Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is published three times a 

year by the U.S. Army Engineer School and the MSCoE 

G-37 Publications, 464 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 2661, Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8926. 

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Engineer 

Professional Bulletin, 464 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 2661, 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8926.

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) 563-4137, 

DSN 676-4137; e-mail address: <leon.engineer@conus

.army.mil>; Internet home page: <http://www.wood.army

.mil/engrmag/default.htm>.

DISCLAIMER: The objectives of Engineer are to inform, motivate, increase knowledge, improve performance, and provide a forum for the exchange of ideas. 

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. The 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 

$24.00 ($33.60 foreign) per year by contacting the U.S. 

Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, 

Missouri 63197-9000.

ADDRESS CHANGES for personal subscriptions 

should be sent to the Superintendent of Documents, 

P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, Missouri 63197-9000.

By Order of the Secretary of the Army:

MARTIN E. DEMPSEY

General, United States Army

Chief of Staff

Official:

JOYCE E. MORROW

Administrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army

1123401

U.S. Army Engineer School

573-XXX-XXXX/DSN 676-XXXX (563 prefix)

COMMANDANT

BG Duke DeLuca

563-6192

<peter.deluca@us.army.mil>

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

COL Fabian E. Mendoza, Jr.

563-6192

<fabian.mendoza@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY COMMANDANT

Mr. James R. Rowan

563-8080

<james.rowan@us.army.mil>

REGIMENTAL COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR

CSM Terrence W. Murphy

563-8060

<terrence.murphy@us.army.mil>

REGIMENTAL CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER

CW5 Scott R. Owens

563-4088

<scott.owens@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–USAR

COL Adam S. Roth 

563-8045

<adam.roth@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–ARNG

LTC Michael S. Mismash 

563-8046

<michael.mismash@us.army.mil>

CHIEF OF STAFF

LTC Jose L. Aguilar

563-7116

<jose.aguilar@us.army.mil>

COMMANDER, 1ST ENGINEER BRIGADE

COL Allan Webster

596-0224, DSN 581-0224

<allan.webster@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND LEADER DEVELOPMENT

COL Daniel S. Larson

563-4093

<daniel.larson@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION

Mr. Robert F. Danner

563-2845

<robert.f.danner@us.army.mil>

COUNTER EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS CENTER

LTC Chris Barron 

563-8142

<chris.barron@us.army.mil>

HUMANITARIAN DEMINING TRAINING CENTER

Mr. Jonathan D. Green

563-6199

<jonathan.d.green@us.army.mil>

ENGINEER DOCTRINE, MSCoE CDID, CODDD

MAJ Sinlan Morrow

563-2717

<sinlan.morrow@us.army.mil>

MANEUVER SUPPORT ORGANIZATION

LTC Danielle Ngo

563-6282

<danielle.ngo@us.army.mil>

MANEUVER SUPPORT MATERIEL

LTC Chris A. Parks

563-5055

<chris.parks1@us.army.mil>

or 581-XXXX (596 prefix)
E R

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

By Brigadier General 

Duke Deluca

03 Lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major

Terrence W. Murphy

04 Show the Way

By Chief Warrant Officer Five

Scott R. Owens9

MANAGING EDITOR

Diane E. Eidson

EDITOR

Rick Brunk

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Jennifer Morgan

COMMANDANT

Brigadier General Duke DeLuca

FEATURES

06 Professional Certification of Army Engineer Officers

By Major Kelcey R. Shaw

08 Activating the 42d Clearance Company

By Captain Michael C. Bradwick

12 18th Engineer Brigade Validated for Afghanistan Deployment

By Captain Kathryn A. Werbeck

16 Common Ground: Advanced Geospatial Analytics

By Major Christopher I. Eastburg

20 Gem of a Beach Sparkles After Restoration

 By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

22 No Mystery at Plum Island

 By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

25 Rebuilding a Maintenance Program After Deployment

By Major Andrew N. Liffring, Second Lieutenant Tyler M. Holloway,

and Chief Warrant Officer Four John R. Cheek

28 Ice Bridging in Alaska: Arctic Engineering at Its Finest

 By First Lieutenant Collin W. Russell and Lieutenant Colonel

Marc F. Hoffmeister

32 Clear Your Mind to Clear the Way: Mental Preparation

By Major Travis S. Tilman, Dr. Ken Ravizza, and Dr. Traci Statler

36 Fort Belvoir’s Engineer Replacement Training Center

By Mr. Gustav Person

Volume 41 PB 5-11-3 Headquarters, Department of the Army September–December 2011

NGINEE

U.S. ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers

September–December 2011 Engineer 1

Front cover: U.S. Army photos. Clockwise from top: A Soldier seals gaps in 

sheet metal roofing during the Engineering 

Civic Action Program portion of Exercise Khaan Quest 2011 in Ulaanbaatar, 

Mongolia; A U.S. Army Reserve Soldier 

provides security and ground-guides 

his fellow engineer near the river where 

Soldiers are building a bridge in northeast 

Baghdad; Soldiers from the 19th Engineer Battalion react to simulated rocketpropelled grenade attacks at Zussman 

Urban Combat Training Center during their 

recent platoon certification exercise.

Back cover: U.S. Army photos. Clockwise from top: Sapper Soldiers board a 

mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicle 

during a combat training exercise at Camp 

Atterbury, Joint Maneuver Training Center; 

an Army engineer diver prepares for a 

surface dive; Puerto Rico Army National 

Guard Citizen-Soldiers from the 190th 

Engineer Battalion prepare to clear heavy 

debris from local roads after Tropical 

Storm Irene passed over Puerto Rico; a 

Soldier uses a torch to free a section of 

improved rafting bridge on the Tigris River 

near Sharquat, Iraq.

15 The Engineer Writer’s Guide

24 Dedication

24 Fallen Engineers Memorial

Unveiled

Inside Back Cover

News From USACE

By U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers
c

2 Engineer September–December 2011

 

Clear the Way 

Brigadier General Duke DeLuca

Commandant, U.S. Army Engineer School

I

t is not possible for me to briefly convey 

the honor, pride, excitement, and enthusiasm that I feel on being selected as 

the commandant of the U.S. Army Engineer 

School. I will work very hard every day to 

live up to this special trust and responsibility. This column is one way that I hope to 

communicate with the Engineer Regiment 

and the larger Army and joint engineer communities. There will be other mechanisms to 

make sure of this interaction so that the Engineer School is acting in real time on the 

most important engineer issues and challenges of the day. Let me emphasize that 

the views in this column are my own and do 

not necessarily express the official policy of 

the Army or Department of Defense. I am 

convinced that the health and vigor of our 

community require blunt and open talk, 

disciplined by careful thought and analysis. I hope to enable 

and encourage the wider joint engineer community to make

Engineer a forum for lively debate on the possible solutions to 

our many challenges, welcoming ideas from all sources.

The demands of war have already put the Engineer Regiment through a period of tremendous transformation and transition, and this will continue due to the continuing conflicts we 

will wage and the need to adjust to a more affordable military 

strategy and posture. We have some extraordinary opportunities to influence the changes needed in our Army and its support to the joint and coalition forces that will remain in contact 

as far into the future as we can see, executing a unique blend 

of war-waging activities unlike any era in the past. 

I believe that the primary strategic task is to prevent 

the emergence of any coalition of factions and nations that 

threaten our Nation’s survival and prosperity. The primacy of 

that task and the global environment will cause us to wage 

continuous irregular wars in cyberspace and on the electromagnetic spectrum. These will be accompanied by global 

counterterrorism efforts and deep economic, political, and

sociocultural competition. Periodic military expeditions will be 

mounted globally to shape conditions in a more favorable way 

for our Nation and its interests and to maintain our ability 

to use the global maritime and aerospace commons with total 

freedom and security. 

This primary task, conditions around the world, and our 

actual and potential adversaries and competitors allow us to 

know several of the “Five Ws and One H” (who, what, when, 

where, why, and how) of our threats. While we do not know 

the who, when, and why with certainty, we can see the what

and how of our threats. This allows us to focus better on the 

capabilities that we need in the Engineer Regiment, across all 

components in the Army. The tactics, techniques, and strategies that we have faced in our two most recent wars show 

us the direction. Our most powerful emerging peer competitor 

and other potential adversaries have developed strategies that 

do not involve fighting the United States 

in the open, which is a fool’s errand guaranteeing massive destruction and defeat. 

Instead, they are fighting asymmetrically 

in real physical space and in cyberspace, 

comprising a hybrid threat. The conflicts we 

are fighting—and will fight over the next

generation—share a number of characteristics that have significant meaning for how 

we must continue to change our Engineer 

Regiment. I call our persistent conflicts 

of the coming generation “these kinds of 

wars,” for lack of a better name and in homage to former engineer platoon sergeant and 

author T.R. Fehrenbach. 

These kinds of wars have certain characteristics in which engineers play a central 

role. There are many implications to our 

doctrine, organization, training, materiel, 

leadership and education, personnel, and facilities; I will expand on those implications in future Clear the Way columns 

and other articles. 

First, our expeditions must win three important campaigns, 

or battles, simultaneously:

■ The Battle for Roads and Bridges.

■ The Battle for the Population.

■ The Battle for Sovereignty. 

Engineers are central to each of them. Second, we will be engaged in continuous contact in quasi war on the electromagnetic spectrum and in cyberspace. Third, we will conduct 

continuous global counterterrorism operations using special 

operations and other forces. Are our engineer forces adapted 

sufficiently to support these contingencies? 

The concept of “full spectrum operations” began to approach 

the mind-set that we need, but it is still tied to the old, irredeemably incorrect idea of war as a spectrum—it isn’t. Army Doctrine 

Publication (ADP) 3-0, Unified Land Operations,1 now reflects 

the fact that operations are executed through decisive action—

offense, defense, and stability and defense support to civil

authorities—by means of the Army’s core competencies of combined arms maneuver and wide-area security, guided by mission 

command. Decisive action does not mean continuing to plan, 

train, and develop a force to fight Krasnovians in the Whale Gap 

at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California.

There is one additional battle that is critical to victory 

in all wars—the reconnaissance-counterreconnaissance 

battle. Throughout history, the force that wins this battle 

wins the actual battle. Counter improvised explosive device operations—as well as geospatial information systems 

and intelligence, engineer preparation of the theater, and 

new skills in theater of operation base camp and combat 

outpost development—are part of the reconnaissancecounterreconnaissance battle. (Continued on page 5)
September–December 2011 Engineer 3

Lead the Way 

Command Sergeant Major Terrence W. Murphy

U.S. Army Engineer School

As the regiment makes adjustments 

based on lessons learned during 

.the last 10 years, the backbone of 

our Army is rapidly adjusting to support 

these improvements. This requires engaged 

NCOs at all levels. Junior NCOs should 

continue to provide the lessons learned to 

leaders and develop their training with the 

latest doctrinal tools. Senior NCOs must 

stay engaged in the multiple forums available to collect, disseminate, and process information in order to give our commandant 

relevant and timely input as he makes decisions for the Engineer Regiment.

New MOS 12A

Recently, the Engineer Regiment 

determined that general engineering supervisors (military occupational specialty [MOS] 

12X) and combat engineering senior sergeants (MOS 12Z) in 

pay grade E-9 should be able to compete for command sergeant 

major billets across all engineer battalions and brigades. As 

a result of this analysis, the Department of the Army is establishing the enlisted MOS 12A—engineer senior sergeant—

in the pay grade of E-9. All MOS 12X and 12Z positions and 

personnel in that pay grade will be reclassified to MOS 12A. 

Command sergeants major and staff sergeants major will be 

identified by additional skill identifiers on all modified tables 

of organization and equipment.

Promotion Board Guidance

Beginning with fiscal year 2012, enlisted centralized selection board members will use the updated Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-25, U.S. Army Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Guide,

1

 and a 

formal memorandum of instruction for professional development guidance for the engineer career field. Now, NCOs assigned as instructors/writers will have the same consideration 

as NCOs assigned as drill sergeants and recruiters. This will 

attract the best and brightest NCOs from operational units 

to serve as instructors/writers for a minimum of 24 months. 

An additional change is key leadership time for staff sergeant 

and sergeant first class positions. NCOs who have acquired 18 

months of successful key leadership time, coupled with one of 

the noted special assignments within their MOSs, will be considered exceptionally qualified for promotion.

Critical-Task/Site Selection Boards

The Army’s peacetime mission is to prepare for war. 

This requires Army leaders to attain and sustain high 

standards of combat readiness through tough, combined 

arms training. It also requires that 

training to be task-based, performanceoriented, horizontally and vertically 

aligned, and as realistic as possible. One 

way to achieve this is through an effective 

critical-task/site selection board. The Army 

can’t achieve proficiency on every task; 

therefore, those tasks that are essential to 

accomplishing the organization’s wartime 

mission must be identified and trained. 

Any Soldier may be called on to serve as a 

critical-task selection board (CTSB) member for a particular MOS. CTSB membership is an opportunity to ensure that tasks 

identified as critical are actually critical for 

a particular MOS.

Evaluation and change impact and 

drive critical-task analysis throughout the 

life of training. External and internal evaluations ensure that 

training complies with regulations; and evaluations measure 

the ability of Soldiers, leaders, and units to perform against 

Army training standards. Soldiers have to live with the results 

of a CTSB, so it’s imperative that they develop an accurate 

task inventory for their MOS. The CTSB process begins with 

job analysis by subject matter experts who recommend individual tasks to be approved as “critical.” Convening a board is the 

culmination of the job analysis phase of training development. 

Job analysis is complete when critical tasks are identified and 

approved by the training proponent commandant, agency commander, or agency commander’s designated representative.

Sapper Leader Additional Skill Identifier

I

n the 1980s, combat engineers—especially those associated with light forces—were referred to as sappers. Although 

the term was not reflected on tables of organization and 

equipment, it was consistently applied to combat engineers 

who performed the roles historically associated with sappers. 

The development of the Sapper Leader Course strengthened 

the use of the name. The Chief of Engineers, the commandant 

of the U.S. Army Engineer School, and the engineer regimental command sergeant major, in conjunction with U.S. Army 

Forces Command, recognized a need to track individuals who 

receive this valuable leadership training. Therefore, key positions such as platoon sergeants and platoon leaders in route 

clearance and mobility augmentation companies are being coded with a skill identifier for Sapper Leader Course attendance. 

Additional positions are squad leaders, platoon sergeants, and 

platoon leaders within the infantry, Stryker, and heavy brigade combat teams. Other positions that require the skill are 

those such as observer/controller and sapper leader instructor.

(Continued on page 5)
Chief Warrant Officer Five Scott R. Owens

Regimental Chief Warrant Officer 

Show the Way 

4 Engineer September–December 2011

I

am honored to be taking the helm from 

Chief Warrant Officer Five Robert K. 

Lamphear as he departs for his new 

assignment as the chief warrant officer advisor, Combined Arms Center, Center for 

Army Leadership, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. I’ve been fortunate to have worked 

with him these past few years and can testify to the great job he did as the Regimental Chief Warrant Officer. He made it look 

easy, but that’s just because he is a professional. As the first engineer Regimental 

Chief Warrant Officer, he established the 

standard for what that person should be. 

I owe him a debt of gratitude for leaving 

me a first-class operation, and I wish him

success in his new assignment.

My biography is available on the U.S. Army Engineer School homepage at <http://www.wood.army.mil

/wood_cms/195.shtml>, so I will forgo the details of my history. In summary, I’ve served as a geospatial engineering

technician—military occupational specialty (MOS) 125D—in 

a variety of assignments at division, corps, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Army, joint, and combined levels.

I must admit that in all those years in the field, I never ran 

across a construction engineering technician—MOS 120A—

and had no idea that the MOS even existed before attending 

the Warrant Officer Advanced Course here at Fort Leonard 

Wood in 1999. That’s when I met Chief Warrant Officer Five 

(then Chief Warrant Officer Three) Tom Black and discovered 

that the engineer warrant officer family was larger than I 

thought. I attribute my lack of knowledge of construction engineering technicians to two things:

■ Geospatial engineering technicians work in the headquarters of brigade combat teams and above, while construction engineering technicians work in a variety of

units and installations. The two MOSs rarely cross paths. 

■ Geospatial engineer training has been segregated from

the rest of the Regiment because it’s conducted by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency at Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia. 

At least one of those things is about to change. As of January 2012, the warrant officer basic course for geospatial engineering technicians will be conducted here at Fort Leonard 

Wood, with geospatial engineer (MOS 12Y) training for enlisted Soldiers and noncommissioned officers and the rest of 

the MOS 125D warrant officer courses to follow throughout 

fiscal years 2012 and 2013. The U.S. Army Engineer School 

Directorate of Training and Leader Development, the 1st Engineer Brigade, the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

Noncommissioned Officer Academy, and the 

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 

are working together to make this transition 

as smooth as possible. Nevertheless, it will 

be challenging and stressful since courses 

will be conducted at both locations until the 

move is complete. Relocating geospatial engineer training will provide opportunities 

for construction engineering technicians 

and geospatial engineering technicians to 

foster lasting relationships, enabling us to 

better understand each other’s role in the 

Regiment and the services we provide the 

Army. Just as importantly, it will reinforce 

the U.S. Army Engineer School campaign 

plan of having combat, general, and geospatial engineering overlap and support each 

other—three disciplines in one Regiment focused on delivering capabilities that enable the Army mission.

I’ve had a few weeks to settle into this position, and I am 

having a great time. I especially enjoy the opportunity to expand my breadth of contacts, not just in the Regular Army but 

in the U.S. Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserves as 

well; and I am honored to serve and represent the warrant officers of the Regiment. I have met and corresponded with several 

senior reserve component leaders and many Soldiers about opportunities for becoming an engineer warrant officer. The enthusiasm of these people and the people I work with at the U.S. 

Army Engineer School is contagious, and that enthusiasm is 

one of the things that makes this such a rewarding experience.

As I ponder the challenges we have ahead as an Army and 

as a profession, I’d like to share my personal philosophy. First, 

I love being an Army engineer! As an engineer, I view physical, bureaucratic, or any other challenge to the mission as 

something to assess, overcome, or mitigate by going through, 

over, under, or around. Second, teamwork is crucial. I’ve been 

blessed to have worked with great Soldiers and Civilians over 

the years. The same holds true here. We have a great team; 

and to paraphrase Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp, 52d Chief of Engineers, I get to work with them.

Finally, do what’s right. Most people follow that mantra; 

but at times, conflict can arise when what appears right for 

one isn’t necessarily right for the whole. We must never forget 

that we exist to serve the Army, and sometimes that means 

making decisions which may be perceived as negative for the 

Regiment. This will become even more evident as the Army 

continues to draw down.

Until we meet again, stay safe. Essayons et Faissons!

For information about how to become an engineer warrant officer, log on to the U.S. Army Recruiting Web site at 

<http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant>.
September–December 2011 Engineer 5

Command Sergeant Major–

Objective Rally Point

The Engineer Regiment is vast and diverse, with thousands of engineer leaders who have years of experience conducting combat, combat support, sustainment, and 

nation-building operations across the globe. Social networking allows us to pool knowledge resources as a regiment. 

The CSM-ORP at <https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups

/csms-orp> is filled with active duty and retired NCOs who 

mentor, share experiences, voice opinions, and stay current 

on changes that affect the Engineer Regiment and the Army. 

The CSM-ORP is a valuable asset for the engineer leader 

who seeks to network, provide feedback, or get an answer 

to a question. When challenged with a daunting task, check 

the CSM-ORP. Perhaps fellow engineers have encountered 

a similar situation and can point out resources or information that can help. I value your input and will often solicit 

opinions from the field. This is our Engineer Regiment, and 

together we can accomplish any task. Do not stay silent.

I invite you to sign in and join the CSM-ORP. 

Lead to Serve! Essayons!

Endnote:

1

Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-25, U.S. Army 

Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Guide, 

28 July 2008.

(Lead the Way, continued from page 3)

The Army has grappled with this challenge in a less-thanfocused way over the past decade. The concepts of “networkcentric warfare” and “information dominance” were incomplete and disorganized attempts to deal with this challenge. 

Other things reflecting a widespread need to address this (but 

in an uncoordinated and unsynchronized effort) are seen in—

■ The migration of signal intelligence, measurement and

signatures intelligence, human intelligence, and geospatial intelligence capabilities from their previous perch

at the strategic level into the tactical force.

■ The new capabilities of Task Force ODIN (observe, detect,

identify, and neutralize), still inappropriately organized

and embedded in the force.

■ The migration of command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities from strategic control to tactical formations.

■ The introduction of biometric collection and databases

available to tactical units for querying and analysis.

■ The migration of electronic warfare into the most basic tactical units and operations.

■ The introduction of new tools for tactical access to strategic

intelligence and operations databases.

Have we adapted the Engineer Regiment adequately to 

win this battle?

Obviously, I have some strong views on the nature of war 

and our threats; but everyone must know up front that I am 

open-minded and enjoy debate. Out of debate comes increased 

understanding and more comprehensive and disciplined analysis. I look forward to the interaction, creativity, and debate 

within the team at the Engineer School and in the Engineer 

Regiment. 

I am forever grateful to join the talented Engineer School 

team and grateful that I follow Brigadier General Bryan G. 

Watson into the commandant’s role. He completed a difficult 

task and set the conditions to move the Engineer Regiment to 

meet the demands of the Army of 2020. I commend his phenomenal leadership and strategic outlook. I’ll aggressively 

work to meet our objectives and will build on the excellent 

plan and momentum that he and the team have established.

A word on one of these achievements—the brigade engineer battalion: Many of you have seen the effects of

modularity on our force: command and control issues, insufficient engineer forces at the brigade combat team level, the 

wrong mix of capabilities. Brigadier General Watson kept this 

as his Number 1 priority and worked it for more than 2 years 

through the force design update process. This issue has been 

worked at the Department of the Army level, and it is embedded in the Army Campaign Plan. The brigade engineer battalion is heavily endorsed by Army senior leaders, who have felt 

the absence of the right engineers, organized and embedded 

correctly in their deployed forces. I expect a favorable final decision at the conclusion of the Total Army Analysis 14-18 process.

My last thought for this article is that the training audience we have in the Engineer School has changed dramatically over the past decade. This is due to the slightly different learning styles of the first truly digital generation and to 

the tremendous experience in the current force as a result of 

a decade of war. Have we changed our methods enough in 

the Engineer School and the Army to exploit and address 

these changes? In recognition of this need to adapt, we will 

make changes in how we operate. The U.S. Army Training 

and Doctrine Command is also embarking on a process called 

The Army Learning Concept 2015, a learnercentric, university approach to initial military training such as the Engineer

Basic Officer Leader Course, Warrant Officer Basic Course, 

and professional military education, such as the Engineer 

Captains Career Course and Warrant Officer Advanced 

Course. More on this in the future.

Recently, Brigadier General (Promotable) Mark W. Yenter 

assumed command of the Maneuver Support Center of

Excellence here at Fort Leonard Wood. He has returned from 

Afghanistan, where he served as our senior engineer. He has 

my congratulations and will have my dedicated support as he 

shapes the future of the combat enablers. I’m humbled and 

extremely proud to be your new commandant. I look forward 

to serving all three components of our “One Army” and offering the best engineer support to our forces, particularly 

those forces that will remain in contact for the next generation. Together we will add to the greatness and rich history 

of the Engineer Regiment that has led the way in war and 

peace for this Nation.

Essayons!

Endnote:

1

ADP 3-0, Unified Land Operation, 10 October 2011.

(Clear the Way, continued from page 2)
6 Engineer September–December 2011

Professional Certification of Army

Engineer Officers

Sixty-eight years ago, FM 21-105 used these words 

to describe the skills that Army engineers were 

expected to bring to battle and the obligations they 

needed to fulfill when serving maneuver commanders at all 

echelons. Now Army engineers are faced with the challenge 

of applying the same skills on a modern battlefield, after 10 

years of conflict. These challenges require answers to three 

questions: 

■ What changes to the Officer Education System must be

made to develop future leaders?

■ What is the role of professional certification for the 

Army engineer officer? 

■ How does the Army engineer officer remain relevant

in the joint, interagency, intergovernmental, multinational, industrial, and academic environment?

ENFORCE 2011 addressed these questions and engaged 

in the hard debates to ensure that the Engineer Regiment 

leads innovation and that Army engineers remain relevant 

in all formations.

■ What changes to the Officer Education System

 must be made to develop future leaders? Never before

has the need for engineers on the battlefield been greater. 

The demand that engineer leaders—especially at junior 

levels (company and below)—be able to plan and think in

combination is constantly increasing. Platoon leaders

and platoon sergeants are being asked to be as adept 

at route clearance as they are at vertical construction. 

The demand for a diverse set of knowledge, skills, and

abilities is driving a departure from the “one size fits all” 

education system that many engineers are accustomed

to and comfortable with from past experience.

The Engineer Captains Career Course is leading the 

exodus away from the familiar to meet the needs of the force. 

The Army Learning Concept 2015 and its implementation 

process for the Officer Education System—the Midgrade 

Learning Continuum 2015—is how it is being done. This is a 

new approach that will require a paradigm shift in the way 

that the Army community views professional development. 

The days of attending brick-and-mortar schools for a 

predetermined period are gone. Learning must now be 

seen as an iterative, lifelong process that is customized 

to individual needs but grounded in basic principles and 

Professional Certification of Army 

Engineer Officers

You are going to make sure that our own troops move ahead against all opposition, and you are going to see to it that 

enemy obstacles do not interfere with our advance. . . . You will build, tear down, and fight better than any other soldier in 

the world because you will be an American engineer. 

—Field Manual (FM) 21-105, Engineer Soldier’s Handbook 

2 June 1943

By Major Kelcey R. Shaw

presented with sufficient rigor to provide engineer officers 

with the tools required to serve the maneuver force.

The U.S. Army Engineer School’s approach to this 

new education model is called Engineer University. This 

redesigned approach follows a university model, using 

“tracks” and “elective specialization” and, like a university, 

providing a tailored learning experience. This gives the 

student and the Regiment greater input to training and 

education outcomes and supports the objectives of the 

Army Learning Concept 2015. 

The ultimate goal of Engineer University—to borrow 

the model of the Army engineer profession propounded by 

Brigadier General Bryan G. Watson (former commandant 

of the U.S. Army Engineer School)—is to train, educate, 

and certify experts with the right skills. This enables 

the development of leaders adept in applied engineering. 

Leaders, applied engineering, and certify experts are key 

terms. The Regiment has always counted remarkable 

leaders among its ranks. The balance between sound 

design and the expediency required by combat to meet 

the maneuver commander’s intent is the hallmark of 

military engineering and describes how engineering has 

been applied to serve the Nation through all its conflicts. 

Certifying experts through professional registration and 

certification is where new efforts must be focused.

■ What is the role of professional certification for

the Army engineer officer? Now that we are willing 

and able to challenge the status quo on how to teach, the 

next step is to ask what to teach. The professional 

engineer (PE) license has long been the mark of excellence 

and competence for military and civilian engineers. In 

addition to the PE license, Engineer University will offer 

several certification options, enabling engineer officers to 

gain and show competences and validating them in the 

joint community. Officers can and should pursue options

such as attendance at the Joint Engineer Operations

Course and certification as project management professional (PMP), certified facilities manager, or certified contract manager. 

There are challenges to the widespread acceptance of 

a new approach to engineer officer certification. There are 

few certifications tied to skill identifiers and even fewer 

assignments coded for officers possessing a particular 
September–December 2011 Engineer 7

skill identifier. This breeds an attitude that professional 

registration is not required and that the lack of it will 

not hinder progression or promotion. This must change 

if the Regiment wants junior leaders to continually seek 

broad, relevant professional development. At a minimum, professional certifications allow for the instant 

recognition of skills that add value to an organization. 

Professional certifications also show tangible evidence of 

an officer’s willingness to invest intellectual capital in selfdevelopment. The Regiment wants officers who are willing 

to invest in themselves and in the profession and those who 

are willing to seek out the hard jobs. The best jobs should be 

linked to certifications in order to attract the best officers. 

■ How does the Army engineer officer remain relevant 

in today’s joint, interagency, intergovernmental, 

multinational, industrial, and academic environment? In an era of increasing partnership with 

sister Services, government agencies, and allied 

partners, there is a need to demonstrate the Army

engineer’s relevance. The U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force 

require their engineer officers, including architects, 

to hold engineering degrees. They tie advancement, 

promotions, and assignments to requirements for 

professional registration. Therefore, when a Navy or Air 

Force engineer officer walks into a joint billet, it 

is assured that the officer is a degreed engineer and 

a registered professional engineer. It is entirely possible

that the officer will also be warranted as a contracting 

officer or have extensive facilities management experience. These traits, found throughout the engineer 

ranks in those Services, cultivate recognition of their 

technical competence. What does the Army offer?

It is well known and accepted in the joint engineer community that Army engineers are experts at planning and 

the military decisionmaking process and that they are the 

best engineer officers to plan, lead, command, and organize 

chaos. This is where the Army truly adds value to joint 

organizations. The Army has engineer officers who are 

adaptive, broadly educated masters of project management. 

They are the portland cement that allows aggregate and 

water to form concrete. Army engineer officers provide the 

leadership and management required to leverage technical 

competencies against problems.

Leadership and technical competence are required for 

success as an engineer officer. The Army has perfected its 

craft in producing the world’s greatest leaders, and its sister 

Services are proficient at developing technical expertise. In 

the joint environment, the marriage of these skills defines 

the joint professional military engineer. Many ENFORCE 

2011 participants believed that this blending should become the new and preeminent certification for which all 

military engineers should strive.

In order for it to work, each Service would have to use its 

core competencies as the baseline for the certification. The 

Army would probably rely heavily on its officers receiving 

PMP certification. This would be instant recognition of 

the management skills that Army engineers are already 

known to have. Combined with the Joint Engineer Operations Course and other experiences such as facilities 

management or contracting, the certification might be 

sufficient for qualification as a joint professional military 

engineer. A PE certification would always be a path to 

that qualification and would be the preferred path for 

Navy and Air Force engineers. Since the Army does not 

require all engineer officers to hold engineer degrees, it 

can’t rely solely on the PE certification as an expression 

of engineer officer quality. It is expressly this diversity of 

backgrounds that makes Army engineers the generalists 

needed to coordinate efforts and solve complex problems. 

Using several paths (such as PE, PMP, or certified contract 

manager certification) leverages the broad nature of the 

Regiment and gives all Army engineer officers the ability 

to contribute to the joint fight.

The Department of Instruction at the U.S. Army 

Engineer School, in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District, has already 

started to make this happen. Department of Instruction 

personnel attended a PMP examination preparation course 

hosted by the Kansas City District office. This put Soldiers 

in a learning environment with USACE civilian employees, 

building a bridge between the Regiment and USACE. 

The training was extremely successful and led to Soldiers 

receiving the PMP certification. This proof of principle 

was repeated at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, with a 

combination of U.S. Army Engineer School, Department 

of Instruction, and USACE personnel training together to 

strengthen the bond between the Regiment and USACE.

Engineers are asked to build, tear down, and fight; this 

will not change. But the way leaders are educated to meet 

these demands will change. New educational philosophies 

and technologies—experiential learning, webinars, social 

media, social networks—must be paired with tailored 

curricula to produce the broad, adaptive engineer leaders 

of the future. Army engineer officers must lead the charge 

toward increased professional certification to maintain the 

confidence of the joint force as its finest leaders, planners, 

and managers. The Regiment and USACE will need each 

other more than ever to meet the demands of the force. 

The drive toward certification must ultimately lead to a 

new joint professional military engineer certification that 

garners instant recognition as the “total package” engineer 

for the officer possessing it. This total package engineer 

officer will be the one expected to plan operations, leverage 

joint engineer resources, and command diverse formations 

to support the maneuver commander at any echelon.

Major Shaw is a small-group instructor at the U.S. Army 

Engineer School. He holds a bachelor’s degree in aerospace 

engineering from Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Alabama, 

and a master’s degree in engineering management from the 

University of Missouri–Rolla (now Missouri University of 

Science and Technology). He is a certified project management 

professional.

Endnote:

1

FM 21-105, Engineer Soldier’s Handbook, 2 June 1943.
8 Engineer 36 Engineer September–December 2011 May-August 2010

By Captain Michael C. Bradwick

On 6 January 2010 at Warner Barracks in Bamberg, 

Germany, a platoon sergeant and an assistant 

operations officer received assignments as the 

initial first sergeant and commander of the newest company 

in the U.S. Army Engineer Regiment—the 42d Clearance 

Company. With an activation date of 16 February 2010, the 

race began to gather as much information as possible and 

establish the company footprint at the Warner Barracks 

garrison.

What Should Have Happened

While still maintaining jobs in their respective companies, the two leaders found time to plan theestablishment of the 42d Clearance Company 

within the 54th Engineer Battalion. Without the unit’s official modified table of organization and equipment, the leaders used a standard clearance company table to determine 

what resources the unit would need. To help plan and control the activation, the leaders used numerous key documents 

and tracking mechanisms that all activating units should 

create or obtain and revise from other activating units.

 The first document created, the “Company Milestones 

Tracker,” contained the key tasks and goals required 

to become a fully functioning company. It included corresponding task suspense dates for all staff sections within 

the battalion headquarters. Examples included— 

■ Activating the company’s unit identification code.

■ Determining a location for the unit’s arms room, 

barracks, office space, motor park, and motor pool.

■ Fielding the Property Book Unit Supply Enhanced 

System and Standard Army Maintenance System–

Enhanced.

■ Establishing supply and maintenance accounts.

■ Procuring the unit guidon.

Other documents created to expedite and track the 

activation process included forward-thinking flowcharts, 

decision point models, and the initial long-term training 

calendar.

To meet the key tasks for activating the unit, senior 

leaders in the battalion advocated “leaders before 

Soldiers” through video teleconferences with higher-unit 

personnel sections. The interim commander and first 

sergeant advocated taking a conditions-based approach 

and establishing a focal group of eight leaders before the 

company’s arrival. A conditions-based approach allowed 

the leaders to manage the fight without worrying about 

the overwhelming problems that could ensue if numerous 

Soldiers and equipment arrived en masse. Emplacing eight 

leaders before the arrival of the unit’s junior Soldiers would 

allow a smooth transition. The command team insisted on 

having these eight initial leaders: 

■ Company commander.

■ Executive officer.

■ First sergeant.

■ Operations sergeant.

■ Motor sergeant.

■ Supply sergeant.

■ Armorer.

■ Maintenance clerk.

If these eight leaders arrived before the remainder of 

the company’s Soldiers, the company could theoretically 
September-December 2011 Engineer 9

build from the company’s garrison footprint, establish 

internal systems, and create an initial training plan based 

on the arrival of platoon leaders, platoon sergeants, squad 

leaders, and Soldiers.

The window of opportunity to establish the company’s 

systems, garrison footprint, and training plan required 

2 to 3 months. For example, the motor sergeant, supply 

sergeant, and maintenance clerk needed time to establish 

their maintenance and supply systems to allow the 

company to receive equipment. Ideally, the company would 

then receive the platoon leaders, platoon sergeants, and 

midlevel leaders, along with a moderate number of Soldiers 

to receive equipment and perform the various work details 

that arise in building a new company. Once equipment 

arrived, the supply sergeant would sign the equipment 

down to sub-hand receipt holders or band, seal, and store 

the equipment until those leaders arrived. Having subhand receipt holders on site would allow the company to set 

up its command supply discipline program earlier rather 

than later. Most supply sergeants and leaders would argue 

that this option is preferable.

What Actually Happened

General George S. Patton said, “A good plan violently 

executed now is better than a perfect plan executed 

next week.” As in most military operations, time 

was a vital asset during the activation and an 80 percent 

solution executed sooner was better than a 100 percent 

solution executed later. Events transpired differently 

than the interim command team envisioned. On its 

activation date, the 42d Clearance Company’s leadership 

team included just five of the eight leaders identified as 

critical. From that date, the team had only about 20 days 

before the Department of the Army’s Human Resources 

Command began sending Soldiers to the company. Most 

of them were recent graduates of advanced individual 

training (AIT). Along with the influx of new Soldiers, they 

also sent reclassified noncommissioned officers who had 

graduated from the same AIT course as the Soldiers they 

would eventually lead. During their window of opportunity, 

the interim commander, first sergeant, and motor sergeant 

effectively emplaced plans for the company’s barracks, 

office space, motor pool, motor park, initial long-term 

training plan, and training calendar.

As Soldiers arrived over the next 2 months, the company 

became established and the command gave it additional 

barracks and office space. The company’s housing situation 

became a delicate balancing act as the installation found 

Family housing and barracks space for the new Soldiers. 

In the end, everyone had a place to live and work. Just 

6 weeks after the company’s activation, its numbers 

increased to more than 110 of the 190 Soldiers authorized, 

with only eight leaders in the rank of sergeant or higher. 

Cohort manning such as this, coupled with a high Soldierto-leader ratio, dramatically affected the quality of initial 

training and the integration of the Soldiers’ Families. The 

first two staff sergeants in the 42d Clearance Company 

each led platoons of 40 to 50 Soldiers during the first

2 months after activation. The command normally assigns 

staff sergeants as squad leaders, in charge of eight-Soldier 

squads. The unit’s sponsorship program quickly eroded 

as Soldiers arrived to the unit too quickly for the Soldiers 

already in-processed to sponsor them. For a new company 

to effectively integrate and sponsor incoming Soldiers and 

Families, numerous knowledgeable leaders must arrive 

and in-process first. The Human Resources Command 

should assign Soldiers to the new unit slowly enough that 

the command can establish a core of personnel to sponsor 

new arrivals. Without these necessary steps, the unit will 

experience poor integration of the Army’s most valuable 

resource—its Soldiers and their Families.

Despite the initial lack of key leaders, the 42d Clearance 

Company pressed forward with its initial goals and 

individual training timeline. Field Manual 7-0, Training 

for Full Spectrum Operations,1 outlines the Army Force 

Generation force pools of “RESET,” “train/ready,” and 

“available.” Because the company’s mission in combat 

is route and area clearance, its leaders felt pressure to 

activate, train, and deploy as quickly as possible. An 

activating company would thus fall into a modified path 

toward deployment. RESET—limited to 6 months for 

redeploying units—must be adjusted accordingly for newly 

formed units to receive personnel and equipment and 

conduct individual training.

During the first few months of activation, the 42d 

Clearance Company received few vehicles to begin driver 

A medic in the 42d Clearance Company plays the role of 

prisoner during 54th Engineer Battalion training.
10 Engineer September–December 2011

training, but did receive some individual and protective 

equipment, such as weapons, night vision devices, optics, 

and protective masks. This equipment is vital to the initial 

individual training phase that a unit presses through upon 

return from a deployed theater of operations. The company 

received much of its equipment in the latter stages of 

activation, and the early lack of equipment created training 

challenges. The company’s final training difficulties 

stemmed from the Army’s failure to field route and area 

clearance companies with the equipment they require. To 

train on this equipment, clearance company Soldiers must 

deploy to training centers (such as the National Training 

Center at Fort Irwin, California, or the Joint Multinational 

Readiness Center at Hohenfels, Germany) or attend 

training (such as the route reconnaissance and clearance 

courses at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri). Commanders 

must develop plans to overcome this training obstacle.

By summer 2010, the 42d Clearance Company finally 

looked like a company in RESET. The unit still struggled 

with several key personnel issues, but was moving toward 

“train/ready.” The company’s Soldier-to-leader ratio remained imbalanced; but in the first 4 months of activation, 

the unit, leaders, and Soldiers learned many new aspects 

of team building, along with the difficulties and benefits

of activating a unit.

Difficulties in Unit Activation

Several difficulties come with activating a new 

company. While every new unit is different, many 

similarities exist. First, all activating units must 

conduct Family and Soldier integration. Great units have 

systems in place for the reception and integration of new 

Soldiers. Without a Family readiness group, this task is 

the responsibility of the few unit leaders. Managing an 

effective sponsorship program should remain a top priority 

in terms of integration. Second, all new units must build 

and maintain systems. Creating systems from the ground 

up is a challenging task, but does not necessarily need to be 

accomplished alone. For example, all units should forge and 

maintain bonds with sister units. These relationships can 

result in quid pro quo arrangements that benefit everyone. 

Bonds with sister companies within the battalion helped 

the 42d Clearance Company establish administrative and 

operational tracking systems. Once the 42d had matured, 

it would return the favor to those companies in the form of 

weapons ranges, shared training events, and assistance in 

work details.

Other difficulties the 42d Clearance Company experienced included the arrival of new and relatively 

inexperienced Soldiers, the late arrival of key leaders and 

experienced noncommissioned officers, and the late arrival 

of equipment for individual training. These problems 

affected the first few months of initial training. Sending 

leaders before Soldiers should remain a priority for activating units.

Benefits of Unit Activation

There are positive aspects of activating a new unit. 

Most Soldiers will attest that building a company 

and leaving behind a legacy remains a highlight 

of their careers. The ability to positively affect and take 

ownership of the work environment is an experience 

unavailable in other rigid, existing organizations.

This leads right into the next benefit with activating 

a new unit—unique developmental opportunities. While 

A team leader in the 42d Clearance Company trains Soldiers on the Husky vehicle–mounted mine detector 

during a situational training exercise.
September–December 2011 Engineer 11

rigid, existing organizations sometimes operate with a 

very top-down approach, an activating unit can foster 

bottom-up feedback, as witnessed by the Soldiers in the 

42d Clearance Company. Because senior leaders arrived 

later in the activation process, midlevel and junior leaders 

had more input than normal. These same midlevel leaders 

acquired a hidden benefit in receiving an abundance of new 

Soldiers at one time—the ability to train inexperienced, 

new Soldiers. Because inexperienced Soldiers are more 

likely to be attentive to new ideas and training, leaders 

taught and enforced new fundamentals without the burden 

of bad habits from previous units. The 42d Clearance 

Company ensured that key leaders understood and executed proper training management as they developed 

training plans. For example, the first sergeant ensured 

that all noncommissioned officers established standardized 

counseling packets and performed monthly performance 

counseling to standard. 

Additionally, all leaders enforced troop leading procedures during the training events. The first sergeant 

established precombat checks and inspection standards 

for individuals, equipment, teams, and specific mission 

requirements. An initial company objective was to ensure 

that leaders and Soldiers knew the proper way to run 

training meetings, conduct counseling, and perform mission 

preparation. In all of these areas, the new company reaped 

the benefits of having Soldiers who lacked bad habits from 

earlier assignments.

Finally, the increased responsibility and stress 

placed on junior leaders produced a long-term benefit 

in increased operational knowledge and a strengthened 

support structure within the company. Because every 

leader in the 42d Clearance Company understood and 

served in positions one to two pay grades above their 

true grades, support channels were in place by the time 

the actual leadership arrived. As leaders arrived, the 

situation simply improved because junior leaders already 

understood the stresses and responsibilities that leaders 

experience daily. The result was a support network capable 

of accomplishing complex missions without constant 

guidance and oversight.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Anew unit requires the fielding of an initial core or 

nucleus of critical leaders. The interim command 

.team initially believed that a group of eight key 

leaders should be in place before the arrival of Soldiers. 

Immediately after the interim command team assumed 

their permanent roles as executive officer and platoon 

sergeant, they added the recommendation that platoon 

leaders and platoon sergeants be in place before the arrival 

of Soldiers. The addition of four platoon leaders and four 

platoon sergeants, for an initial key group of sixteen 

leaders, would have lessened the burden on the initial 

eight leaders. Based on this revised proposal of 16 key 

leaders, the 42d Clearance Company received only five—or

31 percent—of them. A lesson learned from the experiences 

of the first two squad leaders—who were each in charge 

of 40 to 50 Soldiers—was that having sufficient platoon 

leaders and platoon sergeants would have been a great 

help. New Soldiers from AIT need structure, and since 

Soldier in-processing is best handled by platoon leaders, 

platoon sergeants, and squad leaders, these leaders should 

be in place before Soldiers arrive at the unit. 

If the activating unit cannot realistically expect such 

leaders to be assigned in a timely manner, then crossleveling skills and leaders with higher headquarters 

should be at the forefront of the plan. Cross-leveling 

leaders eases many of the problems associated with 

building the team, integrating new Soldiers, and 

establishing the unit’s footprint on an installation. 

Incorporating leaders from higher or adjacent units into 

the activating unit smoothes the initial learning curve 

associated with specific standing operating procedures 

within the headquarters and in the community. Also, 

integrating experienced specialists into an activating 

unit should remain a consideration, since they can provide 

guidance for Soldiers fresh from AIT. 

Also, the Army should field equipment during the second 

to third month of activation. Thus, in the 42d Clearance 

Company’s situation, equipment would have arrived after 

the initial 16 leaders arrived and established the garrison 

footprint, which included the motor pool, motor park, and 

supply and maintenance systems. Sending equipment to 

the leaders of an activating unit before the arrival of junior 

Soldiers allows the supply sergeant time to sign equipment 

down to sub-hand receipt holders. It also allows individual 

training to begin when the Soldiers newly arrived from AIT 

complete in-processing. After the unit footprint, leadership, 

and equipment are either established or emplaced, then 

the Soldiers should arrive.

Finally, a schedule based on conditions, rather than 

time, should decide the way forward for an activating 

unit. If the command cannot meet certain conditions, the 

activation should be delayed to avoid overburdening the 

leaders on the ground. The fielding of the 42d Clearance 

Company occurred in a cohort manner with Soldiers 

arriving from AIT lacking some basic skills and training. 

Driver training should be incorporated into basic or 

AIT, since it would relieve the gaining unit of responsibility for standing up a driver training program before

the arrival of vehicles and qualified trainers. If units 

only needed to conduct Soldier road tests on vehicles, 

Soldiers could contribute to the company’s overall mission

much sooner.

Captain Bradwick graduated from the U.S. Military 

Academy at West Point in 2007. He was tasked with 

temporarily commanding and standing up the 42d 

Clearance Company before taking over as company executive 

officer. Captain Bradwick then served in Afghanistan as a 

liaison officer in Regional Command–East. He is currently 

at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, attending the Engineer 

Captains Career Course.
12 Engineer September–December 2011

The 18th Engineer Brigade headquarters in Schwetzingen, Germany, completed its validation exercise in February 2011 for deployment to Afghanistan 

later in the year. The headquarters would deploy off-cycle 

from its subordinate units, requiring additional coordination throughout the staff to prepare and execute training 

for the various levels within the brigade. When the brigade 

arrived in theater, it would be responsible for supporting 

Regional Commands–East, –North, and –Capital with engineering efforts.

To become validated for deployment, the brigade developed an aim point model to lay out the exercise objectives 

for each crawl-walk-run-validate phase of training, with 

deployment as the end state. Although the initial objectives were based on the mission-essential task list, the 

staff learned to use the Combined Arms Training Strategy 

and Battle Command Knowledge System to identify tasks 

and subtasks for each objective. Staff sections also identified section-focused tasks based on the initial training 

objectives. At the after action review for training events, 

each subtask training level was identified as trained, 

needs practice, or untrained and the way ahead was noted, giving a consistent and logical approach to planning

future training.

Crawl Phase

I

n September 2010, the staff participated in a battle 

command seminar (BCS) for the crawl phase of deployment preparation. Members of the Battle Command 

Training Program (BCTP) Operations Group Foxtrot went 

to Schwetzingen to lead a series of workshops for the brigade staff. In preparing for the BCTP, the brigade developed a list of topics that the staff would initially conduct 

as internal professional development workshops, then interact with various staff sections during the BCTP seminar, and carry that knowledge into theater. Remaining on 

course with the aim point would keep the brigade on its 

glide path to deploy fully trained and on time. 

Discussion topics led by BCTP included the operational 

environment and battle command from Field Manual (FM) 

3-0, Operations; knowledge management from FM 6-0, 

Mission Command: Command and Control of Army Forces; 

battle staff synchronization, the military decisionmaking 

process, rapid decisionmaking, and the synchronization 

process from FM 5-0, The Operations Process; and targeting from FM 3-60, The Targeting Process.

In discussing knowledge management, the staff interacted with the commander to understand the best way to 

transfer the knowledge the commander would need to make 

decisions. This was based on the cognitive hierarchy, which 

became a focal point for brigade briefings to the commander 

throughout the trainup. While having data and trackers is 

essential, data must be transformed into information and 

later into knowledge so that the brigade can maintain a 

holistic picture of operations.

Several members of the 372d Engineer Brigade who 

were redeploying from Afghanistan also attended the BCS. 

Their knowledge of the battlefield and current practices 

tied into the seminars and brought the first glimpse of the 

deployment to the BCS. At the brigade level, they suggested having a budget section and as many personnel trained 

as contracting officer representatives as possible. This 

amounted to the need for additional personnel and training. Another advantage for the staff was the BCTP’s continued involvement in the deployment process, as instructors 

continued to teach and mentor the staff to the completion 

of the validation exercise. At the validation exercise, the 

BCTP drew from the original aim point to tailor training 

events specifically to the brigade.

Walk Phase

I

n October 2010, the unit set up a deployable rapid assembly shelter to simulate a deployed environment 

and give the staff the opportunity to execute a staff 

exercise. In addition to the topics addressed in the BCS, the 

staff added skills, including—

■ Army Battle Command Systems.

■ Decisionmaking.

■ Common operational picture (COP) management.

■ Significant activity (SIGACT) management.

■ Battle rhythm management.

■ Battle drills.

By Captain Kathryn A. Werback
September–December 2011 Engineer 13

During this exercise, the staff moved from PowerPoint®-

based briefings to Command Post of the Future (CPOF) 

to centralize information and generate the brigade commander’s update brief. Having the information for that 

brief on the CPOF was the first step in generating the COP. 

Because units would be located throughout northeastern 

Afghanistan, and because it was a necessary tool for staff 

planning, the COP had to be accessible from any location. 

As the COP was developed further in the training, it would 

become a tool for mission analysis. During the walk phase, 

creating overlays, understanding the system, and populating it with data were the first steps toward a comprehensive COP. Soldiers and leaders alike received training on 

the CPOF to create initial products for the COP.

With the transition from PowerPoint to CPOF, the staff 

experienced growing difficulties with transforming their 

data into knowledge for the COP and the commander’s update brief. By the end of the exercise, data was refined so 

that information was being briefed. This met the goal set 

in the aim point model of teaching the staff to acquire and 

process data so that it could be transformed into information and knowledge before being briefed to the commander, 

enabling the commander to make informed decisions. The 

ultimate goal of transferring knowledge—one step up from 

information—would be refined after the exercise so that 

the brigade could easily move into tracking combat operations when deployed.

Run Phase

The final training event before the validation exercise 

was a tactical operations center exercise in November 2010 at Grafenwoehr Training Area. New exercise objectives included—

■ Operational environment.

■ Theater command and control structure.

■ Request for information management.

■ Commander’s critical information requirement

management.

Although the staff had previously generated CPOF material, returning to daily operations had also caused a return to PowerPoint. By the close of the exercise, the staff 

had created a living document in CPOF, which could be 

updated by any staff section as information arrived. In this 

manner, the COP had up-to-date information for any recent SIGACT, projected for all to view in the tactical operations center.

This exercise was the first opportunity for the staff to 

react to events on the battlefield. All training “injects”—

reality-based scenarios designed to force the staff to adapt 

to new situations—were initiated by a designated “white 

cell” of exercise controllers, giving staff members a chance 

to interact with very limited outside units. This required 

Cognitive hierarchy

Judgment–A purely human skill that 

is based on experience, expertise, 

and intuition.

Cognition–The act of learning, of integrating from various pieces of information–

allows commanders and 

staffs to generate knowledge.

Processing–Includes 

filtering, fusing, formatting, organizing, collating, correlating, plotting, 

translating, categorizing, 

and arranging.

Decision

Understanding

Knowledge

Information

Data

■ Knowledge that has been synthesized and had 

judgment applied to it in a specific situation to 

comprehend the situation’s inner relationships.

■ Information analyzed to provide

meaning and value or evaluated as to 

implications for the operation.

■ Data that has been processed

to provide further meaning.

■ The lowest level of information in the cognitive hierarchy. Data is rarely useful

until it is processed to give

it meaning.

From FM 6-0, Mission Command: 

Command and Control of Army Forces
14 Engineer September–December 2011

staff members to manage SIGACTs and requests for information and to set the stage for other staff activities, such 

as fragmentary order management. The standing operating procedure at the brigade tactical operations center was 

put to use in response to SIGACTs. Walking through the 

battle drills in response to SIGACTs required the staff to 

begin exercising cohesively. Different sections realized the 

need to overlap in order to cover all requirements. Later, 

during the validation exercise, the staff would not only execute the battle drills, but would also refine them toward 

current operations.

Although the rapid decisionmaking and synchronization process had been discussed at the BCS, this event was 

the first opportunity to practice it during an operational 

event. The process gave the staff a tool to make a quick 

and informed decision versus the military decisionmaking 

process, which produces optimal decisions but is a much 

deeper and longer process. When time is important, producing a good decision and enabling troops on the ground to 

execute in a timely manner becomes more important than 

finding the perfect solution but allowing no time to execute 

it. As the staff became aware of the value of time, rapid 

decisionmaking gained in importance to produce an order 

and initiate movement.

The staff also focused on developing the initial commander’s critical information requirement. This requirement would develop throughout the remainder of the 

exercises as the brigade pulled data from existing commander and theater critical information requirements, 

following the basic concept of keeping only those things 

that the commander would need for decisionmaking. During the exercise, staff sections in various locations worked 

to improve communication with each other. This trend 

would continue through the validation exercise as the staff 

trained on CPOF with different types of group communications software.

Validate Phase

The validation exercise—Unified Endeavor (UE) 

11-2—took place in January and February 2011 

at Fort Hood, Texas, alongside the future Regional 

Command–East team, the 1st Cavalry Division. During 

the exercise, relationships grew between the brigade and 

the cavalry, the future members of Task Force Lafayette 

(which would operate in several provinces of Regional

Command–East). Creating the link between the staffs 

would allow smoother transitions once arriving in theater 

because dialogue was already open.

Additional training objectives for UE included—

■ Force protection.

■ Information operations.

■ Fragmentary order management.

■ Boards, bureaus, centers, cells, and working groups.

■ Information management.

The initial push of the exercise was to generate the engineer campaign support plan through the military decisionmaking process. Although this facet of the exercise trained 

the staff on that process, the real success occurred once 

the campaign plan was disseminated throughout the staff. 

The final product enabled Soldiers to quickly grasp the brigade’s downrange focus. Additional value was gained from 

learning how to use the Central Command Regional Intelligence Exchange System (CENTRIX)—a network separate 

from the U.S.-only secret platform, which was designed 

to transfer sensitive information between North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization allies—and from understanding the 

community stabilization programs for the current engineer 

brigade and regional commands. 

From the stabilization program, a “Commander’s Card” 

was developed. This one-page slide showed the task organization and the brigade’s mission, intent, lines of effort, 

and shaping and sustaining operations. Not only did this 

give a quick reference to the staff, but anyone briefing outside units could do so in a comprehensive and understandable manner. This training exercise was the first that had 

CENTRIX access and worked with units that the brigade 

would work with in theater. The coordination required by 

the training established a firm base for all levels to communicate and learn from one another. The systems at UE, 

including the CENTRIX network with CPOFs, allowed the 

staff to use SharePointTM (a Web site that allows files to be 

posted, checked out, and modified and allows information 

to be managed more effectively across the brigade). Staff 

sections based away from the main body could access upto-date information via CPOF, tie in to working groups, 

and update their information for the main body to see. 

The transfer of information using SharePoint and CPOF 

expanded to the point that it was knowledge management 

instead of simply data and information saved on individual computers. 

CENTRIX accessibility was augmented with the arrival 

from Afghanistan of the 176th Engineer Brigade, which the 

18th Engineer Brigade would replace. The addition of the 

operations officer and International Security Assistance 

Force Joint Command liaison officer helped the brigade 

understand current operations and the systems that staff 

members could now link with online. Access to CENTRIX 

allowed research into various portals and gave personnel 

a firm grasp of current operations during training. Seeing 

and working with real-world data helped the staff grasp 

what the brigade would be doing in theater.

By the end of the exercise, the brigade could display a 

COP with pertinent overlays and running estimates that 

would allow operations to be executed in a leader’s absence. In its progress from crawl to validate, the brigade 

had steadily developed its targeting process as a means 

to direct operations. Although the result might not have 

been direct fire, the decide-detect-deliver-assess concept 

had been applied to the brigade’s method of deciding which 

projects or route clearance routes would have priority and 

what support would be needed. As the brigade reassesses 

its campaign plan, this process will allocate Soldier effort 
September–December 2011 Engineer 15

in construction and combat, resulting in a comprehensive 

engineer plan for northeastern Afghanistan.

At the close of the exercise, sections exported their products and processes. Some will be used in Germany, while 

others—such as the COP—will be trained on and taken to 

Afghanistan. 

Conclusions and Recommendations

Returning to doctrine is the key for success. This 

ranges from such basics as ensuring the proper use 

of doctrinal terms and graphics all the way to embracing targeting as a means of prioritizing brigade operations. Using an aim point model and fleshing out training 

objectives allowed the staff to gain knowledge and experience to the point of validation. Using and building on the 

original training objectives enabled a comprehensive approach to validation. Also, the brigade can look back and 

see all the steps required for deployment. After the primary 

training exercises were complete, the staff continued to 

train on areas highlighted in after action reviews. As the 

brigade learned during validation, not everyone had developed the same base of information, and information is a perishable commodity. The staff had to amend its operations 

to ensure that lessons learned from UE were integrated 

into their daily operations in preparation for deployment. 

Because CENTRIX connectivity in Germany is limited, 

daily operations there will not be based on that program. 

And although there will not be a CPOF in every section, the 

use of SharePoint and other products developed at UE will 

make the transition to theater much smoother.

Captain Werback is the 18th Engineer Brigade public 

affairs officer, currently deployed in support of Operation 

Enduring Freedom. A graduate of the Engineer Captains 

Career Course, she holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the University of California, Davis, and a 

master’s degree in engineering management from Missouri 

University of Science and Technology at Rolla.

References:

FM 3-0, Operations, 27 February 2008. (Editor’s note: 

Army Doctrine Publications (ADP) 3-0, Unified Land

Operations, 10 October 2011 supercedes FM 3-0.)

FM 3-60, The Targeting Process, 26 November 2010.

FM 5-0, The Operations Process, 26 March 2010.

FM 6-0, Mission Command: Command and Control of 

Army Forces, 11 August 2003.

Engineer is a professional-development bulletin designed to 

provide a forum for exchanging information and ideas within the 

Army engineer community. We include articles by and about officers, enlisted Soldiers, warrant officers, Department of the Army 

civilian employees, and others. Writers may discuss training, current operations and exercises, doctrine, equipment, history, personal viewpoints, or other areas of general interest to engineers. 

Articles may share good ideas and lessons learned or explore 

better ways of doing things.

Articles should be concise, straightforward, and in the active 

voice. If they contain attributable information or quotations not 

referenced in the text, provide appropriate endnotes. Text length 

should not exceed 2,000 words (about eight double-spaced 

pages). Shorter after action type articles and reviews of books on 

engineer topics are also welcome.

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

illustrate information in the article. Please do not include illustrations or photographs in the text; instead, send each of them as a 

separate file. Do not embed photographs in PowerPoint®. If illustrations are in PowerPoint, avoid the excessive use of color and 

shading. Save digital images at a resolution no lower than 200 dpi. 

Images copied from a Web site must be accompanied by copyright

permission.

Provide a short paragraph that summarizes the content of the

article. Also include a short biography (full name, rank, current

unit and job title and education) your mailing address, a fax 

number, and a commercial daytime telephone number.

Articles submitted to Engineer must be accompanied by a 

written release by the author’s unit or activity security manager 

prior to publication. All information contained in the article must 

be unclassified, nonsensitive, and releasable to the public. Engineer is distributed to military units worldwide and is also available

for sale by the Government Printing Office. As such, it is readily accessible to nongovernment and foreign individuals and

organizations.

We cannot guarantee that we will publish all submitted articles. They are accepted for publication only after thorough review. 

If we plan to use your article in an upcoming issue, we will notify 

you. Therefore, it is important to keep us informed of changes in 

your e-mail address and telephone number. All articles accepted 

for publication are subject to grammatical and structural changes 

as well as editing for style.

Send submissions in Microsoft Word® by e-mail to <leon

.engineer@conus.army.mil> or on a CD, along with a doublespaced copy of the manuscript, to Managing Editor, Engineer Professional Bulletin, 464 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 2661, Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri 65473-8926.

Note: Please indicate if your manuscript is being considered 

for publication elsewhere. Due to the limited space per issue, we 

usually do not print articles that have been accepted for publication by other Army publications or Web sites.

The Engineer Writer’s Guide
16 Engineer September–December 2011

I

t seems that mobile device applications exist for 

nearly everything now. The genius behind application 

development is in reducing a complex action to 

essential information. Geospatial terrain reasoning for 

military operations will transfer into mobile devices down 

to the platform level via a National Geospatial-Intelligence 

Agency program known as the Commercial Joint Mapping 

Toolkit (CJMTK). 

The Army Geospatial Center at Alexandria, Virginia, 

is the technical manager for a joint capabilities technology 

demonstration called Common Ground (CG). A joint 

technology demonstration is a program that the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense uses to manage technological solutions 

and concepts within a 2- to 3-year time frame. Participants 

in CG include representatives from government, academia, 

industry, and the military.

The CJMTK integrates the best geospatial tools of 

government, academia, industry, and the military into a 

single architecture that is made available for programs of 

record. Geospatial tools continue to evolve at a breakneck 

pace. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency absorbs about 500 terabytes of data monthly. Computer 

processing times keep improving; the volume of data 

keeps increasing; software keeps growing in capability 

and complexity; the Army keeps getting more networked; 

and military organizations keep becoming more joint and 

multinational, involving more Department of Defense and 

other federal agencies. 

Management of the common operational picture 

continues to evolve with technology. First, there was the 

analog common operational picture, consisting of hard 

copy maps mounted on a standard tactical operations 

center board. Next, stand-alone computers were added to 

augment the tactical operations center board. The state 

of the art today consists of stand-alone systems connected 

to a local area network. As network capabilities increase, 

mission command systems will continue to move toward 

a more service-oriented architecture. CJMTK facilitates 

the ability of algorithms to uncover relevant geospatial 

products “hidden” in terabytes of data and transfer the 

necessary information to the platform level. 

Early in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Army did not 

have geospatial technicians below the division level in 

the legacy divisions (although the Force XXI divisions 

did). Resourced only with the Digital Topographic Support System, a chief warrant officer two, and several 

well-trained Soldiers, it was not possible for the division 

terrain team to leverage its capabilities across the entire 

division. As with the Force XXI model, terrain teams were 

pushed to the brigade combat team level. The best tools 

for terrain analysis and collaboration should not stop with 

a headquarters staff. Company commanders and battalion 

staffs should be able to bring the best tools to their fight 

since intelligence gathering is predominately a bottom-up 

endeavor in counterinsurgency operations. Many company 

commanders, particularly of maneuver units, create a 

company intelligence support team that is not on the 

modified table of organization and equipment so that it 

can generate, manage, and analyze human and geospatial 

information. 

Common Ground and Advanced 

Geospatial Analytics

CG seeks to move geospatial capabilities further into 

the realm of command and control. The objective 

of the architecture and resulting software is a 

shared understanding (doctrine; geospatial information; 

and tactics, techniques, and procedures) among American, 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and coalition nation 

forces. To understand CG, the architecture must be divided 

into four dimensions: 

By Major Christopher I. Eastburg
May-August 2010 September–December 2011 Engineer 37 Engineer 17

■ Tactical spatial objects (TSOs). Analytical, geospatial objects extracted from terrain feature data 

and described in tactical terms that directly support the

planning and execution of military operations.

■ Engineered knowledge. A database of tasks and 

capabilities by unit, echelon, service, and nation. It 

can be seen as the intersection of an Army Training

and Evaluation Program exercise, doctrine, and a 

Wikipedia®-like database.

■ Digital orders. The Army performs a lot of analog 

planning using digital systems. Although collaborative

techniques are improving with the use of SharePointTM

and formal knowledge management programs, Army

systems will increasingly communicate with digital

planning objects instead of e-mail.

■ CJMTK. This tool facilitates a discovery and dissemination service that will find the appropriate 

geospatial data and then push the relevant tools to the 

user. For example, a Soldier using a smartphone

application would be able to search through 100 terabytes of data, but only receive the information needed 

for the problem at hand. 

Each of the four dimensions is relevant to increasing 

the efficiency of the military decisionmaking process and 

current operations, particularly in joint and coalition 

environments. The rest of this article focuses primarily on 

TSOs and their utility for mission command in geospatially 

complex environments such as Afghanistan. One might 

also think of TSOs as a combination of automated feature 

extraction algorithms and advanced geospatial decision 

support tools. 

Battlespace Training Reasoning and Awareness–Battle 

Command is a project that focuses on developing software 

algorithms that capture integrated terrain and weather 

effects to provide predictive analysis tools. These tools are 

essentially automated geospatial “staff estimates.” Their 

ultimate objective is to empower commanders, staffs, and 

Soldiers by providing them with processed information 

that allows them to understand and incorporate quicker 

geospatial reasoning into all processes. The purpose of the 

TSO is not to replace humans with automation in regard to 

the geospatial dimension of mission command, but to allow 

commanders to evaluate geospatial variables more quickly. 

TSOs are extracted from vector terrain feature data 

such as the U.S. Army’s theater geospatial databases, from 

digital elevation models such as digital terrain elevation 

data, and from digital surface models derived from light 

detection and ranging technology. The terrain features are 

grouped, optimized, and analyzed to provide commanders 

and staffs with responsive terrain information, expressed 

in warfighter terms tailored to the mission and tasks. While 

TSOs may be produced by a variety of means, the general 

idea is to develop automated algorithms and request 

processes. These algorithms are capable of processing 

large amounts of terrain data in a rapid, consistent, and 

standardized manner. 

Geospatial data exists in huge quantities that require 

well-designed processes and tools to give the end user 

not only data, but also the ability to convert the data to 

information, to knowledge and, finally, to understanding. 

Contextual knowledge of geospatial products is essential 

for human or automated analysis. With the rapid production and dissemination of such tailored knowledge 

products, commanders and staffs can apply judgment much 

more quickly throughout all phases of the decisionmaking 

process and develop a thorough understanding of their 

operational situation.

“Foundational” TSOs are computed where there is a 

topographic expert with the massive data storage and 

analysis power to do comprehensive geospatial processing. 

Precursor products accomplish extensive computation up 

front to save time during the decisionmaking and execution 

processes. Traditional military aspects of terrain products 

are those commonly associated with the military aspects 

of terrain, or OAKOC (observation and fields of fire, 

avenues of approach, key terrain, obstacles, and cover 

and concealment). These products include, but are not 

limited to—

■ Area obstacles.

■ Choke points.

■ Concealment.

■ Cross-country mobility.

■ Fields of fire.

■ Linear water obstacles.

■ Linear land obstacles.

■ Mobility corridors.

■ Road networks.

An example of output for area obstacles is shown in 

Figure 1, page 18. Terrain is categorized as water, forest, 

steep slope, built-up area, marsh, or depression. It is 

important to note here that some TSOs (such as crosscountry mobility, mobility corridors, and choke points) 

contain vehicle type and unit size as parameters in their 

legends. They are still classified as foundational since 

computation does not require additional mission-specific 

information. 

Mission-specific TSOs include additional tactical 

information and the foundational terrain data. They are 

products suitable for a specific force or for multiple force 

types to perform well-defined military tasks consistent with 

a mission or objective. For example, routing algorithms 

require vehicle type and sector sketches require maximum 

effective ranges. Mission-specific TSOs can be further 

refined by the current situation through association to 

command, control, and intelligence information or by 

evaluation in the context of operational overlays. These 

products include, but are not limited to—

■ Attack positions.

■ Command post selection.
18 Engineer September–December 2011

quality, software, hardware, data storage, and training, 

as well as terrain analysis for niche products to support 

command priorities. Staff sections and subordinate commands should not have to task the geospatial engineer to 

leverage basic terrain analysis products.

It follows that advanced geospatial analytics should 

be included in software used in the engineer basic and 

career courses and other branches. Placing TSOs relevant 

to the Army Battle Command System software would 

also improve geospatial decisionmaking. Although it is 

the standard for real-time collaboration and common 

operational picture management, Command Post of the 

Future is geospatially deficient. Command Post of the 

Future is now CJMTK-compliant, which means that better 

geospatial analytics are within reach. These tool kits 

would facilitate real-time geospatial problem solving and 

improved deliberate planning. Although not very useful 

in Iraq, the HLZ screening algorithms could help identify 

potential landing zones for casualty evacuation in real time 

in remote Afghanistan. The omnidirectional route analysis 

could tell the Command Post of the Future operator how far 

insurgents could move a captured U.S. Soldier within 30 

minutes, which would be very useful for the identification 

of traffic control points while forming a hasty cordon. The 

Tactical Ground Reporting System is the primary system 

used for patrol planning at the platoon and company level. 

Company level leaders should have geospatial intelligence 

in the same software used for patrol planning. The route 

planning tools available within CJMTK are particularly 

applicable to the Tactical Ground Reporting System. 

Route planners should be able to see historical threat 

information, such as improvised explosive device blast sites 

and geospatial analysis, with the same software. 

■ Direct fire (battle) positions.

■ Helicopter landing zones (HLZs).

■ Indirect fire positions.

■ Line-of-sight analysis.

■ Maneuver route vulnerability.

■ River crossing.

■ Route analysis—omnidirectional and point to point.

An example of output for two TSOs is shown in Figures 

2 and 3. Omnidirectional route analysis defines regions 

that a vehicle could reach in time intervals such as 5, 10, or 

15 minutes. The HLZ function screens terrain for feasible 

landing zones and returns the size of the landing zone as 

well as the upslope. There are three types of output for 

foundational and mission-specific TSOs:

■ Graphic control measure (route).

■ Traditional overlay (linear obstacles or cross-country 

mobility).

■ Tactical decision aid (sector sketch, maneuver route

vulnerability, HLZ). 

Potential Applications

Terrain analysis is not simply a geospatial engineer 

team responsibility. Basic geospatial tools should 

be pushed down to the lowest useful level. Every 

Soldier should be able to perform basic terrain analysis, 

which is simply an updated definition of map reading, but 

with digital tools and data. As increased technology enables 

general access to geospatial understanding, geospatial engineer teams will naturally shift to more effort on data 

Figure 1. Area obstacles
September–December 2011 Engineer 19

 Conclusion

The combination of networks with high data storage and computational capabilities has opened the door for greater access to geospatial tools 

for all Soldiers. The Common Ground Joint Capability 

Technology Demonstration is bigger than just improved 

geospatial reasoning, but seeks to improve interoperability vertically and horizontally across the Department 

of Defense, supporting government agencies, and 

allies. By using the best of government and industry 

architecture, the CJMTK program will provide the 

necessary linkage to transition geospatial information 

into user platforms. Through thoughtful analysis, highvalue TSOs should be selected for inclusion into geospatial platforms and selected software applications across

the Army. 

Geospatial analytics support the military planning 

and intelligence processes by providing context to the 

visualization and understanding of the battlefield 

and conducting mission analysis and course-of-action 

development. No level of automation can replace human 

judgment. These geospatial tools simply allow commanders 

and staffs to understand the battlefield faster and, 

therefore, will increase decision space.

Major Eastburg is an analyst in the Operations Research 

Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New 

York, and recently crossed over from the Engineer Branch 

to operations research/systems analysis. He holds master’s 

degrees from the University of Missouri–Rolla (now 

Missouri University of Science and Technology) and the 

Georgia Institute of Technology.

Figure 3. HLZ screening

Figure 2. Omnidirectional route analysis
20 Engineer September–December 2011

Anthony Ciorra has many fond memories from his 

childhood in the 1970s of spending warm days at 

.Orchard Beach in the Bronx, New York, with his 

parents. Today, he is a professional engineer and chief of the 

Civil Works Branch for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE), New York District. Ciorra has been involved in 

the shoreline restoration project of Orchard Beach, one 

of several civil works projects performed by the district, 

and is proud to say he has played an important role in 

the restoration project. 

“Today, when I drive on the roads leading into the 

beach, I get a sense of nostalgia,” said Ciorra. “I start 

thinking back to when I was a child, but I also feel a 

sense of pride that I helped make this beach enjoyable.” 

The popular recreational beach is in a heavily 

populated urban area and serves approximately 2.5 

million visitors annually. Orchard Beach is located 

along the northeast shore of the Borough of the Bronx, 

at the western end of the Long Island Sound, a body 

of water between New York and Connecticut. The 

crescent-shaped beach is a mile long and 400 feet wide 

and considered the “gem” of Pelham Bay Park, New 

York City’s largest city park. There was a safety issue 

with overcrowding that prompted USACE to get the 

project completed expeditiously and safely for public use. 

The year 2011 marked the 75th anniversary of this historic 

beach, and its shoreline was eroding, reducing the size of 

the beach and resulting in overcrowding.

Ciorra said, “The elevation of the beach was so low that 

when the Long Island Sound moved in, you couldn’t keep 

Area map

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna
September–December 2011 Engineer 21

your blanket on the beach anymore. You had to move into 

other crowded areas. In addition, there were some steep 

drop-off or slope areas just off the shore that caused a few 

drownings.” 

USACE was asked by the New York City Department of 

Parks and Recreation to restore the beach. In October 2010, 

the organization began working 24-hour days to restore the 

beach for the 2011 season. It used a hopper dredge to get 

sand from a nearby channel and pump it onto the beach. 

The sand was then graded and smoothed out to extend 

the shoreline. Dredged sand was also used to fill in the 

dangerous drop-off area. In addition, USACE used 4,000 

tons of rock to repair a 200-foot section of the south groin, 

which was important because the groin aids in slowing 

down further beach erosion. The work was completed in

2 months—ahead of schedule and under budget.

More visitors were expected to visit the beach this 

year due to its increase in popularity. The beach includes 

a sandy beach area; a hexagonal-block promenade; a 

central pavilion with food stores and specialty shops; two 

playgrounds; two picnic areas; a large parking lot; and

26 courts for basketball, volleyball, and handball. It is 

easily accessible by public transportation, with plenty of 

parking for out-of-state visitors.

More people were expected to use their community 

beaches instead of going away on costly vacations this year. 

Once called the “Riviera of New York,” the artificial beach 

was constructed by the Works Progress Administration 

during the Great Depression. Under the direction of the 

New York City Department of 

Parks Commissioner, unemployed 

residents were hired to construct 

the beach to bolster the economy.

Ciorra said, “I’m certain that 

visitors are showing up at Orchard 

Beach for the first time since 

last summer and are seeing a 

significant change for the better. It 

feels good to be part of something 

where you know you made a 

difference, and it’s a project that 

is important to people because it’s 

being used by the public.”

Dr. Castagna is a technical 

writer-editor for the New York 

District of USACE. She can be 

reached at <joanne.castagna@usace

.army.mil>. Follow her on Twitter

at <http:twitter.com/writer4usace

nyc>. 

Aerial photos of Orchard Beach before (top) 

and after (bottom) the restoration project show 

USACE improvements.

The local community enjoys the newly restored Orchard Beach.

Engineers work to repair the beach.
22 Engineer September–December 2011

As a child growing up on Long Island, New York, I 

shared with many other children a curiosity about 

.what was occurring on the mysterious Plum Island, a restricted bit of land just off our northeastern shore. 

There were stories in the media and in books that the federal government was conducting animal experiments there. 

My vivid imagination envisioned bizarre operations being performed on animals, resulting in Frankenstein-like 

creatures which would then roam the barren beaches of 

the island on additional arms and legs. Ironically, I was 

reading Plum Island,1 a novel by Nelson DeMille, when I 

learned about the work that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), New York District, has been performing on 

the island for the past decade.

Plum Island has been the home of the Plum Island 

Animal Disease Center that’s been in existence since the

Aerial view of project area

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna
September–December 2011 Engineer 23

mid-20th century. The center 

has the important role of performing diagnosis, research, 

and education to protect America’s livestock and food supply 

from animal diseases. The work 

by USACE supports important 

work on the island, preserves 

the island’s rich history and environment, and improves area 

beaches. 

In 2001, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (proprietors of the site at the time) 

asked USACE to restore the 

eroding bluff around the island’s historic lighthouse. The 

Plum Island Light, built on 

a 3-acre plot on the western 

end of the island in 1869, is no 

longer operational. Engineers 

used 17,000 tons of stone to construct an 800-foot rock 

revetment erosion control structure to stop the erosion of 

the bluff. Leftover stone was used to rehabilitate two jetties at the entrance to Plum Island Basin. All of the stone 

for this work was beneficially reused material from the 

USACE Sag Harbor Breakwater rehabilitation project.

 In 2007, officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (current proprietors of the island) were so 

pleased with the Corps’ work that they asked USACE to 

replace a bulkhead and perform needed sand dredging in 

Plum Island Harbor, a body of water around the island, and 

Orient Harbor, a body of water on the northeastern end of 

Long Island. The dredging supports the important work being performed on the site and improves area beaches. The 

ferries that carry workers to the island were hitting the 

bottom of Plum Island Harbor; so in 2008, USACE dredged 

approximately 17,430 cubic yards of sand from Plum Island 

Harbor. This year, an additional 9,925 cubic yards were 

dredged to create and reinforce a previously constructed 

dune on the island and to build a sand stockpile for emergency use if the dune erodes. Restoring the dune protects a 

freshwater wetland on the island that serves as a recharge 

area for the main well field that supplies the island with all 

of its fresh water. 

The dune also acts as a barrier and prevents the 

ocean salt water from mixing with the wetland’s freshwater ecosystem. In 2008, 46,000 square feet of the dune 

were graded and planted with beach grass. This year, an 

additional 13,250 square feet were graded and planted. In 

addition, fencing was placed on the dune to help prevent 

sand erosion.

USACE also dredged approximately 14,835 cubic 

yards of sand from Orient Harbor, using this sand to 

restore two Long Island beaches—Orient Beach State 

Park and Orient Point County Park. There 

are plans to dredge an additional 10,000 cubic 

yards. These beaches need the sand because 

they experienced serious beach erosion from 

storms. The sand is being used to stabilize 

utility poles that were weakened and blown 

inward and to protect roadways that suffered 

erosion. The sand will also build up beaches, 

providing additional recreational area for the 

public during summer beach seasons.

Dr. Castagna is a technical writer-editor 

for the New York District of USACE. She can 

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

mil>. Follow her on Twitter at <http://twitter

.com/writer4usacenyc>.

Footnote:

1

Nelson DeMille, Plum Island, Grand Central Publishing, New York, New York, 1997.

Restored bulkhead on Plum Island

Sand dune seeded to protect island wetland
Dedication

The following members of the Engineer Regiment have been lost in overseas contingency operations since the last 

issue of Engineer. We dedicate this issue to them.

Corporal Raphael R. Arruda 744th Engineer Company, 54th Engineer Battalion, Tompkins Barracks, Germany

18th Engineer Brigade

Specialist Chazray C. Clark Troop B, 4th Squadron, 4th Cavalry, 1st Brigade Combat Team Fort Riley, Kansas 

Private First Class David A. Drake 515th Engineer Company, 5th Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

4th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade

Sergeant William B. GrossPaniagua Company A, 3d Brigade Special Troops Battalion Schofield Barracks, Hawaii

Specialist Steven E. Gutowski 515th Engineer Company, 5th Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

4th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade 

Staff Sergeant Nigel D. Kelly Company A, 3d Brigade Special Troops Battalion, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii

3d Brigade Combat Team 

First Lieutenant Ivan D. Lechowich 515th Engineer Company, 5th Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 

4th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade 

One of the highest priorities of the Army Engineer Association (AEA) is to recognize all Army engineers who have 

given their lives in the defense of the United States of America. Equally important is to recognize those engineers 

who received wounds in combat resulting in the award of the Purple Heart. AEA is accepting donations for the maintenance of the Memorial Wall for Fallen Engineers unveiled at the Sapper Grove at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri—

home of the Army Engineer Regiment—during the ENFORCE 2011 conference. To learn more, go to <http://www.army

engineer.com/memorial_wall.html>.

24 Engineer September–December 2011

Fallen Engineers Memorial Unveiled
September–December 2011 36 Engineer May-August 2010 Engineer 25

After returning from a 15-month deployment to 

Afghanistan, the 62d Engineer Battalion struggled 

.to reestablish a battalion maintenance program. 

Junior leaders were not engaged in the motor pools, 

money was being spent to maintain excess equipment, 

and low productivity in the maintenance bays resulted 

in overtasked mechanics who were unable to complete 

maintenance. To increase readiness, the battalion worked 

to develop a maintenance program that used the experience 

of its maintenance warrant officers to assist companies 

at the grassroots level. At the same time, the battalion 

followed a strategy based on sharing knowledge, reducing 

costs, and increasing productivity. The strategy increased 

readiness by reducing inefficiencies, sharing knowledge, 

and creating synergies between organizations. 

Maintenance Situation

I

n March 2010, 8 months after returning from 

Afghanistan—and 2 months into the train/ready force 

pool (sometimes referred to as the train/ready phase) 

of Army force generation—the battalion maintenance 

program was unable to support the battalion training plan. 

Restructuring from a legacy organization into a modular 

organization absorbed the attention of battalion leaders. 

Personnel realignments, property accountability, and the 

creation of new systems distracted attention from the 

battalion maintenance program. To add confusion, every 

company in the battalion got a new commander and nearly 

half the senior noncommissioned officers rotated out of the 

battalion within 90 days of returning from deployment. 

With this loss of experience came a lack of oversight of 

subordinate unit maintenance programs, which led to 

errors in initial data entry into unit Standard Army

Maintenance System (SAMS)-1 computers. Initial inspections of SAMS-1 computers revealed that equipment was 

misidentified as pacing items, was listed with incorrect 

service data, or was completely missing from the system. 

By themselves, these problems were easily fixed, but the 

battalion also suffered from Class IX parts distribution 

problems. Only one of the four line companies had Class 

IX parts that supported the equipment on its shop stock 

listing, and the authorized stockage list (ASL) at the supply 

support activity did not support the battalion equipment. 

This resulted in long lead times for parts. To make matters 

worse, the battalion failed its semiannual environmental 

inspection in November 2009 and every senior motor 

sergeant in the battalion was due for reassignment or 

retirement. 

These problems resulted in a maintenance nightmare, 

with several pacing items sitting deadlined in the motor 

By Major Andrew N. Liffring, Second Lieutenant Tyler M. Holloway,

and Chief Warrant Officer Four John R. Cheek
26 Engineer September–December 2011

pool, incorrect Army Materiel Status System reports 

being forwarded to Department of the Army, services and 

calibrations falling behind schedule, and safety messages 

stacking up without being addressed. There was nowhere 

to go but up. 

The Solution

To help company commanders reestablish their 

maintenance programs and mitigate the loss of 

senior motor sergeants, the battalion pushed its 

maintenance warrant officers down to the company level 

to provide guidance to staff sergeants serving as company 

motor sergeants. Two excess maintenance technicians 

were placed in supervisory positions in maintenance 

shops at the 68th Engineer Company and 104th Engineer 

Company. The 74th Multirole Bridge Company maintained 

its organic maintenance technician. These warrant officers 

made an immediate impact by reestablishing demandsupported shop stocks, reconfiguring service schedules, 

and updating SAMS-1 computers to accurately reflect 

unit vehicle densities. With their expertise in place at the 

companies, the battalion focused on developing a battalion 

maintenance program.

Knowledge Sharing

The keystone to the 62d Engineer Battalion maintenance strategy was increasing the knowledge of junior leaders on The Army Maintenance System 

(TAMS) and then sharing that knowledge among the 

different maintenance entities to create a shared understanding of the maintenance problems that the battalion 

faced. To increase knowledge at the junior leader level, the 

battalion instituted a weekly maintenance professional 

development program. The weekly classes, held during 

command maintenance periods, reemphasized what 

leaders should be checking during command maintenance, 

demonstrated capabilities, and reinforced maintenance 

standards. Classes ranged from 10 to 30 minutes and were 

taught by a platoon leader or lieutenant immediately after 

first formation to ensure maximum participation. 

To reinforce this learning, the battalion conducted 

intensive quarterly maintenance weeks when the battalion 

inspected companies to ensure that they were meeting 

Army maintenance goals. The week usually coincided with 

a training holiday, allowing commanders to focus on supply 

and maintenance systems for 4 days. The event usually 

consisted of—

■ Command maintenance.

■ Operator inspection on preventive maintenance checks 

and services procedures. 

■ Environmental inspection. 

■ Inspection of military-owned, demountable containers;

supply rooms; nuclear, biological, and chemical rooms; 

and company communications rooms. 

■ Weapons maintenance. 

■ Organizational clothing and individual equipment

layouts.

■ Protective mask maintenance. 

The week gave commanders the time and resources 

to effectively maintain equipment and update systems 

and provided an assessment of the battalion sustainment 

functions. 

As the battalion increased its knowledge of TAMS, 

the weekly battalion maintenance meetings provided a 

forum to share information, solve problems, and build a 

common operational picture of sustainment issues. The 

meetings were chaired by the battalion executive officer, 

with required attendance by company executive officers, 

motor sergeants, maintenance technicians, the battalion 

property book officer, supply officer, signal officer, safety 

noncommissioned officer, environmental control officer, 

maintenance control officer, maintenance control sergeant, 

and maintenance control technician. The meetings 

reviewed the status of—

■ Company maintenance.

■ Lateral transfers.

■ Budgets.

■ Financial liability investigations of property loss.

■ Communication systems.

■ Automation.

■ Safety-of-use messages.

■ Environmental concerns. 

This created a common operational picture on 

sustainment issues across the battalion and allowed 

company staffs to synchronize efforts to achieve immediate 

goals or request additional assistance from the battalion to 

meet readiness goals. 

Reduced Costs

Budget restrictions required that fleet maintenance 

operations become more efficient. In a typical 

month, the battalion spent $180,000 to $230,000 on 

Class IX repair parts, representing more than 70 percent 

of its annual budget. To reduce costs and still maintain a 

fleet of more than 450 vehicles, the battalion increased the 

efficiency in Class IX distribution channels, reducing the 

need to locally purchase parts and reducing excess property 

so that funds spent to maintain equipment were spent on 

authorized equipment. Quick, dependable delivery of parts 

eliminated the need to tie up capital on inventory in company 

shop stocks. A problem for most engineer units is the need 

for low-density, specialized equipment. This prevents the 

servicing supply support activity from capturing many 

demands and typically results in long lead times for parts. 

When an ordered part shows a long lead time, the normal 

work-around is to use a government purchase card to buy 

directly from a local equipment dealer. This solution works 

as long as a unit has the required financial resources. 
September–December 2011 Engineer 27

To reduce costs, the 62d Engineer Battalion focused 

on increasing the number of command-stocked parts on 

the ASL at the supply support activity. Representatives 

attended ASL review boards to voice opinions on what 

parts should be stocked. This allowed the battalion to align 

company shop stocks with the ASL, ultimately reducing the 

lead time for parts. However, this process is time-consuming 

and only works for those parts identified as on hand.

In cases where demands did not justify adding a part 

to company shop stocks or the supply support activity 

ASL, the battalion worked closely with the 4th Support 

Brigade and Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command 

representatives to expedite the delivery of those parts. 

The battalion motor officer and motor technician used the 

Finance and Logistics System and Logistics-Integrated 

Warehouse Parts Tracker databases to track rollover 

document numbers and the status of each high-priority 

part. Those parts with long estimated shipment dates 

resulted in an inquiry to the brigade motor technician, the 

4th Support Brigade or Tank-Automotive and Armaments 

Command representative, or the Army Materiel Command 

parts manager. This kept the pressure on the distribution 

system to deliver the part; and in some cases, parts were 

delivered faster than through local purchase. 

Although increasing the responsiveness of the Class 

IX distribution system helped cut costs, the greatest cost 

savings came from reducing excess property. From 2009 to 

2010, the battalion identified and reduced more than $1.6 

million in excess property. The money saved allowed a better 

allocation of those resources throughout the battalion. The 

battalion executive officer, property book officer, and supply 

officer reviewed each company property book monthly 

and compared it to equipment found at the unit and to 

equipment authorized by the company allowances. Any 

unauthorized or excess equipment was immediately turned 

in or laterally transferred to another unit. By March 2011, 

the battalion had turned in or laterally transferred more 

than $2.6 million in excess property. 

Increased Production

I

ncreasing production was the most difficult part of the 

maintenance strategy. After two deployments in 3 years 

and the strain they put on Families, the last thing the 

battalion commander wanted was to make Soldiers work 

late. At his direction, the motor pool was to close by 1700 

nightly to ensure that Soldiers had time to spend with their 

Families. This policy forced leaders to balance scheduled 

maintenance with demands for unscheduled maintenance. 

The 62d Engineer Battalion did this by defining scheduled 

maintenance requirements and then allocating “excess” 

labor to meet unscheduled maintenance needs. This helped 

to determine daily requirements in respect to time, labor, 

and bay space.

To determine the scheduled maintenance requirements, 

the maintenance control officer reviewed each company 

service schedule and consolidated them into a battalion 

level maintenance schedule that outlined the bumper 

number, the time estimated to complete the service, the 

number of mechanics needed to complete the service, and 

the bays required to perform the service. This allowed 

the maintenance control officer to see where the current 

scheduled maintenance plan was resource-constrained and 

to redistribute the effort where assets were available. This 

plan was then compared to company quarterly training 

plans and further refined. 

Once the battalion service schedule was created, 

scheduled and unscheduled maintenance requirements 

were reviewed daily by the battalion executive officer, 

maintenance control officer, and battalion maintenance 

technician. This review consisted of examining each 

company SAMS non-mission-capable report, scheduled 

maintenance progress, and other maintenance issues 

affecting the battalion. It provided a way for the battalion 

to quickly synchronize resources to meet ongoing problems. 

Under this program, the battalion quickly caught 

up on delinquent services and surged when needed. The 

surge capability was critical while preparing companysize elements for deployment. In late 2010 and early 2011, 

with no detriment to the other companies in the battalion, 

the 62d Engineer Battalion completed 295 services for the 

74th Multirole Bridge Company as it prepared to induct 

equipment into the left-behind equipment program. 

Conclusion

Reestablishing a maintenance program after 

deployment is an arduous, but necessary, task 

.that sets the foundations for future success as 

units enter the train/ready force pool of the Army force 

generation process. The 62d Engineer Battalion met this 

challenge by pushing its maintenance warrant officers to 

the ground level, where they focused on sharing knowledge, 

reducing costs, and increasing productivity. This strategy 

allowed them to leverage junior leaders and synchronize 

resources to improve readiness. 

Before serving as executive officer of the 62d Engineer 

Battalion, Major Liffring served as a platoon leader, 

company executive officer, company commander, observer/

controller, and brigade engineer. He holds a bachelor’s 

degree from the Colorado School of Mines and a master’s 

in business management from Norwich University. He is a 

registered professional engineer in Kansas and is currently 

assigned to the Fort Worth District of the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers.

Second Lieutenant Holloway is the 62d Engineer 

Battalion maintenance officer. He holds a bachelor’s degree 

from Washington State University.

Chief Warrant Officer Four Cheek served for 12 years as 

an enlisted Soldier before receiving his warrant. He served 

in the 62d Engineer Battalion as battalion motor technician. 

His education includes the Warrant Officer Candidate, 

Basic, and Advanced Courses; Engineer Equipment Repair 

Course; Contracting Officer Representative Course; and 

Army Basic Instructor Course.
28 Engineer 36 Engineer September–December 2011 May-August 2010

An ice bridge is a frozen, man-made structure on the 

surface of a bay, river, lake, or sea. Exploiting the 

.natural conditions found in an arctic environment, 

ice bridges provide access to remote areas that do not 

have permanent road networks. If constructed properly, 

the bridges can facilitate the efficient transportation of 

equipment and personnel to otherwise inaccessible areas, 

saving time and money.

Few Army engineers have the opportunity to train on a 

rare skill set—ice bridging in an arctic environment. The 

6th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Airborne) was uniquely 

positioned for this opportunity, which provided valuable 

training for the unit’s Soldiers and practical benefits for 

U.S. Air Force engineers in Alaska. Throughout January 

and February 2011, a task-organized team of 35 Soldiers 

from the battalion constructed an ice bridge over the Delta 

River at the U.S. Army Cold Regions Test Center at Fort 

Greely, Alaska. 

Ice Bridging: A Lost Art

Enabling mobility is nothing new for Army engineers, 

but the weather conditions necessary to sustain an 

ice bridge are so extreme that the skill set is difficult 

to train. An analysis of potential contingency missions in 

cold-weather environments reveals a need for ice bridging 

as a capability within the force. Across the Army, there is 

a lack of existing doctrinal processes in ice bridging and 

arctic engineering in general. The 6th Engineer Battalion 

(Combat) (Airborne) recognized this deficiency and has 

made a concerted effort to institutionalize ice bridging as 

a capability. 

Ice Bridging Test Bed

Due to its location in Alaska and its close working 

relationship with the Cold Regions Test Center, 

the 6th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Airborne) 

is well suited to serve as the Army’s subject matter expert 

in constructing ice bridges. According to U.S. Army 

Alaska policies, the battalion trains its Soldiers on coldweather survival skills in courses taught at the unit level 

or at the U.S. Army Northern Warfare Training Center in 

Fort Wainwright, Alaska. This essential training equips 

Soldiers with the individual skills required to operate 

in an arctic environment. The battalion also partners 

with the Cold Regions Test Center, providing operators 

to conduct cold-weather testing of engineer equipment 

and variants of the mine-resistant, ambush-protected 

vehicle. 

Equipped with the skills to survive and operate in an 

arctic environment, the battalion undertakes an annual 

mission to construct an ice bridge across the Delta River 

or the Tanana River. The lack of any bridge crossing on 

these rivers makes ice bridging essential for the Air Force 

to conduct maintenance and construction on the Oklahoma 

Bombing Range and Blair Lakes Impact Area on the far 

side of both rivers.

By First Lieutenant Collin W. Russell and Lieutenant Colonel Marc F. Hoffmeister
September–December 2011 Engineer 29

The ice bridge constructed in February 2011 was 1.2 

miles across the Delta River and 75 to 100 meters wide. 

The battalion team pumped about 3 million gallons of water 

during the mission. The bridge was strong enough to allow 

for the transport of excavators weighing 165,000 pounds. 

As a direct result of these efforts, the Air Force 354th

Civil Engineering Squadron (Range Maintenance) was able 

to—

■ Grade and groom 26 miles of winter trail.

■ Remove 12 destroyed target vehicles and 51 destroyed

container express boxes.

■ Construct four new hangar targets and a new fuel farm.

■ Build 60 new Maverick tank targets and repair

six damaged tank targets.

■ Fabricate three MiG-29 and 19 antiaircraft artillery

targets.

■ Excavate and move 74,335 cubic yards of fill material

while constructing—

o Four new antiaircraft artillery pads.

o 12 new hangar target pads.

o Six miles of new roads.

■ Remove 408,000 pounds of metal target residue.

■ Transport and use 26,975 gallons of diesel fuel.

Challenges of Ice Bridging

Operating in a cold-weather environment presents 

unique challenges. The severe cold and gale force 

winds during Alaska’s winter present some of the 

world’s toughest construction conditions. Extreme cold 

weather can cause equipment malfunctions that are not 

normally present in warmer climates. Hoses can freeze 

and become stuck, various items can shatter if dropped, 

and vehicle brakes can freeze and become inoperable, 

among other challenges. These malfunctions can prolong 

construction timelines or endanger an entire mission. 

Using a small-unit support vehicle equipped with an arctic 

heater in the rear passenger cab or a warming shelter to 

keep idle equipment from freezing prevents malfunctions 

and saves the time it would take to bring equipment to 

operable temperatures. Routine maintenance is especially 

critical when operating in severe cold weather. 

Safety is another consideration. Soldiers on this 

mission endured the harshest conditions imaginable, with 

significant risk of cold-weather injuries. After getting wet 

while pouring 100,000 gallons of water in temperatures 

of -26°F, one Soldier remarked that he felt like a “human 

popsicle,” a condition experienced daily by all of the 

Soldiers during the mission. The Army’s extended coldweather clothing system was not adequate for the subzero 

temperatures encountered, so Soldiers combined standard 

Army-issued undergarments with commercial off-the-shelf 

outerwear. Special waterproof, breathable gloves were 

locally purchased to ensure dexterity while working with 

the moving parts on various pieces of equipment. 

Types of Ice Bridges

There are three types of ice bridges constructed in the 

arctic environment:

■ Open water bridge.

■ Suspended water bridge.

■ Grounded ice bridge. 

■ Open water bridge.

A Soldier monitors a 

pumping station to 

ensure that the intake 

valve does not freeze 

shut.
30 Engineer September–December 2011

According to Field Manual (FM) 3-34.343, Military 

Nonstandard Fixed Bridging, “Engineers [can] create ice 

bridges by floating large sections of ice cut from the rear 

of the ice pack into a transverse position across the water 

gap. Ice bridges are only an expedient temporary measure.” 

The suspended water bridge is constructed when the 

intended gap crossing intersects a flowing river or a lake 

that has ice already established on it. The water under this 

type of bridge can degrade the thickness of the ice from 

the bottom upward, thus requiring constant monitoring 

of the ice. The grounded ice bridge constructed by the

6th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Airborne) was a 

structure that closely resembled a road rather than a 

bridge. A grounded ice bridge is suspended over water in 

some areas, while grounded on top of a sand berm or dry 

portion of the river in other areas. A bridge of this type is 

usually constructed to cross large expanses of land. 

Four-Phase Construction Model

Construction of an ice bridge is a four-phase operation. 

The first three phases are berming, shaping, and 

pumping. After the bridge is constructed, the 

A container express is dragged into position to be used as a target on the Oklahoma Bombing Range.

A Soldier drives a four-wheeler with an attached snowplow to contruct an initial berm for the ice bridge. Two Soldiers 

in the foreground break up the rough surface with hand-tools.
September–December 2011 Engineer 31

maintenance phase begins, sustaining the trafficability 

of the bridge to allow continued mobility along the lines 

of communication. Ice bridge construction does not follow 

a set doctrine, so the team developed its own standards 

and procedures to follow. The key to success lies in 

understanding the variables that are present: temperature 

fluctuations, water availability, terrain layout, and the 

amount and weight of the equipment needed to cross 

the gap. Only when these variables are understood and 

analyzed can the gap crossing be constructed. 

The common equipment used included M1088 tractor 

trucks; high-mobility, multipurpose, wheeled vehicles; 

shovels; mattocks; propane torches; and marking equipment. The mission-specific equipment included typhoon 

and general-purpose pumps, 3-inch rubber hoses, smallunit support vehicles, 5,000-gallon water trailers, and ice 

augers. All equipment had to be outfitted for cold weather 

by ensuring that appropriate fluids and engine block 

heaters were used. 

Phase I—Berming. The berming phase consists 

of snow-moving operations to create a barrier to stop 

overflow, which occurs when water below is under 

pressure, rupturing the ice and covering the surface with 

shallow water. The shallow water freezes inconsistently 

and creates a less stable ice structure. The ice below the 

surface must be at least 36 inches thick for suspended ice 

or 12 inches thick for grounded ice. These thicknesses will 

hold the weight of a single D7 bulldozer and represent the 

minimal thickness to proceed with ice bridging operations 

using heavy equipment. 

Phase II—Shaping. The shaping phase aims to create 

an even distribution of water during the third phase. 

During the shaping phase, Soldiers hastily fill existing 

ravines, gullies, or crevices with snow, ice, or dirt. Water 

is then added and allowed to freeze overnight. This process 

decreases the natural variations in the terrain by filling the 

low areas with “icecrete,” which is frozen water mixed with 

dirt, sand, or gravel. It can be worked in the same way as 

concrete, making solid fills that can then be expanded upon 

in the next phase. 

Phase III—Pumping. The pumping phase creates a 

uniformly smooth surface that will ultimately become the 

surface of the ice bridge. The goal is to create a consistent 

level of ice across the entire span of the ice bridge by 

pumping water from the river directly below or from a 

5,000-gallon water trailer. This phase relies heavily upon 

layering ice at appropriate intervals to create strength and 

density so that it can support the weights that will cross the 

bridge. The battalion team used a 4.5-horsepower, 3-inch 

pump to pull water from the river and a water trailer.

Phase IV—Maintaining. The maintenance phase 

involves monitoring the thickness of ice down the length of 

the bridge and ensuring that the ice does not degrade. To 

maintain the strength and thickness of the ice, a minimum 

of 1 inch of ice should be spread daily across the length of 

the bridge. The ice bridge can be degraded by wind damage 

from the top down or by the flow of the river current below. 

Institutionalization of Ice Bridging 

Capabilities

Due to the lack of existing doctrinal processes, the 

6th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Airborne) has 

several ongoing initiatives to institutionalize ice 

bridging across the force. Based on lessons learned from 

the ice bridging mission in January and February 2011, 

the battalion developed standing operating procedures 

that documented best practices and lessons learned. 

The success of the ice bridging mission has resulted in 

a greater understanding between Army and Air Force 

engineers. The deputy chief of staff–engineer of U.S. Army 

Pacific is assessing the feasibility of conducting a subject 

matter expert exchange program in which theater security 

cooperation objectives can be met by engaging partner 

nations on technical engineering topics. Ice bridging is a 

capability that could benefit a number of countries within 

the U.S. Pacific Command area of responsibility. If the 

program is approved, the battalion’s expertise could be 

shared with friends and allies, supporting theater security 

cooperation objectives and further cementing ice bridging 

as a niche capability with utility far beyond Alaska.

Within months of completing the ice bridge across 

the Delta River, the battalion initiated planning for ice 

bridging operations during the winter of 2011–2012. 

Lessons learned will be applied to those operations in 

order to refine the tactics, techniques, and procedures to 

enable mobility across what would otherwise be severely 

restricted, or even impassable, terrain. As these tactics, 

techniques, and procedures are refined, the battalion will 

disseminate best practices and continue to take the lead 

in arctic engineering, providing a niche capability to an 

Army that may one day require mobility support during 

contingency operations in an arctic environment.

For more information concerning ice bridges, contact 

First Lieutenant Collin Russell at <collin.russell@us.army

.mil>.

Reference:

FM 3-34.342, Military Nonstandard Fixed Bridging,

12 February 2002.

First Lieutenant Russell is a platoon leader for the 

56th Engineer Company, 6th Engineer Battalion (Combat) 

(Airborne) at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. He 

served as the officer in charge of the team that constructed an ice 

bridge over the Delta River in February 2011. He is a graduate 

of the Engineer Basic Officer Leadership Course and holds a 

bachelor’s degree in history from Texas A&M University.

Lieutenant Colonel Hoffmeister is the commander of the 6th 

Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Airborne). He holds a bachelor’s 

degree in aerospace engineering from the U.S. Military 

Academy, a master’s degree in engineering management from 

the University of Missouri–Rolla (now Missouri University of 

Science and Technology), and is a registered civil professional 

engineer. He is also a graduate of the Army Command and 

General Staff College, the Joint Combined Warfare School, and 

the Engineer Officer Basic and Advanced Courses.
32 Engineer September–December 2011

Engineer route clearance missions require hours of 

planning and preparation. Some of this preparation 

occurs each time a unit gets a mission and is part 

of the standing operating procedure or troop leading 

procedures. Some of the preparation is role-dependent: a 

.50-caliber gunner must check headspace and timing, a 

robot operator must check the functionality of the cameras 

on the robot, a squad leader must ensure that his squad has 

adequate water and food, and a Buffalo driver must conduct 

operator level preventive maintenance checks and services. 

Each member of a route clearance team is responsible for 

a different task to prepare for each mission. However, the 

one aspect of preparation that is easily overlooked when 

there are so many other tasks to complete is individual 

mental preparation—the ways that team members prepare 

themselves mentally to be in the right mind-set before 

leaving the base. The purpose of this article is to help 

Soldiers develop a mental preparation routine, integrate 

it into mission preparation, and consistently establish the 

right mind-set as they leave base to clear routes. 

A Soldier may have many things on his mind before 

leaving the base that could prevent him from being 

completely focused on the mission. However, he cannot 

afford to wait until his team gets several kilometers down 

the road to set aside personal problems and be ready to 

search for improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Personal 

concerns may not be easily left behind. Route clearance 

missions can be very boring, and news from home can 

interfere with focusing on the road or the enemy. During the 

mission, it is important to recognize when these thoughts 

become distractions and to deal with them using a refocus 

plan. (See “Clear Your Mind to Clear the Way: Managing 

the Moment,” Engineer, January–April 2011.) Many elite 

athletes have learned to use a mental preparation routine 

to help eliminate distractions before a performance so that 

they can focus when they step into the arena. 

The following is an example from baseball legend Hank 

Aaron. The interview comes from Heads-Up Baseball, by 

Ken Ravizza. 

Question: You mentioned coming to the park and 

“focusing.” What does that mean to you?

Aaron: That means tuning out everything else. You get 

to the ballpark sometimes and you see three or four guys 

sitting around the corner playing cards, you see somebody 

over in the corner talking on the telephone; anything other 

than taking the time to focus in on what they have to do. 

When you get to the ballpark, you ought to be able to get 

yourself in tune to knowing who the pitcher is that you’re 

going to face. It’s kind of like taking a harness and putting it 

By Major Travis S. Tilman, Dr. Ken Ravizza, and Dr. Traci Statler
September–December 2011 Engineer 33

on a horse and letting him look nowhere but straight ahead. 

If you concentrate, and start thinking about what you’re 

doing, consistently, you’re going to automatically become a 

better hitter. That’s what separates the guy that’s going to 

hit .300 from the guy that’s going to hit .270. 

Question: You were amazingly consistent over an incredible number of years. To what would you attribute that?

Aaron: The same that we’re talking about. I think my 

ability to focus was a lot different than the average guy’s. 

A lot of guys would be distracted by different things. I was 

totally in tune with what I was doing. I was involved with 

a lot of things—I went through divorce, I went through 

having a child die, I went through the home run record—

but as soon as I got to the ballpark, my focus would always 

change. A lot of people used to carry things on the field, but 

for some reason, once I put that uniform on, or once I walked 

into that clubhouse, no matter what happened at home, I 

could totally get focused. I could focus in on pitchers and 

what I had to do.

While Hank Aaron was not dealing with a combat 

situation, he was dealing with performing under a 

great deal of pressure. Besides what was stated in the 

conversation above, he was also dealing with being an 

African-American pioneer in a sport where many white 

fans did not want him to succeed in breaking Babe Ruth’s 

home run record. However, he learned to mentally prepare 

himself for each game upon arriving at the ballpark. He did 

not wait until something significant happened in the game 

or when it was his turn to bat; he began preparing when 

he got to the ballpark. An effective mental preparation 

routine helps Soldiers get ready for action in the same 

way as precombat checks, standing operating procedures, 

preventive maintenance checks and services, and troop 

leading procedures. It provides a funneling effect to help 

eliminate distractions, establish consistency, promote 

focus, and increase self-confidence. 

A Successful Past Mission

Just as history teaches the lessons of the past, personal 

experiences are helpful to improve performance. 

Soldiers should close their eyes, take a few deep 

breaths, and think back to a past training or combat 

mission where they were completely locked in and focused 

on finding IEDs. If they haven’t had that experience, they 

should think of the best mission they’ve had. It might be a 

weapons range or some other time when they were really 

focused. They should think back to the way they prepared 

for that mission and try to answer the following questions:

■ What were you thinking? 

■ What were you doing? 

■ How was your focus?

Transformation

An effective mental preparation routine is a way to 

transform from the normal, everyday self into a 

.mentally focused and prepared warrior. There are 

many ways to do this. Some Soldiers may focus by listening 

to a certain type of music. Others may gain confidence and 

focus as they put on their uniform and personal protective 

gear. Think of Sylvester Stallone as Rambo—tying his 

laces, putting on his bandana, and firmly sheathing his 

knife. Watch the film Gladiator and note when Russell 

Crowe as Maximus picks up and rubs a handful of sand, 

signaling that he is prepared to fight. The moment of 

putting on body armor, a helmet, and gloves can serve as a 

signal of readiness—physical and mental—for the mission. 

Some Soldiers may clean their weapons before a mission 

because it helps them to prepare mentally. Some may make 

up their bunks to signal their transformation. There is no 

right or wrong answer as long as the routine is purposeful 

and consistent. What signifies your transformation to a 

focused and prepared warrior?

Start of a Mission

Hank Aaron began his mental preparation as soon 

as he got to the ballpark. Many elite athletes 

begin their mental preparation when they enter 

the locker room and do not end it until they are committed 

and ready to perform. This might be when they tie the final 

knot in their shoelaces, when they walk out of the locker 

room, or when they step onto the playing field. Routines 

differ for each athlete, but they consistently use their 

routines in practice and during competition. A Soldier’s 

mental preparation for a mission might begin the moment 

he receives a warning order or the minute he wakes up 

before a routine mission. However, it should not begin 

just when the Soldier is leaving the base or he will not be 

mentally prepared.

End of a Mission

At the earliest, a mission does not end until the 

vehicles are back online, with fuel tanks topped 

.off. It does not end 400 meters before the gate; the 

enemy is watching and waiting for Soldiers to let down their 

guard. Similarly, the mission does not end as Soldiers lay 

An effective mental preparation routine is a way 

to transform from the normal, everyday self into

 a mentally focused and prepared warrior.
34 Engineer September–December 2011

in bed trying to sleep. There must be a point of transition 

from a mission to a resting phase or to the next mission. A 

good point to use is the after action review. These reviews 

are vital because they allow Soldiers to capture and process 

the lessons learned while they are risking their lives on 

a combat mission. A journal of personal lessons learned 

can serve as a transition point to end the previous mission 

and provide an outlet for frustrations or anger. Writing 

down these emotions on paper can help keep them from 

building up over a deployment and growing into sizeable 

distractions. However, a journal should also include the 

good things that happen. Reflecting on positive outcomes 

can help the writer recognize what needs to be done to get 

similar results in the future. Also, security concerns should 

be considered by anyone keeping a journal.

Personal Mental Preparation Routine

Figure 1 shows how the mental preparation routine 

funnels into and connects a Soldier with the mission. 

It is designed to eliminate distractions and allow 

focus on the mission. It includes events inherent in troop 

leading procedures and mental preparation. The following 

are items that might be included when developing a 

routine:

Before:

■ Conduct 5 or 10 minutes of controlled, slow, deep breathing to help clear your mind, focus on the present moment, 

and relax.

■ Study maps of the route and alternate routes. Visualize 

traveling the roads. Identify potential IED and enemy

ambush sites. Ask what other problems could occur 

along the routes.

■ Reflect on personal missions. Why does the Soldier

risk his life? Is it to ensure that medical supplies get to a 

small village? Is to allow coalition forces to safely reach 

an objective so that they can defeat enemy forces?

■ Choose a focal point or something very small that 

requires genuine concentration to see. The focal point is 

helpful in pulling the mind to the present moment and 

can help in refocusing amidst chaos. 

Figure 1

Refocus

Plan

Personal

finance

Upcoming

R&R

Doubt

Frustration

Personal

finance

Upcoming

R&R

Promotion

Social life

Family life

Frustration

Fear

Anger

Social life

Family life

Unload

weapons

Refuel

Load plans Resupply

AAR

Undress/

shed mission

Clean

weapons

Journal

Chow

Rest

Mental

preparation

PCCs

FRAGO

PMCS

Sleep

Chow OPORD

Fuel

WARNO

RP

Confident

Focused

Ready

Legend:

AAR - after action review

FRAGO - fragmentary order

OPORD - operation order

PCC - precombat check

PMCS - preventive

maintenance checks

and services

R&R - rest and recuperation

RP - release point

WARNO - warning order
September–December 2011 Engineer 35

After:

■ Prepare an after action review to capture the lessons

learned so that there can be future improvement.

■ Write in a journal to help mentally “let go” of the mission.

Writing is a powerful tool to release strong emotions.

■ Fully take off the uniform and “shed” the mission at the 

same time. A mission should not be carried to bedtime 

or to the next mission.

Use Figure 2 to develop a personal mental preparation 

routine. Write specific actions to take to mentally prepare. 

Having created a routine, learn it, know it, and use it. Use 

it during training and before rehearsals. Adjust it and 

refine it to meet the realities of the current situation. It 

may be desirable to have one mental preparation routine 

for missions with advanced warning and another, shorter 

routine for short-notice missions. 

A mental preparation routine does not guarantee 

success, but it allows Soldiers to occupy the right mind-set 

and achieve success more often. Create a routine, practice 

it, and adjust it as needed. Soon it will become an integral 

part of mission preparation and allow you to be focused 

and confident as you leave the base. Even if the mental 

preparation routine allows you to find just one more IED 

per month, it will be worth it. 

Major Tilman is an instructor at West Point’s Center for 

Enhanced Performance. He commanded Company E, 1st 

Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment during Operation Iraqi 

Freedom. He is a West Point graduate and holds a master’s 

degree from California State University, Fullerton.

Dr. Ravizza is a professor of kinesiology at California State 

University, Fullerton. He is the coauthor of Head’s Up Baseball

and a sport psychology consultant for USA Volleyball and 

the Tampa Bay Rays baseball team. He has consulted with 

numerous collegiate, Olympic, and professional teams and 

athletes over the past 30 years.

Dr. Statler is an assistant professor of applied sport 

psychology at California State University, Fullerton and is a 

consultant to a variety of collegiate, Olympic, professional, and 

individual athletes.

References

Major Travis S. Tilman, Dr. Ken Ravizza, and Dr. Traci 

Statler, “Clear Your Mind to Clear the Way: Managing the 

Moment,” Engineer, January-April 2011, pp. 46-49.

Ken Ravizza and Tom Hanson, Heads Up Baseball, 

McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, May 1998.

When does the mission begin?

Figure 2

Before leaving my room, I will:

During the precombat inspection, I will:

When I get to the vehicle line, I will:

During movement to the gate, I will:

Combat! I fully commit to the mission.

I finish the mission!

What did I learn?

I “let go” of the mission by:

When is the mission complete?

Refocus

Plan

Confident

Focused

Ready
36 Engineer September–December 2011

V.isitors to Fort Belvoir, Virginia, are probably 

struck by the modern stone buildings that line 

the main thoroughfares. At the height of World 

War II, those areas were considerably different. They 

were home to the Engineer Replacement Training Center 

(ERTC), located north of the main post, which was formally 

inaugurated in March 1941 in the ramp-up to America’s 

entry to that conflict. Conscription had been reintroduced 

in September 1940, and Fort Belvoir was transformed from 

a sleepy little Army post to a vast training establishment 

that, at the height of the war, turned out an average of 5,000 

trained engineer Soldiers per month. A second ERTC was 

established at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, in May 1941 

with cadre from Fort Belvoir; and a third, smaller ERTC 

was organized at Camp Abbot, Oregon, in the Deschutes 

National Forest in 1942. 

Construction at Fort Belvoir during World War II 

marked the third major expansion effort in its history. 

The two previous periods began in 1912 when the War 

Department acquired the Belvoir peninsula, located on the 

Potomac River about 18 miles south of Washington, D.C., to 

train engineer Soldiers stationed at Washington Barracks 

By Mr. Gustav Person

Fort Belvoir’s Engineer

Replacement Training Center

A wartime postcard shows the ERTC at Fort Belvoir.

Photo courtesy of Fort Belvoir History Office
September–December 2011 Engineer 37

(now Fort McNair) during the summer months. The U.S. 

Army Engineer School at Washington Barracks in the 

District of Columbia was simply too small for that mission 

when America entered World War I in 1917. Hundreds of 

temporary wooden buildings and other structures, lining 

a central parade/training ground, were quickly built at a 

new cantonment named Camp Andrew A. Humphreys. 

The Engineer School was formally transferred to Camp 

Humphreys in 1919, and the name was officially changed 

to Fort Humphreys in 1922, reflecting its new status as 

a permanent Army installation. Between 1926 and 1935, 

the Army demolished all temporary wooden buildings 

and replaced them with permanent brick buildings in 

what is now known as the Historic District. This area also 

contained modern barrack quadrangles for the two engineer 

regiments on post. The name changed again in February 

1935 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt was persuaded 

to change the name to Fort Belvoir, to reestablish the post’s 

links to its colonial past.

Replacement Training Center 

Construction

Twenty-one replacement training centers throughout 

the United States were scheduled to begin full 

operation around 15 March 1941. More than 

60 projects were due for completion before that April. 

Construction had to be accomplished in the face of 

continuing shortages and changing requirements and at a 

season of the year when outdoor building work was normally 

suspended. Before 16 December 1941, the responsibility for 

nonmilitary post construction was vested in the construction 

division of the U.S. Army Quartermaster Corps. The U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers was in charge of fortifications, 

roads, river and harbor work, and airfield construction; 

while the Quartermaster Corps was responsible for 

barracks, stores, and whatever else was required to house 

the Army. The areas of responsibility were often difficult 

to delineate; and as early as 1910, proposals were made 

to consolidate the construction function within one branch, 

usually the engineers. The constructing quartermaster 

at each post oversaw construction projects dealing with 

contractors, ordering materials, putting through change 

orders, and the many other details involved in ensuring 

that a job was completed on time and within budget. The 

Quartermaster Corps was also represented on post by 

the post quartermaster, who maintained buildings and 

utilities, fed men and animals, and provided transportation 

and clothing. The position of constructing quartermaster 

carried a great deal of responsibility, acting as the direct 

representative of the Quartermaster General in his 

principal construction duties. In December 1940, the 

construction division was directed by Lieutenant Colonel 

Brehon B. Somervell, who went on to plan and supervise 

the construction of the Pentagon. The operations branch 

chief was Colonel Leslie R. Groves, who later supervised 

the Manhattan Project.

By autumn 1940, the huge construction project was 

well underway to build “temporary” wooden barracks; 

headquarters, training, administration, and supply 

buildings; service clubs; and chapels at the new center, 

which had previously been a run-down farm near the main 

post. The new cantonment would later encompass 300 

acres, and the entire Fort Belvoir installation expanded 

to include 10,000 acres. It was anticipated that the use of 

these buildings would only last 5 years, or the duration of 

the war. In fact, many were still in use in the 1980s and 

1990s. (The last barracks building was demolished during 

a training exercise by the post fire department on 14 June 

2004.) The site was selected not only because of its proximity 

to the main post, but also because its terrain was suited to 

all types of engineer training. All training facilities were 

within 2 miles of the cantonment area, except the combat 

firing range, which was about 4 miles away. 

During this time, the U.S. War Department experienced 

considerable disputes with manufacturers due to its 

decision to build perishable wooden-frame buildings, 

rather than investing in permanent buildings of brick and 

tile. Makers of concrete and cinder blocks, cement siding, 

structural steel, and asbestos sheeting took up the cry for 

less restrictive designs. The bricklayers’ union demanded 

work for its members. Congressmen asked the Army to 

reconsider. The typical barracks building was considered 

significant because of the new technologies employed, 

including the standardization of plans, prefabrication of 

This recruiting poster was rendered in 1942 by famed poster 

artist Jes W. Schlaikjer.

Photo courtesy of Fort Belvoir History Office
38 Engineer September–December 2011

units, and an assembly line approach to production. The 

design for the enlisted men’s barracks was developed 

during the 1930s by Works Progress (later Work Projects) 

Administration architects and draftsmen as part of a 

project to update the World War I cantonment plans. 

They were built of wood because “. . . American experience 

held that a war period was always a temporary period.” 

These barracks were rectangular buildings, measuring 

30 by 80 feet, with two stories, nine bays, and asphalt 

shingle-covered side gable roofs with projecting eaves. 

Each building covered a masonry foundation and included 

a single detached exterior side chimney. There were firstand second-floor entry porches in the gable end and dual 

side entries with entry porches. In addition to the barracks 

buildings, each complex included day rooms, organizational 

storehouses, and battalion storage buildings. Barracks 

buildings were designed to house 63- and 74-man units. 

A later type, designated “Modified Theater of Operations 

Type Construction,” was adopted by the spring of 1942 as 

the shortages of materials began to be severely felt. 

In all, 253 buildings were constructed in the ERTC, 

including 163 barracks buildings and 36 mess halls. Miles 

of roadways were paved to provide access to the complex. 

Most mess halls were designed to feed 1,000 Soldiers at 

each meal. In off-duty hours, Soldiers could visit two 

service clubs and four theaters. Entertainment facilities 

were later expanded to 11 recreation halls, although blacks 

and whites used separate facilities. During the first week 

of December 1941, engineer Soldiers began work on a 

large amphitheater in the center of the ERTC that could 

seat 6,250 Soldiers for shows, outdoor entertainment, 

and open-air classes. It was originally planned for new 

trainees to work on this project as part of their engineer 

training. A smaller amphitheater, seating 3,000 Soldiers, 

was also constructed. The new hospital incorporated 36 

barracks type buildings and remained the station hospital 

until 1957. That site is now occupied by the post exchange

and commissary. 

By April 1943, most construction had been completed. 

At that time, Major General Eugene Reybold, Chief of 

Engineers, told officer candidates, “The mission of the 

Army’s Corps of Engineers is developing with the progress 

of our attack. We are finishing up the biggest job of 

emergency construction the United States has ever seen. 

Now we’re moving on to a job of construction overseas. . 

. . We’ve got a date with a certain paperhanger, and an 

engineer keeps his appointments.”

Engineer Training

By mid-December 1940, a cadre had formed and the 

Engineer School appointed Lieutenant Colonel 

William M. Hoge as the first commanding officer of 

the ERTC. Hoge was a rising star within the Army. During 

his tour of duty there, he designed an obstacle course 

(popularly known as a “steeplechase for Soldiers”) for 

military and physical fitness training, which later became 

the standard for all other training facilities within the 

Army. He served at Fort Belvoir until February 1942. In 

March 1944, Hoge was given command of the Provisional 

Engineer Special Brigade Group, which included two 

engineer special brigades. On 6 June 1944, Hoge’s command 

played a significant part in securing the beachhead at 

Omaha Beach in Normandy; and he remained in command 

of the beachhead until July. Hoge was later appointed 

to command Combat Command B of the 9th Armored 

Division, which successfully defended St. Vith during the 

Battle of the Bulge. On 7 March 1945, the leading elements 

of his command seized the Ludendorff Railroad Bridge

over the Rhine River at Remagen. After the war, he 

commanded the Engineer Center at Fort Belvoir from 

January 1946 to June 1948.

Activity was intense at the ERTC in early 1941 as the 

cadre organized headquarters, groups, battalions, and 

companies. The first group of 250 trainees arrived from 

the Replacement Center at Fort Lee, Virginia, on 17 March 

1941. Thousands of workmen labored at landscaping, 

paving roads, laying sidewalks, and painting barracks; 

and the job of training Soldiers as fillers for units being 

organized for war began without delay. Fort Belvoir’s total 

population expanded rapidly; and by November 1942, 

30,260 personnel were assigned to the post. Eventually, 

the ERTC was to contain a headquarters company, a 

truck motor company, and three engineer training groups, 

totaling 10 battalions. Each battalion had four companies, 

each company had three platoons, and each platoon had

Lieutenant Colonel William M. Hoge served as first 

commander of the ERTC.

Photo courtesy of Office of History, Corps of Engineers
September–December 2011 Engineer 39

three squads. The basis for the assignment of trainees was 880 men per battalion, or a total capacity of 8,800 in the 

10 battalions. Three battalions were 

composed of African-Americans with

white officers and senior noncommissioned officers.

Nearby were sites for demolitions, 

field fortifications, roads, obstacles, 

weapons training areas, and fixed 

and floating bridges. Heavy engineer 

equipment, machines, and pontoon boats 

poured in. Between March 1942 and 

March 1943—

■ 120 bridges were constructed.

■ 400 timber obstacles were erected.

■ 36 antitank ditches were dug.

■ More than 200,000 yards of barbed

wire were used to construct field

fortifications.

For floating bridge training, a 2,000-

foot channel was dredged so that six 

companies could train simultaneously. 

Accotink Creek, on the west side of the 

Belvoir peninsula, could accommodate 

four steel bridges, 16 wooden trestle 

bridges, and 48 foot bridges at one time. 

Bailey bridge training followed the final 

adoption of the bridge in February 1943.

In March 1941, a 12-week basic 

and advanced training course was 

organized. The course covered 40 

engineer-related subjects. For 7 of the

12 weeks, engineer recruits combined

technical with tactical instruction.

Trainees learned the elements of

reconnaissance; coordination with 

larger groups; and building fixed and floating bridges, 

roads, and obstacles. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, 

the course was shortened to 8 weeks; but in March 

1942, it resumed the original length. For many of 

the Soldiers, this was the only training they received 

before arriving at a combat theater. By August 1943, 

the training cycle had been further expanded to

17 weeks and was designed to produce adequately trained 

specialists and nonspecialists. 

By the time Brigadier General Lehman W. Miller assumed 

command on 2 July 1942, the need for trained specialists 

had reached emergency levels. It was also necessary to 

form separate schools to train Soldiers as clerks, equipment 

operators, carpenters, cooks, and other specialists. The 

Corps of Engineers actually required 727 occupational 

specialists per 1,000 troops. Selected trainees, who were 

closely screened at the reception station, soon began a 

course involving 4 weeks of basic training and 1 week of 

studying technical engineer subjects before assignment to 

a specialist school at Fort Belvoir or a civilian institution. 

One company from each of seven training battalions became 

a specialist company, training buglers, truck drivers, 

messengers, clerks, mess sergeants, cooks, or bakers.

In the spring of 1943, ERTC’s emphasis shifted 

from furnishing fillers for new units to replacing battle 

casualties. Soldiers normally trained Monday through 

Friday and a half-day on Saturday. Higher headquarters 

required that all replacements must “so far as practicable 

. . . be subjected during training to every sight, sound and 

sensation of battle.” Realistic conditions included live 

ammunition, land mines, and night bridging exercises. 

Experiences in North Africa called for more tanks to add 

realism and to test bridges and obstacles. Instructors also 

placed greater emphasis on building physical endurance.

Soldiers soon began training at locations off post such 

as the Blue Ridge Mountains near Luray, Virginia, where 

The large group of buildings in the center of this 1946 map is the ERTC.

Photo courtesy of Fort Belvoir History Office
40 Engineer September–December 2011

Soldiers lived and trained for 3 weeks in the field under 

simulated combat conditions. Later on, this training moved 

to Fort A.P. Hill, southeast of Fredericksburg, Virginia. 

This training culminated in a 20-mile road march. Each 

Soldier carried a rifle, carbine, or pistol; field jacket; helmet; 

canvas leggings; gas mask; and cartridge belt with a first 

aid pack, canteen, and light pack.

Spring 1942 had brought a reorganization of the Army. 

The Services of Supply, a new command, assumed control 

of the Corps of Engineers except in matters of civil works. 

In April 1944, all training centers became known as 

Army Service Training Centers, with the added mission 

of training for extended field service. A noncommissioned 

officer leadership course was also developed.

After V-J Day ended World War II, the ERTC established 

a separation point to assist veterans returning to civil life. 

Some training of replacements continued for occupation 

forces, but deactivation orders followed in December 1946. 

During the 5 years of its existence, the ERTC trained 

147,000 engineer Soldiers. An additional 22,000 new 

second lieutenants were trained and commissioned at the 

post’s officer candidate school.

The ERTC remained dormant until the advent of the 

Korean conflict, when it was reactivated in August 1950 

under the command of Brigadier General Albert C. Lieber. 

The first trainees arrived on 12 September 1950 to begin 

an intensive 6-week cycle. Later the training program 

was lengthened to 16 weeks—8 weeks of infantry basic 

and 8 weeks of advanced engineering training. The ERTC 

had a headquarters battalion and four engineer training 

battalions, with at least 18 consecutively numbered companies. Five specialist courses in masonry, carpentry, 

plumbing, electricity, and air compression operation gave 

2,000 trainees skills that they could use in military and 

civilian careers. In its 3 years of existence in this second 

iteration, the ERTC trained more than 37,000 Soldiers 

before closing down again on 31 December 1953.

Mr. Person is the installation historian at Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia. He retired from the New York State Division of 

Parole after 30 years of service and is a retired lieutenant 

colonel from the New York Army National Guard. He holds 

a master’s degree in history from Queens College, City 

University of New York.

The ampitheater, built in 1942 by engineer trainees, is the only surviving ERTC structure.

Photo by Marny Malin

The black lion on the ERTC distinctive unit insignia was 

from the coat of arms of the Fairfax family, who originally 

owned the land where Fort Belvoir stands. The family 

motto on the scroll, “FARE FAC,” means “We teach by 

doing.”
Army Geospatial Center Launches New Online Version

of Common Map Background

The U.S. Army Geospatial Center launched a faster, feature-rich version of Common Map Background (CMB) 

Online earlier this year. CMB Online is a geospatial data discovery and ordering program that allows customers 

to search, download, and order geospatial data using a simple, Web-based “shopping cart” interface. A common 

access card is required to access the data at <https://agcwfs.agc.army.mil/CMB_Online /default.aspx>.

The latest version of CMB Online performs faster than the previous iteration and offers several new features to 

users, including additional easy-to-change map bases, a scale display, and a coordinate display via latitude/longitude 

decimal degrees and the Military Grid Reference System. U.S. Army Geospatial Center officials say that CMB Online 

dramatically reduces the time and expense required for field users to acquire, manage, and load or import compact 

discs of geospatial data pertinent to their areas of operations.

Products available range from map and image datasets of small areas of interest to larger country or command 

datasets. Customers can place requests through the Web site; by e-mail at <DLL-AGC-cmb@usace.army.mil>, 

<theresa.h.rasmussen@usace.army.mil>, or <cmb@tec.army.smil.mil>; or by telephone at commercial (703) 428-

7889 or DSN 364-7889. CMB analysts receive requests from a multitude of agencies, including U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers district offices, Army topographic units overseas, and troops preparing for deployment. For more information 

about the CMB program, visit <http://www.agc.army.mil/fact_sheet/CMB.pdf >.

The U.S. Army Geospatial Center coordinates, integrates, and synchronizes geospatial information requirements 

and standards across the Army, develops and fields geospatial enterprise-enabled systems and capabilities to the 

Army and Department of Defense, and provides direct geospatial support and products to warfighters. To learn more 

about the center, visit <www.agc.army.mil>. 

News From 

USACE

Terror in Afghanistan Map Published

Amap by a U.S. Army Geospatial Center cartographer is featured in the annual “Map .Book” published by Environmental Systems Research Institute, Incorporated.® The book is dedicated to acknowledging the accom-.plishments of geographic information system users around the world.

Mr. Stephen Benzek’s two-page map examines civilian casualties due to acts of terrorism in Afghanistan from 2004 

to 2009. Its style was derived from newspaper and propaganda maps from the 1930s and early 1940s. The author 

was inspired to use geographic information system software to simulate these old styles in depicting a contemporary 

conflict after browsing old maps at the Library of Congress. The diverse terrain of Afghanistan is represented in a 

hand-drawn style by applying dots to contour lines that are easily created from digital elevation data. 

Benzek said he decided to create a map of civilian casualties in Afghanistan rather than Iraq because military 

operations in Iraq were beginning to wind down, while operations in Afghanistan had just ramped up in 2010. He said 

that a future map might compare reported civilian terrorism casualties in both countries over time to see how they 

differ, particularly when compared to the tempo of ongoing military operations.

To view the map, go to <http://www.esri.com/mapmuseum/mapbook_gallery/volume26/defense-and-military

/defense-and-military-2.html>.