

demolished building.

The mission was a success, and the repairs significantly

increased the structural integrity of the piers and quay walls.

This pier rehabilitation mission has been an annual mission

for the past few years, and the team always looks forward to

working with Caven Point Marine Terminal. Not only does it

provide an opportunity for the Soldiers to train and increase

their proficiency in using underwater hydraulic tools, but they

are able to conduct small-scale underwater construction

operations as well.

First Lieutenant Mitroka is the platoon leader for the 86th

Engineer Team (Dive). He was previously assigned to Delta

Company, 577th Engineer Battalion. He is a graduate of the

A hydraulic grinder is used to cut off rusted bolts before United States Military Academy.

removing a support board.

One diver uses a

hydraulic impact

wrench to tighten a

board in place

while another holds

the hardware in

place from the

other side.
26 Engineer October-December 2006

R.

.ecently, Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), on the Big

Island of Hawaii, celebrated 50 years of service as

the prime military training area in the Pacific Region.

First used as a Marine Corps artillery base during World War

II, the 133,000-acre PTA came under Army control following

the war. In the mid-1950s, Oahu-based Soldiers built the

Quonset huts that have become the post’s signature building.

Over the years, PTA has hosted units from every American

military service, as well as military personnel from allied nations

and other federal agencies. The post’s numerous training

ranges, impact area, and remote location make PTA an ideal

place for up to battalion-size units to train.

Although the military has changed dramatically over the

last 50 years, the mission of PTA has not changed—to support

and sustain (the warfighter) military training. But even though

we are a nation at war, it is also important to balance the training

mission with protecting the environment. To that end, Hawaii

has dedicated personnel and resources to ensure that its more

than 300 sensitive cultural resources are here for generations

to come. Balancing the training requirements of the military

while promoting environmental sustainability practices is a

top priority for the Army Installation Management Agency.

As the Army transforms and Stryker brigade combat teams

take their place in the way the Army fights, PTA will likely

become even more important. Some consider PTA the third

most significant Stryker training facility—behind Fort Irwin,

Pohakuloa Training Area Celebrates

50 Years of Service to the Military

By Mr. Robert H. McElroy

California, and Fort Polk, Louisiana—and a linchpin in future

Stryker training. The Army is investing millions of dollars in

PTA because of its strategic importance to the future of the

Army and other military services in Hawaii and the Pacific.

A commemorative service was held at PTA to mark the 50th

anniversary, which included the blessing and unveiling of a

pohaku or stone, as well as recognition of all the Soldiers,

Marines, Airmen, and Sailors who have trained and worked at

PTA over the last half century.

Mr. McElroy was the Pohakuloa Training Area Public

Affairs Officer at the time this article was written. He is now

the Public Affairs Officer for the United States Army Area III

Support Activity, Camp Humphreys, Korea.

Hawaii

(The Big Island)

Pohakuloa

Training

Area

Photo by Robert H. McElroy
October-December 2006 Engineer 27

A.

lpha Company, 411th Engineer Battalion (United States

Army Reserve), recently completed its annual training

rotation at Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), on the Big

Island of Hawaii. (See article on page 26.) The training was

especially important because it had been more than a year

since the company had been together for longer than a weekend

drill, and half of the Soldiers—to include the company

commander—were new to the unit.

The commander’s goals for the annual training were to qualify Soldiers on

individual and crew-served weapons and

conduct individual skills training and

combat lifesaver training. Once those

tasks were completed, his focus became

training Soldiers on sustainable military

occupational specialty (MOS) skills for

engineers.

Since there were approximately

35 new Soldiers in the unit from the rank

of private to specialist, it was necessary

for the experienced noncommissioned

officers (NCOs) to teach the new

Soldiers. Since many of the NCOs had

operated heavy equipment in Iraq, they

could teach the young Soldiers how to

operate it safely—always a major concern during training.

When the Soldiers had completed weapons qualification

and combat lifesaver training, they turned their attention to

several engineer projects for PTA that would test the skills of

both the company’s vertical and horizontal platoons. The

Horizontal Platoon focused on improving selected roads and

ranges. At the site of PTA’s new Known-Distance Range,

engineer Soldiers graded the ground and laid crushed rock

By Mr. Robert H. McElroy

411th Engineer Battalion Trains

at Pohakuloa Training Area

Soldiers from Alpha Company, 411th Engineer Battalion, construct a range

house/observation tower during their annual training.
28 Engineer October-December 2006

along the road. They repeated the same task at the site of one of

the forward operating bases (FOBs) in the training area. The

Vertical Platoon spent its time building a new structure in the

training area and renovating older ones in the cantonment area.

At Pu‘u Ahi, deep in the training area, engineer carpenters

built a combination range house and observation tower for

use by Army aviation attack-helicopter units. And on PTA’s

cantonment area where the troop billets and support facilities

are, the engineers renovated a Quonset

hut containing billets and a shower for

female Soldiers.

The skills the new engineer Soldiers

gained during their annual training will help

them greatly the next time the 411th deploys.

When the unit deployed to Iraq, it was

attached to the 1st Cavalry Division from

Fort Hood, Texas, and completed several

carpentry and construction projects.

Despite the company’s focus on unit

and individual training and construction

projects, some Soldiers found time to

visit students at Keaau Middle School,

on the east side of the Big Island. Alpha

Company Soldiers joined PTA Soldiers in

handing out dictionaries and other school

supplies to the students.

For one staff sergeant, annual training

was all about leaving something behind:

the knowledge he imparted to his young charges and the range

house they built together.

Mr. McElroy was the Pohakuloa Training Area Public

Affairs Officer at the time this article was written. He is now

the Public Affairs Officer for the United States Army Area III

Support Activity, Camp Humphreys, Korea.

Photos by Robert H. McElroy.

News and Notes

412th Engineer Command Assumes Command of

the 926th Engineer Group. Approved by the United States

Army Reserve Command (USARC), the 412th Engineer

Command, located in Vicksburg, Mississippi, assumed

command of the 926th Engineer Group, headquartered in

Montgomery, Alabama. The signed memorandum from the

USARC Chief of Staff paved the way for the 412th to provide

command and control support to 5,000 Soldiers in a

geographic area spanning from West Virginia to Florida

and west to Kentucky. This was the first time the unit has

had a downtrace since 1974.

First in a series of realignments, this move is part of

the Army Reserve’s transformation, called the Army

Reserve Command and Control (ARC2). Within the next

two years, the 412th will have a total downtrace of more

than 11,000 Army Reserve Soldiers in an area that spans

from Maine to Florida and extends west to Kentucky.

Transforming the 412th’s structure to support thousands of Army Reserve Soldiers—while transforming the

warfighting mission to better support the United States

Army Corps of Engineers® and the Army’s transformation

and simultaneously fulfilling existing global missions—

will be complex. Fortunately, according to the 412th commander, our exceptional Soldiers and civilian employees,

supported by well-prepared families and understanding

employers, are ready for the task.

The 412th provides wartime support in plans and

exercises to the United States European Command and

the United States Forces Korea and maintains three

forward detachments in Germany, Hawaii, and Korea.

Under ARC2, the 412th will also provide training and

readiness oversight to units and Soldiers under three

subordinate brigades, while still maintaining go-to-war

missions worldwide.

In addition to major regional contingencies, the 412th

continues its current mission of worldwide support to the

Global War on Terrorism with more than 70 Soldiers

deployed around the globe. The challenges of transforming

while at war, while increasing the mission load, are all

part of the 412th’s mission of providing responsive,

superior engineer support anywhere in the world. The unit

stands ready to undertake the challenge.

The point of contact is Carol Coleman at (601) 631-

6102 or <carol.coleman2@us.army.mil>.

A load of freshly-crushed rock is dumped on a new road being built at

Pohakuloa Training Area.
October-December 2006 Engineer 29

T.

he Department of Military Instruction mission at the

United States Military Academy states that it will “train,

educate, and inspire cadets in the essence of

Warfighting and the Profession of Arms...in order to develop

competent future Army officers.” Until recently, that mission

was accomplished by using a Cold War model for training, but

that has now changed.

Cadet Field Training

Cadets enter the academy as civilians, but in two years

they leave as small-unit leaders. In their second year,

they attend cadet field training (CFT), which follows

the crawl-walk-run method and consists of two 4-week details.

These details are led by two separate chains of command.

Pre-2006 Training

The first detail—crawl-walk—focuses on individual

training. Some of the training covered includes land navigation,

basic and advanced rifle marksmanship, patrolling, combatives,

and first aid.

The second detail—run—focuses on collective and leader

training. Up until the summer of 2006, the second detail—

known as Operation Highland Warrior—included training on

offense, defense, raid, reconnaissance, and ambush. These

were separate events that took on a Ranger School focus of

operating in the woods and away from built-up areas. The

training was useful, but not as relevant as it needed to be

since the Global War on Terrorism began. The academy realized

this and made a radical change.

2006 Training

The change was not a slow, multiple-year process; in about

two months, the new plan was instituted and the planning and

resourcing started. The new training for CFT still follows the

crawl-walk-run model; however, the run detail now looks more

like a sprint. All of the training during the first detail now

directly supports the second detail. Camp Buckner was

Summer Training at the

United States Military Academy

By Captain Ryan J. Morgan
30 Engineer October-December 2006

transformed into a forward operating base (FOB) with access

control points at the gates. Cadets implement a complete

weapons immersion program, and training is a continuous

operation where all committees interact with each other. A

committee consists of West Point staff and supporting Soldiers

that plan and resource the different blocks of training and

evaluate cadets as they execute their training. The new committees for Operation Highland Warrior are access control point

defense, search and attack, convoy reaction, cordon and search,

squad live-fire ambush, and quick-reaction-force operations.

Arabic linguists were hired by the academy to provide not only a

language barrier but also the ability to interact with the Muslim

religion and culture.

Access Control Point Defense. Access control points are

an opportunity for cadets to be exposed to the difficulties of

defending a fixed site and making difficult tactical, ethical, and

cultural decisions at a high-visibility location—the front gate

of an American compound. Cadets are trained and evaluated

in the actual setup and execution of an access control point by

conducting vehicle and personnel

searches. However, they are further challenged when the enemy tries to infiltrate

the access control point using a variety

of methods. Each of the situations

requires the cadets, in all positions, to

make tough decision on the spot.

Search and Attack. Search and attack,

which is traditional patrolling training,

teaches the future lieutenants the

principles of combat patrol—critical to

current operations in many theaters of

operation. This mission centers on FOB

security by conducting combat patrols in

the surrounding hills looking for enemy

mortars and caches.

Convoy Reaction. Soldiers conduct

convoy operations on a daily basis in

Operation Iraqi Freedom, and this led to

the development of a convoy reaction

mission. This mission focuses on

executing a convoy, conducting react-tocontact drills, training cadets on route

clearance and resupply missions, and

reacting to improvised explosive devices

(IEDs).

Cordon and Search. Cordon and

search, the only company-size mission,

consists of an extensive planning period;

an air assault; the establishment of a patrol

base; and then the cordon and search,

which can escalate into an urban attack.

This mission provides cadets the opportunity to conduct deliberate troopleading procedures and mission rehearsals. When the cadets are entering

the village, they must establish contact with the village leader.

The cadet company commander, through an interpreter,

discusses the operation with the sheik; tries to gain his trust

and cooperation; and executes a safe, controlled search of the

village.

The enemy also infiltrates the village, and the cadets must

then search and clear the buildings with the enemy in them.

After the battle, the cadet commander must return to the sheik

and repair the relationship damaged by the enemy attack. This

was an eye-opening experience for all cadets, from having to

talk through an interpreter and deal with the obvious—and

not so obvious—cultural differences, to conducting building

and room clearance in a company operation.

Quick-Reaction-Force Operations. Quick-reaction forces

interact with other missions and conduct their own separate

missions, including mortar team searches, downed aircrew

rescues, and medical evacuation support. They conduct troopleading procedures based on priorities given by the regimental

commander. This mission allows cadets to conduct planning

A cadet speaks with a villager during training.
October-December 2006 Engineer 31

along multiple timelines and to coordinate with multiple units

to support the mission.

Continuous Operations

One difference that stood out during the summer

training of 2006 from previous summers was that

operations were continuous. The regimental commander and staff managed all aspects of the cadet’s summer.

They organized training, events, and activities for downtime

(what little there was). The staff conducted planning for all

missions and training events and coordinated with eight

company commanders daily during battle update briefs. The

result was a summer training program that was run by cadets

for cadets from the first day to the last.

Objectives

T.

he objective is not to make the cadets experts in all of

the tasks, but to place them in situations outside of

their comfort zone and force them to make difficult

decisions. The overall purpose of CFT is to train, instruct,

test, and validate cadets on specific Basic Officer Leader

Course I (BOLC I) tasks, military program required tasks, and

the Chief of Staff of the Army’s warrior tasks and drills—

focused by the Global War on Terrorism within the contemporary operating environment.

The company commander meets with the village sheik.

The CFT, especially the second detail, exposes cadets to

what they can expect to see when they graduate. They are

pushed a little harder, hold more responsibility as cadet leaders,

and learn techniques and procedures they take directly to the

Army as platoon leaders.

Captain Morgan is the cadet summer training S-3 at the

United States Military Academy. Previous assignments

include commander of Charlie Company and Headquarters

and Headquarters Company, 2d Battalion, 502d Infantry

Regiment, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) during

Operation Iraqi Freedom and Infantry Requirements Analyst

at the Futures Center, Headquarters, United States Army

Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia.
Dedication

32 Engineer October-December 2006

Name Unit Location

The following members of the Engineer Regiment have been lost in the Global War on Terrorism since March 2003. We dedicate

this issue to them.

Adams, Private Algernon Charlie Company, 122d Engineer Battalion Graniteville, South Carolina

CarolinaAdams III, Specialist Clarence 91st Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Akins, Sergeant Kevin D. Alpha Company, 391st Engineer Battalion Asheville, North Carolina

Allen, First Lieutenant Louis E. Headquarters & Headquarters Company, 42d Infantry Division Troy, New York

Anderson, Corporal Andy D. Bravo Company, 46th Engineer Battalion Fort Rucker, Alabama

Andrews, Specialist Harley D. 54th Engineer Battalion, 130th Engineer Brigade Bamberg, Germany

Arnold Sr., Sergeant Larry R. Bravo Company, 150th Engineer Battalion Quitman, Mississippi

August, Captain Matthew J. 1st Engineer Battalion, 1st Infantry Division Fort Riley, Kansas

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

Barbret, Private First Class Mark A. 44th Engineer Battalion, 2d Infantry Division Camp Howze, Korea

Barnett, First Lieutenant Christopher W. Headquarters & Headquarters Company, 156th Armor Regiment Shreveport, Louisiana

Bevington, Sergeant Allan R. 40th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division Baumholder, Germany

Biskie, Sergeant Benjamin W. 5th Engineer Battalion, 1st Engineer Brigade Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

Boatright, Sergeant Michael L. 20th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Boehmer, Sergeant Jeremiah J. 562d Engineer Company, 172d Stryker Brigade Combat Team Fort Wainwright, Alaska

Bossert, Sergeant Andrew L. 44th Engineer Battalion, 2d Infantry Division Camp Howze, Korea

Bowen, Private First Class Samuel R. Headquarters Service Company, 216th Engineer Battalion Hamilton, Ohio

Bradley, Staff Sergeant Kenneth R. 588th Engineer Battalion, 4th Infantry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Brinlee, Specialist Kyle A. Bravo Company, 120th Engineer Battalion Pryor, Oklahoma

Brooks, Staff Sergeant Cory W. Alpha Company, 153d Engineer Battalion Wagner, South Dakota

Brown, Specialist Philip D. Bravo Company, 141st Engineer Battalion Jamestown, North Dakota

Bunch, Specialist Joshua I. 91st Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Buzzard, Sergeant Jason J. 8th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Byers, Specialist Casey Bravo Company, 224th Engineer Battalion Ottumwa, Iowa

Caradine Jr., Specialist Ervin 91st Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Carroll, Specialist James D. Alpha Company, 230th Engineer Battalion McKenzie, Tennessee

Carter, Specialist Justin B. 15th Infantry Regiment, 3d Infantry Division Fort Benning, Georgia

Castro, Specialist Jonathan 73d Engineer Company, 25th Infantry Division Fort Lewis, Washington

Caughman, Private First Class Thomas D. Charlie Company, 391st Engineer Battalion Spartanburg, South Carolina

Chan, Specialist Doron Detachment 2, 411th Engineer Brigade New Windsor, New York
Name Unit Location

October-December 2006 Engineer 33

Chance III, Specialist James A. Charlie Company, 890th Engineer Battalion Columbia, Mississippi

Cheatham, Private First Class Jonathan M. Headquarters & Headquarters Company, 489th Engineer Battalion North Little Rock, Arkansas

Christensen, Staff Sergeant Thomas W. 652d Engineer Company, 397th Engineer Battalion Ellsworth, Wisconsin

Clark, Sergeant Carlton A. 2d Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 101st Airborne Division Fort Campbell, Kentucky

Clark, Corporal Ryan J. 40th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division Baumholder, Germany

Cleary, First Lieutenant Michael J. 15th Infantry Regiment, 3d Infantry Division Fort Benning, Georgia

Coles, Sergeant Dominic R. 5th Engineer Battalion, 1st Engineer Brigade Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

Cooley, Sergeant First Class Sean M. Bravo Company, 150th Engineer Battalion Quitman, Mississippi

Corral, Sergeant Dennis A. 1st Engineer Battalion, 1st Infantry Division Fort Riley, Kansas

Cox Jr., First Lieutenant Simon T. 66th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Creamean, Specialist Tyler L. 73d Engineer Company, 25th Infantry Division Fort Lewis, Washington

Cuaresma, Sergeant Sirlou C. 62d Engineer Battalion, 13th Sustainment Command Fort Hood, Texas

Damon, Captain Patrick D. Headquarters & Headquarters Company, 240th Engineer Group Augusta, Maine

Davis, Private Brandon L. 1st Engineer Battalion, 1st Infantry Division Fort Riley, Kansas

Davis, Specialist Raphael S. Bravo Company, 223d Engineer Battalion Calhoun City, Mississippi

Davis, Sergeant Robert G. 864th Engineer Battalion, 555th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade Fort Lewis, Washington

Diaz, First Lieutenant Carlos J. 69th Armor Regiment, 3d Infantry Division Fort Benning, Georgia

Dill, Staff Sergeant Christopher W. 3d Detachment, 390th Infantry Regiment Pennsauken, New Jersey

Dima, Sergeant Catalin D. Headquarters Company, 411th Engineer Brigade New Windsor, New York

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

Drexler, Private Jeremy L. 91st Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Eckert Jr., Sergeant Gary A. Charlie Company, 983d Engineer Battalion Monclova, Ohio

Esposito, Captain Phillip T. Headquarters & Headquarters Company, 42d Infantry Division Troy, New York

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

Falaniko, Private Jonathan I. 70th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division Fort Riley, Kansas

Farrow, Staff Sergeant Jefferey J. 146th Quartermaster Company, 301st Area Support Group Fort Totten, New York

Faulkner, Sergeant James D. 20th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Fettig, Specialist Jon P. 957th Engineer Company, 68th Troop Command Bismarck, North Dakota

Flores, Staff Sergeant Omar D. 54th Engineer Battalion, 130th Engineer Brigade Bamberg, Germany

Floyd, Sergeant Alkaila T. 54th Engineer Battalion, 130th Engineer Brigade Bamberg, Germany

Forbes, Specialist Aaron M. 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Franklin, Private First Class Michael W. 44th Engineer Battalion, 2d Infantry Division Camp Howze, Korea

Gabrielson, Sergeant First Class Dan H. 652d Engineer Company, 397th Engineer Battalion Ellsworth, Wisconsin

Garceau, Specialist Seth K. Alpha Company, 224th Engineer Battalion Burlington, Iowa

Garcia, Corporal J. Adan 1st Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 10th Mountain Division Fort Drum, New York

Gaunky, Private First Class Anthony A. 3d Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 101st Airborne Division Fort Campbell, Kentucky
34 Engineer October-December 2006

Name Unit Location

Gaylord, Private First Class Alva L. Charlie Company, 110th Engineer Battalion Lexington, Missouri

Gelineau, Specialist Christopher D. Detachment 1, 133d Engineer Battalion Gardiner, Maine

Gibbs, Private First Class Mathew V. Headquarters & Headquarters Company, 648th Engineer Battalion Statesboro, Georgia

Gienau, Second Lieutenant Richard B. Alpha Company, 224th Engineer Battalion Burlington, Iowa

Gilman, Sergeant Benjamin L. 41st Engineer Battalion, 10th Mountain Division Fort Drum, New York

Goldberg, Specialist David J. Detachment 1, Charlie Company, 52d Engineer Battalion Fort Carson, Colorado

Granados, Corporal Cesar A. 8th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Haight, Specialist Charles G. 14th Engineer Battalion, 555th Combat Engineer Group Fort Lewis, Washington

Hall Jr., Specialist Robert E. Charlie Company, 467th Engineer Battalion Greenwood, Mississippi

Hattamer, Staff Sergeant Stephen C. 652d Engineer Company, 397th Engineer Battalion Ellsworth, Wisconsin

Hawkins, Sergeant Gene A. 14th Engineer Battalion, 555th Combat Support Brigade (ME) Fort Lewis, Washington

Hawkins II, Staff Sergeant Omer T. 44th Engineer Battalion, 2d Infantry Division Camp Howze, Korea

Hendrickson, Staff Sergeant Kenneth W. 957th Engineer Company, 68th Troop Command Bismarck, North Dakota

Hermanson, Specialist Michael L. Alpha Company, 164th Engineer Battalion Minot, North Dakota

Hill, Specialist Joshua L. Alpha Company, 391st Engineer Battalion Asheville, North Carolina

Hodge, Sergeant Jeremy M. Bravo Company, 612th Engineer Battalion Tiffin, Ohio

Hoffman, Sergeant First Class James T. 1st Engineer Battalion, 1st Infantry Division Fort Riley, Kansas

Hollinsaid, Staff Sergeant Lincoln D. 11th Engineer Battalion, 3d Infantry Division Fort Stewart, Georgia

Holmes, Specialist James J. Detachment 2, Charlie Company, 141st Engineer Battalion Hettinger, North Dakota

Hoyer, Private First Class Bert E. 652d Engineer Company, 397th Engineer Battalion Ellsworth, Wisconsin

Hubbell, Specialist Cory A. 46th Engineer Battalion, 1st Combat Support Brigade Fort Polk, Louisiana

Hufstedler, First Lieutenant Doyle M. 1st Engineer Battalion, 1st Infantry Division Fort Riley, Kansas

Hurley, First Lieutenant Joshua C. 326th Engineer Battalion, 101st Airborne Division Fort Campbell, Kentucky

Huxley Jr., Private First Class Gregory P. 317th Engineer Battalion, 3d Infantry Division Fort Benning, Georgia

Jackson, Specialist Marlon P. 94th Engineer Battalion, 130th Engineer Brigade Vilseck, Germany

Jackson II, Staff Sergeant William S. 16th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division Giessen, Germany

Jodon, Sergeant Andrew R. 3d Battalion, 3d Infantry Division Fort Stewart, Georgia

Johnson, Private First Class Rayshawn S. 299th Engineer Battalion, 4th Infantry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Jones, Sergeant First Class Michael D. Alpha Company, 133d Engineer Battalion Belfast, Maine

Jones, Specialist Robert L. 40th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division Baumholder, Germany

Jordan Jr., Sergeant Curt E. 14th Engineer Battalion, 555th Combat Engineer Group Fort Lewis, Washington

Kading, Sergeant First Class Matthew R. Charlie Company, 983d Engineer Battalion Monclova, Ohio

Kane, Staff Sergeant Joseph M. 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Karr Jr., Specialist Michael G. 1st Engineer Battalion, 1st Infantry Division Fort Riley, Kansas

Kendall, Specialist Dustin L. 68th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division Fort Carson, Colorado
Name Unit Location

October-December 2006 Engineer 35

Kimbrough, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Wayne Team 28, 416th Engineer Command Fort Benning, Georgia

Kiser, Sergeant Timothy C. Forward Logistical Element Company, 340th Forward Support Battalion Red Bluff, California

Koch, Specialist Matthew A. 70th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division Fort Riley, Kansas

Koenig, Staff Sergeant Lance J. Bravo Company, 141st Engineer Battalion Jamestown, North Dakota

Laird, Sergeant Dustin D. 913th Engineer Company, 46th Engineer Battalion Union City, Tennessee

Landrus, Staff Sergeant Sean G. 1st Engineer Battalion, 1st Infantry Division Fort Riley, Kansas

Lawton, Staff Sergeant Mark A. Alpha Company, 244th Engineer Battalion Boulder, Colorado

Linden, Specialist Troy C. 54th Engineer Battalion, 130th Engineer Brigade Bamberg, Germany

Longstreth, Private First Class Duane E. 307th Engineer Battalion, 82d Airborne Division Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Love, Private First Class Joseph I. 84th Engineer Battalion, 8th Sustainment Command (Theater) Schofield Barracks, Hawaii

Luckey, Sergeant Bryan C. 562d Engineer Company, 172d Stryker Brigade Combat Team Fort Wainwright, Alaska

Lufkin, Private First Class Caleb A. 5th Engineer Battalion, 1st Engineer Brigade Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

Lutters, Specialist Derrick J. Alpha Company, 891st Engineer Battalion Pittsburg, Kansas

Mahlenbrock, Specialist David P. 65th Engineer Battalion, 25th Infantry Division Schofield Barracks, Hawaii

Manzano, Private First Class Pablo 54th Engineer Battalion, 130th Engineer Brigade Bamberg, Germany

Martin, Private First Class Ryan A. Headquarters Service Company, 216th Engineer Battalion Hamilton, Ohio

Martinez, Staff Sergeant Misael 16th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division Giessen, Germany

Martinez-Salazar, Specialist Roberto L. 14th Engineer Battalion, 555th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade Fort Lewis, Washington

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

McCaffrey, Sr., Specialist Patrick R. Alpha Company, 579th Engineer Battalion Petaluma, California

McClain, Sergeant Charles J. 3d Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 10th Mountain Division Fort Drum, New York

McMullen, Staff Sergeant Michael J. 243d Engineer Company, 121st Engineer Battalion Reisterstown, Maryland

McNail, Specialist Robert A. Bravo Company, 150th Engineer Company Quitman, Mississippi

Menyweather, Staff Sergeant Eddie E. 588th Engineer Battalion, 4th Infantry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Meyer, Private First Class Jason M. 11th Engineer Battalion, 3d Infantry Division Fort Stewart, Georgia

Micks, Specialist Joseph P. 54th Engineer Battalion, 130th Engineer Brigade Bamberg, Germany

Miller, Sergeant John W. Alpha Company, 224th Engineer Battalion Burlington, Iowa

Millsap, First Sergeant Timothy J. 70th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division Fort Riley, Kansas

Mitchell, Sergeant Keman L. 4th Engineer Battalion, 4th Infantry Division Fort Carson, Colorado

Mitchell, Specialist Sean R. 1st Engineer Battalion, 1st Infantry Division Fort Riley, Kansas

Moothart, Sergeant Travis A. 1st Engineer Battalion, 1st Infantry Division Fort Riley, Kansas

Moreno, Specialist Jaime 20th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Morgan, Specialist Dennis B. Detachment 1, 153d Engineer Battalion Winner, South Dakota

Morningstar, Staff Sergeant Christopher R. 562d Engineer Company, 172d Stryker Brigade Combat Team Fort Wainwright, Alaska

Muldoon, Sergeant James P. 68th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division Fort Carson, Colorado
36 Engineer October-December 2006

Murray, Sergeant David J. Bravo Company, 1088th Engineer Battalion New Roads, Louisiana

Nakis, Specialist Nathan W. Bravo Company, 52d Engineer Battalion Albany, Oregon

Naputi, Specialist Richard Junior D. 15th Infantry Regiment, 3d Infantry Division Fort Benning, Georgia

Neusche, Specialist Joshua M. 203d Engineer Battalion, 35th Engineer Brigade Joplin, Missouri

Nieves, Specialist Isaac M. 82d Engineer Battalion, 1st Infantry Division Bamberg, Germany

Norquist, Specialist Joseph C. 588th Engineer Battalion, 4th Infantry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Nurre, Sergeant Joseph C. Bravo Company, 463d Engineer Battalion Weirton, West Virginia

Ojeda, Specialist Ramon C. 84th Engineer Battalion, 25th Infantry Division Schofield Barracks, Hawaii

Ottolini, Staff Sergeant Michael C. Alpha Company, 579th Engineer Battalion Petaluma, California

Palacios, Specialist Gabriel T. 588th Engineer Battalion, 4th Infantry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Paliwoda, Captain Eric T. 4th Engineer Battalion, 4th Infantry Division Fort Carson, Colorado

Pankey, Jr., Sergeant Larry W. Charlie Company, 467th Engineer Battalion Greenwood, Mississippi

Parker, Private First Class James D. 588th Engineer Battalion, 4th Infantry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Parker, Private First Class Kristian E. Charlie Company, 205th Engineer Battalion Slidell, Louisiana

Parrish, Staff Sergeant Lawrence L. Headquarters & Headquarters Company, 110th Engineer Battalion Kansas City, Missouri

Penamedina, Staff Sergeant Abraham D. 20th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Pernell, Sergeant Carlos E. Bravo Company, 46th Engineer Battalion Fort Rucker, Alabama

Pinkston, Sergeant Foster Headquarters Service Company, 878th Engineer Battalion Augusta, Georgia

Pintor, Captain Dennis L. 20th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

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

Preusse, Corporal Randall D. Alpha Company, 386th Engineer Battalion Austin, Texas

Quinton, Specialist Bryan L. 5th Engineer Battalion, 1st Engineer Brigade Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

Rafferty, First Sergeant Christopher C. 37th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Ramirez, Sergeant Angel De Jesus L. 16th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division Giessen, Germany

Ramirez, Sergeant Reyes 40th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division Baumholder, Germany

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

Raney, Private First Class Cleston C. 1st Engineer Battalion, 1st Infantry Division Fort Riley, Kansas

Ray, Staff Sergeant Joseph R. Alpha Company, 391st Engineer Battalion Asheville, North Carolina

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

Reinke, Staff Sergeant Gavin B. 5th Engineer Battalion, 1st Engineer Brigade Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

Reyes, Sergeant Luis R. 947th Engineer Company, 89th Troop Command Pueblo, Colorado

Reyna, Specialist Seferino J. 70th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division Fort Riley, Kansas

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

Rooney, Sergeant First Class Robert E. 379th Engineer Company, 51st Troop Command Bourne, New Hampshire

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

Name Unit Location
October-December 2006 Engineer 37

Rusin, Private First Class Aaron J. 44th Engineer Battalion, 2d Infantry Division Camp Howze, Korea

Ruth, Sergeant Monta S. 15th Infantry Regiment, 3d Infantry Division Fort Benning, Georgia

Rymer II, Specialist Lyle W. Detachment 1, 239th Engineer Battalion Fort Chaffee, Arkansas

Sanchez, Sergeant Ian T. 32d Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division Fort Drum, New York

Seale, Staff Sergeant Stephen A. 2d Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 101st Airborne Division Fort Campbell, Kentucky

Seesan, First Lieutenant Aaron N. 73d Engineer Company, 25th Infantry Divisin Fort Lewis, Washington

Segura Jr., Sergeant Leroy 362d Engineer Company, 54th Engineer Battalion Fort Benning, Georgia

Smette, Sergeant Keith L. 957th Engineer Company, 68th Troop Command Bismarck, North Dakota

Smith, Sergeant First Class Paul R. 11th Engineer Battalion, 3d Infantry Division Fort Stewart, Georgia

Soelzer, Captain Christopher F. 5th Engineer Battalion, 1st Engineer Brigade Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

Splinter, Major Christopher J. 5th Engineer Battalion, 1st Engineer Brigade Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

Strange, Private First Class William R. 91st Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood Texas

Taylor III, Sergeant Norman R. 68th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division Fort Carson, Colorado

Tobler, Specialist Brandon S. Detachment 1, 671st Engineer Company Portland, Oregon

Trevithick, Specialist Richard K. 9th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Schweinfurt, Germany

Tyrrell, Private Scott M. 299th Engineer Battalion, 4th Infantry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Tyson, Second Lieutenant Andre D. Alpha Company, 579th Engineer Battalion Petaluma, California

Unruh, Specialist Robert Oliver 44th Engineer Battalion, 2d Infantry Division Camp Howze, Korea

Vargas-Medina, Staff Sergeant Oscar D. 84th Engineer Battalion, 25 Infantry Division Schofield Barracks, Hawaii

Villanueva, Sergeant First Class Joselito O. 9th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Schweinfurt, Germany

Walker, First Lieutenant Laura M. 864th Engineer Battalion, 555th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade Fort Lewis, Washington

Ward, Private First Class Andrew M. 44th Engineer Battalion, 2d Infantry Division Camp Howze, Korea

Warren, Sergeant First Class Charles H. Charlie Company, 648th Engineer Battalion Statesboro, Georgia

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

Webb, Sergeant Charles J. 82d Engineer Battalion, 1st Infantry Division Bamberg, Germany

Wegar, Specialist Michael S. 20th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Wentz, Specialist Cody L. Alpha Company, 141st Engineer Battalion Edgeley, North Dakota

White III, Private First Class Robert C. 864th Engineer Battalion, 555th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade Fort Lewis, Washington

Widner, Specialist Vernon R. 3d Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 101st Airborne Division Fort Campbell, Kentucky

Wilkins III, First Lieutenant Charles L. Headquarters Service Company, 216th Engineer Battalion Hamilton, Ohio

Williams IV, Sergeant Arthur C. 44th Engineer Battalion, 2d Infantry Division Camp Howze, Korea

Wolf, Specialist James R. Headquarters & Headquarters Company, 52d Engineer Battalion Fort Carson, Colorado

Wood, Sergeant Brian M. 9th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Schweinfurt, Germany

Wright, Specialist Brian A. 135th Engineer Company, 876th Engineer Battalion Lawrenceville, Illinois

Zamora, Corporal Jose 2d Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 101st Airborne Division Fort Campbell, Kentucky

Name Unit Location
38 Engineer October-December 2006

Book Reviews

Building for Peace: U.S. Army Engineers in Europe,

1945-1991, by Robert P. Grathwol, Ph.D., and Donita M.

Moorhus, U.S. Army Center for Military History, CMH Pub

45-1-1, Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., 2005,

393 pages, GPO S/N: 008-029-00410-1, $62.00 (paper).

 It is difficult to make a technical history both readable

and accurate. Building for Peace, by Robert Grathwol and

Donita Moorhus, manages to accomplish both. This wellresearched first volume of the Center for Military History’s

U.S. Army in the Cold War series tells the story of U.S.

Army engineers in Europe from 1945 - 1991 in exquisite detail,

making it recommended professional reading for all in the

Army engineering community.

Organized into three parts, the narrative flows logically

from efforts in postwar reconstruction (1945 - 1949) to the

mutual defense of western Europe (1950 - 1973), and finally

to the era of the Europe Division, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers®, and the end of the Cold War (1974 - 1991). The

authors take great care to not only describe the mission and

organization of the various Army engineer activities in

Europe but also to establish the context that shaped the

decisions taken by engineer leaders. This book is full of

photographs, tables, and maps that help the reader visualize

the events that transpired and the challenges facing U.S.

Army engineers as they support the Army and Air Force in

Europe.

 Part one of the narrative describes the fluid situation

facing Army engineers in the early days of the occupation

of Germany, and does a great job of describing the

engineering organization, priorities, and challenges

overcome. The authors capture the difficulties of supporting

the drawdown and redeployment of the Army, while simultaneously developing ports and lines of communication for

constabulary forces and helping reestablish critical civil

infrastructure. They also capture the uncertainty of the

circumstances in the immediate postwar era, culminating in

the blockade of Berlin by the Soviet Union and the Berlin

Airlift.

 The second part of the narrative covers a much more

extensive period of time and follows the evolution of

engineering support in Europe through the challenges of

crash construction programs for the buildup of Army forces

in the early 1950s, of doing business with the newly sovereign

West German Republic, and several evolutions of engineering

organization built in response to the requirements of the

day. The rationale for the establishment and employment of

the Joint Construction Agency; the U.S. Army Construction

Agency, Germany; and the Engineer Command are discussed

in detail, as are the challenges they faced.

The largest part of this history is devoted to recounting

the establishment, service, and ultimate inactivation of one

organization: the Europe Division of the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers from 1974 - 1991. It is clearly well researched;

however, this part of the narrative seems to drag in the telling.

The authors seem to put far more emphasis on discussing

the details of programs and projects in this section. As a

result, the narrative jumps around a bit rather than flowing

chronologically, making it hard to follow at times. Even so,

the authors convey the complexity and difficulty of the

mission as well as the flexibility of Army engineers in

meeting it.

This history is highly recommended to all in the Army

engineering community. The flexibility, innovation, and

professionalism recounted are worthy of study and

reflection. No doubt today’s Army engineers can draw

lessons from their predecessors in Europe as they face

today’s engineering challenges in support of our Army and

the nation.

Reviewed by Lieutenant Colonel Stephen V. Tennant,

U.S. Army (Retired), Assistant Professor, Command and

General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

○○○○○○
Tiger Force: A True Story of Men and War, by Michael

Sallah and Mitch Weiss, Little, Brown & Company: New York,

May 2006, 416 pages, ISBN: 0316159972 (nonfiction) ISBN13: 9780316159975 (general), $25.95 (hardcover)

During the Vietnam War, “Tiger Force” was the code name

of an elite platoon of the 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment,

101st Airborne Division. Tiger Force was intended to

“outguerrilla the guerrillas,” scrapping the techniques of

conventional warfare to take the fight to the enemy in the

jungle. Along the way, it also scrapped the rules of war.

The battalion executive officer organized the 45-man

volunteer force in 1966, and it became one of the war’s most

highly decorated units, paying for its reputation with heavy

casualties. In 1967, the Tiger Force platoon went on a sevenmonth rampage through South Vietnam’s central highlands

that left more than 325 civilians dead—mostly children, women,

and old men.

Unlike other elite units such as the Special Forces, Tiger

Force was made up of a mixed lot, elite only in the fighting

sense. Many had served jail time, and many Tiger Force

veterans died young from cancer, cirrhosis of the liver, or

suicide. Commanders set the tone, and Tiger Force leaders

were close to psychopathic in their hatred for Vietnamese

people, no matter what side they were supposed to be on. It is

a free-fire zone; if it moves, it is VC. Kill it! And that they did.

Most of the murdered Vietnamese appeared to be guilty only

of being peasant farmers who didn’t want to leave their land.

The real atrocities began with the routine and relentless

use of free-fire zones: 105- and 155-millimeter howitzer random

harassment and interdiction fire; helicopter gunships; Puff,

the Magic Dragon; fighter and attack jets and their napalm;

the B-52 carpet bombing, etc., etc., ...

From 1971 to 1975, the Army mounted an investigation that

documented the crimes. Our civilian leadership decided that

“nothing beneficial” could result from prosecuting the platoon

members or their leaders.

The atrocities in this book are as bad as My Lai. Basically,

My Lai was a one-day incident where an Americal Division

line outfit went berserk and killed somewhere around

500 people; these Tiger Force atrocities occurred over a period

of months. Their commanders clearly knew what they were

doing and encouraged it. How far up the ladder it went, I don’t

know, but I wish I did.

Reviewed by Mr. Jeffrey L. Rosemann, an instructional

systems specialist with the Officers Education Branch,

Department of Training Development, United States Army

Engineer School. A retired infantry Soldier, he also served

as the 2d Infantry Division historian during the beginning of

the 50th Anniversary of the Korean War.

○○○○○○

October-December 2006 Engineer 39

For the 2007 General William E. DePuy Special Topics

Writing Competition, Military Review seeks original essays

on “Consolidating Victory: Stability and Reconstruction

Operations.” Winning papers will be carefully researched,

analytically oriented critiques, proposals, or relevant case

histories that show evidence of imaginative, even

unconventional, thinking. Submissions generally should not

exceed 5,000 words.

Winners will be announced in May 2007. First prize is

featured publication in a future edition of Military Review, a

$1,000 honorarium, and a certificate. Second prize offers

publication in Military Review, a $750 honorarium, and a

certificate. Third prize offers publication in Military Review,

a $500 honorarium, and a certificate. Fourth prize offers

publication in Military Review, a $250 honorarium, and a

certificate. Honorable mention offers publication in Military

Review, a $100 honorarium, and a certificate.

Essays should be submitted with an enrollment form via

e-mail or in hard copy with a CD not later than 1 April 2007.

Send e-mail submissions to <milrevweb@leavenworth.

army.mil> (Subject: Competition). Mail hard copies with a

CD to Military Review, ATTN: Competition, 294 Grant Avenue,

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-1254. For more details—

to include a copy of the enrollment form, criteria for judging,

and a list of potential topics—visit Military Review online at

<http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/index.asp>.

Military Review Seeks Essays

for 2007 Writing Competition
40 Engineer October-December 2006

E.

ach year, primarily during the summer months, hundreds

of visitors, nature enthusiasts, recreation seekers, and

local residents travel to Vermont’s 850-acre Waterbury

Reservoir campground to enjoy the outdoor activities available

along the 19 miles of pristine shoreline. The area is perfect for

camping, fishing, hiking, and water sports.

In 1935, the United States Army Corps of Engineers®

designed and managed the construction of the dam in response

to a flooding disaster and since then has periodically modified

it. In recent years, the dam has experienced seepage problems,

and the sloped banks along the shoreline became unstable

due to erosion.

In 2000, the State of Vermont lowered the reservoir due to

safety concerns at the nearby Waterbury Dam and lowered it

again in 2002 when the Corps began construction work on the

dam. The reservoir was lowered to 520 feet, but the water is

currently at 550 feet and will return to summer pool level

(590 feet) when the work is completed. Also, the reservoir’s

water level was lowered each winter when the campground

closed.

Lowering the reservoir takes pressure off the dam, reduces

seepage, and allows safer conditions for construction work.

However, this drawdown and the wave action from recreational

boats against the exposed shoreline were contributing factors

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

Photo by Jenifer Thalhauser, Planning Division, United States Army Corps of Engineers, New York District
October-December 2006 Engineer 41

to the shore’s erosion and resulted in its instability. In response

to this safety hazard, the Corps’s New York District, with the

assistance of other Corps districts, used traditional and

innovative engineering techniques to make the banks of the

reservoir safer.

The sloped banks of the reservoir were vegetated, but when

the reservoir was lowered, the lower portions without

vegetation were exposed. This caused the soil on the upper

part of the bank to erode and uproot vegetation, especially

during rainfall. When the vegetation was lost, the upper

portions of the bank were also exposed and subject to erosion.

With the ground exposed, groundwater percolated out of

the soil—contributing to the slope’s erosion—and added

additional soil to the reservoir. Allowing this runoff to continue

would cause the campground to lose large portions of land

and would adversely affect the water quality of the reservoir

and downstream river. In addition, the flow of sediment into

the reservoir creates turbid, muddy water; reduces the water’s

oxygen level; and increases the water’s

temperature, which can harm water habitats.

The Corps, in collaboration with the State

of Vermont, constructed a shoreline stabilization project for 1,100 feet of reservoir

shoreline this summer, using both traditional

and bioengineering methods.

Traditional techniques, using stone or

riprap, stabilized the bottom of the slope.

The weight of the stone prevents wave

action from moving or removing the stone

and prevents scoring or erosion. This part

of the slope must remain stable for the upper

areas (stabilized using bioengineering

techniques) to remain in place and function

properly.

Bioengineering techniques use dormant

plant cuttings from woody plants that root

easily to alleviate soil erosion. Planted in

specific arrangements depending on the

Site map for the Waterbury Dam

United States Army Corps of Engineers, New York District

The slope was regraded prior to placing riprap for stabilization.

Photo by Construction Division, United States Army Corps of Engineers, New York District
42 Engineer October-December 2006

technique, the root systems hold the soil together and prevent

sediment loss. Only native plants were used for this project.

Willow, dogwood, and alder species were planted at the bottom

of the slope to provide quick rooting. A mix of low-growing to

medium-size shrubs were planted on the rest of the slope.

The State of Vermont is a strong proponent of the bioengineering technique and encouraged its use. The Corps

has used bioengineering in the past, but this was the first time

native plants were used. A departure from the more traditional

approach—which typically involves steel sheet pile and

backfilling—resulted in a more natural and sustainable slope.

Combining traditional and bioengineering techniques is

beneficial because a stable slope was achieved without

diminishing the area’s natural appearance, and it won’t have

the “engineered” look of many slope stabilization projects.

The environment also benefits from combining the two

techniques. Planting vegetation along the shoreline provides

nesting and foraging habitats for native bird species and

maintains the look and feel of the region for campground

visitors.

With the stabilization at the bottom of the slopes completed,

grass seed was sown at the top of the slopes for immediate

slope stabililization. In the fall, a mix of live cuttings and

containers of woody vegetation, such as shrubs and trees,

were planted on the slopes for long-term stabilization. Planting

in the fall is more conducive to plant survival than planting

during the summer.

The project manager provided the following suggestions

for other engineers performing similar shore stabilization

projects:

 Coordinate constantly with various state agencies to make

sure everyone agrees with the schedule and project goals

to avoid unnecessary delays.

 Consider the “green” approach when trying to stabilize

slopes. A bioengineered slope should be as stable as a

typically constructed “hard” design.

 Be open to new and innovative ideas, even if they deviate

from the traditional.

Although the Waterbury Reservoir campground is closed

for the winter, when it reopens in the spring, the restored

portions of the shoreline will be open to the public.

Dr. Castagna is a technical writer/editor for the United

States Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. She can

be reached at <joanne.castagna@usace.army.mil>.

Riprap was placed at the bottom of the slope for stabilization, and the regraded slope was covered

with grass seeding prior to fall plantings.

Photo by Marty Goff, United States Corps of Engineers, New York District
October-December 2006 Engineer 43

T.

he United States Army Corps of Engineers® Finderne

Farms Wetlands Mitigation Project is part of the Green

Brook Flood Control Project, designed to reduce flood

damage in New Jersey’s Raritan River Basin in north-central

New Jersey (Middlesex, Somerset, and Union Counties). The

mitigation project, located on 130 acres of land along the Raritan

River in Bridgewater Township, enhances and restores the

land around the historic Van Veghten House in Somerset

County, by creating wildlife habitats and a public park. The

state is proud of its history, and this was taken into account

when the Corps’s New York District collaborated with them in

2000 on this project.

According to the biologist and project coordinator, the

wetland mitigation work is enhancing existing wetlands,

forested land, and grassland habitats on the site and creating

more than 20 acres of man-made wetlands to sustain wildlife

and create an educational public park. The land was used for

farming crops and livestock from the late 1600s to just a few

years ago when Somerset County purchased it for open space

preservation and park development. Years of farming had

caused erosion problems on the land.

The Van Veghten family owned a huge tract of land that

included all of the property now under construction at the

mitigation site. The 18th Century red brick Dutch farmhouse,

the historic Van Veghten House, still stands on the bluff above

the floodplain with a view of the Raritan River. The house,

presently occupied by the Somerset County Historical Society,

has a rich history that includes sheltering General George

Washington’s Quartermaster General, General Nathaniel

Greene, during the Revolutionary War, while his Soldiers

camped nearby. A volunteer from the Somerset County

Historical Society explained that General George Washington

danced the night away there also.

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

New Jersey

Restoring and Enhancing Historic Property
44 Engineer October-December 2006

The Corps, in cooperation with the County Parks Commission, began construction in January 2006. The land was

graded around the clock for approximately 2 months to prepare

it for spring seeding. Grading sets the stage by achieving a

soil elevation that supports the water needs required for wetland

plant growth. The soil in the wetland creation areas was then

tilled using a 30-inch plow-bedding harrow, to create mounds

and depressions, mimicking the uneven surface of a natural

wetland. The soil was then fertilized and limed, and this past

spring nearly 100,000 trees and shrubs were planted. Habitat

mitigation areas were also seeded with a mixture of native

grasses and wild flowers.

Several wetland habitats, forested land, and grassland

habitats were enhanced or created to provide nesting and

foraging habitats for a variety of birds, amphibians, reptiles,

aquatic invertebrates, butterflies, and mammals.

The public will be able to view these habitats by walking

along a 2-mile nature trail created by the Corps. The trail

meanders throughout the site and has signs to educate the

public about the habitats and wildlife

and provide facts about the nearby Van

Veghten House. Also on the site are two

playing fields with parking lots and

access roads, making the site a part of

the Raritan River Greenway. Although

most of the work was completed in the

summer of 2006, the 12 acres of

recreational area, such as the trail and

playing fields, won’t be open to the

public until the spring of 2007 so the

grass and plants have a chance to grow.

The project coordinator provided

the following suggestions for others

planning a mitigation project:

 Contact plant nurseries early. Find

out what species are available and

if the quantity and plant size

needed for the project are available.

 Plan ahead when using native

plants. If the project calls for

growing native species using

seeds and cuttings collected

A multisection

precast concrete bridge is

lowered by

crane across a

stream.

The banks of the “Finderne Brook”—that flows into the Raritan River—have

been contoured to prepare for planting.
October-December 2006 Engineer 45

directly from the area, it’s recommended that propagation

activities be initiated at least two years in advance of project

construction.

 Consider practical storage of plant material on-site. Plan

storage for large quantities of plant material, especially

bare-root trees and shrubs, on-site. Having a refrigerator

truck, which mimics a greenhouse by maintaining

temperature and humidity levels similar to a nursery, onsite allows storage of large quantities of plants and extends

the time cuttings can be stored. Without the truck, storing

and planting bare-root material is limited to 1 to 2 days for

each delivery of plants. The truck also preserves live-stake

material in its dormant state for a period extending beyond

nursery availability.

 Have project designers make multiple site visits. Because

conditions change, project designers should be involved

team members during construction and visit the site several

times during the design process. Incorporating any

necessary design changes prior to construction helps to

minimize delays and costly modifications.

 Collaborate with property stakeholders. The Corps

reached an agreement with the New Jersey Historic

Preservation Office to plant grassland rather than trees

near the Van Veghten House to maintain the historic view

of the Raritan River. The Corps also reached an agreement

with a local utility company to plant unobstructive

vegetation near overhead power lines to provide continued

access to those areas.

The success of this mitigation project has encouraged the

project coordinator to seek out other sites in the area to perform

similar work. Wildlife already has been observed on the site,

including red tail hawks, great blue herons, painted turtles,

northern water snakes, freshwater clams, deer, and a resident

red fox.

For more information about the Van Veghten House,

contact the Somerset County Historical Society at

(908) 218-1281.

Dr. Castagna is a technical writer/editor for the United

States Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. She can

be reached at <joanne.castagna@usace.army.mil>.

Forested Wetland. This is wetland that has deciduous woody

vegetation with a tree canopy in excess of 20 feet in height.

Approximately 14 acres of existing forested wetland were enhanced

by planting trees (oak, ash, and sycamore) and shrubs (summersweet,

silky dogwood, and high bush blueberry). Approximately 21 acres

of pastureland were turned into forested wetland. The land was

graded, then the area was seeded with a mix of wetland plants and

floodplain grasses and planted with bare-root and container-plant

material. Trees (oaks, ash, and sycamore) and shrubs (summersweet,

silky dogwood, and high bush blueberry) were planted. In some areas

the land was graded to create vernal pools, ephemeral spring ponding

areas used by salamanders, invertebrates, and frogs for breeding.

Scrub-Shrub Wetland. This is a wetland that has primarily woody

vegetation that is less than 20 feet tall. Approximately 8 acres were

enhanced by seeding and planting the wetland to make it more

desirable for various species of wildlife.

Emergent Wetland (Wet Marsh). Approximately 5 acres were

enhanced by seeding and planting the wetland to make it more

desirable for various species of wildlife.

Riparian Forest (Corridor Forest). This is a forest that borders

a river, in this case the Raritan River. Approximately 25 acres of

Riparian Forest were restored by seeding and planting. In addition,

the Riparian Buffer (the strip of woody vegetation along the river’s

banks) was increased to 100 to 300 feet to create a habitat for wildlife

that thrives in this type of environment, including species of birds,

mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. In addition, the increased buffer

sustains shade cover for fish habitats within the river. In this buffer

area, various shrubs (elderberry, spicebush, and black haw viburnum)

and trees (hickory and silver maple) were planted. The trees were

selected because of their shaggy bark at maturity that could provide

a suitable roosting habitat for bats during the summertime.

Stream Restoration. An unnamed 800-foot stream, referred to as

the “Finderne Brook,” runs through portions of the site. The stream

was eroding and the Corps created a more natural water flow and

restored its habitat. To improve the water flow, the area bordering

the stream (the floodplain) was widened to prevent the stream’s

banks from eroding and an undersized pipe culvert, that was

constricting flow, was replaced with a natural bottom arched culvert

bridge. To improve the stream habitat and stabilize the banks, the

stream was graded, seeded with floodplain grass, planted with wetland

plant cuttings, and covered with a degradable coir matting (made of

coconut fiber) to stabilize riverbank soils until the vegetation takes

hold. To prevent soil erosion, supplemental riverbed stone was placed

in the stream. Also, the stones create a series of pools and riffles for

fish and invertebrate habitats such as crayfish and pickerel frogs

that have already been sighted in the stream.

Grassland by the Van Veghten House. Thirty-nine acres of

enhanced grassland have transformed the property around the Van

Veghten House that overlooks the Raritan River. The grassland

provides visitors an unobstructed view of the vista across the

floodplain toward the Raritan River. The floodplain was seeded

with warm season grasses (Indian grass and bluestem) and

wildflowers (ox-eye daisy, asters, and coreopsis) that will support a

population of pollinating birds and insects, and the meadow will be

a foraging area for the resident fox and red-tailed hawks, as well as

other birds and small mammals.

What the Project Entails

Wetland, Forested Land, and Grassland Habitat

Enhancement and Creation

Thousands of “willow stakes” are planted in burlap weed

barriers along the side of the stream.
46 Engineer October-December 2006

W.

ho do you call when you have a

question about the design, construction, or management of a base

camp? Currently, there is no single proponent

you can contact to assist with base camp issues.

To fill this gap, the United States Army Engineer

School has submitted a proposal to the United

States Army Training and Doctrine Command

(TRADOC), seeking the proponency for base

camps. Assigning the proponency to the

Engineer School will not mean that the engineers

have all the answers to base camp issues, but it

will provide one point of contact to coordinate all

issues with appropriate agencies. In an effort to

disseminate information, the Engineer School

invited Quartermaster Corps personnel to Fort

Leonard Wood in September to demonstrate a

new base camp system so future base camp

planners could see facilities that are available to

deployed forces.

The Quartermaster Corps is one of the many organizations

that the Engineer School coordinates with for base camp

planning and design, because it owns the bed-down system

the Army now uses called Force Provider. The original Force

Provider was developed after the first Gulf War. This system

is a packaged base camp that is containerized and can be

deployed to support forces in any area of operation by

providing billeting; a dining facility; and morale, welfare,

and recreation (MWR) facilities. The Force Provider

package—which also includes climate control, generators,

kitchen facilities, and lighting—takes several aircraft to deploy.

But now there is a new system out called the Expeditionary

Life Support System (ELSS).

An ELSS is capable of supporting smaller units than the

Force Provider and comes in 15 triple containers (TRICONs).

This system can be fitted to the deployment by adding units

to house more Soldiers. One system can be transported on

one C-17 aircraft and contains a kitchen, a dining facility,

billeting, latrines, showers, a laundry facility, power generation,

and a water reuse system.

For the Fort Leonard Wood demonstration, an eight-man

team, from the only Active Army force provider company, set

up all the facilities in less than four hours.

Additional capability packages can be added, to include

facilities for cold weather, MWR, chapel, prime power, fuel

storage and distribution, batch laundry, and a kitchen. Simple

systems are usually best when deploying to contingency

operations, and this system is simple to set up, operate, and

maintain.

The current laundry system contains four washers and

dryers that will be replaced by a commercial batch laundry

system in the future. These washers and dryers are

containerized and have onboard water heaters and pumps

for the water supply and for removing the gray water. The

showers have four shower stalls, onboard water heaters,

and two sinks. The gray water removed from the showers,

sinks, and laundry is sent to the water reuse system, which

will treat the gray water to potable standards and store it for

reuse in the showers and laundry. The system will treat

thousands of gallons per day with a 75 percent recovery rate.

By Mr. Michael T. Wolford

A compacted ELSS arrives on a pallet.
October-December 2006 Engineer 47

It can operate for seven days without an operator present and

contains a self-diagnostic system, making maintenance very

simple.

The kitchen/dining facility includes a cook-and-hold oven,

a steam-and-hold countertop steamer, a 6-gallon steam kettle,

an undercounter refrigerator, two refrigeration units, and a

griddle. The system will feed several hundred Soldiers, and

can be upgraded to feed even larger camps.

Officers from the Engineer Officer Basic Course, the

Engineer Captain’s Career Course, and the Warrant Officer’s

Basic Course toured the prototype base camp and were

impressed with how easily and quickly the facilities were

constructed. And several general officers and brigade commanders who visited the demonstration had positive comments

on the power distribution system and the waste water reuse

system. Without a doubt, the Quartermaster Corps has

developed an excellent system that will aid our Soldiers in the

accomplishment of their mission.

Having a base camp proponent to help coordinate agencies

and share information would be a step in the right direction

toward solving some of the problems we are having

in deployed locations. Hopefully, in the near future,

TRADOC will assign the proponency to the Engineer

School. If this occurs, expect new base camp training,

doctrine, and concepts to evolve over the next

few years. For more information about the base

camp proponency, contact Michael Wolford at

(573) 329-1927 or e-mail him at <michael.

wolford1@us.army.mil>. (Also see the April-June

2006 issue of Engineer, pages 28-29.)

Mr. Wolford is an environmental training

specialist for the Directorate of Environmental

Integration at the United States Army Engineer

School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He recently

retired from the Army after more than

24 years of service. He holds a bachelor’s in environmental science from Drury University,

Springfield, Missouri, and is currently working on

a master’s in environmental management from

Webster University, Saint Louis, Missouri.

The ELSS generators can power the entire base camp.

The base camp water reuse system treats thousands of gallons of

water each day.
48 Engineer October-December 2006

M..

ajor General Hugh Barbee Mott, former Adjutant

General of Tennessee and a hero at Remagen Bridge

during World War II, devoted his life to the service

of his state and country. He was an inspiration to all Soldiers,

epitomizing courage, dedication, and bravery.

Born in Nashville, Tennessee, on 14 August 1920, Mott

graduated from East Nashville High School in 1939, where he

got his first taste of the military as a captain in the Reserve

Officer Training Corps. He later attended the Marion Military

Institute in Marion, Alabama, a preparatory school for all the

military service academies, where he focused on attending

West Point.

Mott was quickly recognized as a diligent young man, and

after attending Marion Institute, the legendary General Bob

Neyland elected him for a temporary job as a rodman with the

United States Corps of Engineers. Mott worked on the Wolf

Creek Dam from August 1940 until January 1941, while applying

for entry into West Point. As war swept through Europe, young

Mott gained employment at the Vultee Aircraft plant in January

1941. He worked 70 hours a week as the company raced to

build dive bombers the Allies would desperately need.

 Once the United States entered the war, Mott enlisted as a

private in the Army on 1 November 1942. He reported to Fort

Eustis, Virginia, for basic training and specialized in antiaircraft

artillery. He was promoted to corporal before shipping out to

Camp Davis, North Carolina, on 1 March 1943 to attend Artillery

Officer Candidate School.

Quickly completing Officer Candidate School, Corporal

Mott was commissioned a second lieutenant on 3 June 1943.

He remained as an instructor at the facility until 10 February1944,

when he transferred to the Engineer Branch and attended

Engineer Basic Officer School at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Second Lieutenant Mott completed engineering school on

24 March 1944 and was assigned as a platoon leader in the 9th

Armored Division Engineer Battalion at Camp Polk, Louisiana.

As a combat engineer, Mott and his company were responsible

for working directly with combat troops in numerous

capacities—from construction and repair of roads and bridges,

to the demolition and deployment of mines, explosives, and

assorted booby traps.

Mott and the 9th Armored Division deployed for Europe

on 20 August 1944 to take part in the liberation of France,

landing at the beach in Normandy on 9 October1944. Through

October, he moved east across France, engaging in fierce

combat in the Battle of the Bulge. The Germans eventually

lost ground and retreated into Germany, destroying bridges

and crossing over the Rhine River to halt the American

advance.

By Captain Darrin W. Haas

Past in Review
October-December 2006 Engineer 49

On 7 March 1945, the 9th Armored Division and now First

Lieutenant Mott, who was promoted in February, arrived at

the town of Remagen en route to Sinzig. Surprisingly, the

Ludendorff railroad bridge across the Rhine River was still

intact. As German troops were still retreating across the bridge,

Colonel Leonard E. Engeman, Commander of the 14th Tank

Battalion, ordered that the bridge be taken intact. He deployed

his troops to attack and secure the site, soon learning that the

bridge was rigged with explosives and scheduled to be

destroyed within minutes.

Colonel Engeman ordered Mott, with the help of two of

Mott’s most reliable Soldiers—Sergeant Eugene Dorland and

Staff Sergeant John Reynolds—to prevent the destruction of

the bridge, which had already been weakened by German

soldiers through a series of explosive charges, artillery, and

mortar fire. After receiving the order to proceed, First Lieutenant

Mott heroically and under fire led his team to the bridge. The

Germans had blown a huge crater in the approach to the bridge,

prohibiting the use of tanks, but giving some cover for the

small team.

After a quick visual reconnaissance from the crater, Mott

and his team raced across the entire length of the bridge,

cutting the wires leading to a multitude of explosive charges,

all the while under intense fire from snipers, machine guns,

and 20-millimeter guns. As the teams were cutting various

wires to the explosives, Mott witnessed a tremendous

explosion on the far side of the bridge. He thought he might be

too late, but the explosion was a minor blast that caused only

some structural damage on the far side.

The team continued its mission, with Mott discovering four

packages of TNT weighing 30 pounds each, as well as one

600-pound charge rigged to explode. The team disabled the

charges and threw them into the river. Sergeant Dorland

discovered the main cable to the explosives, but could not cut

it with his pliers. Without hesitating, he shot the cable with his

carbine, completely severing the line.

As the final charges were being disabled, an infantry

platoon arrived to secure the bridge. Mott called for his

platoon to be brought up to begin repairs on the structure

in order to move tanks across. He heroically led his platoon,

under heavy sniper and machine gun fire, to patch the

gaping hole in the bridge planking. They worked frantically

on their hands and knees to repair the damaged bridge,

eventually allowing tanks to cross and ensuring the Allies

an eastern foothold on the Rhine.

Mott became Commanding General of the 30th Armored Division in April 1968.
50 Engineer October-December 2006

The skill, speed, and boldness of the team’s successful

mission won resounding congratulations and praise from highranking military officials. General Dwight D. Eisenhower was

reported to be jubilant. General Omar N. Bradley said, “...this

bold advance, characterized by able willingness to chance

great risks for great rewards, speeds the day when our full

forces can come to grips with the enemy.”

For this heroic act, First Lieutenant Hugh B. Mott was

awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the commendation

citing his “unhesitating action and cool courage” amid intense

enemy fire aimed directly at him. Sergeant Eugene Dorland

and Staff Sergeant John Reynolds were also awarded the

Distinguished Service Cross. Officials at the time said the

war was probably shortened by about six months due to

the team’s action, perhaps preventing 5,000 to 10,000 Allied

casualties.

After the battle at Remagen Bridge, Mott continued to

fiercely engage the German Army, pressing into Germany;

fighting in the capture of Limberg, Frankfurt, and Leipzig; and

heading into Czechoslovakia just before V-E Day. At the end

of World War II, he was assigned to the Engineer Battalion of

the 90th Infantry Division. He served in the Army of Occupation

as a platoon leader and company commander until returning

to the United States in 1946. He was separated from active

military service on 9 June 1946 and entered the Reserves with

the rank of captain.

Mott returned home to Tennessee after the war as a highly

decorated Soldier and greatly admired individual and was

soon called on to run for public office. He won election to the

Tennessee House of Representatives in 1948 and served until

1951.

After three years in the Reserves, Captain Mott decided to

join the Tennessee Army National Guard. On 15 March 1949,

he was assigned as operations and training officer of the 173d

Armored Group in Jackson, Tennessee. He quickly rose

through the ranks and was promoted to brigadier general on

28 April 1964. He became the Commanding General of the 30th

Armored Division in April 1968.

From 4-14 April 1968, Brigadier General Mott commanded

Task Force Bravo, a force of more than 3,300 Guardsmen, during

civil disturbances in Nashville following the assassination of

Dr. Martin Luther King. Miraculously, without loss of life, Mott

led Guardsmen, city police, and State Troopers into Tennessee’s A & I University dormitories while under sniper fire.

He searched and confiscated weapons and tools used

previously to set fire to the Air Force Reserve Officer Training

Corps building.

Mott earned his second star on 28 June 1968, and on

1 December 1968, Major General Mott was named Adjutant

General for the State of Tennessee by Governor Buford

Ellington. He simultaneously acted as Commander of the 30th

Armored Division until February 1969. Mott worked tirelessly

as Adjutant General, a post he would hold until 26 May 1971,

during a period of intense civil unrest. He was released from

the Tennessee Army National Guard on 31 May 1971 and

worked for the National Guard Directorate until retiring from

the Tennessee National Guard in November 1975.

In tribute to Major General Mott, the United States Army

Engineer School, located at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri,

named the Bachelor Officer’s Quarters building “Mott Hall” in

his honor. The building showcases a portrait of Mott with an

impressive display of his World War II exploits.

Major General Hugh B. Mott died in June 2005 at the age of

84, after spending more than 33 years in the service of his

country. Tennessee Guardsmen remember Mott as a

courageous patriot who always led from the front. His commitment to duty as a Soldier, public servant, and human being

illustrated his impeccable character, limitless courage, and

stalwart commitment to his country, Tennessee, and his fellow

man.

Note: The Tennessee National Guard recently broke

ground on the new Mott Armory at the Tennessee National

Guard State Headquarters in Nashville.

Captain Haas, the Command Historian for the Tennessee

Army National Guard, is Commander of the 269th Military

Police Company. He previously commanded Detachment 1,

267th Military Police Company, and deployed to Iraq as

platoon leader of the 267th. He has been mobilized for

Hurricane Katrina relief, Galatin tornado relief, and a

southwest border mission and spent five years as a United

States Navy rescue swimmer. He holds a bachelor’s in history

from the Tennessee Technological University.

“...Mott was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the

commendation citing his ‘unhesitating action and cool courage’

amid intense enemy fire aimed directly at him.”
October-December 2006 Engineer 51

Transition From ARTEP MTPs to CATS. The U.S.

Army is in the final phase of transitioning from using the

Army Training and Evaluation Program (ARTEP) mission

training plans (MTPs) as a collective training tool to using

the combined arms training strategy (CATS). A CATS is

a unit training strategy which, as an entity, takes the

entire training planning process from the cradle to the

grave. A CATS is developed from a unit’s base table of

organization and equipment (TOE) and Department of the

Army-approved mission statement. They are designed

using the crawl-walk-run training model. Commanders will

make the final determination as to which tasks should be

trained and at what level the training should begin, since

they will know their unit’s training status. Included in CATS

are the required training resources such as Class III and

Class V materials and training aids, devices, simulators,

and simulations (TADSS).

The current ARTEP MTPs that are located on the

Reimer Digital Library (RDL) are scheduled to be removed

Engineer Dog Handlers Needed! The Engineer

Canine Detachment Program continues to grow. Exceptional military occupational specialty (MOS) 21B

combat engineers are needed to become dog handlers

and work as part of a Specialized Search Dog (SSD) or

Mine Detection Dog (MDD) Team. Our Canine Detachments are a major part of the theater commander’s

counter improvised explosive device (IED) measures. The

Engineer Regiment is constantly responding to increased

requirements for dog teams in support of Operation Iraqi

Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom commanders.

Interested 21Bs in the rank of specialist through sergeant

must be physically and mentally capable of deploying

and working independently for maneuver commanders.

Handlers must be mature, articulate, assertive, and selfmotivated Soldiers who have no fear of dogs. Initial

screening for interested Soldiers will be conducted

telephonically. The names of potential candidates will be

forwarded to the Human Resources Command Engineer

Branch for assignment consideration.

The points of contact are <bernard.a.westover@us.

army.mil> (573) 544-6266 or <robert.p.reed@us.army.

mil> (573) 563-5910.

from the RDL in February 2007. Once this is complete,

all CATS will be located on Army Knowledge Online (AKO)

on their own dedicated page. The planned end state is

movement of CATS to the Digital Training Management

System (DTMS) once it is fully fielded. Additionally, the

Collective Training Division of the United States Army

Engineer School developed a Web site on the Engineer

Portal which will also have links to CATS and files available

for download. The following links will take you to the AKO

CATS site and to the Engineer Portal.

AKO CATS Link: <https://www.us.army.mil/suite/portal/

index.jsp>

Engineer Portal Link: <https://www.mwu.army.mil/portal/

eng/index.php>

The point of contact at the Engineer School Collective

Training Division is <joseph.toth1@us.army.mil> or call

(573) 563-7821.

Engineer Update

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

Center for Engineer Lessons Learned (CELL). The

United States Army Engineer School CELL needs your

help. To keep training, doctrine, and combat developments

current and to prepare for the future, it is critical that the

school continuously receive relevant engineer observations, insights, and lessons (OIL). The CELL can derive

information from a variety of sources: unit after-action

reports (AARs); tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP)

used by units in and returning from theater; Soldier

observations/submissions to the Engineer School; and

requests for information (RFIs). This information is used

to conduct doctrine, organization, training, materiel,

leadership and education, personnel, and facilities

(DOTMLPF) gap analyses and to determine solutions.

These solutions are distributed to the Engineer Regiment

via new doctrine and training products, Engineer (The

Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers) and other

publications, and Web sites and by answering RFIs. (The

Engineer School RFI Web site provides the Engineer

Regiment a reachback capability.) You can help by

forwarding any of these materials from your unit’s

deployment to the CELL. Unclassified information can be

sent to <Doctrine.Engineer@wood.army.mil>. Classified

information can be sent by secure Internet protocol, routed

(SIPR) e-mail to <reginald.snodgrass@us.army.smil.mil>.

The point of contact is <reggie.snodgrass@us.

army.mil> or call (573) 563-6121.
SACRIFICES FOR FREEDOM

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM III

94th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy)

535th Engineer Company (Combat Support Equipment)

“WOLVERINES!”

January 2005 - January 2006

Mosul, Iraq

This hand-drawn charcoal illustration was commissioned to commemorate the accomplishments of the 94th Engineer

Battalion and the 535th Engineer Company during Operation Iraqi Freedom III. The focal point of the print is Sergeant

Eric Schei, one of the Wolverine Warriors wounded in combat.

The artist, Staff Sergeant Carlos Arguello, is currently stationed at Fort Stewart, Georgia. This is his second

commissioned print to commemorate units deployed in support of the Global War on Terrorism. His first print represented

the 3d Brigade Combat Team/1st Infantry Division’s deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom II.

The print was unveiled on 27 October 2006 at the Fiftieth Anniversary Celebration of the Fort Leonard Wood

Mid-Missouri Chapter of the Association of the United States Army (AUSA).

Proceeds generated by print sales will go to the Fort Leonard Wood AUSA Wounded Soldier Fund. For more

information, call (573) 329-2377.